Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 17th Dec 2010 22:06 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Windows While Microsoft's Security Essentials has been very well received because of its small footprint and unobtrusive nature, it didn't always rank among the very top when it came to its detection rates. Overall, I'd still say it's one of the best antivirus tools. Now, with version 2.0, Microsoft has improved the detection mechanisms, but of course, it'll take some tests before we can see how effective they are.
Order by: Score:
How does it rank?
by AndrewZ on Fri 17th Dec 2010 22:33 UTC
AndrewZ
Member since:
2005-11-15

I rely on MSE more and more, and on 3rd party malware detectors less and less. But I would still like to see a report that ranks the best.

Reply Score: 2

RE: How does it rank?
by b0ne on Fri 17th Dec 2010 22:37 UTC in reply to "How does it rank?"
b0ne Member since:
2006-05-19

See av-test, and av-comparatives.

Reply Score: 1

RE: How does it rank?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 17th Dec 2010 22:47 UTC in reply to "How does it rank?"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I've never understood why. A big part of the reason why its necessary is because of Microsoft's OS design. I just don't trust them not to make the same errors twice.

There is a reason why fortune 500 companies with large accounting departments with many smart people in it hire outside accounting firms to audit them. I don't know why computer security should be any different.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: How does it rank?
by shadoweva09 on Fri 17th Dec 2010 23:37 UTC in reply to "RE: How does it rank?"
shadoweva09 Member since:
2008-03-10

Get a job repairing computers for the public, you'll find it doesn't matter how many security design features they added as over 90% (well, close to 100% really) of the users that get viruses install them manually.

Edited 2010-12-17 23:39 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: How does it rank?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sat 18th Dec 2010 06:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: How does it rank?"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Yeah, I understand that. Why on earth would you want a Microsoft designed solution to that problem? You need a third party to objectively look at the problem with no possible conflict of interest.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: How does it rank?
by wanker90210 on Sat 18th Dec 2010 17:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: How does it rank?"
wanker90210 Member since:
2007-10-26

I think it's a brilliant move. msft is large enough for hosting autonomous sections inside it.

The extra deluxe benefit is that there's (hopefully) some communication with the MSE department and the others in a way not possibly or desired by other companies that thrive on the fact that Windows is shit and ubiqutous.

If Microsoft was a ten man show I'd agree with you, but not now.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: How does it rank?
by shadoweva09 on Sat 18th Dec 2010 17:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: How does it rank?"
shadoweva09 Member since:
2008-03-10

It doesn't matter who designed it, take the Gawker website password leaks where they didn't properly secure the passwords, 99% of security issues that actually cause damage stem from user error and ignorance of security. Even if it's just classic calling them up and tricking them into giving out there passwords.

Edited 2010-12-18 17:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: How does it rank?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sat 18th Dec 2010 18:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: How does it rank?"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I don't understand your argument. I'm saying there is a clear potential for a conflict of interest in having a Microsoft Anti malware program protect a Microsoft operating system. Yes anyone can make mistakes.


There are two potential problems with having the same company

1)If Company A makes mistake 1, they are probably likely to make the same mistake over and over again.

2)Company A may purposefully not protect the system from a class of vulnerabilities that are "ahem" abused for other reasons by their large customers. ( There were some serious security bugs in windows 95 that were preserved in later versions ( through ME) for the purpose of "compatibility".

Company B on the other hand, is likely to still make mistakes, but different ones than Company A. So, hopefully, a small percentage of vulnerabilities will get through Company B and Company A.

Make sense?

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: How does it rank?
by PlatformAgnostic on Sat 18th Dec 2010 20:32 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: How does it rank?"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

I don't think your argument makes sense. Microsoft has a vested interest in ensuring that users have the best overall experience using their computers from a performance, reliability, and safety perspective. Windows is, after all, in competition with Linux-based OSes and Mac OS X.

Anti-virus companies definitely don't have the same holistic interests. They are more interested in getting you to buy subscriptions to their products and continue valuing whatever security they provide. Thus they have an interest in being more intrusive (more popups, balloons, icons, etc) and sacrificing performance and reliability for marginally better protection (if it's better at all).

It's not like the AV products are changing the fundamental security model of the OS (and they cannot legitimately do so other than through the limited hooks the OS provides), so they are not 'plugging any holes' in the OS that Microsoft would have missed. At best they are providing a blacklisting service at a relatively high cost.

As far as I know (which is not that far ;) ), MSE is committed to using only publicly specified interfaces of the Operating System, unlike other AV vendors, so they operate more within the design of the OS, unlike some of the other products.

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: How does it rank?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sun 19th Dec 2010 04:36 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: How does it rank?"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

If you don't agree with me, you aren't paranoid enough about secuirty.

Microsoft Secuirty Essentials do not pass the smell test. Beter than nothing? Yes. Good enough? No.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: How does it rank?
by Soulbender on Sun 19th Dec 2010 08:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: How does it rank?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Well, the problem is that the 3rd party solutions are much worse than MS offering and quite often utterly crap.
The only AV solution I've ever heard anyone say anything good about is eset.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: How does it rank?
by bassbeast on Mon 20th Dec 2010 13:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: How does it rank?"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Uhhhh...I hate to break the news to ya but it IS third party. MSFT just bought Giant Antispy/antivirus and brought the developers onboard. It is the same guys doing the same job they were before, they just get paid by MSFT instead of selling little shiny discs.

