[rumrunner99]

Has anyone any playback on virus protection using Microsoft Security Essentials. I am a Mac user and I am going to buy a laptop with Windows 7. Or should I just go with Norton?

[calvin-c]

Definitely not Norton. Don't know about MS, but definitely don't recommend Norton. Or McAfee.

[aka Brett]

Its ok...has decent ratings
I wouldnt use nortons personally


here is a thread with similar questions about {MSE} Microsoft security essentials

Follow the link in post 4 you will learn alot about the other AV's

http://forums.techguy.org/general-se...sentials.html?

[wtxcowboy]

my new computer came preinstalled with norton & i just removed a browser hijacker using malwarebytes the other day, so it's not all that. i installed comod f/w & avast a/v & gave norton the boot. have used both 4 yrs on my xp machine with no hitches. why pay when u can get just as good 4 free!!

[Squashman]

Posted via Mobile Device
I like it. But I can't vouch for its protection ability because I can't remember the last time I even got a virus. I use common sense when surfing the web and downloading stuff.

[Snagglegaster]

Security software evaluations tend to be controversial by nature. It's important to take a close look at how any organization selects and evaluates the products they test. There are some that have been around a long time and are respected, and then there are those with an agenda. If the tester has any kind of program that solicits payments from publishers who want to have their products tested, such as http://www.matousec.com/projects/pro...ge/results.php I would be very, very skeptical.

I'd recommend Virus Bulletin VB100 Awards (requires free account to view test results) and AV-Comparatives. When you read AV-Comparatives reviews, you should remember that they tend to be narrowly focused on specific criteria, so you need to read several tests to ge a balanced view. ICSA Labs is a pretty good test site, but I think they give failing products too much chance to fix their issues and still be certified.

If I had to pick my favorite AV solutions, it would be Avast, Security Essentials, and Avira for freeware; NOD32, Norton AV 2010 (NOT Internet Security or 360!), and Kaspersky. for payware. But all products have some shortcomings and should be supplemented with products such as Malwarebytes Antimalware, etc. and suitable amounts of caution and common sense online.

[rumrunner99]

Thanks for the responses to virus programs. I will stay away from Norton and try Essentials

[aka Brett]

Originally Posted by Snagglegaster

Security software evaluations tend to be controversial by nature. It's important to take a close look at how any organization selects and evaluates the products they test. There are some that have been around a long time and are respected, and then there are those with an agenda. If the tester has any kind of program that solicits payments from publishers who want to have their products tested, such as http://www.matousec.com/projects/pro...ge/results.php I would be very, very skeptical.

I'd recommend Virus Bulletin VB100 Awards (requires free account to view test results) and AV-Comparatives. When you read AV-Comparatives reviews, you should remember that they tend to be narrowly focused on specific criteria, so you need to read several tests to ge a balanced view. ICSA Labs is a pretty good test site, but I think they give failing products too much chance to fix their issues and still be certified.

If I had to pick my favorite AV solutions, it would be Avast, Security Essentials, and Avira for freeware; NOD32, Norton AV 2010 (NOT Internet Security or 360!), and Kaspersky. for payware. But all products have some shortcomings and should be supplemented with products such as Malwarebytes Antimalware, etc. and suitable amounts of caution and common sense online.

This link is the same as i suggested to compare different products
http://www.matousec.com/projects/pro...ge/results.php

Are you sure they are biased...they offer downloads to test Av software ,basically run the same tests if the user wishes to do so...you dont see that often


http://www.matousec.com/downloads/

[Snagglegaster]

Matousec says that "Products for testing are selected from those that were requested for tests by their vendors or often suggested for tests by our visitors, more times than other products. If there are no such products, we will select products for tests ourselves, preferentially taking products that have not been tested at all yet and have a real chance to succeed in our tests. Every vendor has a right for its product to be tested in Proactive Security Challenge for free two times in a six months period" and "Every vendor has a right to request a paid Proactive Security Challenge testing, in which case its product will be tested in all levels regardless the results on each of the levels. After the vendor receives the results of the paid testing, it can either keep them private or request their publishing on our website, "

Sorry, but trust isn't a huge component of my emotional makeup, and the word "paid" in conjunction with testing really raises my paranoia to intense levels. Of course, simply because I don't trust 'em doesn't mean their tests aren't valid.

However, if you compare their test results with Virus Bulletin, AV-Comparatives, University of Hamburg, ICSA labs or even results from PC Mag and the like, it seems to me that most of Matousec's tests are very much at variance with everyone else's results. So, even if they didn't offer paid testing, I still wouldn't put any faith in their results.

[aka Brett]

I see your point..as a vendor has a right to pay for additional testing.
The purpose of the paid testing is to further evaluate the av solution after it already fails...so basically since the av fails the basic simple test it isnt evaluated further..unless the vendor pays for addition testing
My concern however is a vendor can pay to keep them private.
If the results are good then a vendor would want them public, so therefore a shoddy av test result can remain private by the vendor choice if he is a paying vendor.

The system might be slightly odd but the reason I like the evaluation is I can see what the tests are and what they failed...rather than just a score.
One can see in detail how these scores are obtained through all ten levels
This being level 1 with the other 9 levels linked on this page


http://www.matousec.com/projects/pro...evel.php?num=1