| 11:23 am on Sep 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
According to Microsoft, the beta is currently available only to customers in the United States, Israel (English only), People's Republic of China (Simplified Chinese only) and Brazil (Brazilian Portuguese only).
| 3:00 pm on Sep 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Its available now for Download. URL has been updated, one linked above works.
| 4:49 pm on Sep 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
i used the beta and it worked GREAT!
| 5:14 pm on Sep 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
It seems fine
But check your own settings (something? might be changed)
My own setting calls for Wins FireWall off;
however that "guy" turned it back on without letting me know of the change.
No conflict to report.
| 5:43 pm on Sep 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
If you are using Norton Anti-Virus would it be ok to have this also? For those of you who are using this, do you have another form of virus protection also?
Because when you try to download it, it says that if you have other virus protetion, the Microsoft product may get in the way. So I am not sure what to do.
| 6:20 pm on Sep 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Well, in most cases dual AV will trigger some sort of conflict.
For test purpose you might be able to right click by the right hand side of your task bar your AV icon and disable it.
Be aware that if you reboot your previous AV will resurface.
| 6:23 pm on Sep 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I noticed: Heavy communication traffic.
"I.T" (not E.T) calls home!
if you go to settings, MS SpyNet you will find what's happening, although we do not know how much info is sent out, that I do not like too much.
| 7:43 pm on Sep 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I've been using it for a while now on Windows 7 (since OneCare will not work on Win7) and I love it.
That said, I was a paying subscriber of OneCare and I liked it very much as well.
It is very good on system resources.
| 12:39 am on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Seems to be running better than avast did on Windows 7. And no, i would never touch Norton Anti-virus :) Can't believe you would even insinuate such a comparison hehe
Performance wise it feels like NOD32
| 1:10 am on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
NOD32 is the lightest to run ..and probably the best on any windows ( it's what the MS people tend to run themselves on their own machines desk and laptops ) ..
Anything that comes pre installed on any machine has cost the assembler no more than $2.oo or $3.oo to add in ..and so you get what you only just paid for ..:) norton or panda et al are usually pre installed ...Dis them ..buy NOD32 ..and be carefull anyway ..nothing is 100% proof.
| 1:21 am on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
What's Microsoft Security Essentials lacking that the others have?
| 1:31 am on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|What's Microsoft Security Essentials lacking that the others have? |
Popup Loading Screens
| 7:12 am on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Let's stay on topic here and save the reviews of other AV products for their own threads please.
| 12:35 pm on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
(edit: nuked a few offtopic msgs here. Like Bill said, if you want to talk AV - start a new thread - which is a good topic - just not in the middle of another discussion)
So far, I am quite impressed by this product by MS. It installed clean and was fairly system friendly. Nice work MS. I am surprised it took them this long to get one out the door.
| 2:25 pm on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Has anyone actually installed this ( on a "disposable machine" ..that can be formatted without tears ) and run some "bad code" by it to see what it performs like ?
Or sent it to some of the more well known "driveby" sites or open a lot of spam ?
IMO thats about the only way it can be field tested for performance ( what it catches .or doesnt ? ) other than what impact it has on machine resources .
I would volunteer :) ( but the only machine I have here that meets the spec and is allowed to connect to "outside" is running XP pro sp3 .. is my wifes .and it's in use til ( I would "hear" if I touched it before ..especially in the interests of "science" ) next monday .
| 4:09 pm on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
| 4:57 pm on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I installed it on my dedicated "Surf & Mail" machine.
While searching I had a message stating something like
"Too many re-directs detected" and then the browser was stopped in its action.
But not sure if this is coming from G Chrome or from MS AV?
| 5:10 pm on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
@ H ..it's only meant to "play nice" with IE or FF according to the specs on it's site ..
So one would assume that with chrome all bets are off and that your machine was "a poil dans les ronces" ( unclothed in the briar patch ) ..you might want to run a full scan of that machine with MSE and another known real AV ( see my post above ) ..and with chrome switched off ..before you do anything else ..with that machine ..;)
slightly OT> Actually I'm surprised to see that MS lets it play nice with FF ..Mr B getting soft in his old age ..or just trying to shut out G ( any browser ) by branding them as an "unsafe browser" on MS products ..:)
| 9:34 pm on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
No big deal, Chrome did not let open anything.
so it's a G Chrome good move
But if as you did state MS is browser picky
then everyone ought to be aware of the limitations.
But again why would it be browser selective?
| 12:58 am on Oct 2, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Let me get this straight.
Is MSE designed as a competitor to Avast and AVG?
PS. People actually still use Norton? Egads!
| 4:53 am on Oct 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Is MSE designed as a competitor to Avast and AVG? |
Just to bump this up... is this an all purpose security suite? And does it work with all non-MS email clients, browsers, etc? I assume the answers are yes, but one never knows.
| 6:03 am on Oct 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
It protects against viruses, spyware, rootkits, and trojans. The security suite products I'm familiar with include firewall products. MSE doen't have that, but it is pretty comprehensive for everything else.
I've used it on machines with other browsers than IE, and it has nailed everything.
I'm not sure about the mail clients though. I don't use any 3rd party e-mail clients. Even if it doesn't proxy email for mail clients other than Outlook & Live, it still has both "on demand" and "on access" scanners. That should catch bad attachments.
| 4:52 am on Oct 31, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|The security suite products I'm familiar with include firewall products. MSE doesn't have that, but it is pretty comprehensive for everything else. |
Curious omission, unless MS considers that Windows Firewall provides sufficient protection. Does it?
I'd always assumed that the Windows XP Firewall was a temporary firewall that was useful to get you up and running, but ultimately needed to be replaced. I also know that my little Linksys Cable/DSL router (basically NAT) isn't considered to be all that secure by itself, so I think I'd need a software firewall.
| 11:33 am on Oct 31, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Your question opens pretty much a new thread
"How good is MS FW?" Sub quest:"Is it a tmp FW?"
I will be very interested in knowing that answer
I presently run a mail and search dedicated machine that only uses MSE and MS FW.
anytime I run a MSE check and then a SpyBot Search&Destroy
I come clean, and after a few weeks I am happy to state that I gather less thrash with this setting than I did by using PCC (PC Cillin AV)
Well, after second thoughts it also could be that the combo performs less thoroughly :)
| 1:20 am on Nov 2, 2009 (gmt 0)|
The Windows Firewall changed a lot from XP to Vista. The problem with the XP version was that it only worked one way. It didn't inspect outbound traffic, so the bad guys could easily phone home. The Vista version fixed that and added some more features like configurable profiles and rules.
I haven't run any software firewall, other than the Windows Firewall, for years. I've never had an issue. However, I do run a hardware firewall on my network and that makes a difference.