[LiveBrianD]

I'm currently on Avast Free, but was wondering about Microsoft Security Essentials. What do you think, get MSE or stick with Avast?

[SpiritWind]

Hi Brian :

I have been using Avast Free for many years and have
no plans on switching to MSE . In the latest "Whole
Product Dynamic Test" done by the Independent
Researchers at www.av-comparatives.org , Avast, MSE,
& Avira came within 1 point of each other . I feel
Avast has superior Online Support Forums when
compared to the Other 2, very important IF you ever
need to contact someone about a questionable
"Detection" . Plus the Avast Forums have a trained,
experienced, CERTIFIED, Volunteer "Malware Removal
Specialist" available IF a serious malware issue
arises .

[LincolnSpector]

LiveBrianD, on 03 October 2010 - 11:04 AM, said:

I'm currently on Avast Free, but was wondering about Microsoft Security Essentials. What do you think, get MSE or stick with Avast?

I'm currently an Avira fan, but many people I respect have been praising MSE, lately. I'm thinking about checking it out.

Lincoln

[LiveBrianD]

SpiritWind, on 03 October 2010 - 11:42 AM, said:

Hi Brian :

I have been using Avast Free for many years and have
no plans on switching to MSE . In the latest "Whole
Product Dynamic Test" done by the Independent
Researchers at www.av-comparatives.org , Avast, MSE,
& Avira came within 1 point of each other . I feel
Avast has superior Online Support Forums when
compared to the Other 2, very important IF you ever
need to contact someone about a questionable
"Detection" . Plus the Avast Forums have a trained,
experienced, CERTIFIED, Volunteer "Malware Removal
Specialist" available IF a serious malware issue
arises .

Well I've heard MSE is much lighter (didn't slow down a VM i tested it on). Also, if my PC was truely infected, I'd just reinstall Windows. But the AV does help since usually if I try to download an infected file it gets blocked before I open it, potentially stopping the infection beforehand.

[ninthchamber]

avast free edition. i have never had any problems with it and i have used it on 4 different computers

[newspaper56]

Avast for XP
MSE for 7

that's what i got recommended.

[EkuquoL]

For Windows
Microsoft Security Essentials
www.microsoft.com/security_essentials

Norton/Synmantec Antivirus -- ALSO for MAc
www.norton.com

Trendmicro -- Also for MAC
www.trendmicro.com

Macintosh is also vulnerable to virus' mainly from java and other webcontent < XML, CSS, SSL, TLS can inflict a macintosh >
Malware if installed can pose a problem for macintosh too..

Everything revolves around keeping cache clear, and tempfiles cleaned.

[LiveBrianD]

EkuquoL, on 09 October 2010 - 12:39 AM, said:

For Windows
Microsoft Security Essentials
www.microsoft.com/security_essentials

Norton/Synmantec Antivirus -- ALSO for MAc
www.norton.com

Trendmicro -- Also for MAC
www.trendmicro.com

Macintosh is also vulnerable to virus' mainly from java and other webcontent < XML, CSS, SSL, TLS can inflict a macintosh >
Malware if installed can pose a problem for macintosh too..

Everything revolves around keeping cache clear, and tempfiles cleaned.

OK I just switched to MSE.

[crazy4laptops]

LiveBrianD, on 03 October 2010 - 11:04 AM, said:

I'm currently on Avast Free, but was wondering about Microsoft Security Essentials. What do you think, get MSE or stick with Avast?

I'd pass on both, and go with Comodo Internet Security Free- http://personalfirewall.comodo.com/

Security by Microsoft, Live OneCare was a complete flop, defender is so annoying in Vista/7, so I wasn't hedging any bets when MSE came out.
I have heard good things about it, but I need my firewall protection...

I can say that after 3 years of Comodo, my 4 lab computers are infection free.

Two small notes with Comodo-
False positive detection is a little high with heuristics enabled (when installing programs)
System Defense and Firewall will ask you if programs can access protected files and ports/IP destinations. (can get annoying during installation)

[LiveBrianD]

crazy4laptops, on 11 October 2010 - 01:07 PM, said:

Security by Microsoft, Live OneCare was a complete flop, defender is so annoying in Vista/7, so I wasn't hedging any bets when MSE came out.
I have heard good things about it, but I need my firewall protection...

Yeah, that Onecare thing was why I was a little unsure about MSE, dispite great reviews on it.

