Microsoft Security Essentials -- how effective?

[Percival P. Cassidy]

On WinXP I was using the CA Internet Security Suite Plus, and I don't
think there was a day went by without at least one update becoming
available -- and sometimes two or more.

On Win7 I have installed Microsoft Security Essentials, and often the
updates are days apart. Isn't my machine more vulnerable with MSE than
with the CA product?

Perce

 

[Ken Blake]

On WinXP I was using the CA Internet Security Suite Plus, and I don't
think there was a day went by without at least one update becoming
available -- and sometimes two or more.

On Win7 I have installed Microsoft Security Essentials, and often the
updates are days apart. Isn't my machine more vulnerable with MSE than
with the CA product?

There are many differences in quality between different security
products. Frequency of updating is only one of them. In my view, MSE
is the better of the two products.


Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003

 

[Dave]

On WinXP I was using the CA Internet Security Suite Plus, and I don't
think there was a day went by without at least one update becoming
available -- and sometimes two or more.

On Win7 I have installed Microsoft Security Essentials, and often the
updates are days apart. Isn't my machine more vulnerable with MSE than
with the CA product?

Perce

I haven't done a controlled survey, but it seems like I get an update every
day with MSE. Either way, what made me decide to switch to MSE was a
controlled experiment that showed MSE ranked as high or higher than most of
the well-known antivirus software in catching viruses. I don't think they
could have gotten that ranking if they weren't current in their definitions.
I will admit, there are times when I'm going to do a manual scan that I will
do a manual check for updates so the automatic may not work 100%, I can't
say. MSE's only real limitation, if you wanted to consider it that, is that
it is only antivirus and not a suite. Then again, if you add in Windows
Firewall, that changes somewhat.
Just my .02 worth,
Dave

 

[SC Tom]

On WinXP I was using the CA Internet Security Suite Plus, and I don't
think there was a day went by without at least one update becoming
available -- and sometimes two or more.

On Win7 I have installed Microsoft Security Essentials, and often the
updates are days apart. Isn't my machine more vulnerable with MSE than
with the CA product?

Perce

I installed MSE on my Win7 notebook and found, like Dave, that it updated
very day. I felt it worked well while I had it ( I didn't catch anything
nasty), but I uninstalled it and went back to ZAISS.
It always seemed to take forever to start up, and would give errors about no
protection until it finally did. More than half the time, I would have to go
in and start it up manually since it seemed to hang on not starting. I had
tried it earlier on my step-daughter's XP machine, and it reacted the same
way, but I thought maybe it was just an MSE-XP thing.
Other than the start-up issue, I was pleased enough with it. But I would
rather have protection when Windows starts and I'm ready to go online or do
other things, not have to wait for the protection to start or have to start
it manually.

 

[EW]

I've installed MSSE software on 4 Windows systems, 2 Vistas and 2 XP SP2
machines. I'm convinced it's a fine AV security program and it does as
advertised! However.....

MSSE takes control shortly after system boot-up and doesn't let go until
it's through with its daily updates and whatever else it does. Even
disabling it in MSCONFIG will not prevent it from its hold on the
system. The effect on system resources is almost tolerable in Vista but
tough on older XP systems.

Nevertheless, it's an effective AV program.

EW

 

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

I've installed MSSE software on 4 Windows systems, 2 Vistas and 2 XP SP2
machines. I'm convinced it's a fine AV security program and it does as
advertised! However.....

MSSE takes control shortly after system boot-up and doesn't let go until
it's through with its daily updates and whatever else it does. Even
disabling it in MSCONFIG will not prevent it from its hold on the
system. The effect on system resources is almost tolerable in Vista but
tough on older XP systems.

Nevertheless, it's an effective AV program.

EW

MSE does not take control so it has no need to let go!

I have not noticed any startup delay with MSE on any systems no matter
how old or slow they are.

