Microsoft Security Essentials - Ars Technica review
acav
badgolferman
Well, they like it.
I wonder what anti-malware Microsoft Corporation itself uses in Redmond.
1PW
Microsoft personnel have been said to recommend MBAM.
--
1PW
noauth
> acav wrote:
>
>>http://xrl.us/MSEreview
>
> Well, they like it.
>
> I wonder what anti-malware Microsoft Corporation itself uses in Redmond.
>
>
Anonymous
Paul Jones
Paul Thurrott writes on 19/10/2009 at:
http://community.winsupersite.com/blogs/paul/archive/2009/10/19/microsoft-security-essentials-update.aspx
"Microsoft previously reported that its new Security Essentials
anti-malware solution (see my review) had garnered 1.5 million downloads
in its first week of availability. Well, the numbers keep going up:
After two weeks, the download total stood at 2.6 million. Also, the
company tells me that Microsoft Security Essentials has achieved ICSA
Labs Anti-Virus Certification on Vista Ultimate 32-bit and Vista
Ultimate 64-bit in the Desktop/Server AV Detection & Cleaning Testing
criteria. This certification builds on its October certification from
West Coast Labs."
Lil' Abner
news:ilc8e5pkt1c8a4fas...@4ax.com:
I'll take credit for about a dozen of those downloads. But I shouldn't have
gotten so carried away. I've already uninstalled it on most of the machines
I put it on.
MsMpEng.exe eating up all the resources. Tolerable on a quad core machine
with a fast processor and plenty of memory.
--
--- Everybody has a right to my opinion. ---
Dustin Cook
news:Xns9CAF8CDE39839butter@wefb973cbe498:
> Paul Jones <ne...@news-only.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
> news:ilc8e5pkt1c8a4fas...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 30 Sep 2009 14:56:34 -0000, acav <rema...@reece.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>http://xrl.us/MSEreview
>>
>> Paul Thurrott writes on 19/10/2009 at:
>> http://community.winsupersite.com/blogs/paul/archive/2009/10/19/micros
>> o ft-security-essentials-update.aspx
>>
>> "Microsoft previously reported that its new Security Essentials
>> anti-malware solution (see my review) had garnered 1.5 million
>> downloads in its first week of availability. Well, the numbers keep
>> going up: After two weeks, the download total stood at 2.6 million.
>> Also, the company tells me that Microsoft Security Essentials has
>> achieved ICSA Labs Anti-Virus Certification on Vista Ultimate 32-bit
>> and Vista Ultimate 64-bit in the Desktop/Server AV Detection &
>> Cleaning Testing criteria. This certification builds on its October
>> certification from West Coast Labs."
>
> I'll take credit for about a dozen of those downloads. But I shouldn't
> have gotten so carried away. I've already uninstalled it on most of
> the machines I put it on.
> MsMpEng.exe eating up all the resources. Tolerable on a quad core
> machine with a fast processor and plenty of memory.
>
Oh.. I've gotta save this for my quotes. Tolerable on a quad.. I love it.
:)
--
Dustin Cook [Malware Researcher]
MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org
BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
responder
I join in your assessment.
Bogs everything down...besides, with AVG..MBAM...ThreatFire and more,
this is overkill..
Paul Jones
wrote:
>Lil' Abner wrote:
>> I'll take credit for about a dozen of those downloads. But I shouldn't have
>> gotten so carried away. I've already uninstalled it on most of the machines
>> I put it on.
>> MsMpEng.exe eating up all the resources. Tolerable on a quad core machine
>> with a fast processor and plenty of memory.
>>
>
>I join in your assessment.
>
>Bogs everything down...besides, with AVG..MBAM...ThreatFire and more,
>this is overkill..
Shame it does not work for the two of you.
IMO it is better than all of the above as it uses far less system
resources. Avast and MBAM are still both on my system but real-time
protection has been disabled for the two of them and my PC has never
been better.
Not sure why you think it would be "overkill".
I have installed it on several systems with different hardware
configurations now (over 30 PCs in 5 different locations) and all work
flawlessly.
These PCs were all built and the OS installed by myself so I know there
is no other software installed that could cause issues with MSE.
Looking at various newsgroups where there have been issues reported with
MsMpEng.exe, the cause has always been found to be some other process
causing the issue.
This will become the standard anti-malware software before too long.
The only thing that will cause its uptake to be slowed down is the
bundling of inferior products on new PCs. Something done by system
manufacturers to increase profits.
Lil' Abner
What process(es)? Every machine I've put it on I've made sure all
instances of any other antivirus or antispyware applications have been
uninstalled. I too have been to a lot of the forums and read a lot of the
discussions. I would really like to see it work. If they get it fixed or
at least make it more clear how to avoid the "bogging down" effect, I
will be happy to start installing it again.
David W. Hodgins
> This will become the standard anti-malware software before too long.