[josephrios546]

Kaspersky works fine. It has antivirus as well as anti-spyware functionality.. works well for me.

[AgentF]

You should consider AVG Free 2011. According to the most recent tests published by AV-Test.org, AVG scored overall higher than Avast, MSE, Avira, and TrendMicro (among others). Of those mentioned, AVG and Symantec both got the best protection score while Avast scored two whole points lower. I look forward to seeing the 2010 3rd quarter test results, which I hope will include AVG's latest version: 2011.

I, too, was skeptical about Microsoft Security Essentials, but was willing to give it a try on a Windows 7 machine after all the praise it's received. Even the test results by AV-Test.org verify that claim and ranked it 7th (tied) overall between the 17 they published results. As a technical user, I found it lacking a lot in the way of options. For example, it doesn't have a history of scan results, only suspected threats. AVG, on the other hand, has a history section saving scan reports detailing the type of scan, type of threats found, length of scan, and number of items scanned. To a non-technical user, limited options might be a better way to go because they won't get easily confused or mis-configure something. Tying the definition updates into Microsoft Update is a nice touch too.

SpiritWind loves to mention Avast's support forums for questionable items and assistance from a malware removal specialist, but I find using the forum's to be a negative sign. You shouldn't have to converse with the developers every few months because their program identified a false-positive. In over 6 years of malware removal assistance, I've never had to. If the program is regularly identifying programs incorrectly as malware, then the program isn't all that good in the first place. The developers should spend more time making a sound program to result in less people questioning the results. After all, most people will trust the results or switch programs rather than routinely check with the developers. As for malware specialists, they're all over the Internet. Most of the problems I've dealt with for clients where the program I used didn't get the job done, I didn't have to go far on Google to find an answer. There are a handful of reputable sites with certified technicians, so having one on Avasts' forum isn't a draw to me. On only a couple occasions in the past 6 years have I needed to personally converse with a specialist. The program should do a good enough job to avoid requiring the user to ask the developers for help. SpiritWind identifies these as positives for the program, but I identify them as negatives.

Although this test reports Symantec as best (tied) in protection and best (tied) overall, my personal history with the product, along with hundreds of clients, will keep me from even trying it again for a long time. They'll need to go above and beyond for me to ever consider trying it, let alone recommending it. Tests suggest they're trying, but they've got a ways to go for me.

I've been using the free firewall by Comodo for a few years now and am very happy with it. There are plenty of options for me to configure, but as I mentioned earlier, that can be a big disadvantage for the average user. The anti-virus portion of the product (which is an optional install) is not all that great from what I hear. Reports aren't available on AV-Tests.org or AV-Comparatives.org

All the reports I see on Kaspersky put it very high overall, but I haven't personally used it. AV-Test.org put it in first (tied) overall and only docked it a half point in protection. From the looks of it, there are a plethora of options. The downfall is that it's an entirely paid product. There is a 30-day trial if you're interested in checking it out. Presently, I'm satisfied with free anti-malware product.

[bloh143]

thanks for interesting information...

[Car54]

AgentF, on 14 October 2010 - 07:41 PM, said:

You should consider AVG Free 2011. According to the most recent tests published by AV-Test.org, AVG scored overall higher than Avast, MSE, Avira, and TrendMicro (among others). Of those mentioned, AVG and Symantec both got the best protection score while Avast scored two whole points lower. I look forward to seeing the 2010 3rd quarter test results, which I hope will include AVG's latest version: 2011.

I, too, was skeptical about Microsoft Security Essentials, but was willing to give it a try on a Windows 7 machine after all the praise it's received. Even the test results by AV-Test.org verify that claim and ranked it 7th (tied) overall between the 17 they published results. As a technical user, I found it lacking a lot in the way of options. For example, it doesn't have a history of scan results, only suspected threats. AVG, on the other hand, has a history section saving scan reports detailing the type of scan, type of threats found, length of scan, and number of items scanned. To a non-technical user, limited options might be a better way to go because they won't get easily confused or mis-configure something. Tying the definition updates into Microsoft Update is a nice touch too.

