# Microsoft releases Security Essentials - a free AV



## Hansen (Jan 1, 2006)

From MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33072322/ns/technology_and_science-security/



> Microsoft Tuesday released its first free anti-virus software called Microsoft Security Essentials for computers running its Windows operating system.
> 
> The company said it is not looking to compete with commercial makers of software, such as Symantec and McAfee, but rather to "encourage broader adoption of anti-virus protection across the consumer audience," said Amy Barzdukas, general manager for consumer security at Microsoft, in a statement. (Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC Universal.)


Personally, I like and use Avast Professional, which also has an excellent free home version, but it's interesting to see MS go with a free version.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Been using it since the beta, back in July. It replaced Avira and Windows Defender on my 3 Windows 7 machines.

Appears to do it's job without impacting system resources at all. I don't generally visit sites where I am likely to pick up viruses, but as far as I can tell, it's a pretty capable product. Hopefully AV-comparatives.org will test it shortly.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Steve said:


> Appears to do it's job without impacting system resources at all.


That was my biggest concern when I first read about it.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> That was my biggest concern when I first read about it.


It's pretty unobtrusive. Consumes about 30 meg of memory, but 0% CPU, unless you're forcing it to scan.


----------



## ncxcstud (Apr 22, 2007)

I like the fact that it is free and doesn't remind you that it is free or that you should 'pay' to get the full version like Avira does (though I figured out how to stop that...)


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

> A spokesman for Symantec, maker of Norton AntiVirus and other security software, said, "While we applaud any vendor that heightens consumer awareness of the need for computer security, it's clear that the threat landscape has moved on from the product Microsoft is launching.


Yeeeeeouch!


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

With the combination of Microsoft Essentials, Windows Defender, and the improved UAC in Windows 7.....I believe Microsoft has provided all the necessary tools to keep you and your computer relatively safe, for free. If you turn off UAC and download unsafe and questionable files, then thats up to you to keep your system safe.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

phat78boy said:


> With the combination of Microsoft Essentials, Windows Defender, and the improved UAC in Windows 7.....I believe Microsoft has provided all the necessary tools to keep you and your computer relatively safe, for free. If you turn off UAC and download unsafe and questionable files, then thats up to you to keep your system safe.


Just a note that you do not need Windows Defender anymore, if you've installed Security Essentials. In fact, it may be automatically un-installed when you install Essentials.

While I don't know this for a fact, it appears that they modified Defender (the former Giant anti-spyware product they acquired a few years ago) to incorporate antivirus protection as well, and re-christened it Security Essentials.


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

Steve said:


> Just a note that you do not need Windows Defender anymore, if you've installed Security Essentials. In fact, it may be automatically un-installed when you install Essentials.
> 
> While I don't know this for a fact, it appears that they modified Defender (the former Giant anti-spyware product they acquired a few years ago) to incorporate antivirus protection as well, and re-christened it Security Essentials.


You are correct, Defender is integrated into MSE once you install MSE. I listed it, as it is the engine within MSE that does spyware/malware scanning.


----------



## slacker_x (Oct 9, 2007)

Steve said:


> Re: Symantec's comments, I'll wait until AV Comparatives runs their latest benchmarks before I decide if I need something better. For those interested, here's their August benchmark of some of the top AV programs: http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc_report23.pdf.


 While I agree AVCOMPARATIVES is a good indicator of the strength of anti-virus software the one thing to keep in mind that sometimes what the software misses is when the virus is for windows 95/98/ME/2000. Not trying to say Microsoft has a better product but they will take certain viruses out of the index to speed up virus checks as the virus won't affect you.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

slacker_x said:


> While I agree AVCOMPARATIVES is a good indicator of the strength of anti-virus software the one thing to keep in mind that sometimes what the software misses is when the virus is for windows 95/98/ME/2000. Not trying to say Microsoft has a better product but they will take certain viruses out of the index to speed up virus checks as the virus won't affect you.


