JesterOI
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2004
- Messages
- 162
I purposely installed MSE just to piss off the third-party vendors. 
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
MS Crossing the Line by Pushing Security Essentials?
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
when macs take over th eworld we will al be poorer - technology will have taken a step backward because we will be locked into one set of hardware - and we will be inundated with viruses and malware because Apple is way behind the curve in making sure their computers are secure - both in admitting there is a problem and doing something about it.
fiercedeity
n00b
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2009
- Messages
- 24
lol next thing we'll hear is that Microsoft had no business mandating Windows Firewall with XPSP2!!
Comon' ppls, firewall/AV software should just be built into any OS worth it's salt. Of course, it should be able to be disabled or removed from initial OS install if you wish, but it should be standard.
SilverSliver
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Messages
- 12,573
Microsoft has no business including Notepad. It totally stifles competition in that market.
Riccochet
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 30,117
I use MSE and install it on all the computers I work on for people. Very effective and super low footprint make it ideal. Kudos to Microsoft for offering such a superb product, FOR FREE.
It even runs great on older hardware. Can't beat that.
It even runs great on older hardware. Can't beat that.
SilverSliver
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Messages
- 12,573
Every test I've seen puts MSE right with or ahead of every other option. AVG, especially.
Cool, thanks. I think I'll finally give MSE a shot on my Win 7 box.
D
Deleted member 133315
Guest
They would claim that MS is unfair to the competition, by making an OS that is actually secure.
Don't you mean it has alerted you to far more false positives than MCE has? I use Avira and not MCE and it has never found a real virus yet, just false positives.
I saw one person post earlier that he had virus on his XP PC every other month. Hate to think what he is doing with his PC because I have never had a virus in XP and I still have XP running on another PC and have had XP installed since the day XP was first released.
If they did that the EU would fine them for being anti-competitive like they did to them over IE coming pre-installed.
I used MSE when it was first released but soon removed it because it was using more resources than Avira and I like lightweight resident apps. Has that changed?
Is it easy to turn off completely for when I do play games? I don't notice Avira causing any ill effect either when running games either but still disable its monitoring guard when playing a game.
symantec endpoint protection BLOWS. since 9.0 it's gone to crap. it seems to be at least a week behind in getting updates. I get viruses here at a university constantly and SEP just plain sucks. security essentials is 100 times better at catching things, really almost anything else is better.
Oh dear god yes, I removed Avira off a ton of super low end machines and gained a noticeable boost in performance using MSE instead. Been using MSE on and off since it first hit, it was mediocre at best at first but has really turned into one of the best general solutions out now. It is really refreshing to be able to run scans without taking a huge performance hit. Granted there is still better stuff, but all of it costs significantly more. As a former big supporter of AVG and Avast I can honestly say at this time there is no other free product that I find better then MSE.
SilverSliver
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Messages
- 12,573
Your computer would have to be slow as sh!t to notice an effect with any of the lighter weight antivirus software not actively running a full scan while gaming. That was something to do when everyone was stuck with Norton 10+ years ago, but no need anymore.
why would i purchase CRAP from Symantec or McAfee, when Microsoft Security Essentials is MOSTLY far superior, and....
FREE!!!!!
Symantec and McAfee suck. ROYALLY!
That's essentially what the DOJ and a bunch of states did when Microsoft recognized that a web browser had become an essential part of a PC, and included IE so that users could at least use it to download another browser if that is what they wanted.
But they were the evil Microsoft crushing the little guys who weren't able to produce products that were good enough that people wanted to use them instead of what Microsoft was offereing for free.
Some of Microsoft's licensing practices needed to be addressed, but the government should have never stepped in over IE. Netscape had a head start, and lots of cash on hand. They quit making their product better, got complacent, and a lot of their people cased out before the stock tanked. Instead of getting sued for misleading their investors about their future potential, they got painted as the victims.
You aren't going to see an end to virus' and malware. Microsoft and other companies have become much better at addressing vulnerabilities more quickly, but the code base is too huge and there is a vast number of people out there working to break things and build malware to exploit vulnerabilities that are found.
