Anyone Tried Microsoft Security Essentials?

and how does it rank against other free antivrus software?

One of the best and possibly the best

As someone who removes viruses from computers as a part of his job, I'll say this: you get what you pay for.

Think about it like you might think about safe sex. Having some protection is better than having none. At the same time, however, would you rather name brand virus protection, or the kind dispensed from the restroom at your local 7-11?

As someone who removes viruses from computers as a part of his job, I'll say this: you get what you pay for.

Think about it like you might think about safe sex. Having some protection is better than having none. At the same time, however, would you rather name brand virus protection, or the kind dispensed from the restroom at your local 7-11?

[QUOTE="sundown19"]

As someone who removes viruses from computers as a part of his job, I'll say this: you get what you pay for.

Think about it like you might think about safe sex. Having some protection is better than having none. At the same time, however, would you rather name brand virus protection, or the kind dispensed from the restroom at your local 7-11?

SilverSignal

Whoa there! I didn't say that at all. The fact of the matter is, NO antivirus software is 100% perfect; I haven't seen one yet that will catch everything.

...but I HAVE seen a LOT of computers come in with free antivirus software that viruses just seem to slip by. I've seen viruses slip by non-free software as well, but not to the extent that they do the free ones.

You can have the best, most expensive antivirus software out there, but if you continually do risky things online, you're asking for trouble.

I use it. It's great.

Pretty solid.

[QUOTE="SilverSignal"][QUOTE="sundown19"]

As someone who removes viruses from computers as a part of his job, I'll say this: you get what you pay for.

Think about it like you might think about safe sex. Having some protection is better than having none. At the same time, however, would you rather name brand virus protection, or the kind dispensed from the restroom at your local 7-11?

Whoa there! I didn't say that at all. The fact of the matter is, NO antivirus software is 100% perfect; I haven't seen one yet that will catch everything.

...but I HAVE seen a LOT of computers come in with free antivirus software that viruses just seem to slip by. I've seen viruses slip by non-free software as well, but not to the extent that they do the free ones.

You can have the best, most expensive antivirus software out there, but if you continually do risky things online, you're asking for trouble.

It's free and it doesn't take up as much harddrive as other softwares. It won't do processes you don't want it to do (like norton) and won't eat your RAM.

In my opinion, its the best you can get when it comes to antiviruses. :D

As someone who removes viruses from computers as a part of his job, I'll say this: you get what you pay for.

sundown19

That can't be true because Norton doesn't pay you to use their AV.

[QUOTE="sundown19"]

As someone who removes viruses from computers as a part of his job, I'll say this: you get what you pay for.

metroidfood

That can't be true because Norton doesn't pay you to use their AV.

Yeah I use it and it's really good, pair it with malwarebytes and your computer will be very secure.

Free and amazing

That good? AVG still does a good job for me but if it ever goes awry in any way, at least I've found a replacement.

I love it, and it works very well.

Very high quality for free software.

Yeah I use it and it's really good, pair it with malwarebytes and your computer will be very secure.

nickz_fpk

For free software you can't beat it

I used to use AVG for years when I worked on someones computer that had it and I marveled at how small it was, how little resources it used, and how efficient it was at scanning and updating it self.

I went home about a year ago and uninstalled AVG and installed MSSE.
Haven't looked back since it intergrates almost guaranteed with the windows OS and its constant telling you your antivirus is out of date.

I use it because it's not as intruding as Mcafee and Norton. Those two always show pop ups like 500 times an hour whenever I have them.

I use it because it's not as intruding as Mcafee and Norton. Those two always show pop ups like 500 times an hour whenever I have them.

NiKva

That good? AVG still does a good job for me but if it ever goes awry in any way, at least I've found a replacement.

Spitfirer

I used AVG for a long time, after it failed me, along with norton( which I thought was a complete joke) I checked out MSE. It's great, does the job well, is not a RAM hog, doesn't force you to do things, etc. very nice. As someone else said in the tread, pair it with a good malware defender, and your set.

One of the best and possibly the best

James161324

Pretty much this. Its fast, light, runs quietly in the background and works great. I used to have avg a very long time ago until it became a resource hog. Avira is very good too but it has popups which you can disable after doing a few things.

MSE simply works perfectly from the start and have been using it for quite some time now and hasn't failed me.

[QUOTE="NiKva"]

I use it because it's not as intruding as Mcafee and Norton. Those two always show pop ups like 500 times an hour whenever I have them.

PernicioEnigma

Is it better than avast? I'm going to try it out right now.-Shooter-

Check out AVTest (http://www.av-test.org/en/home/ ...sorry...link not working)...they research antivirus programs. Their most recent test reports are from Q2 2011.

Microsoft Security Essentials 2.0: Protection score 2.5/6.0

Avast: Free AntiVirus 6.0: Protection score 5.0/6.0

Symantec: Norton Internet Security 2011: Protection score 5.0/6.0

Kaspersky: Internet Security 2011 & 2012: Protection score 5.5/6.0

These are just a few examples. See the whole list here (http://www.av-test.org/en/tests/test-reports/quarter-22011/), for all rankings and reviews. Avast Free is in the top 10. AVG is in the top 10, but it doesn't look like it's the free version.

[QUOTE="metroidfood"]

[QUOTE="sundown19"]

As someone who removes viruses from computers as a part of his job, I'll say this: you get what you pay for.

Allicrombie

I use it, no problems.

Use another scanner like malwarebytes every now and again too, it'll often pick up stuff that other AVs won't.