Reply Score: 1

XP not excrement just yet
by coreyography on Fri 17th Dec 2010 22:48 UTC
coreyography
Member since:
2009-03-06

I still don't really see that 7 is all that much better than XP. And for VMs, it's lighter weight than W7 in disk, cpu, and memory usage. I intend to keep using it as long as my applications support it.

MSE, however, does seem to be the most resource-efficient AV product I've used.

Reply Score: 1

RE: XP not excrement just yet
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 17th Dec 2010 23:00 UTC in reply to "XP not excrement just yet"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I still don't really see that 7 is all that much better than XP. And for VMs, it's lighter weight than W7 in disk, cpu, and memory usage. I intend to keep using it as long as my applications support it.


Unless you have PIII or earlier, it makes ZERO sense to run XP for hardware reasons. Windows 7 makes MUCH better use of modern hardware features like the video card and multicore processors, while also being about a million times more secure. It's also a lot more stable.

Even back when XP was all that Microsoft had to offer I already found it a steaming pile of crap - with 7 out the door, the stench has only gotten worse.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: XP not excrement just yet
by SlackerJack on Fri 17th Dec 2010 23:16 UTC in reply to "RE: XP not excrement just yet"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

Sorry but last time I looked, XP beat Windows 7 in multi-core performance unless you're using 32 cores.

XP is much more secure now days after the service packs and it actually seems like the hackers are turning to Windows 7 now and 64bit systems. Microsoft made simple mistakes with XP in which they didn't even enable the firewall by default on XP's release(Remember Blaster?).

Simple security issues are why XP was so bad, which was fixed properly in SP2.

Edited 2010-12-17 23:18 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

Try to get rid of an infection of HDD Plus on a WinXP box, and then let's see how fast you change your tune.

Reply Score: 3

SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

I didn't say XP was more secure than Windows 7, I said it was more secure than when XP was released.

Not sure why my comment got voted down because it's the truth if you read it properly, since I compared XP from release to SP2.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: XP not excrement just yet
by WorknMan on Fri 17th Dec 2010 23:25 UTC in reply to "RE: XP not excrement just yet"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Unless you have PIII or earlier, it makes ZERO sense to run XP for hardware reasons. Windows 7 makes MUCH better use of modern hardware features like the video card and multicore processors, while also being about a million times more secure. It's also a lot more stable.


I will agree with 7 being more secure out of the box, but can't agree that it is more stable. I used XP for about 8 years, and could count on two hands the number of times it blue screened on me, and most of those were due to faulty hardware. I'm not saying that 7 is LESS stable, but it's really hard to get any more stable than XP was for me. I also had zero security issues with XP, but I'm one of those individuals that actually used common sense, so perhaps I am in the minority.

As for 7 itself.... meh. I hate the new task bar and the classic win32 theme got switched back on in a hurry. And the whole aero snap thing proved to be a pain in the ass with multiple monitors, so that got turned off too. So externally, it's basically like XP with a slightly improved start menu, and a file manager that's even worse than before. Except that they moved everything around for no apparent reason, so I have to hunt for things in the control panel when I used to know instantly where they were.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: XP not excrement just yet
by pgeorgi on Sat 18th Dec 2010 00:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: XP not excrement just yet"
pgeorgi Member since:
2010-02-18

I used XP for about 8 years, and could count on two hands the number of times it blue screened on me

That might be because starting with XP the default is to reboot instead of showing blue screens - having entire offices "blue" in the morning was just too frightening to corporate customers, while seeing the login screen is somewhat expected (and users forget often enough that they didn't log out the evening before).

See http://www.tunexp.com/tips/maintain_your_computer/disabling_blue_sc...

most of those were due to faulty hardware

Or faulty drivers. I have a (hacked up) video driver on win7 that crashed regularily - the only symptom is that the screen hangs for 15 seconds or so, the driver is reloaded and a tooltip is shown that driver gobbledegook had to be restarted. Applications keep on running.
On XP that would be a sudden reboot.

Edited 2010-12-18 00:21 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: XP not excrement just yet
by WorknMan on Sat 18th Dec 2010 01:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: XP not excrement just yet"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

That might be because starting with XP the default is to reboot instead of showing blue screens.


It never spontaneously rebooted either. Actually, there's an option where you can tell it not to reboot instead of blue screen, and I've always had that turned on.

Granted, it will blue screen more than Vista/7 with bad drivers, but the solution to that is don't install bad drivers ;) lol

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: XP not excrement just yet
by mappy on Sun 19th Dec 2010 05:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: XP not excrement just yet"
mappy Member since:
2010-06-02

That might be because starting with XP the default is to reboot instead of showing blue screen


7 also restarts immediately after a bluescreen by default.

(here: 7/64 ult)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: XP not excrement just yet
by Neolander on Sun 19th Dec 2010 07:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: XP not excrement just yet"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Just out of curiosity, how did you manage to BSOD Windows 7 ? I run it regularily for a bit more than 6 months now, and though DWM/Aero is an awfully buggy piece of sh*t, I never managed to crash the rest.

