Is Microsoft Security Esentials better the Mcafe Total protection?

[GeneralSGJist]

Ya, was wondering which would be better as a security software?
Running windows 7 32 bit

[CNCGeek101]

it does the job but is a little more strict in some cases which result in more false positives. Norton Internet Security 2011 and Kaspersky 2011 both are rated highest due to low memory footprints and less likely hood of false positive detections.

Depends on what you are looking for though.

[RedAlert2008]

tbh geek i wouldnt recommend Norton to anyone....all i have heard is bad reports about it.

[Zhen]

Mcafee is just garbage, I think they're only good product is their site advisor.

I personally wouldn't recommend Norton as I've had issues and bad experience with it, but that's up to you.I can echo on the suggestion of Kaspersky 2011 though, really like it.

Of course, remember that prevention is better than cure.

[CyborgBanana]

McAfee - Good, but not worth a subscription.
Norton - Really, really don't recommend it.
MS Security Essentials - Excellent, better then every other Anti-Virus software I've used.

[Zocom7]

MS Security Essentials = tons of problems = not recommended
McAfree = safe but uses up lots of computer resources = not recommended
Norton = low memory usage (the best so far) = highly recommended

What's wrong with Norton? The only issue with Norton is a 90-day subscription in which you later have to pay a hefty fee to continue the subscription. It's better off by cracking the subscription (that resets the subscription when it expires) unless you got a full version oem version which is free to download if you could find it. The latest version of Norton Internet Security = don't like the new features though. I still use NIS 2009 and I pretty satisfied by that version.

I reason why I hate MS Security Essentials now is what happened to connecting to the Internet no matter which Windows OS I am in, you update the definitions and guess what happened next, I can no longer connect to the Internet correctly due to the part it leads to my whole system freezing by a crash. Why? That ****ing spyware DRM was being installed invisibly by Microsoft, just like Windows Defender. Both MS Security Essentials and Defender are considered as unsafe programs unless you get rid of the hidden DRM spyware.

[Kyang]

Spyware DRM? It's a free program, and the OS you're using is from MS. They don't need DRM on a free program, and they definitely don't need to install extra spyware on their own OS if they wanted to spy on you, lol.

Maybe you meant something else, like the thing about verifying that you're using "Genuine Windows" they require before installing MSE? That's also something Windows itself already does too.

[CNCGeek101]

McAfee - Good, but not worth a subscription.
Norton - Really, really don't recommend it.
MS Security Essentials - Excellent, better then every other Anti-Virus software I've used.

This is not norton of 2008 guys. Even several Publications starting with Norton 2010 to 2011 says it's back to being the king. Both 2010 and 2011 versions use lower memory footprints. After Norton 2008 was rated poorly they went in and redesigned everything. Reviews speaks for themselves as well. It doesn't matter what people say, the critics merely state Norton Internet Seecurity 2011 and Kaspersky 2011 is the way to go. Norton's low memory footprint helps gamers a lot with it's silent mode being turned on whenever you start gaming which the critics love about it. Kaspersky 2011 has slightly better leak protection than Norton Internet Security 2011 but Kasperksy lacks a few points in other areas where Norton Internet Security 2011 scores a few points better.

Microsoft Security Essentials is not meant to edge out the competition but was created because a lot of Windows users were not using protection at all in some cases and others were using inefficient protection that came with their system bundles which almost usually is McAfee or a Trend Micro product.

Usually the people who bash Norton Internet Security 2011 today most likely don't know how to use it or still use Bit-Comet clients which can disable Norton Products and any other security suite because of loopholes in the Bit-Comet client that sllows seeder machines to access a system vulnerability which Microsoft still hasn't fixed since the Vista days and is extremely potent on Windows XP systems.

My system stays clean with a combination of the following:

- Norton Internet Security 2011
- Malwarebytes

If some of you download torrents a lot then I cannot guarantee your current security suite will keep you safe. The most common attack today is when you get infected your security suites get disabled outright. This is a huge risk when downloading torrents as you open the door for attacks despite being secure because you granted a computer access to download it's file to yours or the other way around.

You have to be computer smart and use common sense. If you use common sense on the internet then you'll stay clean like I do. So long as you lay off the illegal downloading and visiting unsafe sites you will stay clean. If you continue to visit such unsafe sites and download through illegal you run the risk and makes any security suite installed moot at this point.