I use it and it works fine. You don't have to run it in the background either. That's why I stopped using other services.

It protects my computer with the added benefit of not sticking out in my face. It's a great antivirus, never had issues while using it.

I thought it was good. However, it recently failed me in a rather catastrophic way.

As someone who removes viruses from computers as a part of his job, I'll say this: you get what you pay for.

Think about it like you might think about safe sex. Having some protection is better than having none. At the same time, however, would you rather name brand virus protection, or the kind dispensed from the restroom at your local 7-11?

sundown19

[QUOTE="sundown19"]

As someone who removes viruses from computers as a part of his job, I'll say this: you get what you pay for.

Think about it like you might think about safe sex. Having some protection is better than having none. At the same time, however, would you rather name brand virus protection, or the kind dispensed from the restroom at your local 7-11?

IZoMBiEI

You're entitled to your opinion, but just saying that I'm "wrong" doesn't really mean anything.

Try this article: http://www.pcworld.com/article/210589/free_vs_fee_free_and_paid_antivirus_programs_compared.html

We found that, on the whole, paid antivirus products did a slightly better job at detecting malware than their freebie counterparts...

In real-world detection tests, free products missed 15.2 percent of samples, while paid products missed 10.2 percent of samples.

All the products we tested--both paid and free--detected all the test infections we threw their way, but paid products did a slightly better job overall at removing the active components of an infection, scoring a 74 percent success rate on average. The same held true when we tested how well the products removed all active and inactive components of an infection: Paid products achieved a 44 percent removal rate in this test, while free products averaged a full removal rate of 34 percent.

Also see: http://www.securitynewsdaily.com/do-you-really-need-to-pay-for-anti-virus-software-0876/

The only noticeable difference between the gratis and the paid programs was when it came to detecting some new threats, such as a website laced with newly created malware. Paid products, with their more elaborate system behavior monitors, are more likely to pick those up and to warn you about other possible dangers.

Free programs generally offer no telephone technical support. This can be a deal-breaker for any small business, or a family with multiple computer users.

And free programs don't, as a rule, offer parental controls that can keep kids off inappropriate sites or warn them about cyberstalking and bullying.

Free programs often also include advertising. This can be negligible, but ceaseless pop-up boxes pestering you to sign up for the paid version of whatever you're using can be quite distracting.

In the you-get-what-you-pay-for category, the paid programs are usually easier to install and run, and have fewer conflicts with other applications.

[QUOTE="IZoMBiEI"][QUOTE="sundown19"]

As someone who removes viruses from computers as a part of his job, I'll say this: you get what you pay for.

Think about it like you might think about safe sex. Having some protection is better than having none. At the same time, however, would you rather name brand virus protection, or the kind dispensed from the restroom at your local 7-11?

sundown19

You're entitled to your opinion, but just saying that I'm "wrong" doesn't really mean anything.

Try this article: http://www.pcworld.com/article/210589/free_vs_fee_free_and_paid_antivirus_programs_compared.html

We found that, on the whole, paid antivirus products did a slightly better job at detecting malware than their freebie counterparts...

In real-world detection tests, free products missed 15.2 percent of samples, while paid products missed 10.2 percent of samples.

All the products we tested--both paid and free--detected all the test infections we threw their way, but paid products did a slightly better job overall at removing the active components of an infection, scoring a 74 percent success rate on average. The same held true when we tested how well the products removed all active and inactive components of an infection: Paid products achieved a 44 percent removal rate in this test, while free products averaged a full removal rate of 34 percent.

Also see: http://www.securitynewsdaily.com/do-you-really-need-to-pay-for-anti-virus-software-0876/

The only noticeable difference between the gratis and the paid programs was when it came to detecting some new threats, such as a website laced with newly created malware. Paid products, with their more elaborate system behavior monitors, are more likely to pick those up and to warn you about other possible dangers.

Free programs generally offer no telephone technical support. This can be a deal-breaker for any small business, or a family with multiple computer users.

And free programs don't, as a rule, offer parental controls that can keep kids off inappropriate sites or warn them about cyberstalking and bullying.

Free programs often also include advertising. This can be negligible, but ceaseless pop-up boxes pestering you to sign up for the paid version of whatever you're using can be quite distracting.

In the you-get-what-you-pay-for category, the paid programs are usually easier to install and run, and have fewer conflicts with other applications.

From the beginning, this is all I was saying: Some protection is better than no protection, but the protection you pay for is, on the whole, better protection. This is not meant to negate free antivirus programs, merely to point out that "free" does not always equal "the same" or "better".

[QUOTE="sundown19"]

As someone who removes viruses from computers as a part of his job, I'll say this: you get what you pay for.

Think about it like you might think about safe sex. Having some protection is better than having none. At the same time, however, would you rather name brand virus protection, or the kind dispensed from the restroom at your local 7-11?

IZoMBiEI

How in the world is Kapersky garbage?

You're entitled to your opinion, but just saying that I'm "wrong" doesn't really mean anything.

Try this article: http://www.pcworld.com/article/210589/free_vs_fee_free_and_paid_antivirus_programs_compared.html

sundown19

Except, he's more than likely right in this case;

MSE more effective than McAfee: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/microsoft-vs-mcafee-how-free-antivirus-outperformed-paid/2614

Third party AV tester showed extremely good results for MSE: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10366232-83.html

For the primary purpose of virus and malware removal, its seriously difficult to recommend a home user anything other than free AV.