Steve

 

[XS11E]

I installed MSE on my Win7 notebook and found, like Dave, that it
updated very day. I felt it worked well while I had it ( I didn't
catch anything nasty), but I uninstalled it and went back to
ZAISS. It always seemed to take forever to start up, and would
give errors about no protection until it finally did. More than
half the time, I would have to go in and start it up manually
since it seemed to hang on not starting.

Sounds like ZA failed to uninstall as usual. Did you use add/remove
programs and then follow their website directions to delete all the
registry keys, .dll files, folders, etc. that the uninstall leaves
behind?

One reason ZA rates near the top of my malware list is the failure of
it's uninstaller to remove bits that continue to interfere with other
programs....

 

[Percival P. Cassidy]

I installed MSE on my Win7 notebook and found, like Dave, that it
updated very day. I felt it worked well while I had it ( I didn't catch
anything nasty), but I uninstalled it and went back to ZAISS.
It always seemed to take forever to start up, and would give errors
about no protection until it finally did. More than half the time, I
would have to go in and start it up manually since it seemed to hang on
not starting. I had tried it earlier on my step-daughter's XP machine,
and it reacted the same way, but I thought maybe it was just an MSE-XP
thing.
Other than the start-up issue, I was pleased enough with it. But I would
rather have protection when Windows starts and I'm ready to go online or
do other things, not have to wait for the protection to start or have to
start it manually.

Win7+MSE starts faster than WinXP+CA_ISSP on the same hardware here, but
I have no idea whether that's because Win7 is faster or because MSE is
much "slimmer" than CA_ISSP -- maybe a bit of both.

Perce

 

[SC Tom]

Sounds like ZA failed to uninstall as usual. Did you use add/remove
programs and then follow their website directions to delete all the
registry keys, .dll files, folders, etc. that the uninstall leaves
behind?

One reason ZA rates near the top of my malware list is the failure of
it's uninstaller to remove bits that continue to interfere with other
programs....

It wasn't necessary on my stepdaughter's since ZA was never installed. I
used the ZA removal tool for mine, and it took care of all folders, files,
etc. MSE still acted the same on both machines.

 

[SC Tom]

MSE does not take control so it has no need to let go!

I have not noticed any startup delay with MSE on any systems no matter
how old or slow they are.

Steve

--
Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. www.justnn.com

I know what EW is talking about. Once the systems came up and MSE's
protection started, I guess then it was doing an initial startup scan or
update or something, because there was a very noticeable slowdown of the
systems and lack of ability to start anything soon. This would go on for
anywhere from 3 to 5-6 minutes, every time. Got to the point where I was
just shutting down once a week and hibernating the rest of the time. Somehow
I thought it would cohabitate with either version of Windows I tried it on

 

[Leythos]

I've installed MSSE software on 4 Windows systems, 2 Vistas and 2 XP SP2
machines. I'm convinced it's a fine AV security program and it does as
advertised! However.....

What do you base your opinion on?

 

[Zaidy036]

I know what EW is talking about. Once the systems came up and MSE's
protection started, I guess then it was doing an initial startup scan
or update or something, because there was a very noticeable slowdown
of the systems and lack of ability to start anything soon. This would
go on for anywhere from 3 to 5-6 minutes, every time. Got to the point
where I was just shutting down once a week and hibernating the rest of
the time. Somehow I thought it would cohabitate with either version of
Windows I tried it on

Look at what program is actually running and Google it to find out what
it is associated with.

If Win Defender was on PC before SE then it must be completely removed
and might not have been during SE install.

 

[SC Tom]

Look at what program is actually running and Google it to find out what
it is associated with.

If Win Defender was on PC before SE then it must be completely removed
and might not have been during SE install.

It was MSE that was hogging the resources. Defender was never installed on
one system, and totally uninstalled on the other.

Believe me, I went through all this at the time. I spent more time on Google
and MS Support/ TechNet/ newsgroups than I did actually doing anything LOL!
(Since I'm retired, I had the time.) After trying probably hundreds of
suggestions and possible fixes, I gave up and went back to ZA.