[ohither]

avast is the best of the lot really

[CNCGeek101]

avast is the best of the lot really

Avast didn't pass the most recent tests done most security firms when testing such security suites. If Avast and AVG had a firewall attached like Kaspersky and Norton does then we'd probably see more of a neck and neck battle. The reason why Kaspersky and Norton does well is because of the included robust firewall solutions they bring to the table and Windows Firewall isn't that good on it's own. Windows Firewall is one of the more cheesy solutions and things get through which security experts call "Leaks".

[Zocom7]

I am going with agree with CNCGeek on this one, since Norton and Kaspersky have the best all-in-one security suites by far. But overall after reading the articles and results in PC World, PC Magazine and other tech websites, Norton Internet Security is still an epic win.

[JaguarXKR-S]

Nod ESET security suite is still the best anti virus. It takes very minimal of your computer.
Kaspersky and Avast are tied for second.


MSE is actually a fantastic anti-virus. Its nothing like the two listed above, but it does do a great job for a free anti-virus.

[CNCGeek101]

Nod ESET causes a lot of problems for gamers than what is needed to withstand. A Plethora of Game Developers will steer you clear of NOD ESET in favor of Norton or Kaspersky products outright. When it comes to the critics it just doesn't have the features and user friendliness that Norton and Kaspersky bring to the table.

If you're advanced in knowledge of computers then by all means use Nod ESET otherwise stick with the known brands that are readily available in stores near you.

[Heron]

*hands up*

How good is AVG?

[CNCGeek101]

*hands up*

How good is AVG?

AVG is a very good suite since they overhauled the interface. If you step up to the AVG Internet Security package you get another added chunk of protection. AVG gets the job done in the end but not as robust as other suites. AVG has become more user friendly with each new version but still suffers the same problems as Avast, BitDefender, and Comodo products at finding false positive detections especially with games that receive constant updates such as MMO games and more.

[Heron]

So the real issue is with false positives, which Norton seems to do pretty well recently. I know the pain with false positives though, Maplestory seems to get them all the time...

I guess the real good thing with AVG is that its anti-virus suite is free...

[Zhen]

Avira's a good one, if you're looking for free anti virus that is. Only downsides is that it'll constantly annoy you to buy and it's very paranoid when detecting stuff, but I guess that was due to me putting heuristics to high, lol.

I can't really vouch for Nod32 or AVG though as I've never used them. I tried Avast though, I don't understand what's so special about it...

[Zocom7]

The thing with the Internet security protection nowadays, no program is perfect. The reason why I still like Norton is because you can update and download cumulative virus and spyware definitions as well as other definitions (after not being updated for more than several days). Most other programs look kinda weak with definition updates.

[m4dn3ss]

Come on, Norton isn't bad, in fact it's one of the best, it's the old versions that are bad.
But I don't like how it has very few technical options, compared to Kaspersky, but unfortunately that uses too much RAM and stuff.
At the moment I use nothing, I fight the viruses myself :p

[Commander_Alt_F4]

meh the best security is not going to the net dowloading torrent and pr0n, and using browsers that use the no-script plug-in, and updating windows (30% is security, the rest is pretty much bloated code)

Edit: i use linux, and it has some strict security which make it much more secured than windows even with antivirus so im safe :P

[CNCGeek101]

meh the best security is not going to the net dowloading torrent and pr0n, and using browsers that use the no-script plug-in, and updating windows (30% is security, the rest is pretty much bloated code)

Edit: i use linux, and it has some strict security which make it much more secured than windows even with antivirus so im safe :P

Linux is not a large target for viruses because it's an advanced OS and not many people use it. Windows has dominated the scene and it's why viruses target it so much. MAC OS X is finally getting the virus treatment as well since more people have gone the Mac route these days.

[Commander_Alt_F4]

Linux is not a large target for viruses because it's an advanced OS and not many people use it. Windows has dominated the scene and it's why viruses target it so much. MAC OS X is finally getting the virus treatment as well since more people have gone the Mac route these days.

actually that's not entirely the reason its safe, its true that windows is a big target because the majority of pc has windows installed on it (specially on my country), which makes windows easily the largest user base, but linux its not easy to create a virus that surely will damage the pc. when i said strict security i mean strict.

unlike windows.no software can access the system without a password, except those that u defined manually or automatically with a pass.
Like i said, whatever OS u are all u need its no torrent, no pr0n, disable scripts in the browser, and update your OS, and you're safe

[CNCGeek101]

actually that's not entirely the reason its safe, its true that windows is a big target because the majority of pc has windows installed on it (specially on my country), which makes windows easily the largest user base, but linux its not easy to create a virus that surely will damage the pc. when i said strict security i mean strict.

