Microsoft's Free Anti-Malware Product is Out Today

[viometrix]

and you are right about one thing, it is your opinion, and as misguided as it may be- you are entitled to that

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

While people can opine and anecdotalize about which is better, AV-comparatives regularly employ uniform tests to various security programs, free or otherwise.
Link
OneCare, which is what MSE is mostly based on, scored near the bottom (but that's still about 90%). However, MSE also has a new heuristics level for unidentified threats that might increase its performance.
In any case, combine MSE and Windows Firewall and Microsoft actually gives you decent protection against malware, a pretty big turnaround from just a few years ago when MS basically had no protection of its own for consumers. With a modern browser like Chrome, FF 3.5, or IE8 on top of that you should have pretty good protection against malware. MS could be doing more to address security, but they are making progress with the increased security of IE8 and the evolution of their other solutions (I consider Live OneCare to be a step in the wrong direction)
I'd still rather use Avast than MSE, personally. Low false-positives, high scanning throughput, and high detection rates, plus it's free.

 

[Guest]

Hey, I use Ubuntu as my OS but there isn't ANYTHING that is virus/malware proof. Many people have written linux viruses as proof of concept so its just as easy, just be a smart user and watch what you do. Also never run as an administrator on ANY type of os. Thats just asking for trouble! I know from xp, before I became knowledgeable about pc's I killed my install a few times =(

 

[nurgletheunclean]

When I read the title I was thinking Defender.

I've used Avast and as far as free AV goes it's as good as it gets, and quite acceptable. As for all the pay ones go NOD32 is far and away the best AV you can get. Anyone who is touting Kaspersky simply hasn't used NOD32. It's by far the lightest, frequently updated, and effective AV, available today.

The malware/scumware/spyware is far more prevalent today than viruses. Useing Malwarebytes in conjunction with decent AV is still the best bet.

 

[rooket]

Nothing will find every virus but I use avira antivir and malwarebytes anti-malware. Everything else is fail except for Symantec SEP. Microsoft has done free antimalware in the past and my experience with it is after a few months they drop the whole entire project.

What technical users have said in the past is that M$ should do a full kernel update and just block out the malware completely as can be done with Linux. THE PROBLEM with that is you have to reinstall the entire operating system to do that. These linux users.... are crazy. Most people don't want to spend all that time rebuilding their machine. Most people just want to browse the web and send emails and aren't tech savvy.

 

[jace5869]

You know i'm surprised Norton is getting as much negative comments now considering they have totally redone their software package. Norton Antivirus '09 and '10 uses some of the least amount of resources of any program out there now, period.
Not only that, but they consistently rank VERY well in detection and cleanup rates, often beating the favorites (Kaspersky, NOD32 and Avira). Not to mention it totally wipes the floor with the free alternatives.
Don't get me wrong, there are some really good free alternatives like Avira's and Avast's products, but they still can not compete fully with a paid-for-product. Also, don't forget that when you "buy" a product like Norton AV or others you are also paying for Technical Support if the need arises.
I use to use Kaspersky with Webroot, but have since switched to solely Norton for the fact that it is 1.) Extremely light on resources 2.) Smoking fast scan times AND updates 3.) Very good detection rates.

Finally, to all these people that say "I use Avast and I do this and that, blah blah...and I still do not have a virus...blah blah."
How do you know you have no infections? No one product is 100% so saying that you have no infections is untrue.

Just my two cents..

 

[back_by_demand]

Even if this product was ten times more powerful than McAfee or Norton, there is nothing that they could do about it.

It is not included at installation and has to be downloaded to be installed. The fact it is free is irrelevant. I hope that MS eventually make it as strong as Norton, then it will force them to reduce the cost of their own product or even make it free as well.

