Microsoft Essentials vs. Norton's 2010

[CarlTR6]

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

I don't disagree at all. I used to use Norton anti-virus before it got so bloated and resource hungry. I realize that has been changed now. I personally do like like suites. I don't like to purchase what I can get for free. I don't use MSE either.

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.

In all actuality a few hours or even a day makes little practical difference. Malware does not just suddenly explode and blanket the internet. It usually takes a day or two to analyze it, verify it, write the code, test the code, and look for possible variations of the malware code. Certainly less complex malware can be countered on short order.

Unless everyone subscribed to Norton updates has their computers on 24/7, many subscribers aren't going to get the update for a day or so anyway.

I agree with Wolfgang; it is more of a marketing gimmick than actual practical security value. It is a "feel good" thing to convince consumers that are getting extra bang for their money. And I'm not saying this is bad; it is good strategy.

 

[malexous]

But within those few hours, after analyzing, the malware could infect a computer. If it bypasses all other prevention methods (heuristics, behaviour blocker, etc.) that update could have been important. It would have already stole my personal information, for example.

...Though, everyone should be using a layered defence these days.

 

[kurahk7]

But within those few hours, after analyzing, the malware could infect a computer. If it bypasses all other prevention methods (heuristics, behaviour blocker, etc.) that update could have been important. It would have already stole my personal information, for example.

...Though, everyone should be using a layered defence these days.

Agreed, although I'm accustomed to clicking the update button every half an hour or so. MSE only updates every 12 hours?

 

[Matt Fomich]

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.

The original poster is using results from AV-Comparatives. They are well known to be un-biased, and they are among the best for comparing anti-virus software.

From their "about us" page:

" AV-Comparatives is an Austrian Non-Profit-Organization, which is providing independent Anti-Virus software tests free to the public. For more information, please refer to the document with the FAQ. "

Their about us page is here:
AV-Comparatives - Independent Tests of Anti-Virus Software - About Us
--

 

[pparks1]

I typically use and recommend MSE to those with fairly safe web browsing habits. For more robust security, it's usually ESET that I recommend to friends.

NIS just has had such a bad history that I don't even consider loading it onto my box. It's just been real bad in the past a very difficult product to remove when you want to use something else instead.

In the end I think this all comes down to habits. I don't need very robust protection as I don't take many risks. And if I do something questionable, it's almost always from my Linux machine or a virtual machine. So, because of these reasons, I elect to save my money and not purchase NIS...it wouldn't provide me enough value to justify the cost. For others, it might be a different story.

 

[bigcitycat]

The best antivirus is noscript and adblock. I use those with MSE and Malwarebytes, and as my dad always said "don't do anything stupid".

I used Norton for over 6 years. It has it's issues, nothing is perfect. I didn't hate it. I just know how to protect my computer for free now. I think out of all the free AV, that I trust MSE because Microsoft has an interest in protecting their product and in that sense there is a lot of money behind their free product. Where as most other free AV's interests are selling you the pay for version.

Also I have my Linux drive that protects me if MS gets jammed. I have Bitdefender for unices (free) on my Linux drive. It scans for windows virus' and I can scan my windows drive from there while it is shut down. I can also access my windows drive through my Linux file manager and remove anything that shouldn't be there.

 

[bigcitycat]

I typically use and recommend MSE to those with fairly safe web browsing habits. For more robust security, it's usually ESET that I recommend to friends.

NIS just has had such a bad history that I don't even consider loading it onto my box. It's just been real bad in the past a very difficult product to remove when you want to use something else instead.

In the end I think this all comes down to habits. I don't need very robust protection as I don't take many risks. And if I do something questionable, it's almost always from my Linux machine or a virtual machine. So, because of these reasons, I elect to save my money and not purchase NIS...it wouldn't provide me enough value to justify the cost. For others, it might be a different story.

I do my banking from my Kubuntu install cd without install.

 

[Teerex]

I use MSE on one system and NIS 2010/2011 beta on another.

The thing where Norton has made major improvements is blocking Blackhat SEO (poisoned searches) and fake scan page blocking. It didn't happen when 2010 was released, but at some time during last winter they were obviously busy about it and they delivered, by my criteria.

This is what I mean by fake scan page, if there is someone who's not in the know.

I haven't been able to actually see a fake scan page for months now, NIS blocks them all routinely (or at least those that Google didn't get to block yet ).

MSE doesn't interact with browsers sufficently to stop that kind of thing..

See example of NIS protecting Google Chrome, the newest dev build.

 

[Dinesh]

I definitely recommend Norton products. They have improved a lot in the past.

 

[Wishmaster]

I definitely recommend Norton products. They have improved a lot in the past.

Same.

I used to hate them as they were so slow and bloated, however with 2009 and up, they have won back my buisiness.

I usually reccomend MSE for those looking for good AV thats free, and NIS for those who do not mind paying, as well as Malwarebytes as a on demand with either.

NIS does an excellent job for me and so far no issues at all. So I can't complain.

Although MB has never found anything, I still think its useful for weekly scans, regardless what AV you use.
The fact it never does just tell me NIS is doing its job well




I will certainly renew my Norton sub when it expires.


As far as scan speed however, would that not depend more on HD speed that CPU cores/speed? I mean, the CPU can only process the items as its read, right?

 

[lior]

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]

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 ....

 

[jimbo45]

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

 

[CarlTR6]

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 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.

 

[pparks1]

For me, personally I don't want to spend money if I don't have to. Considering both products catch over 95%, and I'm a pretty safe user who doesn't put myself into risky situations...a few percentage points simply don't make it or break it for me. Scanning speeds for me personally are nearly irrelevant as I'm running on an SSD which is very fast and I have very little installed...so my MSE quick scans finish in under 2 minutes.

So, for me, no reason to use anything other than MSE... Everybody will feel different or have different experiences.

 

[Shadowjk]

I use both and I cannot have One without the Other So I voted for MSE

 

[neeraj]

i think MSE is the best..

as compared to NIS2010..

 

[malexous]

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?