Edited 2010-12-19 07:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: XP not excrement just yet
by mappy on Sun 19th Dec 2010 08:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: XP not excrement just yet"
mappy Member since:
2010-06-02

Just out of curiosity, how did you manage to BSOD Windows 7 ?

Same way as any operating system - memory corruption in kernel space - either by failing hardware, overheating, or installing drivers that arn't reeeeally compatible.

The days of bsoding through opening a malicious jpeg are over (arguably) but there are still lots of very common non-userspace ways to get a bsod. My last desktop would bsod whenever i accidentally bumped it - turns out i was missing a few standoffs when i assembled it and it was shorting the motherboard to the case ;)

I had a bsod on my first week of vista trying to install an unsigned driver that wasn't as compatible as i thought it was.

EDIT: You can of course see whether or not it restarts by default after a bsod by investigating the setting (Win+Pause > Advanced System Settings > Startup and Recovery > System Failure).

Edited 2010-12-19 08:16 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: XP not excrement just yet
by Neolander on Sun 19th Dec 2010 08:41 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: XP not excrement just yet"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Same way as any operating system - memory corruption in kernel space - either by failing hardware, overheating, or installing drivers that arn't reeeeally compatible.

Not much can be done about failing hardware, indeed, no matter which OS you run, but why does overheating corrupt memory too ? I thought it only resulted in the motherboard's firmware (BIOS, EFI, or whatever else) abruptly turning the computer off ?

Edited 2010-12-19 08:43 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: XP not excrement just yet
by NeoX on Mon 20th Dec 2010 00:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: XP not excrement just yet"
NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19


I used XP for about 8 years, and could count on two hands the number of times it blue screened on me, and most of those were due to faulty hardware. I'm not saying that 7 is LESS stable, but it's really hard to get any more stable than XP was for me. I also had zero security issues with XP, but I'm one of those individuals that actually used common sense, so perhaps I am in the minority.


You are not alone. This is my experience too. Although I can count zero hands how many times my XP system has hard crashed on me. Of course I have had apps crash but never the OS. I build my own systems and have for years and that could be part of it. I use common sense, which a lot of users lack and I do not leave it running 24/7 although sometimes weeks at a time. I can say the same for Vista. So clearly the people that say that XP is unstable and a steaming pile of garbage should look at the junk they are running it on. XP is picky with configurations, from my experience. I repair computers full time and have seen all sorts of hardware errors and hard crashes, but they were usually from faulty hardware or drivers or misbehaving applications that had improper hooks into the OS. (Can you say Norton or McAfee?)

I like 7 and it is growing on me more but to say that it is faster on the same hardware as XP really depends on the hardware and based on my experience I would strongly disagree with that. My 2007ish core 2 duo runs noticeably faster in XP than in Vista or 7. I have somewhat modern hardware, although not the current latest.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: XP not excrement just yet
by smashIt on Fri 17th Dec 2010 23:51 UTC in reply to "RE: XP not excrement just yet"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

i like 7 as much as you thom, but for the 64bit edition a first generation a64 x2 with 2gb is the bare minimum

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: XP not excrement just yet
by 0brad0 on Sat 18th Dec 2010 04:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: XP not excrement just yet"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

i like 7 as much as you thom, but for the 64bit edition a first generation a64 x2 with 2gb is the bare minimum


and? this is 2010. for all intents and purposes I can't buy a system that does not meet those requirements. the minimum requirements are pretty low even for a laptop within the last 3 years never mind a desktop.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: XP not excrement just yet
by VistaUser on Sat 18th Dec 2010 16:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: XP not excrement just yet"
VistaUser Member since:
2008-03-08

I have been using Win7 64 bit with 1 gig of RAM since it came out more or less and have not suffered any issues.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: XP not excrement just yet
by bassbeast on Sun 19th Dec 2010 22:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: XP not excrement just yet"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

I wouldn't say that, I'd say that just like XP before it you have to turn off the crap they leave on to lower support costs (like Homegroup). My oldest has Windows 7 HP X64 on his early Pentium D 805, and before that it was a 3.6GHz P4. On both it had a grand total of 2GB of RAM and ran quite well, although he still prefers his WinXP X64 system builders I gave him last year as it plays his MMOs a little faster.

I myself have run both XP X64 and Win 7 X64 on a 3.06GHz P4 with 1.5GB of RAM and it ran smooth as butter. I have found on certain math problems (such as WinRAR parity encoding) that having 64bit pipelines does help speed things up somewhat. That said if the machine is more than 5 years old there really isn't a point in running Windows 7, as the old 478 P4s and early Athlons just are too slow, especially if they have the standard craptastic IGP.

