Microsoft Security Essentials
in [Spyware]
|
From: Leythos on 30 Dec 2009 13:21 In article <cd3nj5ti4et439eo69lnu2m7ua76r3hq5b(a)4ax.com>, pajap(a)news- only.co.uk.invalid says... > > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:01:37 -0500, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> > wrote: > > >I don't care what you run on your computer, but I do care about > >misinformation. > > It is not misinformation. It is my experiences and it is true. Nothing > can change that. > My testing was not flawed. I choose not to test MalwareBytes with MSE > but am sure it would still perform better than Avira with MalwareBytes. > I trust MSE without any additional spyware. > I did not trust Avira Free without additional software. > I am certain that MSE works better for me. Your testing IS flawed, you admit so by staying that one product combination doesn't perform well on your computer, but you don't test with the key components when you test another product. For proper testing, to make your claim valid, you would have to test as follows: Avira Antiver + MBAM Resident MSE + MBAM Resident Without the above tests you have "speculation" and "guesses" about performance when you state that MSE works better than Avira + MBAM. > If you are so concerned why don't you test it and let us know. > Won't matter one diddly squat to me though because that will be on your > system and not mine. That you didn't fairly test shows that your methodology is flawed, so it stands to reason that anything you post of a technical nature might also be flawed - even more so, since you're unable to see the flaw in your testing/analysis. [snip] > For the record, yes I do trust MS to protect my system (both their > firewall product and MSE are more than adequate). I have no issue with > MS and find their software works well enough for me. And you'e been responded to by people that have tested it on far more machines that you appear to have access to, people that have said that your results are not what they see, that your analysis wasn't valid because of your not testing apples/apples, and that none of us truse MSE vs. other products - which is real world, time proven, accurate testing an experience. > I am sure there are other packages out there that would seemingly offer > me more, if I pay. I do not need more and choose not to buy or install > them, at this time. Might this change? Maybe. > > But I stand by my claim that MSE is currently the best software for **my > **system. Don't take this wrong, I'm not saying this as an insult, but your analysis is flawed and based on willful ignorance. -- 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: PajaP on 30 Dec 2009 14:00 On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:21:54 -0500, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> wrote: >Don't take this wrong, I'm not saying this as an insult, but your >analysis is flawed and based on willful ignorance. I was one step ahead of you. MSE and MalwareBytes working together flawlessly, so far and both are resident. The performance is definitely much better than when Avira Free and MalwareBytes were both running resident. Not sure what will happen if some spyware is detected though. Better test this when I get the chance if I am to keep both. Still I do not think there is much point in keeping it running, as MSE will work well enough on its own. Looks like it was Avira that was the resource hog on my system.
From: Leythos on 30 Dec 2009 14:26 In article <e68nj5tfsq0umsnf46krn39b7ahhlftij5(a)4ax.com>, pajap(a)news- only.co.uk.invalid says... > > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:21:54 -0500, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> > wrote: > > >Don't take this wrong, I'm not saying this as an insult, but your > >analysis is flawed and based on willful ignorance. > > I was one step ahead of you. > MSE and MalwareBytes working together flawlessly, so far and both are > resident. Thanks - until this you had indicated you had not used BOTH at the same time. > > The performance is definitely much better than when Avira Free and > MalwareBytes were both running resident. > > Not sure what will happen if some spyware is detected though. > Better test this when I get the chance if I am to keep both. > Still I do not think there is much point in keeping it running, as MSE > will work well enough on its own. > > Looks like it was Avira that was the resource hog on my system. It would be interesting to know what Avira in combination with other things caused the resource issue. I have a Dual CPU system with 32GB RAM, a test box, running Win 7 Prof 64 bit and Avira free, I didn't notice any difference between it running Avira and having no-AV/anti-malware tools installed. That's one of the reasons I asked about your hardware, to try and see why you were seeing the performance issue when others are not - I'll see if I can duplicate the performance issue on several machines - only because I'm interested, since I use Avira. -- 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: Leythos on 30 Dec 2009 16:21 In article <hhgc06$em1$1(a)leythos.motzarella.org>, trt(a)void.com says... > is the resident troll in this and other groups. > PCBUTTS1, you're the stalker, showing that you mention myself and others in every post you make, that you've registered a Usenet account in my name even gives more proof that you're stalking me. This thread was not about you, it was about the viability of MSE vs other software. You've added NOTHING to the thread, except another case of stalking. -- 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: PajaP on 30 Dec 2009 17:42
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:26:08 -0500, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> wrote: >I have a Dual CPU system with 32GB RAM, a test box, running Win 7 Prof >64 bit and Avira free, I didn't notice any difference between it running >Avira and having no-AV/anti-malware tools installed. > >That's one of the reasons I asked about your hardware, to try and see >why you were seeing the performance issue when others are not - I'll see >if I can duplicate the performance issue on several machines - only >because I'm interested, since I use Avira. OK. I will also fire up my old laptop. This has Avira on it I think (if not it can do). Will check its performance with and without and compare it with other software. When I get the time ;) |