I expect many people will wait to see if it lasts longer than MSAV.
Regards, Dave Hodgins
--
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
Paul Jones
wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:04:14 -0500, "Lil' Abner" <blv...@dogpatch.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>What process(es)? Every machine I've put it on I've made sure all
>>instances of any other antivirus or antispyware applications have been
>>uninstalled. I too have been to a lot of the forums and read a lot of the
>>discussions. I would really like to see it work. If they get it fixed or
>>at least make it more clear how to avoid the "bogging down" effect, I
>>will be happy to start installing it again.
>
>I wouldn't listen to him, I beleive he is the same person who attacked
>my computer skills credibility when I complained about the same issue
>with MSSE a little while back. I said it was ok on my multi-core PC
>but on my single core PC it was killing performance and was viciously
>attacked for it.
What? Please provide evidence of this vicious attack.
Paul Jones
Do you like to change names?
Are you Antonio L�pez de Santa Anna?
If yes, you were the one who was rude and obnoxious.
Dustin Cook
news:op.u2eki1s...@hodgins.homeip.net:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:52:18 -0400, Paul Jones
> <ne...@news-only.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>> This will become the standard anti-malware software before too long.
>
> I expect many people will wait to see if it lasts longer than MSAV.
>
> Regards, Dave Hodgins
>
*hahahaha*....
David H. Lipman
| On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:52:18 -0400, Paul Jones <ne...@news-only.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>> This will become the standard anti-malware software before too long.
| I expect many people will wait to see if it lasts longer than MSAV.
| Regards, Dave Hodgins
MSAV -- OEM of CPAV bought by Norton.
Passing fad for Win3.1x at best.
--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
FromTheRafters
news:hc50h...@news3.newsguy.com...
> From: "David W. Hodgins" <dwho...@nomail.afraid.org>
>
> | On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:52:18 -0400, Paul Jones
> <ne...@news-only.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> This will become the standard anti-malware software before too long.
>
> | I expect many people will wait to see if it lasts longer than MSAV.
>
> | Regards, Dave Hodgins
>
> MSAV -- OEM of CPAV bought by Norton.
>
> Passing fad for Win3.1x at best.
By then we had MWAV to protect us. :o)
...can't have those nasty viruses messing with Leisure Suit Larry.
Paul Jones
wrote:
>Ah yes, it was most definitely you. Do you work for Microsoft?
Like I said, "Please provide evidence of this vicious attack."
Shall I:
----------------------------------------------
Me:
On my Win7 32-bit I see not heavy CPU (Intel dual core) usage at all.
Opening any folder sees explorer.exe jump up by 5-10% cpu usage for a
split second and then back down again. Certainly less cpu usage than
Avast and MBAM.
You:
"This is on 2 different computers that I tested it so are you saying
both my computers are equally fucked? I don't think so."
Me:
I am not saying anything about your computers.
Unless of course, as two computers is a very small test sample, both
your computers are, as you so eloquently put it, "fucked".
You:
Yea, the usual argument of an idiot
Me:
Don't be so hard on yourself as I was not blaming the hardware or OS
config.
You really are a bit slow on the uptake aren't you?
It was not my intention to apportion blame anywhere. But looking back,
maybe the operator, being a complete and utter moron, must take the
credit. In case you still don't get the point, that is YOU!
You:
You have no point except to try and contradict me so fuck off wanker.
Me:
Such bad language. Not very good in a debate are you?
You:
I've been using computers since 1989. That's probably at least 20
years longer than you, numbnuts.
----------------------------------------------
So there you have it.
You showed yourself up for a fool and then change you name so you can
come back and attempt to do the same again (and succeeded).
Paul Jones
wrote:
>BTW, looks like you were the dweeb fuckstick now that we have other
>experienced people confirming what I claimed all along. Where's your
>apology, fuckstick?
Wow, the only thing that makes any sense in that sentence is the
profanity. English is not your first language?
Now go away and come back with you next name change.
Paul Jones
<dwho...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:52:18 -0400, Paul Jones <ne...@news-only.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>> This will become the standard anti-malware software before too long.
>
>I expect many people will wait to see if it lasts longer than MSAV.
Time will tell but take up so far tells a different story.
Luckily for the other anti-malware developers MS are not going to bundle
it with the OS or offer any incentives for OEMs to bundle it with PCs.
They should still expect their sales to reduce though as the MSE has no
'pay' version. You get real-time scanning for free and likely as
features are added they will be available to all for free (no Pro
versions etc).
Sock-Puppets Exposed
Beckett <bec...@work.invlaid> wrote:
>BTW, looks like you were the dweeb fuckstick now that we have other
>experienced people confirming what I claimed all along. Where's your
>apology, fuckstick?
How about I shove my foot up your ass, shitlicking jackass?
You think that being rude gives you credibility?