Even if there weren't any bugs, you still have people who foolishly install software from unknown sources and give it permission to access their system. You still need security software to try and recognize when a user has basically installed the malware themselves.
Yeah as a technician I'm kinda miffed this comes standard. It's not a bad idea, but the thing that bothers me more is you can't remove it, only disable it. I'm all for having deep hooks into an OS, as long as they are properly removable, none of this IE6 junk.
Fortunately, I'm well trained in disabling it now, heh
I'm sorry, but this statement shows that you shouldn't be left near modern PCs. If you think that "disabling" Windows Firewall is acceptable in this day and age and leaving your customers without basic protection from getting their systems hosed as soon as they plug in an active Internet connection, you're either a f**king idiot or an opportunistic asshole (preying on the ignorant by trying to "upsell" other security software packages, disabling Windows' built-in utilities in the process).
Either way, you give computer techs (who either do it for a living or as a hobby) a bad name...
Because Microsoft was determined by a court to be a monopoly, they are banned from tieing product together to expand that monopoly into additional markets. They were slapped down for distributing IE with Windows because it was considered a seperate product that Microsoft included in their Windows monopoly and somehow harmed consumers by offering it for free. This was proved by evidence of smack talk by Microsoft developers. The EU's approach on the other hand appeared to use relatively arbitrary rules based on things that haddn't worked in the past, and used them to justify massive fines. There was a huge governmental money grab and lots of lawyers made millions, but I'm not sure how it helped consumers.
Now Apple on the other hand appears to pride itself on doing all the things that Microsoft has been prohibited from doing, because they have never been declared a monopoly. I think the iPod was probably their most dominant product. If the iPod had been declared a monopoly Apple's business model would be illegal. Since Apple has been much better at politics than Microsoft was, they havn't had to deal with such restrictions.
Hop-Scotch
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2010
- Messages
- 954
You forgot to factor in the huge difference in market shares.
Fixe
IIRC, Windows Defender is not Windows Firewall, but rather an antispyware package. It is true that Windows Defender is better than nothing, but disabling it won't get a computer hosed as soon as they plug in their internet connection.
Arcygenical
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 25,066
Or a corporate user that wants to install his own solution that can never fully be the ONLY solution installed on a computer. I have the same issue.
And you give people who jump to conclusions a bad name
Judging from a good majority of the responses on this thread and others regarding MSE, is it really that great? I've been using zonealarm for years and have gotten tired of paying to renew it every year. I was thinking of checking MSE out, is it as good as za? i've never had a virus or problem with it, but just tired of paying for subscriptions. thanks
thanksOn a related note, I read this recently:
Microsoft vs. McAfee: How free antivirus outperformed paid
Microsoft vs. McAfee: How free antivirus outperformed paid
Judging from a good majority of the responses on this thread and others regarding MSE, is it really that great? I've been using zonealarm for years and have gotten tired of paying to renew it every year. I was thinking of checking MSE out, is it as good as za? i've never had a virus or problem with it, but just tired of paying for subscriptions.
Kaspersky provides more verbose virus protection, allowing you to approve every single exe file, every single program that connects to the internet, etc.
But I abandoned Kaspersky over a year ago for MSE and I haven't looked back. MSE is good and light weight. It performed very well on my 4Ghz Core i7 rig, and it performs well on my 1.3GHz C2D laptop.
SEP is a POS, and i never feel it will get better. Every version they first one thing and break 15 other things.
Don't you recall that happening with Vista? Symantec and McAfee bitched that Vista was too secure and that they couldn't have full access to the entire system and went after Microsoft to make Vista less secure
But with windows 7 they turned around and droped that. Now you don't get defender, you don't get mail and you don't get an im program.
Thanks smurf... i've been debating this for a few days, since I had such good luck with zonealarm i wasn't sure if all the attention/hype i've been hearing about MSE would be worth the gamble. I always had malwarebyte's installed on my system to go along with zonealarm. Hmmm maybe MSE is worth a chance.
next-Jin
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 7,389
What type of computer do you have that MSE slows it down? I think Microsoft should ship MSE installed on every single Windows install, then allow it to be replaced by some shit third party application if someone chooses too, be it an individual or a company.
