Microsoft Essentials vs. Norton's 2010

[kurahk7]

After my initial exitement about MSE, it has cooled off after I caught 1 trojan and 2 Browser highjacker. That has never happened to me in years of Norton usage. I am therefore switching all my systems back to Norton. And in the professional AV tests, MSE does not do that well either. From the latest AV report:

Wow, Kaspersky doesn't look that hot in there, I remembered how it used to top the charts...

 

[Jacee]

Can I say phttt! to that report? It certainly can't be un-biased None of the surveys regarding Anti-virus programs are.

We all find our 'own' special niche with what works for us.

 

[CarlTR6]

I did not vote in the poll; I use neither Norton nor MSE. If those were my only options, I would choose MSE. I concur with Jimbo's statement:

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.

In general, I don't care for security suites. As a rule, suites do some things very well and are weak in some areas. I prefer to pick stand alone programs that are good at what they do.

 

[Mercurial]

eset <3

 

[Phone Man]

Can I say phttt! to that report? It certainly can't be un-biased None of the surveys regarding Anti-virus programs are.

We all find our 'own' special niche with what works for us.

I have to disagree. That report was not a survey but a lab test using 1,224,732 samples of current malware so how can the facts be biased. Yes I have seen magazine reports where they test with 10 samples and then rated them by the GUI appearance and other useless things. None of the products caught 100% so somethings will get through. Some catch more then others and you make your choices with this type of information and if you don't like the #1 product maybe #3 is more to your liking and will do a good job for you.

Jim

 

[whs]

Can I say phttt! to that report? It certainly can't be un-biased None of the surveys regarding Anti-virus programs are.

We all find our 'own' special niche with what works for us.

Jacee, I thought you would know better. But even if the report is biased, my own experience (trojan, Browser Highjacker) tells me that MSE is not all that swift.

 

[malexous]

I've just seen far too many infected computers with both of these products ... oh, and (also) Norton/Symantec!

That means very little without knowing certain factors. A person I encountered that cleans other's computers claimed that they rarely see an infected machine running Norton and sees more of all the other popular vendors.

 

[Jacee]

I can't debate which Av is best with either of you whs, malexous... it all boils down to the user and how they use their computer.

 

[malexous]

it all boils down to the user and how they use their computer.

Which is one of those factors.

 

[Capt.Jack Sparrow]

Can I say phttt! to that report? It certainly can't be un-biased None of the surveys regarding Anti-virus programs are.

We all find our 'own' special niche with what works for us.

I have to agree on this one !!

- Captain

 

[AussieGuy92]

i use Avast 5 free and malwarebytes (paid) and never had a problem if it get past avast than malwarebytes gets it. also use pc tools firewall plus we can talk for hours which single anti virus is the "best" but we all know deep down a layered sercurity approach is better...just putting it out there.

 

[wickedout]

I also use malwarebytes. It's very good software. You can never to be to careful! Though I trust MSE!

 

[CarlTR6]

Can I say phttt! to that report? It certainly can't be un-biased None of the surveys regarding Anti-virus programs are.

We all find our 'own' special niche with what works for us.

I have to agree on this one !!

- Captain

I also agree. There is a big difference from a controlled lab test and using an anti-virus program in the real world. Testing methods can be and often are designed to produce certain results.

No anti-virus is 100% perfect. They can't be; the bad guys can write malicious code faster than the the AV folks keep up with them. The best anti-virus today may not be the best next week simply because a new malicious code appeared and that AV has not yet been updated for it yet while another AV has.

That said, there are differences in the various programs as to how the AV does its job, how it scans, what it scans, how much resources it uses, etc.

I think the quest for the best AV program is like the quest for the best processor or graphics card. The best is only best for a short time as the completion makes improvements, flaws are found, etc.

In the end, most any first line AV program is good. How good it is depends on how well it works on one's particular system and, above all, the individual's surfing habits, social site usage, and how careful he or she is about clicking on links. In spite of good habits, a person can still get by a drive by.

 

[kurahk7]

Can I say phttt! to that report? It certainly can't be un-biased None of the surveys regarding Anti-virus programs are.

We all find our 'own' special niche with what works for us.

I have to agree on this one !!

- Captain

I also agree. There is a big difference from a controlled lab test and using an anti-virus program in the real world. Testing methods can be and often are designed to produce certain results.

No anti-virus is 100% perfect. They can't be; the bad guys can write malicious code faster than the the AV folks keep up with them. The best anti-virus today may not be the best next week simply because a new malicious code appeared and that AV has not yet been updated for it yet while another AV has.

That said, there are differences in the various programs as to how the AV does its job, how it scans, what it scans, how much resources it uses, etc.

I think the quest for the best AV program is like the quest for the best processor or graphics card. The best is only best for a short time as the completion makes improvements, flaws are found, etc.

In the end, most any first line AV program is good. How good it is depends on how well it works on one's particular system and, above all, the individual's surfing habits, social site usage, and how careful he or she is about clicking on links. In spite of good habits, a person can still get by a drive by.

Norton updates constantly, every 5 minutes or so.

 

[CarlTR6]

Norton updates constantly, every 5 minutes or so.

That does not negate the lag between the time a new malware program is released and Norton or any other AV enterprise analyzes it, writes the update, and the update is sent to users.

 

[whs]

Norton updates constantly, every 5 minutes or so.

That does not negate the lag between the time a new malware program is released and Norton or any other AV enterprise analyzes it, writes the update, and the update is sent to users.

That is a very good point. In light of the time needed for all of that, it does not really matter whether the updates are every hour or every 24 hours. I suspect the frequent update scenario is more of a marketing gimmick.

 

[CarlTR6]

Norton updates constantly, every 5 minutes or so.

That does not negate the lag between the time a new malware program is released and Norton or any other AV enterprise analyzes it, writes the update, and the update is sent to users.

That is a very good point. In light of the time needed for all of that, it does not really matter whether the updates are every hour or every 24 hours. I suspect the frequent update scenario is more of a marketing gimmick.

I agree with you - and apparently an effective one.

 

[whs]

On the other hand I have to concede that NIS is a damn good product. It has never let me down - unlike MSE.

 

[malexous]

Norton updates constantly, every 5 minutes or so.

That does not negate the lag between the time a new malware program is released and Norton or any other AV enterprise analyzes it, writes the update, and the update is sent to users.

That is a very good point. In light of the time needed for all of that, it does not really matter whether the updates are every hour or every 24 hours. I suspect the frequent update scenario is more of a marketing gimmick.

It can make a difference. Sending a definition as soon as a threat is analysed is better than waiting a few hours to send it.

 

[Dinesh]

That does not negate the lag between the time a new malware program is released and Norton or any other AV enterprise analyzes it, writes the update, and the update is sent to users.

That is a very good point. In light of the time needed for all of that, it does not really matter whether the updates are every hour or every 24 hours. I suspect the frequent update scenario is more of a marketing gimmick.

It can make a difference. Sending a definition as soon as a threat is analysed is better than waiting a few hours to send it.

+1. i quite agree with you on this. I have used Norton 2010 for a very long time and it has never let me down. Currently testing Norton 2011 beta, which is quite impressive.