Microsoft Essentials vs. Norton's 2010

Hello everyone. I was here sitting and wondering why NIS charges so much for in my opinion not a very good product and Microsoft provides for free. This has to be killing NIS in sales.

Please feel free to discuss other AV programs as well.

What's your take on this? Thanks in advance. :)

In most professional security lab tests Norton does a better job then MSE and Norton is vastly improved starting in 2009.

Jim

Nice point. I had NIS 2010 for about 5 months but got error after error during updates. The software wouldn't complete my updates no matter what they tried. I was very disappointed and said see ya NIS 2010 for MSE. I had tech support from NIS try to resolve it and they had no luck fixing my issue.

So far MSE hasn't given me any issues.

Phone Man said:

In most professional security lab tests Norton does a better job then MSE and Norton is vastly improved starting in 2009.

Jim

I agree if you can spend the money you then should by Norton Internet security 2010. I was reading a a computing mag (PC authority Australia) and they compared all the latest main anti virus software (both free and commercial) and Norton best MSE in all the malware and internet threats detection. The mag also said that NIS was the best anti virus software out of all its competitors. Nis has also has reduced its impact on computers system resource since the 2009 edition but MSE beats NIS in startup time and ram usage.

But nothing compares to Avast 5. I think it the best free av out there.

Hi there

If we come out of the lab and into the REAL world there is really NO NEED for ANYBODY as a HOME user to ever pay for security packages again.

Install MSE and use your computer intelligently and you should NEVER EVER be bothered with Viruses etc etc again. MSE does a great job at minimal resource usage.

For CORPORATES and Large LAN's it's a totally different ballgame - it can be a complex job having to defend a large LAN from all sorts of attacks where you have a lot of users both internal and external very few of which you can control. In these cases a professional robust security suite is necessary - but to re-iterate for most HOME users intelligently using their computers MSE is MORE than sufficient.

Of course if you break the rules and take risks with your machine (illegal downloads from dubious sources etc etc) then it really doesn't matter WHAT security you use because "as sure as eggs is eggs..." you'll get infected -- these people are FAR FAR cleverer than typical people working to get out a commercial product which is usually OBSOLETE even by the time it gets out of the door -- just look at the almost DAILY updates that MSE provides.

Hackers etc don't have to go through Quality Control and layers of "Project Management" before they release their "products".

Cheers
jimbo

I have used NIS for several years. In the beginning of this year, with version 2010 I hit problems and literally hours on chat did not fix it. The problems related to SONAR. Moreover Norton insisted I uninstall Advanced System Care though it is not an anti-virus program. I now use Microsoft Security Essentials (free) and a few free program such as Roboform to replace components of NIS

jimbo45 said:

Install MSE and use your computer intelligently and you should NEVER EVER be bothered with Viruses etc etc again. MSE does a great job at minimal resource usage.

Never say never.

Also, while free solutions like MSE can be adequate enough, "real world" type tests shows that Norton comes out on top for prevention. It also uses less resources than MSE.

Regarding the real world tests members've been referring to. Take a look at the latest report (feb 2010) by AV-comparitives. They took up 20 well known AVs and compared them on multiple paramaters- detection rates, false positive/ alarm and scanning speed.

Norton bests MSE on detection rates (98.6% compared to 96.3%) and on scanning speed (18.6 mb/sec compared to 5.8 mb/sec). But Norton gives far more false positives than MSE (11 compared to 3).

All in all, MSE looks pretty good for a free AV. Incidentally, MSE bested AVG free on detection rates and false positives but fared poorer on scanning speed.

MSE is very slow when it does a full scan. Sometimes it can take up to an hour or more to scan my entire system. NIS is very fast I know that.

Remember this. If you have a quad CPU most apps will run faster. More cores more speed. Now if you have a 6 core 12 thread CPU like the Intel i7 980x MSE can have a full scan done a lot faster then my quad and saying that so can NIS 2010.

What I just stated I'm not to sure if the CPU plays it's part or not in scanning times? What makes it the AV's scan faster then others? I just know my quad killed my single core CPU in everything from my experience.

Have you considered avast?