Nobody even thinks that you have a single braincells, doofus.
Joe Moore
>On 30 Sep 2009 14:56:34 -0000, acav <rema...@reece.net.au> wrote:
>
>>http://xrl.us/MSEreview
>
>Paul Thurrott writes on 19/10/2009 at:
>http://community.winsupersite.com/blogs/paul/archive/2009/10/19/microsoft-security-essentials-update.aspx
>
>"Microsoft previously reported that its new Security Essentials
>anti-malware solution (see my review) had garnered 1.5 million downloads
>in its first week of availability. Well, the numbers keep going up:
>After two weeks, the download total stood at 2.6 million....."
Talk about "spin"!
If the first week saw 1.5 million downloads and the second week saw
1.2 million (2.6 million total after two weeks minus 1.5 million of
those which were downloaded the first week), the numbers are going
DOWN, not UP!
Or does the author believe the fact that the TOTAL is increasing is
really news?
_ _
joemooreaterolsdotcom
Joe Moore
I could spin it and say that I was giving Microsoft credit for an
aditional .1 million downloads the second week, but actually, I goofed
on the numbers. Regardless, 1.5 million downloads the first week and
1.1 million downloads the next week is still a declining trend.
>
>
>_ _
>joemooreaterolsdotcom
_ _
joemooreaterolsdotcom
Paul Jones
wrote:
>Joe Moore <mun...@bad.example.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul Jones <ne...@news-only.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On 30 Sep 2009 14:56:34 -0000, acav <rema...@reece.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://xrl.us/MSEreview
>>>
>>>Paul Thurrott writes on 19/10/2009 at:
>>>http://community.winsupersite.com/blogs/paul/archive/2009/10/19/microsoft-security-essentials-update.aspx
>>>
>>>"Microsoft previously reported that its new Security Essentials
>>>anti-malware solution (see my review) had garnered 1.5 million downloads
>>>in its first week of availability. Well, the numbers keep going up:
>>>After two weeks, the download total stood at 2.6 million....."
>>
>>Talk about "spin"!
>>
>>If the first week saw 1.5 million downloads and the second week saw
>>1.2 million (2.6 million total after two weeks minus 1.5 million of
>>those which were downloaded the first week), the numbers are going
>>DOWN, not UP!
>>
>>Or does the author believe the fact that the TOTAL is increasing is
>>really news?
Well the author does not have show much bias towards other MS products
(and often quite the opposite) so I have little reason to be live he is
trying to spin anything here.
>I could spin it and say that I was giving Microsoft credit for an
>aditional .1 million downloads the second week, but actually, I goofed
>on the numbers. Regardless, 1.5 million downloads the first week and
>1.1 million downloads the next week is still a declining trend.
Have you any data to show that this is not normal for all software new
and *first* releases? If not your summarising shows nothing.
If the numbers are going up. It is an upwards trend, no matter how much
*you* try to *spin* it.
Be interesting to see how many downloads of any of the other
anti-malware solutions there were in their first weeks.
Much MUCH lower I would think.
Joe Moore
>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:19:54 -0400, Joe Moore <mun...@bad.example.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Joe Moore <mun...@bad.example.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Paul Jones <ne...@news-only.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 30 Sep 2009 14:56:34 -0000, acav <rema...@reece.net.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>http://xrl.us/MSEreview
>>>>
>>>>Paul Thurrott writes on 19/10/2009 at:
>>>>http://community.winsupersite.com/blogs/paul/archive/2009/10/19/microsoft-security-essentials-update.aspx
>>>>
>>>>"Microsoft previously reported that its new Security Essentials
>>>>anti-malware solution (see my review) had garnered 1.5 million downloads
>>>>in its first week of availability. Well, the numbers keep going up:
>>>>After two weeks, the download total stood at 2.6 million....."
>>>
>>>Talk about "spin"!
>>>
>>>If the first week saw 1.5 million downloads and the second week saw
>>>1.2 million (2.6 million total after two weeks minus 1.5 million of
>>>those which were downloaded the first week), the numbers are going
>>>DOWN, not UP!
>>>
>>>Or does the author believe the fact that the TOTAL is increasing is
>>>really news?
>
>Well the author does not have show much bias towards other MS products
>(and often quite the opposite) so I have little reason to be live he is
>trying to spin anything here.
You might be right. It could be he just didn't give much thought to
what he said.
>
>>I could spin it and say that I was giving Microsoft credit for an
>>aditional .1 million downloads the second week, but actually, I goofed
>>on the numbers. Regardless, 1.5 million downloads the first week and
>>1.1 million downloads the next week is still a declining trend.
>
>Have you any data to show that this is not normal for all software new
>and *first* releases?
No.
>If not your summarising shows nothing.
>If the numbers are going up. It is an upwards trend, no matter how much
>*you* try to *spin* it.
