Microsoft Security Essentials
in [Spyware]
|
From: Daave on 30 Dec 2009 11:06 siljaline wrote: > David H. Lipman wrote: >> PS: Many report MSE puts a load on the system and drags it down. > > While I have not read of this in these exact words, I am not > surprised to hear this. > Phoning home too much, I would think and more. "Phoning home" implies spyware. That is not the same thing as ensuring you have the most up-to-date antivirus definitions downloaded and installed!
From: PajaP on 30 Dec 2009 11:16 On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:24:18 -0500, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> wrote: >You made a claim Not a claim. A fact. I have no need to BS. >that Avira loads down your system, that MSE doesn't That fact is: Resident protection of Avira or Avast when used together with the resident protection in Malwarebytes Antimalware uses more resources on my PC than just Resident MSE alone. This was in a working situation which is what I am mostly concerned with. In saying that with MSE installed my system does get to a useable state a bit quicker than with any of the other combinations I have tried (though we are talking a few seconds). Mine is not the only system I have encountered this on. I would not describe either of the combinations to be a problem and all combinations worked with little issue. Though MSE causes least load and I do not notice any performance hit when it is running. The other combinations I do notice a slight performance hit when they are running to when they are not. MSE does not nag me so much (at all). These are the reasons (less resources and no nagging) I chose to use MSE over any of the other combinations. The other software stays installed, just without any memory resident components running (just in case I may ever have need to use them). If MSE ever causes me any issues then it will be removed if there is no quick fix available. If I see any other software that appears to meet my needs as much as MSE then I will trial it (whether it is from MS or any other vendor). >I just wondered what your system specs are so that we might >learn something from your situation There is nothing to learn as I have no "situation". My system is fairly new and built by myself with all my chosen components (though these do occasionally change). It works for its intended purpose (web, email etc and image and video editing). In short (the bits that matter): Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3GHz Asus P5Q-E 8GB DDR2 OCZ Radeon HD 4890 4 X 1TB Samsung SATA Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Retail To conclude, for me (and others I know), with all memory resident components running, MSE works better, performance wise, than either Avira or Avast running in combination with Malwarebytes Antimalware. I accept others may have different experiences. Here's hoping this clears it all up.
From: Leythos on 30 Dec 2009 11:18 In article <4rrmj5lhbpjljj0cp2ra8oss626f6lug9o(a)4ax.com>, pajap(a)news- only.co.uk.invalid says... > > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:29:49 -0500, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> > wrote: > > >In article <73nmj51f89vjffjhieqm0sj5fegf4s9e33(a)4ax.com>, pajap(a)news- > >only.co.uk.invalid says... > >> > >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:52:59 -0500, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <a5blj59hfqb7p29pr8491hsiv10udq93ae(a)4ax.com>, pajap(a)news- > >> >only.co.uk.invalid says... > >> >> MSE obviously works on a much higher percentage of systems without > >> >> issues. The same would apply to Avira, Avast and MalwareBytes. > >> >> Everyone's system is different. > >> >> Does now make someone an MS shill just because they prefer an MS product > >> >> and are not afraid to recommend it here. > >> >> > >> > > >> >Microsoft didn't write MSE, it's a company they bought, so it's no more > >> >likely to work "better" or "higher" on any computer than any other > >> >product. > >> > >> I never said it would more than any other product. Those are your words. > >> I was comparing the amount of systems it works on to those it does not. > >> I really do not care how they acquired this or any other product and it > >> has no relevance to this discussion. > > > >Yes, it does, it's very relevant - you implied that because it was from > >Microsoft that it would likely run on a "higher" percentage of machines > >with less trouble - that's not true based on many decades of experience > >with Microsoft and the vendors they purchase. > > No I did not. You misunderstood it. > I have already told you what I meant but as you seem to have a bit of a > problem I will quote it for you (in case you cannot look a few lines > up): > "I was comparing the amount of systems it works on to those it does > not". > Obviously I am talking about a percentage of the systems with a problem > as a ratio to those have no problem. And you just said the same thing I wrote - you assert that MSE runs more stable on more machines than the non MSE programs. So, it works, MSE, on more systems than other products, do you mean it's "installed" instead of "works"? I don't think you meant INSTALLED, I think you clearly mean that MSE is more stable on more machines than other products. I do not believe your statement based on the thousands of machines I work with each