On the other hand if your machine is newer than 4 years old, or has a Pentium D or better, it really seems kind of silly to risk your machine by running a decade old XP. Windows 7 has UAC, ASLR, Low Rights mode for both IE and Chromium based browsers, you can even add Structured Exception Handling Overwrite Protection with a simple patch. Not only is the security better but the whole OS just handles better with Readyboost, Superfetch, bread crumbs, the libraries, etc. Why anyone would want to go back is beyond me.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: XP not excrement just yet
by coreyography on Sat 18th Dec 2010 05:22 UTC in reply to "RE: XP not excrement just yet"
coreyography Member since:
2009-03-06

Unless you have PIII or earlier, it makes ZERO sense to run XP for hardware reasons. Windows 7 makes MUCH better use of modern hardware features like the video card and multicore processors, while also being about a million times more secure. It's also a lot more stable.

Even back when XP was all that Microsoft had to offer I already found it a steaming pile of crap - with 7 out the door, the stench has only gotten worse.


I haven't noticed much difference in stability; maybe I'm lucky, but XP wasn't all that bad. I guess I hesitate to make that comparison even, since I ran (and still run) XP on a much larger number and variety of machines than I run W7 on.

To each his/her own, though. I don't like the dumbed-down GUI in W7 that takes more mouse clicks to find many things than it did in XP; I don't like that my wifi doesn't reconnect coming out of suspend about 70% of the time (could be a driver issue, but Linux doesn't suffer from the problem; I don't have XP on the W7 machine to compare). And W7 is bigger, a bloat which for single- or limited-purpose VMs, does not make sense to carry.

As for security, I ran my XP in limited-user mode, without AV, for a couple years with no problems. I had non-computer-savvy friends run it in LU mode (with AV) also for long periods with no problems. And Stuxnet et al showed that W7 isn't immune to threats. I'm not saying that W7 isn't more secure than XP, but *for me* the difference isn't noticeable, and does not outweigh the extra weight in some of the scenarios I run Windows in.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: XP not excrement just yet
by aesiamun on Sat 18th Dec 2010 07:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: XP not excrement just yet"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

I will say that the wireless network connects on both my wife's Dell Inspiron 1525 and my HP Pavilion coming out of both sleep and hibernation without any issues. I would definitely look at a possible driver issue.

Reply Score: 2

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

more clicks? Ever heard of jump lists?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: XP not excrement just yet
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 18th Dec 2010 07:25 UTC in reply to "RE: XP not excrement just yet"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Unless you have PIII or earlier, it makes ZERO sense to run XP for hardware reasons. Windows 7 makes MUCH better use of modern hardware features like the video card and multicore processors, while also being about a million times more secure. It's also a lot more stable.

I have a 1.7GHz P4 machine (with that great PC-800 RDRAM in all its expensive, scarce glory) that would have to disagree with this.

In fact, after installing the Creative and nVidia drivers and a couple other what I would call "essential" programs on a freshly-installed copy of Windows XP SP2, even XP tends to run like ass on it. I never dared to install anti-virus software, because that would really kill the usability (plus, I believe no anti-virus software works as it claims to for someone who knows something about what they're doing in the first place).

Certainly if I have a P4 with such a low amount of RAM, there are PIII machines out there with similar (or even less) amounts of memory. And imagine this... this machine came with *gasp* 128MB RAM. It was ordered with 256, but for some reason came with only 128, but that was "corrected" by shelling out even more money very soon after receiving the machine.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: XP not excrement just yet
by Neolander on Sat 18th Dec 2010 07:39 UTC in reply to "RE: XP not excrement just yet"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Windows 7 makes MUCH better use of modern hardware features like the video card (...)

Uh ? Since when is reducing battery life by using the GPU for drawing every single tiny thing making much better use of hardware ?

Check the peak power consumption of a top-notch CPU, then that of a top-notch video card. Add up the years of advance that CPUs have in terms of power saving features. GPUs are for games and other heavy duty, they should not be turned on for trivial things.

Edited 2010-12-18 07:45 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: XP not excrement just yet
by oiaohm on Sat 18th Dec 2010 08:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: XP not excrement just yet"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

Are you serous-ally always wanting to comment without research. Neolander

GPU vs CPU for desktop power usage. Sad part is a correctly power managed GPU will beat CPU's in most cases.

Problem is peak power consumption does not have to happen in proper power managed GPU's. Infact a lot of laptops will over heat if they are held on peak power consumption of the GPU or CPU so both have to run power management pritty good.

GPU in most cases to do graphical operations take less cycles in there processing units todo. So the GPU can return to power saving more often.

Now are there GPU's that are power hogs yes there are. NVIDIA really do need to work on there low power mode instead of doing the duel solution with intel. Ie Intel gpu for low power mode and turn Nvidia on for high power for the simple reason Nvidia cannot segment its chip effectively at this stage. Are there GPU's that are designed well to operate effectively using power management to only turn on parts of there GPU's ATI and Intel.

Biggest problem with comparing a GPU to a CPU is that a GPU is able to process at least 16 times as much as a CPU in the same time frame. Yet the peak power requirement is not 16 times that of a CPU.

Its bit like the study into turning your CPU clock speed down to save power. Infact on most CPU's it turns out run as fast as you can then go to sleep for as long as you can is the most power effective way to run a CPU. And its the same to run a GPU. Hit hard hit fast get job done then rest and repeat.