SpiritWind loves to mention Avast's support forums for questionable items and assistance from a malware removal specialist, but I find using the forum's to be a negative sign. You shouldn't have to converse with the developers every few months because their program identified a false-positive. In over 6 years of malware removal assistance, I've never had to. If the program is regularly identifying programs incorrectly as malware, then the program isn't all that good in the first place. The developers should spend more time making a sound program to result in less people questioning the results. After all, most people will trust the results or switch programs rather than routinely check with the developers. As for malware specialists, they're all over the Internet. Most of the problems I've dealt with for clients where the program I used didn't get the job done, I didn't have to go far on Google to find an answer. There are a handful of reputable sites with certified technicians, so having one on Avasts' forum isn't a draw to me. On only a couple occasions in the past 6 years have I needed to personally converse with a specialist. The program should do a good enough job to avoid requiring the user to ask the developers for help. SpiritWind identifies these as positives for the program, but I identify them as negatives.

Although this test reports Symantec as best (tied) in protection and best (tied) overall, my personal history with the product, along with hundreds of clients, will keep me from even trying it again for a long time. They'll need to go above and beyond for me to ever consider trying it, let alone recommending it. Tests suggest they're trying, but they've got a ways to go for me.

I've been using the free firewall by Comodo for a few years now and am very happy with it. There are plenty of options for me to configure, but as I mentioned earlier, that can be a big disadvantage for the average user. The anti-virus portion of the product (which is an optional install) is not all that great from what I hear. Reports aren't available on AV-Tests.org or AV-Comparatives.org

All the reports I see on Kaspersky put it very high overall, but I haven't personally used it. AV-Test.org put it in first (tied) overall and only docked it a half point in protection. From the looks of it, there are a plethora of options. The downfall is that it's an entirely paid product. There is a 30-day trial if you're interested in checking it out. Presently, I'm satisfied with free anti-malware product.

Interesting post AgentF. One point (as you mentioned) that I have mulled over also, is the fact that a heavily trafficked AV Forum may, or may not be the best sign. Yet a person needs to consider how many users are actually using the AV, and thus more issues may come up, and also with so many users and how many other programs and other variables they have on their PCs which may factor into the equation as far as problems posted on a Forum. Also, the amount of "frivolous" AV or Suite add ons that can cause issues, thus more forum postings. So in a way, that can be a sign of determining usability of the software, let alone what AV-Test.org, and AV Comparatives.org reveal to us in an AVs Malware blocking/removal/ usability stats.

This post has been edited by Car54: 20 October 2010 - 06:16 AM

[coastie65]

LiveBrianD, on 09 October 2010 - 11:38 AM, said:

EkuquoL, on 09 October 2010 - 12:39 AM, said:

For Windows
Microsoft Security Essentials
www.microsoft.com/security_essentials

Norton/Synmantec Antivirus -- ALSO for MAc
www.norton.com

Trendmicro -- Also for MAC
www.trendmicro.com

Macintosh is also vulnerable to virus' mainly from java and other webcontent < XML, CSS, SSL, TLS can inflict a macintosh >
Malware if installed can pose a problem for macintosh too..

Everything revolves around keeping cache clear, and tempfiles cleaned.

OK I just switched to MSE.

My Brother just got a new Computer with Windows 7. When he asked about AV and such, I told him to first get rid of Norton 360 that came bundled in there and get MSE. I am using Avast! and the paid version of SUPERantispyware in Windows 7, Avast! & Webroot Spysweeper ( not compatible with Windows 7 & both FREE ) in Vista & XP. Windows Live One Care, was a dud, but it looks as though Microsoft has come back with a good one with MSE this time.

[DTNick]

Hey all,
We have some antivirus reviews coming in the near future, so keep your eyes peeled for those.

Thanks,
Nick

[cyberknight]

Hiii guys,
like AgentF said AVG free 2011 is not a bad choice.... unless u hate softwares with huge download size!! So u can give it a try after all it is the most downloaded AV on cnet, almost 3 times more than Avast or Avira.

[zeppyZarr]

I'm currently an Avira fan too. But also use AVG - the free edition.

[newspaper56]

@DTnick how come no reviews on malwarebytes??

The whole site is just missing out on malwarebytes reviews

[cyberknight]

newspaper56, on 29 November 2010 - 11:34 PM, said:

@DTnick how come no reviews on malwarebytes??
The whole site is just missing out on malwarebytes reviews

Hi there...,
we were discussing about antivirus, whereas malwarebytes counts for anti-spyware/malware; a secondary to complement an AV. It has'nt got a real-time scanner nor does it scans for viruses! None the less it is a simple app, does a great job & is an essential part of any layered security suite. As for the reviews, i dont know if anyone has written anything specific but u will find info about this app throughout this forum in various posts. Just check for anti-spywares.