Good point. That said, _Security Essentials_ will only run on XP (SP2), Vista or 7. Folks running older OS's will probably have to go with one of the commercial AV products, though I don't know which one. Another one of my favorite AV programs is Avira, but after checking their site, I notice they no longer support 98/ME either.


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

slacker_x said:


> While I agree AVCOMPARATIVES is a good indicator of the strength of anti-virus software the one thing to keep in mind that sometimes what the software misses is when the virus is for windows 95/98/ME/2000. Not trying to say Microsoft has a better product but they will take certain viruses out of the index to speed up virus checks as the virus won't affect you.





Steve said:


> Good point. That said, _Security Essentials_ will only run on XP (SP2), Vista or 7. Folks running older OS's will probably have to go with one of the commercial AV products, though I don't know which one. Another one of my favorite AV programs is Avira, but after checking their site, I notice they no longer support 98/ME either.


Isn't kind of pointless to support an OS that no longer gets patched? How you can stop viruses if there is a big hole you can't plug?


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

phat78boy said:


> Isn't kind of pointless to support an OS that no longer gets patched? How you can stop viruses if there is a big hole you can't plug?


People running older OS's don't use logic. I'm talking pre-Xp (Although alot of them stick to Xp due to FUD they hear about concerning Vista and Xp). The people you see today using 95, 98, ME and such, do it because they hate change. You can't talk logic or reason with these types.


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

Zellio said:


> People running older OS's don't use logic. I'm talking pre-Xp (Although alot of them stick to Xp due to FUD they hear about concerning Vista and Xp). The people you see today using 95, 98, ME and such, do it because they hate change. You can't talk logic or reason with these types.


Agreed, but you can't expect an AV client to save you from yourself. lol


----------



## davemayo (Nov 17, 2005)

I recently re-upped my McAfee subscriptions on my two XP machines. I assume it would be a bad idea to install and run Security Essentials concurrently with McAfee.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

davemayo said:


> I recently re-upped my McAfee subscriptions on my two XP machines. I assume it would be a bad idea to install and run Security Essentials concurrently with McAfee.


Here's what Microsoft has to say:

_"If you use more than one antivirus or antispyware program at the same time, your computer may experience decreased performance, become unstable, or restart unexpectedly. Before you install Microsoft Security Essentials, you should disable or uninstall other security-related programs."_

McAfee scored very well in the AV-Comparitives report, so if it's already bought and paid for, I wouldn't switch at this time. Until we see some test reports, there's no evidence that Microsoft might do a better job for you. Just my .02.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Good to know.

What I'm going to do for sure in the next month or so - when my Norton 360 expires - is replace it with something else.

Norton simply is a pain in the a--.

It looks like McAfee or Avira will be getting my business going forward - after being a *very long *Norton customer.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Good to know.
> 
> What I'm going to do for sure in the next month or so - when my Norton 360 expires - is replace it with something else.
> 
> ...


If you (or others who have access to your PC's) don't visit high risk sites, you might want to consider the free Microsoft product. I've been testing it since July and it seems to do it's job very well and unobtrusively.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

My experiences have also been good. I got the beta after learning that OneCare was going away. OneCare replaced Norton for me some 3+ years ago. Norton just got to be too much of a hog. I think the attitude was "Hey, you have two processors, we can have one!" combined with "Anything Microsoft can 'bloat', we can 'bloat' more!". Though it was the disk scanning that slowed my PCs down more than anything else. And I say that from having previously been a HUGE Norton fan, to the point of being an apostle. But when it broke and required deinstall/re-installation procedures that required lots of user-actions to REALLY de-install the software, they lost me.