According to your logic, if only 3 copies were download next week, two
the week after, and one the week after that, it would still be an
upward trend because the TOTAL is going up even though rate of
downlading is obviously going down. Would it take an outbreak of folks
*uploading* the software before you conceded a downward trend?
>Be interesting to see how many downloads of any of the other
>anti-malware solutions there were in their first weeks.
>Much MUCH lower I would think.
That may very well be true. But it still wouldn't make the fact their
TOTAL numbers increased from week to week newsworthy. It's hard to
imagine any other possibility unless their server broke.
Don't get me wrong. Anything which makes life easier for the average
computer user is fine by me and I hope this product works well and is
easy to use. It's just that hype of any kind annoys me no matter who's
doing it.
_ _
joemooreaterolsdotcom
Dustin Cook
I don't see Microsoft dedicating the time or resources to compete in the
antivirus/antimalware fields. They have enough problems writing code for
the OS that works and doesn't break something...
I don't see this app lasting long or becoming anybodies favorite for
cleaning up an infected machine.
Paul Jones
wrote:
>According to your logic, if only 3 copies were download next week, two
>the week after, and one the week after that, it would still be an
>upward trend because the TOTAL is going up even though rate of
>downlading is obviously going down. Would it take an outbreak of folks
>*uploading* the software before you conceded a downward trend?
>
Paul Jones
wrote:
Ignore last 'incomplete' post.
>According to your logic, if only 3 copies were download next week, two
>the week after, and one the week after that, it would still be an
>upward trend because the TOTAL is going up even though rate of
>downlading is obviously going down.
No, I would see a trend when a trend is set. Many weeks of continuing
lower volume of downloads may indicate a trend but could also indicate
normal download activity.
>Don't get me wrong. Anything which makes life easier for the average
>computer user is fine by me and I hope this product works well and is
>easy to use. It's just that hype of any kind annoys me no matter who's
>doing it.
I hope so and I also hope they quickly iron out the bugs that seem to be
affecting a few people.
Paul Jones
<bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Paul Jones <ne...@news-only.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
>news:d95he5ljq927hjtkc...@4ax.com:
>> Be interesting to see how many downloads of any of the other
>> anti-malware solutions there were in their first weeks.
>> Much MUCH lower I would think.
>
>I don't see Microsoft dedicating the time or resources to compete in the
>antivirus/antimalware fields. They have enough problems writing code for
>the OS that works and doesn't break something...
Like I said, time will tell.
I have no issues with any current MS OS (possibly Vista is the
exception). The only objection I have is they try not to break older
legacy applications when they develop a new OS. Personally I would
prefer if they started an OS from the ground up and to hell with any
existing apps. The OS is the backbone. Application developers need to
develop applications that work in the OS. and not blame their failings
on the OS or MS.
>I don't see this app lasting long or becoming anybodies favorite for
>cleaning up an infected machine.
I see no reason why MS would not continue to develop this and improve on
it.
As a priority I would expect it to prevent infections rather than clean
them up.
Maybe there is some bias to your opinion? There is none to mine. I am a
completely independent party.
Dustin Cook
For the same reasons MS developed (bought) MSAV and MWAV. Malware is a very
time consuming process; and it takes people seriously dedicated to it on
both sides. If preventing infections 100% of the time could be achieved I'd
be out of a job, along with thousands of others in this field. :)
I suppose one could suspect bias with my opinion, but I believe I've had
the same opinion of malware in general long before I ever worked for an
antimalware company. I really try not to get work related things mixed up
with personal opinions of this or that.
Elmer Fudd
> Nobody even thinks that you have a single braincells,
That's an oxymoron.
Lil' Abner
news:Xns9CB2A953A88...@69.16.185.247:
> Paul Jones <ne...@news-only.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
> news:d95he5ljq927hjtkc...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:19:54 -0400, Joe Moore
>> <mun...@bad.example.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Joe Moore <mun...@bad.example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Paul Jones <ne...@news-only.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 30 Sep 2009 14:56:34 -0000, acav <rema...@reece.net.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://xrl.us/MSEreview
>>>>>
>>>>>Paul Thurrott writes on 19/10/2009 at:
>>>>>http://community.winsupersite.com/blogs/paul/archive/2009/10/19/micr
>>>>>o soft-security-essentials-update.aspx
Nope. I think your Malwarebytes has the market on that. But I was hoping
that MSE would be turn out to be top notch realtime protection.
I just installed Windows 7 Saturday and immediately installed MSE. It
acts the same way it did in XP and Vista. And this was before I
installed *anything* else. And I changed my mind, it is *not* tolerable
on a quad core". :-)
So to whoever it was that said that "other processes" were interfering
with it, then Windows itself must be interfering with it.
I uninstalled it right away so it wouldn't slow down the installation of
all my applications.
Chief Scratchum
I *love* parties!