 

[rdawise]

[citation][nom]jace5869[/nom]You know i'm surprised Norton is getting as much negative comments now considering they have totally redone their software package. Norton Antivirus '09 and '10 uses some of the least amount of resources of any program out there now, period.Not only that, but they consistently rank VERY well in detection and cleanup rates, often beating the favorites (Kaspersky, NOD32 and Avira). Not to mention it totally wipes the floor with the free alternatives.Don't get me wrong, there are some really good free alternatives like Avira's and Avast's products, but they still can not compete fully with a paid-for-product. Also, don't forget that when you "buy" a product like Norton AV or others you are also paying for Technical Support if the need arises.I use to use Kaspersky with Webroot, but have since switched to solely Norton for the fact that it is 1.) Extremely light on resources 2.) Smoking fast scan times AND updates 3.) Very good detection rates.Finally, to all these people that say "I use Avast and I do this and that, blah blah...and I still do not have a virus...blah blah."How do you know you have no infections? No one product is 100% so saying that you have no infections is untrue.Just my two cents..[/citation]

So you are advocating that you pay for AV scan while knowing that nothing is 100%?

Who comes out the winner there. The man who pays for virus scans and still gets infected? Or the one who didn't pay one cent?

I have been running avast for 2 years and have had no problems.

Honestly, would tech support tell you something you can't "google" yourself?

 

[matt87_50]

yeah, actually, the EU will be on this!

Symantec has more than battered an eyelid now! (with that ad)

here's hoping the rival companies respond by actually releasing competitive products that people will want to use over this free version! with advertising and stuff, you know, just like every other industry! Rather than running crying to the EU!

 

[WINTERLORD]

iv been reading alot about internet security, and seen alot of people saying lighter is better. but in my opinion it depends on the person. me personaly i have outpost firewall and a-squared antimalware running. and since a-sqaureds realtime protection (mainly the malware part) dont work that great on a x64bit, i installed avast anti-virus free. and disabled most of it except the realtime scanner. i am thinking about uninstaling avast and doing system restore and adding this MSE in place of avast since i was originaly waiting for microsoft security essentials MSE.

 

[ghoulsrulefools]

I'm sticking with common sense.

 

[jace5869]

So you are advocating that you pay for AV scan while knowing that nothing is 100%?

Who comes out the winner there. The man who pays for virus scans and still gets infected? Or the one who didn't pay one cent?

I have been running avast for 2 years and have had no problems.

Honestly, would tech support tell you something you can't "google" yourself?/quote]

Well, I believe myself smart enough to buy my AV protection when they are FREE after rebates, and let me tell you something Symentec rebates are some of the easiest and most reliable ones to have. So, what does that make you and I?

Am I dumb because I purchase "Paid For" security software, which in turn comes out to be FREE?

There are a lot of things that people buy, and I'm sure you do too, that works but may not be 100% effective. Everything from house hold cleaning supplies to birth control to insurance to soap to power strips. Why do these people buy these things if they know they are 100%? Well, I don't know , but maybe it has something to do with --- It is better than the alternative!

Paid for Antivirus will inevitably have better detection rates and support, period. You may think tech support is a joke, but I assure you there are people that use it and even get their money's worth.

Also, I consider my data and resources important to me and I would not risk using a "free alternative" to protect it. I find it funny how you decide to attack and degrade my creditability by suggesting that I am some type of un-knowledgeable person for using a "paid for" software to protect my data - even if it isn't 100%. Don't you think that if you suggest something like that towards me, that the outcome should be the opposite of yours? I mean, I can see where you are trying to compare how:
you = free software = 80% effective = SMART yeaaa, totally.
me = paid for software = 97-98% effective = DUMB, noob.

In any case you might have a valid point if there were only like 5 different types of malware, but when you have millions of different types - the difference between 80% and >95% is huge!

Besides, I think you missed the point of my post. I was merely trying to inform people that the past Norton days are only a memory and it's time to let go of grudges and give software a second chance.
Symantec has done an AMAZING job with their software lately and it is really undeniable, to say the least. I use to be a real "anti-norton" person, because I hated their resource hogginess, extremely long install times, low detection rates, long scan times, and the fact you have to use a FREAKIN' tool to completely uninstall the software!
But now you get something worthy of a second look (kind of like Microsoft with Windows 7). You get installs in as little as 1 minute, pulse updates, extremely fast scanning times and a more simpler uninstall if needed. Now, I'm not saying that it is the ALPHA and OMEGA software, because "to each his own". I also love using Kaspersky, but they have a flaw and that is it isn't the easiest (or even close) to use. Now, I get by with it just fine and I like tinkering, but it isn't the way to appeal to the masses.