Now I have Windows Defender and MSE all integrated nice with the Windows Home Server connector to control my backups. Low-profile, everyone talks nice to each other. This is my preferred solution now.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Marlin Guy said:


> > A spokesman for Symantec, maker of Norton AntiVirus and other security software, said, "While we applaud any vendor that heightens consumer awareness of the need for computer security, it's clear that the threat landscape has moved on from the product Microsoft is launching.
> 
> 
> Yeeeeeouch!


Re: Symantec's comments, I'll wait until AV Comparatives runs their latest benchmarks before I decide if I need something better. For those interested, here's their August benchmark of some of the top AV programs: http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc_report23.pdf.

___________________________
​A PC World reviewer had this to say about Security Essentials, and comments like _"Security Essentials is a poor product"_ and _"It's better to use something than to use nothing, but you get what you pay for,"_ from companies that have the most to lose by Microsoft offering this product:

*"I beg to differ. In the age of free software, you can get so much more than you pay for, and with so much bloatware floating about, "basic" can be downright refreshing.

Microsoft's Security Essentials (MSE) is a stripped-down, easy to use, and effective Anti-Virus application written by the very people who know the most about how Windows works. [more]

[...]

Then again, perhaps you're the type of person who blindly opens e-mail attachments, clicks spam ads for cheap Viagra, and follows links from pop-up windows, all while using an outdated browser. If this is the case, then I wholeheartedly recommend Symantec's Norton Internet Security 2010, which will set you back a solid $70."*


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Good to know.
> 
> What I'm going to do for sure in the next month or so - when my Norton 360 expires - is replace it with something else.
> 
> Norton simply is a pain in the a--.


I've been testing the latest Norton Internet Security 2010 product on Win7 and it's not bad at all. Really, NIS 2009 was a much better product than previous versions. I only had one issues with NIS 2009, which was a recurring problem with it failing to enable Advanced Protection. It looks like their latest patch has fixed it, though.

Having said that, I'd probably switch to MS Security Essentials. I don't use half the stuff in NIS since I typically don't visit questionable sites or download pirated software or use P2P sharing.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

rudeney said:


> I've been testing the latest Norton Internet Security 2010 product on Win7 and it's not bad at all. Really, NIS 2009 was a much better product than previous versions. I only had one issues with NIS 2009, which was a recurring problem with it failing to enable Advanced Protection. It looks like their latest patch has fixed it, though.
> 
> Having said that, I'd probably switch to MS Security Essentials. I don't use half the stuff in NIS since I typically don't visit questionable sites or download pirated software or use P2P sharing.


Norton 360 proved to be an obstacle in numerous network use ways - including blocking some routine calls within an MRV environment. Once I configured things a bit differently....I got passed that - but it is a pain to work with, and also not well documented.

Since McAfee and Avira both are WIN7 ready...I will likely choose one of those - Symantec has simply gotten too fat, too complicated, and too undocumented to be usable without major user intereaction and support.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

I took Security Essentials for a spin last night.
Installation went fine and it seems to be fairly lightweight and unobtrusive.

I let it run a full scan, which took in excess of four hours.
It flagged a few of what I'd call false positives.
Setup files for Passview and UltraVNC.
Not a big deal to me, but I'm not sure the average Windows user would realize that these can be legitimate programs.

It's certainly better than nothing, but I think AVAST! or AVG would still provide better coverage for the time being.


----------



## davemayo (Nov 17, 2005)

Steve said:


> Here's what Microsoft has to say:
> 
> _"If you use more than one antivirus or antispyware program at the same time, your computer may experience decreased performance, become unstable, or restart unexpectedly. Before you install Microsoft Security Essentials, you should disable or uninstall other security-related programs."_
> 
> McAfee scored very well in the AV-Comparitives report, so if it's already bought and paid for, I wouldn't switch at this time. Until we see some test reports, there's no evidence that Microsoft might do a better job for you. Just my .02.