Now Windows 7 issue is different you cannot expect to do way more and have a power saving. Ie if Windows 7 was rendering a interface like XP using GPU assist power effectiveness would be well ahead of XP unless the GPU lacks proper power management. Reason time. The amount of time GPU would be a peak to perform the task would be less than CPU at peak by a large enough amount that you are ahead.

Hard bit here peak power consumption means nothing is the average in use that is important taking account for suspends and the like.

Yes what you say is true if you video card is Nvidia but everything else what you said is false. Should we not be yelling at Nvidia for better quality hardware?

Edited 2010-12-18 08:33 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: XP not excrement just yet
by Neolander on Sat 18th Dec 2010 09:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: XP not excrement just yet"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Many issues with what you said :

-You keep invoking the mythical "properly power managed GPU", even when it turns out that NVidia chips, which are the norm on the vast majority of high-end laptops, do not belong to this category. You claim that Intel and AMD GPUs are lighter on battery than raw CPU power, but you do not provide sources for this.

-You also conveniently forget than when GPUs are doing their thing, CPUs are not totally idle either. So total power consumption of the computer is that of the GPU PLUS that of the CPU. Sure, the CPU is not doing all the calculations by itself, and thus much less active, but as you say yourself power consumption does not grow linearly with activity.

-Next problem is that when you give computing power to a corporate developer, he's always going to use all of it and ask for more. It's a fact of life. If Windows 7 had a software rendered UI, its developers would be forced to keep their UI rendering threads light on resources. But now that they can use the GPU... Well... You get unreadable transparent controls and annoying animations everywhere as a default setting (though we can thankfully bypass that). Net result is that Windows Vista lasts 20% less long on battery (source : http://www.mydigitallife.info/2008/03/22/lenovo-vista-battery-life-... ), and Windows 7, which introduces no major change, is probably just as terrible, though I did not find a similar test for it.

Edited 2010-12-18 09:19 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: XP not excrement just yet
by oiaohm on Sat 18th Dec 2010 14:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: XP not excrement just yet"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

Many issues with what you said :
-You keep invoking the mythical "properly power managed GPU", even when it turns out that NVidia chips, which are the norm on the vast majority of high-end laptops, do not belong to this category. You claim that Intel and AMD GPUs are lighter on battery than raw CPU power, but you do not provide sources for this.

Because they are common sources to people doing embeded development NVIDIA ATI and INTEL power consumption sheets and management methods. To be correct you are wrong on high end laptops. Most high end Nvidia laptops these days are intel/nvidia hybreds that don't run well with Linux http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1221136906708.html and has been that way since 2008. And its Windows 7 screen rendering the intel has enough balls todo it without burning the power budget out. Basically if you are talking NVIDIA gpu you are saying I want my battery in my laptop to be able to go buy buy at a moments notice.

This was purely done due to Nvidia power sucking bad habits. Nvidia does produce one GPU that works proper for power usage its in the Nvidia Tigra does not work with windows at all since the CPU is arm.


-You also conveniently forget than when GPUs are doing their thing, CPUs are not totally idle either. So total power consumption of the computer is that of the GPU PLUS that of the CPU. Sure, the CPU is not doing all the calculations by itself, and thus much less active, but as you say yourself power consumption does not grow linearly with activity.

Incorrect in fact on all counts. GPU when it doing its screen prep work the CPU can be in a complete suspended state. Its only sometimes GPU Plus CPU.

I did not forget the power the CPU consumes. For the CPU to perform the same task as a power effective GPU it takes 1 more time. Lot more time. CPU are not designed to mess around with images like GPU's are. GPU operations are more suited to the task. So even allowing for the CPU running GPU + CPU still works out less. As long as you are comparing same load to same load. Now if someone expects the system todo more they are going to get less battery life.

ATI and Intel video chipsets power consumption does almost grow linearly with activity. Due to segmentation in the dia design. So only enough of the chip todo the job has to be turned on at the one time. Ie the big Nvidia problem the massive on off switch solution to power management.

-Next problem is that when you give computing power to a corporate developer, he's always going to use all of it and ask for more. It's a fact of life. If Windows 7 had a software rendered UI, its developers would be forced to keep their UI rendering threads light on resources. But now that they can use the GPU... Well... You get unreadable transparent controls and annoying animations everywhere as a default setting (though we can thankfully bypass that). Net result is that Windows Vista lasts 20% less long on battery (source : http://www.mydigitallife.info/2008/03/22/lenovo-vista-battery-life-... ), and Windows 7, which introduces no major change, is probably just as terrible, though I did not find a similar test for it.

Now the last bit that is the true vampire of the power. But with multi core cpu systems even with software rendering some where getting heavy.

You get unreadable transparent controls and annoying animations everywhere as a default setting
Even when you turn those animations off Windows 7 still performs a GPU noop for them that is basically double process a buffer without need. So you don't get as much power saving as you should turning it off. This is one vampire.

So some of Windows 7 power eat is pure bad coding.

