Microsoft Essentials vs. Norton's 2010

I've been using MSE for a few months now and so far so good. No intrusions, scans come back clean (by other vendors), it's very light on resources. Somehow a lot of the anti-virus vendors have led us to believe that we need all these bloated "security suites" and pay for protection every year. I think most people would benefit purely by using common sense as oppose to running all these security programs in the background without any regard as to how they impair their computer's performance.

Microsoft, in my view, struck a good balance between a light program that provides effective protection against viruses and malware. The rest is up to the user by exercising common sense regarding the places they visit and files they download. A bloated security suite may not necessarily protect you any better.

I've been using the Internet since the early 90s and I watched the web developed into a very powerful tool. Along with this development comes the bad. Malware has got more sophisticated and what was once an almost purely Russian export has become global. I watched how programs like Norton, Bitdefender, Kaspersky, even Zonealarm develop from a small anti-virus and firewall tool into these security behemoths. While I think the threat has evolved and so must the tools to fight it, I truly believe things have gotten out of control as all these security vendors are profiting enormously from the paranoia they are feeding to the masses.

Wishmaster said:

With how fast new Malware can be created and spread, many times its already spread & completed its main objective by the time its discovered & definitions can be sent out for it.

For this reason, I think the behavior type AVs (Like Nortons SONAR) really do have a advantage over those that are strictly definition based, since it doesnt need a definition in its base to determine an unknown threat is actually a threat.


But, I do believe MSE has a similar feature, doesn't it? I thought I read it somewhere ....

Well IMO who should know better how to protect the OS than the CODE WRITER(S). That of course means Microsoft and its agents (if any).

Providing you aren't going bonkers and haven't got a whole zillion of Office computers to protect then I can't see why you would need anything other than MSE.

I'm always supsicious of "Comparatives" testing when using things like AV software as you can't really define "a typical user" when it comes to surfing the web --but for those that DO read that type of stuff MSE comes out pretty well in anycase.

Cheers
jimbo

i think MSE is the best..

as compared to NIS2010..

CarlTR6 said:

I tend to agree with Jim. I don't put much stock in the antivirus testing in a lab.

1. It does not measure the real world protection of an antivirus.

2. It is easy to slant/bias the results by manipulating the methodology or by the methodology chosen.

3. MS is the only one with access to the core codes of Windows OS's.

1. More and more "real-world" tests have been coming out recently.

2. That's what AMTSO is for.

3. What advantage does that give?