Thanks for the info.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

I got rid of Kapersky in favor of the MS product. Happy to do so, too, because Kapersky messed up my disk structure. (do a Google for 'Kapersky chkdsk' and you'll see what I mean)


----------



## neomaine (Feb 3, 2003)

I help friends, family and people the send my way for basic PC cleanup, tuning, upgrade support. In most cases, an older store bought system with a minimal configuration.

The first thing I do is remove anything Norton or McAfee and tell them to make sure not to accept any renewals. Both of these are too bloated (memory footprint) and resource intensive for many of them. (Only my level of friendship determines how much I'll charge...  ) Both uninstalls can be very time consuming depending on the version. McAfee has never been a favorite. I lost respect for Norton’s after 2001.

Instead, I install all free and small footprint/resource usage packages: Avast Home for basic AV, Spybot S&D for spyware removal (but more important their host file setup they use for 'immunizing') and AdawareSE (it gets a couple of things Spybot doesn't and vice versa. Though, that's getting much narrower).

All are completely free. Avast has automated updates and can be left alone save for re-registering. The other two, while free, do have be run manually but have paid versions that can be automated if they so choose. (If I really like the customer, I'll actually setup a scheduled task to run them from the command line for auto checking... :grin: )

Now, if the new Microsoft option is worth it, I may go that route.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

neomaine said:


> The first thing I do is remove anything Norton or McAfee...Both uninstalls can be very time consuming depending on the version.


The later versions of Norton (starting with 2007, maybe earlier) can be easily removed by downloading the Norton Uninstaller from their website. It takes a few minutes for the program to do its thing, then it reboots. It's very painless.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

ncxcstud said:


> I like the fact that it is free and doesn't remind you that it is free or that you should 'pay' to get the full version like Avira does (though I figured out how to stop that...)


Please tell. I frequently install that on clients machines that have no AV.

- Merg


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

neomaine said:


> All are completely free. Avast has automated updates and can be left alone save for re-registering. The other two, while free, do have be run manually but have paid versions that can be automated if they so choose. (If I really like the customer, I'll actually setup a scheduled task to run them from the command line for auto checking... :grin: )


SpyBot can actually be setup to automatically update and scan using the Advanced mode / Settings tab. I usually set it up to update on Thursdays and scan on Fridays.

I'm curious as to what you use as a firewall replacement...

- Merg


----------



## ncxcstud (Apr 22, 2007)

The Merg said:


> Please tell. I frequently install that on clients machines that have no AV.
> 
> - Merg


go into the Avira folder and their should be a file called 'avnotify' right click on that, go to properties and edit the rights it has and unclick read and execute or something along those lines....

this explains it better...


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

rudeney said:


> The later versions of Norton (starting with 2007, maybe earlier) can be easily removed by downloading the Norton Uninstaller from their website. It takes a few minutes for the program to do its thing, then it reboots. It's very painless.


No that is not painless, anything that I install should uninstall correctly without having to go to an additional application to remove a commercial released product. It should be included in the install and automatiucly excecuted when you want to remove the application completely


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

wingrider01 said:


> No that is not painless, anything that I install should uninstall correctly without having to go to an additional application to remove a commercial released product. It should be included in the install and automatiucly excecuted when you want to remove the application completely


I beleive the reason for the special uninstall utility is to prevent malicious software from being able to uninstall the security program. It does require the user to type in a "Captcha" code to continue.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

rudeney said:


> I beleive the reason for the special uninstall utility is to prevent malicious software from being able to uninstall the security program. It does require the user to type in a "Captcha" code to continue.


While it has been much improved of late....Symantexc/Norton programs tended to result in some added pains in their uninstall process steps prior to 2008. I saw that on several occasions firsthand.

The more recent versions seem to be better.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

phat78boy said:


> Isn't kind of pointless to support an OS that no longer gets patched?


Because there are so many using no longer "supported" versions? Do you find that Microsoft "support" makes much difference with respect to the performance, reliability or security of your computer?


> How you can stop viruses if there is a big hole you can't plug?