year. > <snip> > > >Comprehend what I've written exactly as I write it, don't guess that I > >mean something other than what I've written. > > When you do the same. Now you see the problem, you've stated exactly what I paraphrased. If you mean that MSE is 'Installed' on more machines instead of 'stable' on more machines.... I see that you've not posted your system spec's again, which are very relevant to this discussion - why not post them, what do you hope to gain by not describing your system and resources? -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: Buffalo on 30 Dec 2009 11:27 Leythos wrote: > Oh, and since I asked you about yours, here are my specs on a simple > machine: > > P4/3.2ghz Hyper threaded, 2GB RAM, XP Pro + SP3 and all updates, 500GB > SATA 7200 RPM: > > After boot, after the initial boot scan, system, with Gravity and > Outlook open, with Avira, Skype, Yahoo IM, Logitec Cam, Ati, VNC > running in the background, 513MB of 2096MB in use, 1% CPU load, > Avguard.exe using 392k, Avgnt.exe using 1.372k. Leythos, on my system: AMD 2GHz Athlon, 1GB of DDRram, Win2000Pro SP4, IDE 7600rpm120GBMaxtor HDD and with only OE and SAS open, my avgnt.exe is using 1.576MB and my avguard.exe is using 2.032MB. (I use the free version of Avira) SAS (running in real time) is using between 364 and 490kb of memory. Buffalo
From: Leythos on 30 Dec 2009 11:28
In article <9ksmj5pq86uq62s99552le11l8cvpctsk6(a)4ax.com>, pajap(a)news- only.co.uk.invalid says... > > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:24:18 -0500, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> > wrote: > > >You made a claim > > Not a claim. A fact. I have no need to BS. > > >that Avira loads down your system, that MSE doesn't > > That fact is: Resident protection of Avira or Avast when used together > with the resident protection in Malwarebytes Antimalware uses more > resources on my PC than just Resident MSE alone. Duh, two programs using more resources than 1 program - who would have guessed that one. > This was in a working situation which is what I am mostly concerned > with. In saying that with MSE installed my system does get to a useable > state a bit quicker than with any of the other combinations I have tried > (though we are talking a few seconds). > Mine is not the only system I have encountered this on. Why would you run MBAM in "resident" mode if you already have Avira? Why are you trusting MSE as a stand alone product if you don't trust Avira alone? You're not looking at apples and apples in your example. > I would not describe either of the combinations to be a problem and all > combinations worked with little issue. > Though MSE causes least load and I do not notice any performance hit > when it is running. > The other combinations I do notice a slight performance hit when they > are running to when they are not. From the MSE website: "Microsoft Security Essentials provides real-time protection for your home PC that guards against viruses, spyware, and other malicious software." Avira Antivir - read their site, it does/offers MORE protection. Avira stops all types of viruses, ad/spyware, phising, rootkits, web/email malware blocking, malicious websites.... > MSE does not nag me so much (at all). These are the reasons (less > resources and no nagging) I chose to use MSE over any of the other > combinations. The other software stays installed, just without any > memory resident components running (just in case I may ever have need to > use them). So, if you look at Avira vs MSE, Avira does more, better, and doesn't load the system down. Your adding MBAM to the Avira example is unfair and shows that you didn't actually evaluate the MSE properly - to be fair you should load MBAM Resident with MSE and test again. > If MSE ever causes me any issues then it will be removed if there is no > quick fix available. If I see any other software that appears to meet my > needs as much as MSE then I will trial it (whether it is from MS or any > other vendor). But MSE doesn't offer the level of protection that Avira does, and if MS can't secure their OS, what makes you think they can write an app to secure it? > > >I just wondered what your system specs are so that we might > >learn something from your situation > > There is nothing to learn as I have no "situation". > My system is fairly new and built by myself with all my chosen > components (though these do occasionally change). It works for its > intended purpose (web, email etc and image and video editing). > > In short (the bits that matter): > Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3GHz > Asus P5Q-E > 8GB DDR2 OCZ > Radeon HD 4890 > 4 X 1TB Samsung SATA > Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Retail > > To conclude, for me (and others I know), with all memory resident > components running, MSE works better, performance wise, than either > Avira or Avast running in combination with Malwarebytes Antimalware. > I accept others may have different experiences. > > Here's hoping this clears it all up. Yep, it shows that you didn't evaluate the two solutions equally, to be fair you should retest with MBAM resident loaded with MSE and then report back your findings. If you are comfortable using MSE alone, when it provides less protection than Avira, well, so be it. -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) |