unlike windows.no software can access the system without a password, except those that u defined manually or automatically with a pass.
Like i said, whatever OS u are all u need its no torrent, no pr0n, disable scripts in the browser, and update your OS, and you're safe

When I became Linux + and Redhat Linux certified 6 years ago, the instructor told everyone what i said earlier. Linux is advanced in nature and has several branches of Operating systems available. Virus makers are more likely to target Windows as it's the general use everyday OS in the world followed by Mac OS X variants and Linux. Example today would be Windows XP is being targeted more in an effort to get more people onto Windows Vista and 7. Eventually these infected Windows XP users will get sick of getting infected through un-patched vulnerabilities and hijacking sites. Soon Windows VIsta will become a target in the same manner Windows XP is.

The problem with Linux going mainstream is it's many variants and constant updates. For Linux to reach the Windows level the open source community that drives it would have to agree on a single version best suited for home use and a version for the technical savvy folks. Am I sounding too complicated yet? Not to mention getting software developers to get on board supporting Linux would be another challenge. Getting game developers to shift resources towards game development in Linux would be another hurdle which would complicate things.

The jump to Linux would make people more secure but that would force the virus creation society to hone in on the OS and target exploits and vulnerability holes that are present to cripple systems.

[Heron]

But really, no OS is safe IMO. It's just how Windows is so popular, that it is easy to spread the damage via a virus.

[Commander_Alt_F4]

When I became Linux + and Redhat Linux certified 6 years ago, the instructor told everyone what i said earlier. Linux is advanced in nature and has several branches of Operating systems available. Virus makers are more likely to target Windows as it's the general use everyday OS in the world followed by Mac OS X variants and Linux. Example today would be Windows XP is being targeted more in an effort to get more people onto Windows Vista and 7. Eventually these infected Windows XP users will get sick of getting infected through un-patched vulnerabilities and hijacking sites. Soon Windows VIsta will become a target in the same manner Windows XP is.

The problem with Linux going mainstream is it's many variants and constant updates. For Linux to reach the Windows level the open source community that drives it would have to agree on a single version best suited for home use and a version for the technical savvy folks. Am I sounding too complicated yet? Not to mention getting software developers to get on board supporting Linux would be another challenge. Getting game developers to shift resources towards game development in Linux would be another hurdle which would complicate things.

The jump to Linux would make people more secure but that would force the virus creation society to hone in on the OS and target exploits and vulnerability holes that are present to cripple systems.

nothing to argue cause thats true, but wait..

"Example today would be Windows XP is being targeted more in an effort to get more people onto Windows Vista and 7"

somehow i dont understand the logic of it...i dont see the reason of making virus "just" to make ppl go to windows 7

besides, linux wasnt specifically made for games, it isnt a game console OS you know

i was just stating that the popularity isnt the only reason a system should be secure like you stated on your previous post

[CNCGeek101]

nothing to argue cause thats true, but wait..

"Example today would be Windows XP is being targeted more in an effort to get more people onto Windows Vista and 7"

somehow i dont understand the logic of it...i dont see the reason of making virus "just" to make ppl go to windows 7


The logic behind this fact is Windows XP contains vulnerabilities that have not been patched out and thus any virus or trojan which seek these out hurt the user in the end. The difference with VISTA and Windows 7 might be they're both immune to these certain viruses and trojans but XP is not. Make sense now ?

[Kyang]

No, he's just confused by your wording, which made it sound like the hackers are out to help MS get people to migrate to their latest and greatest.

[CNCGeek101]

No, he's just confused by your wording, which made it sound like the hackers are out to help MS get people to migrate to their latest and greatest.

Yes and No. Hackers are so trivial it's hard to tell what they're up to. If a large percentage of users still use XP then they will target them because they know MS is not going to waste much resources updating XP while Vista and 7 are out on the loose.

The common theme though is once a new OS comes out usually the hackers start drumming through previous OS code to find holes and create havoc that way.

[Kyang]

Hackers are so trivial it's hard to tell what they're up to.

Right, he was just confused by your wording which sounded like they were all on MS's side, trying to push upgrades. As you say, they have their own agenda's, whatever they are, it maybe pushing upgrades, or whatever else.

[Commander_Alt_F4]

Right, he was just confused by your wording which sounded like they were all on MS's side, trying to push upgrades. As you say, they have their own agenda's, whatever they are, it maybe pushing upgrades, or whatever else.

my question is now answered, thanks for helping him understand the question i was doing Kyang