The viruses typically aren't coming in through the operating system. Most of them are coming from Outluck, Internet Exploder and various third party Internet client packages.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The more recent versions seem to be better.


The new software has improved immensely, but removing old software may require you to remove _everything_ Symantec from your system. I recently removed NAV 2008 from a system and in order to complete the process, I also had to remove ACT!, a popular contact management application.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

rudeney said:


> I beleive the reason for the special uninstall utility is to prevent malicious software from being able to uninstall the security program. It does require the user to type in a "Captcha" code to continue.


Have a number of specialized vertical market applications that require that, they have it built into their normal uninstall routines, no additional cleanup applications are needed. Sorry this is not a vlid reason


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

wingrider01 said:


> Have a number of specialized vertical market applications that require that, they have it built into their normal uninstall routines, no additional cleanup applications are needed. Sorry this is not a vlid reason


I guess I don't see the big issue here. The Norton Removal Tool is not "additional cleanup"; is it _the_ program used to remove the application. Given that this is security software, I don't mind having to go online for the uninstall program as opposed to it being located on my system. That is the only difference here.

And don't get me wrong - I'm not a Norton "fanboy". I use it simply because it works well for me. I do tend to get skeptical at times with people seem to bash companies just because it's the "popular" thing to do (Symantec, Microsoft, WalMart, etc.). If I have a reason to bash them, I will, but in this case I can't say anything bad about the latest versions the Norton products. The 2009 version was a huge improvement, and I did a beta test of the 2010 version and it was even better.

Still, I will be taking a look at the Microsoft product. It sounds promising, at at the risk of being tagged a "Microsoft fanboy", I expect it will be very good at what it does. It;s about time MS got into this area.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

*Norton AV 2010* actually scored very well in the _*AV Comparatives*_ August testing. It ranks in their "top tier" of AV programs, as you can see from the attached snip from the report.

Couple of things about the list. ***'d products would have been rated higher, had they not found so many "false positives". The Microsoft product tested was the *Live One Care* AV program, not the new *Security Essentials*.

Full report is here.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

I think its a good thing to get more competition intot he mix on A/V software, even if its Microsoft.

Having used Symantec/Norton for *many* years, I have personally witnessed an escallating trend in their code getting fat, more and more network conflicts, and major challenges cleaning up problems originating from their products.

Until this past year or so, even removing their software was often a significant problem for many users.

Our company switched from Norton to McAfee about a year ago, and while I don't see any major improvements, we do see less headaches. That said...they have their own "issues" from time to time.

The more players in this space, the better.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

rudeney said:


> I guess I don't see the big issue here. The Norton Removal Tool is not "additional cleanup"; is it _the_ program used to remove the application.


The problem is that it is called the "Norton Removal Tool" but impacts more than just NAV. It may do some bad things to PCAnywhere, Winfax or ACT! in addition to removing/disabling other Norton utilities (GoBack, SystemWorks, Ghost, etc).


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

harsh said:


> The problem is that it is called the "Norton Removal Tool" but impacts more than just NAV. It may do some bad things to PCAnywhere, Winfax or ACT! in addition to removing/disabling other Norton utilities (GoBack, SystemWorks, Ghost, etc).


Agree - I've seen that happen on more than one occasion.

Symantec simply takes charge too much of your PC registry entries and other extraneous contents that can later be a pain in the butt.


----------



## FHSPSU67 (Jan 12, 2007)

Always liked Peter Norton products until Symantec took over and ruined (IMO) a good company.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

harsh said:


> The problem is that it is called the "Norton Removal Tool" but impacts more than just NAV. It may do some bad things to PCAnywhere, Winfax or ACT! in addition to removing/disabling other Norton utilities (GoBack, SystemWorks, Ghost, etc).


I don't have any of those other applications so I can't give first-hand accounts, but according to the tool, here's what it will remove (and note that some of these are mutually exclusive, liek "System Works" and "NAV":


----------