Also, to say "Go get linux, solved" is not a correct solution. Everyone has their preference and they may not be able to be in the position to use linux. Again, you could argue many different things - but linux AND Mac's have viruses and you do not have to "go lookin'" or "write your own". the reason you don't hear about it so much is because 5% of the market doesn't make as much noise as the other 93-94%.

 

[warlordsagan]

Nothing for Canada, eh?

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

[citation][nom]jace5869[/nom]Well, I believe myself smart enough to buy my AV protection when they are FREE after rebates, and let me tell you something Symentec rebates are some of the easiest and most reliable ones to have. So, what does that make you and I?Am I dumb because I purchase "Paid For" security software, which in turn comes out to be FREE?[/citation]
How free are they? Will you ever have to pay for another year's subscription? Or do you just keep getting magical rebates when the time comes? Where are you getting those rebates from?


[citation][nom]jace5869[/nom] Why do these people buy these things if they know they are 100%? Well, I don't know , but maybe it has something to do with --- It is better than the alternative![/citation]
The alternative to not buying power strips and birth control is to go without those things. But that doesn't work here, because there are good FREE alternatives to Norton that don't mean you have to do without. To make a good comparison you'd have to say that buying those things is better than being given them for free.
Your argument here is basically that you feel better and more secure for paying for something when there are free alternatives about as effective. Well, that's good for you, but it doesn't objectively make your decision the wisest. It sounds an awful lot like the Kool-Aid Symantec tried to push on us with that commercial. You need something better than just "I got something you have to pay money to get (except for rebates), therefore it's better than yours."

[citation][nom]jace5869[/nom]Paid for Antivirus will inevitably have better detection rates and support, period.[/citation]
That's bullshit. I posted a link on the other page where both commercial and free AV programs were rated on an objective basis. Some of the top contenders were free programs like Avast!, some at the bottom were commercial.

 

[Ciuy]

i`ll give it a try ...

 

[rdawise]

[citation][nom]jace5869[/nom]

So you are advocating that you pay for AV scan while knowing that nothing is 100%?Who comes out the winner there. The man who pays for virus scans and still gets infected? Or the one who didn't pay one cent?I have been running avast for 2 years and have had no problems. Honestly, would tech support tell you something you can't "google" yourself?/quote]Well, I believe myself smart enough to buy my AV protection when they are FREE after rebates, and let me tell you something Symentec rebates are some of the easiest and most reliable ones to have. So, what does that make you and I?Am I dumb because I purchase "Paid For" security software, which in turn comes out to be FREE?There are a lot of things that people buy, and I'm sure you do too, that works but may not be 100% effective. Everything from house hold cleaning supplies to birth control to insurance to soap to power strips. Why do these people buy these things if they know they are 100%? Well, I don't know , but maybe it has something to do with --- It is better than the alternative!Paid for Antivirus will inevitably have better detection rates and support, period. You may think tech support is a joke, but I assure you there are people that use it and even get their money's worth.Also, I consider my data and resources important to me and I would not risk using a "free alternative" to protect it. I find it funny how you decide to attack and degrade my creditability by suggesting that I am some type of un-knowledgeable person for using a "paid for" software to protect my data - even if it isn't 100%. Don't you think that if you suggest something like that towards me, that the outcome should be the opposite of yours? I mean, I can see where you are trying to compare how:you = free software = 80% effective = SMART yeaaa, totally.me = paid for software = 97-98% effective = DUMB, noob.In any case you might have a valid point if there were only like 5 different types of malware, but when you have millions of different types - the difference between 80% and >95% is huge! Besides, I think you missed the point of my post. I was merely trying to inform people that the past Norton days are only a memory and it's time to let go of grudges and give software a second chance.Symantec has done an AMAZING job with their software lately and it is really undeniable, to say the least. I use to be a real "anti-norton" person, because I hated their resource hogginess, extremely long install times, low detection rates, long scan times, and the fact you have to use a FREAKIN' tool to completely uninstall the software!But now you get something worthy of a second look (kind of like Microsoft with Windows 7). You get installs in as little as 1 minute, pulse updates, extremely fast scanning times and a more simpler uninstall if needed. Now, I'm not saying that it is the ALPHA and OMEGA software, because "to each his own". I also love using Kaspersky, but they have a flaw and that is it isn't the easiest (or even close) to use. Now, I get by with it just fine and I like tinkering, but it isn't the way to appeal to the masses.Also, to say "Go get linux, solved" is not a correct solution. Everyone has their preference and they may not be able to be in the position to use linux. Again, you could argue many different things - but linux AND Mac's have viruses and you do not have to "go lookin'" or "write your own". the reason you don't hear about it so much is because 5% of the market doesn't make as much noise as the other 93-94%.[/citation]

