Resolved Microsoft Security Essentials vs Norton Internet Security

What Is the Difference Between W8-DP Windows Defender and Microsoft Security Essentials?

 

Quite....

Personally, I don't rate Norton and haven't done so since it was taken over by Symantec and that wasn't yesterday

I wouldn't go near Mcafee with a barge pole. Whenever I'm asked to set up a new pc for a client, if McAfee is on it, its the first program to be disposed of with the list of other crapware that ships with new pcs these days. If the client requires a paid security suite, then I install either F-Secure (although I've gone off them a bit recently) or Kaspersky IS which, IMHO is the best of the bunch. Interestingly, the Kaspersky online scanner is the one that Broni directs people to and if its good enough for him then thats a good enough recommendation for me.

As far as freebies go, I've installed MSE on numerous pcs without problems but I'm beginning to use Comodo Security suite now and indeed I have it on this machine here. I used to use a combination of AVG AV and PC Tools firewall but I found that they didn't complement each other too well. Comodo gave a number of false positives on its initial scan on this machine but once these files were added to the exclusion list, there's been no further problems

Although, for me at least, its early days for Comodo AV, I know that Comodo Firewall has been recommended for years and I like the idea that if they're part of the same suite of programs, then they should complement each other and work well together.

I've found that I don't give much credence to PC magazine reviews of Security programs - primarily because of the inconsistency of the reviews. If Norton was the best - then they'd all be able to figure that out. What you find is that one reviewer rates Norton as #1 and yet the next reviewer puts it at #10. And so it goes for all the other suites - there's no consistency. If all the suites were being fairly reviewed, then they'd all be in a (broadly similar) league table. But they're not.

 

It's not a case of "if" Norton were the best. It simply "is" the best... period. And whereas you don't give much credence to PC magazine reviews, you expect "us" to give credence to you? Who are you and what are your credentials that you know more than the technology magazines? You say you used MSE on numerous machines but now you use Comodo? Did the numerous machines all come down with malware or did you simply make a mistake in installing MSE in the first place and decide that Comodo was a better way to go based upon uh... your technological know-how?

This is one of the issues here. We throw around opinions based upon little more than our feelings and some experience that is woefully inadequate when it comes up against companies that can do far more rigorous and involved tests on far more machines. And then we feel that our opinions are simply the best trump the rest.

I for one will stick with Norton... I'll pay the $70 yearly fee and I'll know I am protected. And the reason is: I've never had a virus during my years with Norton... I stay with a product that has given me no hassle whatsoever and especially offered me peace of mind that my machines are protected to the best degree that any software program can offer.

 

You are entitled to your opinion but if that statement were true then pretty much most reviews would rate Norton as top but the fact is they don't. There are as many different ratings as there are reviewers.

No I don't give them credence simply because they don't agree with each other. Thinking about it logically, they can all be wrong - but they cannot all be right. As for me, I'm just a guy thats been using and building computers since the mid 80s and I think I know a little bit about them by now.

No - they didn't come down with malware and neither do I consider that it was a mistake to install MSE on the PCs that I installed it on. This is something that is called "Consumer Choice ". Just because nothing went wrong with one program doesn't mean that you shouldn't try out another one.

Yes we do and readers have the choice of whether to take any notice of them or not. However, these opinions and experiences are offered with the intention that the less informed readers can hopefully make more informed choices and decisions.

I disagree. Companies of all types are really only interested in one thing - making a profit. Serving the needs of their customers is really only ever a second objective. They will do tests that portray their product as being better than the competition - whether the product is actually better than the competition isn't always that obvious.

I disagree. I can only speak for myself and I am always learning more. I don't consider my opinion to be the last word on anything. I know for a fact that there are contributors on this forum that are far more knowledgeable than I am on many points and subjects and I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that fact.

Uh - correction - you believe you'll be protected. There are those who wouldn't agree with you - Davezilla and MrBill for example. However you go on and pay your $70 per annum and good luck to you but don't expect too many of the rest of us to follow suit.

 

Yep, been burned by Norton and know of others. McCrappy also. I used AVG for years (FREE) and put it on hundreds of PC's and never a problem. I use MSE now and love it.
But like you said, everybody is entitled to their opinion.

 

Indeed... it "is" okay with me as well. I prefer to run the security suite that most technical magazines rank as number one or two in some cases. I also prefer to follow their reviews rather than take the word for strangers who are simply giving opinions based upon questionable experience and questionable expertise.

I understand perfectly well that common sense plays a major role in our safety online as a result of which, in fifteen years I've only had one virus (year three... from inexperience). If you and others feel safe running freebies... that's your business. Good luck to you.

 

Thanks for the link. In that case when I eventually move to Win 8 I'll probably just use 'Windows Defender'.

 

Just how many 'technical magazines' are you talking about? A.V. Comparatives currently rank Kaspersky as the highest rated AV of 2011. I think Bit Defender & F-Secure were close behind it. Oddly, I believe all of those AVs employ the Bit Defender engine (like the BullGuard AV). It is widely held by many that the Bit Defender engine is currently the best there is.

I have a relative who works as a software engineer/security specialist for one of the big European Anti Virus security companies & he told me that since Symantec acquired Norton it has become less than second rate. About three years ago when I ran Norton (I got it free from my ISP) & contracted a trojan, I emailed him about it. His first statement was "What did I tell you about Norton?" He advised me to uninstall it & install the freeware avast! or maybe something like Kaspersky if I felt like buying an AV. He still maintains this belief about Norton. The trojan it let through for me wasn't even a particularly esoteric one.