Your a smart fellow, uninstall it yourself. If your smart enough to say you don't need it or want it your smart enough to take the 3 seconds it takes to unintall it. 95% of the PC market are people who are not very bright.
MSE has an issue with XP and older machines, it's a simple fact of life. Now, by "older machines" what I mean is something like this:
- A Celeron, Pentium 4, or something else that's single core
- Under 1GB of RAM, maybe not even working in dual channel mode (like 1 single stick of DDR in a machine)
- a 5400 rpm hard drive for whatever reason
Now, we all understand that old shit is old and in a perfect world nobody would be left behind, stuck with such older machines with such low hardware spec, but they're out there - millions upon millions of them.
For example, I've got a Dell box here that belongs to a guy, it's got 512MB of RAM in it, dual channel DDR 333, with a Pentium D at 2.66 GHz (that's a dual core, btw), running XP Pro SP3. I did a clean install for him just the other day, and it's got nothing but the OS, every update from Windows Update, and the latest drivers for the given hardware in the machine.
If I cold boot the box, get to the Desktop, wait 2 full minutes and then fire up Task Manager, I'll see about 181MB of RAM usage. That's to get the machine up and running.
Then I installed MSE for XP on it, let it update, ran a full first-time scan, came up squeaky clean, and then rebooted the machine. Same principle as before, get to the Desktop, wait 2 full minutes, fire up Task Manager, take a peek at RAM usage.
327MB.
The only thing different is/was the installation and background operation of MSE. Checking more details in Task Manager it'll show that MSE is using a considerable amount of virtual memory, close to 180MB, and peaked at 205MB just to get itself up and running during the boot process.
Not all machines suffer from this, actually - some machines I've worked on have similar specs and they don't have such a hit from MSE and I've never been able to explain it. I even posted at the Microsoft Forums about it along with many other people that have experience with exactly the same thing (MSE taking a lot of resources on XP machines) and even the Microsoft reps can't come up with a decent reason that appeases anyone.
Shit happens, I suppose. It's still the best thing to use in my opinion, but on older lower spec hardware, it's going to affect performance somewhat drastically in certain situations.
- A Celeron, Pentium 4, or something else that's single core
- Under 1GB of RAM, maybe not even working in dual channel mode (like 1 single stick of DDR in a machine)
- a 5400 rpm hard drive for whatever reason
Now, we all understand that old shit is old and in a perfect world nobody would be left behind, stuck with such older machines with such low hardware spec, but they're out there - millions upon millions of them.
For example, I've got a Dell box here that belongs to a guy, it's got 512MB of RAM in it, dual channel DDR 333, with a Pentium D at 2.66 GHz (that's a dual core, btw), running XP Pro SP3. I did a clean install for him just the other day, and it's got nothing but the OS, every update from Windows Update, and the latest drivers for the given hardware in the machine.
If I cold boot the box, get to the Desktop, wait 2 full minutes and then fire up Task Manager, I'll see about 181MB of RAM usage. That's to get the machine up and running.
Then I installed MSE for XP on it, let it update, ran a full first-time scan, came up squeaky clean, and then rebooted the machine. Same principle as before, get to the Desktop, wait 2 full minutes, fire up Task Manager, take a peek at RAM usage.
327MB.
The only thing different is/was the installation and background operation of MSE. Checking more details in Task Manager it'll show that MSE is using a considerable amount of virtual memory, close to 180MB, and peaked at 205MB just to get itself up and running during the boot process.
Not all machines suffer from this, actually - some machines I've worked on have similar specs and they don't have such a hit from MSE and I've never been able to explain it. I even posted at the Microsoft Forums about it along with many other people that have experience with exactly the same thing (MSE taking a lot of resources on XP machines) and even the Microsoft reps can't come up with a decent reason that appeases anyone.
Shit happens, I suppose. It's still the best thing to use in my opinion, but on older lower spec hardware, it's going to affect performance somewhat drastically in certain situations.