At no point in my post do I suggest you are "un-knowledgeable". What I do suggest is, as you impled, that since nothing is 100% why are you paying for it when there's a free program just as effective?

Let's look at you figures that you pulled out of thin air:

"you = free software = 80% effective = SMART yeaaa, totally.
me = paid for software = 97-98% effective = DUMB, noob."

You say my AV software is 80% effective (how in the world do you prove this). You say your AV software is 97%-98% effective. I paid $0 for my AV and get an 80% return. You paid whatever amount (even with a rebate you are paying something not even taking into account subscriptions) and aren't getting 100%. I'm not saying that's stupid, thats what you wanted to do, but I am saying dollar for dollar I come out on top.

 

[jj463rd]

I've used the paid Live One Care.It worked fine for me but I do use Webroot Spy Sweeper in addition.Now that it's free that's great.

 

[anamaniac]

[citation][nom]duckmanx88[/nom]"When the Beta launched, neither Symantec nor McAfee batted an eyelid.""Janice Chaffin, Symantec's Consumer division president, said that Morro is basically a stripped down version of OneCare"attacking a free product seems like worry to me. it should come with Windows 7 for the old people that don't know that they can get free AV protection from Panda, AVG, and a dozen other products that don't rape your wallet like Norton.[/citation]
I quite agree. A preinstalled free antivirus is somehting I'm in support with.
However, I don't use a antivirus, and haven't for almost a year now...

 

[danny69t]

I have used mcafee for about 3 years and have been not dissapointed with it in functionality and detection, though it is a little heavy on resources. Currently i am testing a trial of Sophos on 2 computers, and i will test MSE too.
sidenote: I think i got a virus on my Ubuntu machine

 

[amnotanoobie]

"A full Internet security suite is what consumers require today to stay fully protected"

A good working brain is what most users actually need. You can remain virus and trojan free even if you used just free alternatives such as AVG, Avast and Avira.

 

[Guest]

I use Mcafee Virusscan Enterprise plus Anti-Spyware and with all features turn on and also updated to the latest DAT I haven' t caught any infection.
But it does put my machine on it's knees some times (P4 1,9ghz with 1Gb RAM).
When that same defense was down i did caught an infection and two things happened one the anti-virus was turned back on and removed the menace completely or didn´t let me turn the anti-virus back on so i had to resort to others specificaly remove that menace, and sometimes the solution was to format.

Also there is a diference in home and enterprise anti-virus.

 

[Guest]

I tried the beta on several computers and was very happy. On every computer it found some issues including an infected email attachment from 1999. Previously the computers had been protected by AVG and McAfee both of which had missed infected files caught by the beta.

 

[zak_mckraken]

[citation][nom]warlordsagan[/nom]Nothing for Canada, eh?[/citation]
It's valid in Canada too. Just installed it yesterday. Nice, eh?

 

[back_by_demand]

I'll reword my point, if MS releases a free product, that isnt integrated but you have to download, what exactly can any of the other AV companies do to stop them?

Shoe on the other foot, Symantec announces that from 2010, all Norton products are now free of charge to all forever. There is nothing that anyone could do to stop them. Same applies to MS.

 

[traveler818]

Norton gave me nothing but trouble.