Anyone who has followed Linux and some of the power hunters. Will know this http://www.pubbs.net/200901/fedora/30923-rfc-disabling-blinking-cur... Yes blinking curser even if the cpu is rendering wakes the GPU up and burns 2 watts extra power. So it really does not take much extra to completely blow away all powersavings from using CPU and GPU with each other. Also you have to remember there are programs out there like blender that by default use the GPU for there rendering and are particularly bad for battery life on Nvidia/intel hybred laptops. Yet are fine on ATI laptops. That is not a Windows 7 thing that is generic XP or Windows 7 opengl interface rendered apps Nvidia performs badly for battery life.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: XP not excrement just yet
by Neolander on Sat 18th Dec 2010 17:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: XP not excrement just yet"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

To be correct you are wrong on high end laptops. Most high end Nvidia laptops these days are intel/nvidia hybreds that don't run well with Linux http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1221136906708.html and has been that way since 2008. And its Windows 7 screen rendering the intel has enough balls todo it without burning the power budget out. Basically if you are talking NVIDIA gpu you are saying I want my battery in my laptop to be able to go buy buy at a moments notice.

This was purely done due to Nvidia power sucking bad habits. Nvidia does produce one GPU that works proper for power usage its in the Nvidia Tigra does not work with windows at all since the CPU is arm.

Indeed, totally forgot about Optimus when checking which GPU the average high-end laptop sported, though it was a big selling point when I bought mine. My bad.

Incorrect in fact on all counts. GPU when it doing its screen prep work the CPU can be in a complete suspended state. Its only sometimes GPU Plus CPU.

I did not forget the power the CPU consumes. For the CPU to perform the same task as a power effective GPU it takes 1 more time. Lot more time. CPU are not designed to mess around with images like GPU's are. GPU operations are more suited to the task. So even allowing for the CPU running GPU + CPU still works out less. As long as you are comparing same load to same load. Now if someone expects the system todo more they are going to get less battery life.

ATI and Intel video chipsets power consumption does almost grow linearly with activity. Due to segmentation in the dia design. So only enough of the chip todo the job has to be turned on at the one time. Ie the big Nvidia problem the massive on off switch solution to power management.

Okay, I give you the benefit of doubt at the moment. But I need some experimental data before I believe that totally. We'll see how much I can make this notebook last on software rendering vs Intel GPU-accelerated rendering once I'm able to test both on a task similar to UI rendering with no background process tainting the results, that should be a good test.

Now the last bit that is the true vampire of the power. But with multi core cpu systems even with software rendering some where getting heavy.

Indeed, but then we go back to my initial point : even high-end multicore CPUs have a much lower peak wattage than GPUs.

Why does it matter ? Any good UI layer should have a worst-case refresh time stated somewhere in its scope statement. Supposing it's 1/30 of a second, it means that on supported hardware, the CPU/GPU shouldn't work on refreshing the UI for more than 1/30 of a second before being done, and therefore going back to its idle state.

Even if our developer is a power vampire, he must respect that criteria or he'll be fired. His refresh routine must be completed in a 30th of second. But during that 30th of second, he can waste much more power using a GPU than using a CPU.

You get unreadable transparent controls and annoying animations everywhere as a default setting
Even when you turn those animations off Windows 7 still performs a GPU noop for them that is basically double process a buffer without need. So you don't get as much power saving as you should turning it off. This is one vampire.

u_u Horrors like this should never be sold as a finished product.

So some of Windows 7 power eat is pure bad coding.

I think poor design is a major culprit too. After all, desktop OSs wouldn't take more than a few seconds to boot on a modern computer if they were designed properly.

Anyone who has followed Linux and some of the power hunters. Will know this http://www.pubbs.net/200901/fedora/30923-rfc-disabling-blinking-cur... Yes blinking curser even if the cpu is rendering wakes the GPU up and burns 2 watts extra power. So it really does not take much extra to completely blow away all powersavings from using CPU and GPU with each other.

Indeed, this is why power saving should be tested just as carefully as other critical aspects of operating system software in my opinion.

Also you have to remember there are programs out there like blender that by default use the GPU for there rendering

Well, I don't blame blender for doing that because it is a power vampire by its very nature. No one in his right mind would do 3D modeling and rendering on a battery-powered computer AND expect good battery life and optimal performance at the same time. Since these are full of CPU- and GPU-bound tasks, they are sucking a lot of power naturally, and hardware power management features can do nothing to prevent that from happening.

If I'm not misunderstood, what can be optimized from the point of view of power management are only the (numerous) tasks of a desktop computer where part of or all of the hardware is left idle most of the time, and those where there are precise performance goals (e.g. real-time audio synthesis must output 44100 frames per second (or whatever else the sampling rate of the audio hardware is), or the playback will be choppy)

and are particularly bad for battery life on Nvidia/intel hybred laptops. Yet are fine on ATI laptops. That is not a Windows 7 thing that is generic XP or Windows 7 opengl interface rendered apps Nvidia performs badly for battery life.

Can you explain why exactly ? Not sure that I followed you on this one.

Edited 2010-12-18 17:14 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: XP not excrement just yet
by oiaohm on Sat 18th Dec 2010 22:59 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: XP not excrement just yet"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30



"Now the last bit that is the true vampire of the power. But with multi core cpu systems even with software rendering some where getting heavy.

Indeed, but then we go back to my initial point : even high-end multicore CPUs have a much lower peak wattage than GPUs.