 

[PeeCee]

I installed MSE on my Win7 notebook and found, like Dave, that it updated
very day. I felt it worked well while I had it ( I didn't catch anything
nasty), but I uninstalled it and went back to ZAISS.
It always seemed to take forever to start up, and would give errors about
no protection until it finally did. More than half the time, I would have
to go in and start it up manually since it seemed to hang on not starting.
I had tried it earlier on my step-daughter's XP machine, and it reacted
the same way, but I thought maybe it was just an MSE-XP thing.
Other than the start-up issue, I was pleased enough with it. But I would
rather have protection when Windows starts and I'm ready to go online or
do other things, not have to wait for the protection to start or have to
start it manually.

SC Tom

Putting it on a lower spec machine with not enough RAM and a well worn OS is
almost guaranteed to cause MSE to take 10 - 15 minutes to start up.
Seen it many times on budget XP machines with sub 1GB of RAM.
Throwing in another 1GB of RAM usually improves it considerably.

Best
Paul.

 

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

Putting it on a lower spec machine with not enough RAM and a well worn OS is
almost guaranteed to cause MSE to take 10 - 15 minutes to start up.
Seen it many times on budget XP machines with sub 1GB of RAM.
Throwing in another 1GB of RAM usually improves it considerably.

I don't think that's the cause of slow start up. I use MSE on an old
XP system with only 512MB of RAM. It takes about a minute to start.
MSE on my 4GB Windows 7 system is no faster. I still haven't seen this
slow start problem. It could be something to do with update or scan
timing.

Steve

 

[Bogey Man]

I don't think that's the cause of slow start up. I use MSE on an old
XP system with only 512MB of RAM. It takes about a minute to start.
MSE on my 4GB Windows 7 system is no faster. I still haven't seen this
slow start problem. It could be something to do with update or scan
timing.

Steve

I get the same results with a similar machine.

If my wireless network is slow for some reason then the boots takes a little
longer.

 

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

I get the same results with a similar machine.

If my wireless network is slow for some reason then the boots takes a little
longer.

I timed MSE from red to green after a restart on my old slow 512MB
machine. It took 32 seconds.

Steve

 

[SC Tom]

SC Tom

Putting it on a lower spec machine with not enough RAM and a well worn OS
is almost guaranteed to cause MSE to take 10 - 15 minutes to start up.
Seen it many times on budget XP machines with sub 1GB of RAM.
Throwing in another 1GB of RAM usually improves it considerably.

Best
Paul.

Since I have a 2.4GHz processor, 280GB HDD free space, and 4GB RAM in my
notebook, I wouldn't really consider it a "lower spec machine." I also
wouldn't consider Windows 7 a "well worn OS." Or did you mean to reply to
someone else? ;-)

 

[Agent_C]

On WinXP I was using the CA Internet Security Suite Plus, and I don't
think there was a day went by without at least one update becoming
available -- and sometimes two or more.

On Win7 I have installed Microsoft Security Essentials, and often the
updates are days apart. Isn't my machine more vulnerable with MSE than
with the CA product?

Perce

AFAIC, Microsoft Security Essentials is a complete game changer.

Better than McAfee or Norton; with the HUGE advantage of not being a
performance hog.

Oh yeah, it's free too.

A_C

 

[Dave]

snip

SC Tom

Putting it on a lower spec machine with not enough RAM and a well worn OS
is almost guaranteed to cause MSE to take 10 - 15 minutes to start up.
Seen it many times on budget XP machines with sub 1GB of RAM.
Throwing in another 1GB of RAM usually improves it considerably.

Best
Paul.

I put MSE on my brother's laptop that had 512MB RAM, running XP and MSE ran
and started fine. After changing to 1GB RAM and refreshing the HD w/XP Pro
w/SP3 I don't see any difference in how MSE runs or starts up. Both seemed
to be the same as my boxes w/Win 7, and when I ran MSE on Vista I didn't
have any problems. There must be some other issue causing the problem.
Dave