Common sense & a multi-layered approach to security are good strategies , I use NoScript, RequestPolicy, FlashBlock, Ghostery, Certificate Patrol & WOT on SeaMonkey for instance. I also run SpywareBlaster & SUPERAntiSpyware freeware editions. I choose an AV for a variety of reasons, one priority is the effect the AV has on performance. I don't see the advantage of bloated security suites when something like MSE is just as good if not better in malware detection rates.

I think that the mistake you have made here is to assume that just because you are paying around 50 quid a year for an AV it is automatically going to be better than freeware. This is a mistake in my opinion & I'm pretty sure no one knows their operating system better than Microsoft, so who better to provide protection? They have the biggest 'cloud' on the planet. They are wealthy enough not to have to charge for it. It's common sense to use MSE!

 

Also, Norton was always having some problem or other. I remember uninstalling & re-installing it once. Apparently this procedure is the standard Symantec/Norton response to any problem with it. I've never known an AV be so problematical. Norton is also hard work to uninstall, & even running an up to date version of their uninstaller, it still left stuff behind including a BHO!

As bloaty & average as McAfee is; it never actually gave me any problems. I wouldn't use it again though.

I agree, it's a bit like statistics. You can extrapolate whatever you want with many of them. I only wished I'd have listened to all the people who warned me not to install Norton. From what I have heard British Telecom stopped supplying Norton because of the complaints about it. Many tell me Norton has improved drastically over the past three years. It's not that I don't believe them, I just don't want to go through all that hassle with Norton again. MSE is light, efficient & trouble free. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to anyone. In a choice between Norton & MSE; there is only one realistic choice IMO.

 

I haven't paid for anything in years and what you see in my signature is all that I run. I haven't had a virus or malware since I have had these or the petty one or two malware/spyware that I have had those FREE programs took care of them. Like I said before, Norton and McCrappy each let a virus get by and I was not at a bad site. Picked it up on a drive by is my guess.

 

Good for you but that's irrelevant. The point was that claiming PC magazines are biased and that their tests are skewed in such a way to garner advertising dollars AND that therefore private opinions of individuals here somehow trumps these professional tests is ridiculous. Message boards are fine for providing information that is relevant to resolving issues that many inexperienced users have (including myself). In this particular situation, you are mixing apples and oranges and I think if you're honest with yourself you can see the fallacy of your argument. In no way, shape or form did I mean to suggest that message boards are irrelevant and that all one needed to do was buy and read PC mags otherwise why would I be a member here? You've created a strawman argument and it's not really worth my time to disprove it. Let's at least be reasonable in our discussions here.

 

Personally, if I was going to purchase an AV, I'd probably go for the blokes who keep taking Poika out on the town again.

It does kind of go against my light AV/browser-end security policy though.

 

Yes, F-Secure is definately one of the best. Its one of the ones I recommend to those who wish a paid for solution.

 

My ISP offered F-Secure free with our cable connection. I'll have to give some consideration to making the switch to it when my current subscription expires since it is free to Charter members.

 

Personally, I would take it.

 

dnmacleod, I agree. It seems pretty foolish to pass up a free offer like this. It's part of their package offers when we sign up for internet service. They say it's to provide protection for their clients. As I mentioned, I might as well finish off my subscription first before I do this. No point in wasting money that has already been spent.

BTW... I loved the music on the YouTube link above to the Finnish National hockey team. Wonder who that group is? Would love to hear them do something in English.

 

I wish British Telecom would supply F-Secure. That's how I ended up running Norton, I got it with my ISP (BT). I would use F-Secure if I were you. Personally though, I think that the 64 bit version of MSE is so light I am going to stick with it, even if BT changed to a decent AV (it's presently McAfee, which isn't as bad as Norton IMO, but it's not much better). I have a policy of using FlashBlock, NoScript, WOT, ABP, RequestPolicy, & Calomel/Certificate patrol on Waterfox or SeaMonkey. That coupled with an on-demand scanner (& Dr Web) ensures that I never need to run a bloaty suite again. Plus pages load much quicker when you have some control over scripts & request policies.

 

Yes, but the average user hasn't a clue about what control to excercise over scripts etc. Its so much easier to have a "set and forget" solution - provided, of course, that the solution is effective.

I'm with BT as well but I won't have Norton or Mcafee on my machine. My web hosting account comes with Norton and I haven't taken them up on it either. I'll allow them to do AV (with Norton I believe) at the server level for my email but I double check it with comodo when I download it too.

I guess that says it all for me really - I'm being offered it for free and that can't even give it to me.......

 

Yes, I agree. Although I don't think that any 'set & forget' solution has enough real efficacy. It's (usually) the browser that is the real security risk. Providing Java (if used) & flash are up to date of course. The other security hole, so to speak, is any PDF reader. I believe Adobe's has improved greatly recently. I'm still sticking with PDF X-Change though, as its 64 bit version is so good.

I've certainly learnt my lesson. I'll never run Norton or McAfee on any computer I own again. My (custom built) desktop has only ever used MSE 64 bit. I know that they (Norton/McAfee) are both equally hideous, bloated, prone to false-positives & virtually useless, but McAfee uninstalls much more easily than Norton. Norton is like an infection in itself. I'm pretty sure Symantec does this on purpose as some form of product lock-in. I ran the uninstaller more than once & it still left a Browser Helper Object in Internet Explorer. Plus, when it comes to actually detecting malware at least McAfee is relatively competent. I'm pretty sure Norton couldn't find its own arse!