Why does it matter ? Any good UI layer should have a worst-case refresh time stated somewhere in its scope statement. Supposing it's 1/30 of a second, it means that on supported hardware, the CPU/GPU shouldn't work on refreshing the UI for more than 1/30 of a second before being done, and therefore going back to its idle state.

Even if our developer is a power vampire, he must respect that criteria or he'll be fired. His refresh routine must be completed in a 30th of second. But during that 30th of second, he can waste much more power using a GPU than using a CPU.
"
Yes the GPU has higher peak watts but there is a be problem. How many processing cores does you cpu have. Most modernday GPU have hundreds and into thousands. Good designs like ATI can turn each of those on and off 1 by 1. And the Thoughput but of data on the GPU means having.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVkDx_4GP5M This shows the time completion difference. Basically 30 of sec using CPU developer might to make it either. Due to how many times slower a cpu is against a gpu.

Its also suppring how power effective each gpu processing core is. If GPU cores consumed as much power as a x86 core for data processed there is no way you could power them at all you would be look at 10 to 20 thousand watt power supplies just for the video card. Ie wire melting.

AMD is working on CPU GPU hybred for supercomputers for the power effectiveness features. Basically bang vs buck. If you make x86 cpu core and gpu cores that consume exactly the same ammount of power at peak. The gpu cores can process more data in the same time frame. Way more.


"You get unreadable transparent controls and annoying animations everywhere as a default setting
Even when you turn those animations off Windows 7 still performs a GPU noop for them that is basically double process a buffer without need. So you don't get as much power saving as you should turning it off. This is one vampire.

u_u Horrors like this should never be sold as a finished product.

So some of Windows 7 power eat is pure bad coding.

I think poor design is a major culprit too. After all, desktop OSs wouldn't take more than a few seconds to boot on a modern computer if they were designed properly.

Anyone who has followed Linux and some of the power hunters. Will know this http://www.pubbs.net/200901/fedora/30923-rfc-disabling-blinking-cur... Yes blinking curser even if the cpu is rendering wakes the GPU up and burns 2 watts extra power. So it really does not take much extra to completely blow away all powersavings from using CPU and GPU with each other.

Indeed, this is why power saving should be tested just as carefully as other critical aspects of operating system software in my opinion.

Also you have to remember there are programs out there like blender that by default use the GPU for there rendering

Well, I don't blame blender for doing that because it is a power vampire by its very nature. No one in his right mind would do 3D modeling and rendering on a battery-powered computer AND expect good battery life and optimal performance at the same time. Since these are full of CPU- and GPU-bound tasks, they are sucking a lot of power naturally, and hardware power management features can do nothing to prevent that from happening.

If I'm not misunderstood, what can be optimized from the point of view of power management are only the (numerous) tasks of a desktop computer where part of or all of the hardware is left idle most of the time, and those where there are precise performance goals (e.g. real-time audio synthesis must output 44100 frames per second (or whatever else the sampling rate of the audio hardware is), or the playback will be choppy)

and are particularly bad for battery life on Nvidia/intel hybred laptops. Yet are fine on ATI laptops. That is not a Windows 7 thing that is generic XP or Windows 7 opengl interface rendered apps Nvidia performs badly for battery life.

Can you explain why exactly ? Not sure that I followed you on this one.
"

Its the difference between the ATI and Nvidia chip design. Blender triggers Nvidia/intel hybred to switch over from the intel to the Nvidia what is basically all Nvidia cores turn on to respond to the processing so power ouch. Where the ATI unless blender trys todo something heavy with the GPU only a few GPU cores are turned on when they are needed.

Basically way better power management in the ATI and it shows.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: XP not excrement just yet
by Andre on Sat 18th Dec 2010 10:23 UTC in reply to "RE: XP not excrement just yet"
Andre Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry, but on my (early) Pentium 4 (Willamette) (1.6 Ghz)
It's not that suitable for Windows Vista or 7. I guess, that machine is better off with XP.

It got 512 MB of RAM. But installing more RAM is difficult, since it uses PC800 RDRAM, so, a rare type of memory and the mainboard is picky about it's modules. Also, having to replace the video card, just to run the OS in a normal way seems rediculas to me (I am no gamer whatsoever, so I don't need 3D stuff)

In my opinion, to run an Operating System like Windows Vista or Windows 7, the "Pentium III or earier" doesn't work. I think you need a recent Pentium 4 or newer with a shitload of RAM and a modern 3d card.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I think you need a recent Pentium 4 or newer with a shitload of RAM and a modern 3d card.


My media centre is a 2002 PIV-2.8Ghz, 2GB of RAM, and a GeFore 6200. You could get all that for like 30USD off eBay, and it does full HD without a hitch.

I also run Windows 7 comfortably on an Intel Atom dual-core 1.6Ghz/2GB of RAM/Intel with the crappiest of crappy Intel 945GC chipsets (no dedicated video card). My now-dead netbook, the same spec but with the single-core first-gen Atom, also ran Windows 7 just fine (incl. all the graphics stuff).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: XP not excrement just yet
by bassbeast on Tue 21st Dec 2010 08:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: XP not excrement just yet"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Hi Andre! If you have a XP Pro license you might want to look into "TinyXP Rev 09" as I have found that it works MUCH better than standard XP on low RAM systems such as yours. in fact if you choose "bare-without IE and OE" (it provides FireFox and you can of course use Chrome as well) you are looking at just 50MB! on the desktop. I tested it on a 400MHz P3 with 384MB of RAM, and it was actually snappy, on a system like yours it would fly!

That said if you keep an eye on Newegg and Tigerdirect you can find MB+CPU kits pretty cheap, so maybe you ought to think about getting a cheapo AMD dual core. Sadly you can get a dual core PLUS MB for less than getting a decent amount of RDRAM. Add a 1GB DDR2 and you can easily get out with less than $90 invested, and you would have nicer EVERYTHING-nicer CPU, nicer GPU, faster RAM, etc.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: XP not excrement just yet
by UltraZelda64 on Sun 19th Dec 2010 18:53 UTC in reply to "RE: XP not excrement just yet"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Nevermind, forgot I already posted in this topic...

Edited 2010-12-19 18:54 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: XP not excrement just yet
by nt_jerkface on Sat 18th Dec 2010 21:40 UTC in reply to "XP not excrement just yet"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

ASLR alone is enough of a reason to upgrade.

But also:
UAC
Virtual registry
Strong account separation

XP should be dumped for security reasons just like IE6.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: XP not excrement just yet
by lemur2 on Sun 19th Dec 2010 09:25 UTC in reply to "RE: XP not excrement just yet"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

ASLR alone is enough of a reason to upgrade.

But also:
UAC
Virtual registry
Strong account separation


None of those things will prevent malicious code from getting on to a Windows 7 machine where the author has deliberately included malware wrapped within a trojan horse style application, and the user (who is given no means to vet the code or have it vetted by someone else who did not write the code) has then proceeded to install it, conciously clicking "allow" on the UAC prompt.

XP should be dumped for security reasons just like IE6.


Yes indeed. If one wants to be assured that there will be no malware compromises in the future, the best approach is to make replacement system open source.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: XP not excrement just yet
by jbauer on Sun 19th Dec 2010 11:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: XP not excrement just yet"
jbauer Member since:
2005-07-06



Yes indeed. If one wants to be assured that there will be no malware compromises in the future, the best approach is to make replacement system open source.


Indeed. In the future, all new software systems should be open source by law. And maybe GPLv3, I haven't decided that yet.

Edited 2010-12-19 11:30 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: XP not excrement just yet
by lemur2 on Sun 19th Dec 2010 12:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: XP not excrement just yet"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"

Yes indeed. If one wants to be assured that there will be no malware compromises in the future, the best approach is to make replacement system open source.


Indeed. In the future, all new software systems should be open source by law. And maybe GPLv3, I haven't decided that yet.
"

There is no need to make it law. All that is needed is to allow it to be offered to people, so that they can buy it in stores.

Cheaper system, better functionality, no malware. Side-by-side in the store with Windows systems, let consumers choose.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Cheaper system


Debatable. A Windows license is like EUR 10. Cheaper can also be seen as crappy.

better functionality


Utter nonsense. Call me when Linux has working graphics and audio stacks. Until then, it's a toy on the desktop.

no malware


...and no Photoshop, no Microsoft Office, no games. It's a trade-off.

Side-by-side in the store with Windows systems, let consumers choose.


They'll pick Windows (or maybe a Mac). Not Linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: XP not excrement just yet
by lemur2 on Sun 19th Dec 2010 13:03 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: XP not excrement just yet"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Cheaper system


Debatable. A Windows license is like EUR 10. Cheaper can also be seen as crappy.
"

For your EUR 10, with a Windows license, you don't get Photoshop, Microsoft Office, or games. Its a tradeoff.

"better functionality


Utter nonsense. Call me when Linux has working graphics and audio stacks. Until then, it's a toy on the desktop.
"

Ring, ring ... hello Thom? Works fine!

Why the FUD? Kickbacks?

"no malware


...and no Photoshop, no Microsoft Office, no games. It's a trade-off.
"

Actually, I can get GIMP, darktable, Krita, digikam and others, Libreoffice and some games, for zero cost. I can cover of a good deal of what would cost on Windows over 1000 EUR extra, for nothing. More than good enough for the vast majority of users, except perhaps gamers. This is not a tradeoff, this is a slam dunk win for FOSS applications.

Gamers can buy a console.

"Side-by-side in the store with Windows systems, let consumers choose.


They'll pick Windows (or maybe a Mac). Not Linux.
"

That is a matter of advertising. If enough ordinary people don't have ready cash, and decide to go with inexpensive Linux, and then they found out that they didn't actually miss out on a single thing except malware ... word would spread soon enough.

Edited 2010-12-19 13:06 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Why the FUD? Kickbacks?


If, after all these years of me doing OSNews, you still dare to accuse me of being paid by Microsoft, there's clearly something wrong with you.

I think that if you were to look at our posting histories, you'd see if there's anyone being paid to comment here, it's you.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: XP not excrement just yet
by siride on Sun 19th Dec 2010 18:54 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: XP not excrement just yet"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

lol @ suggesting that the OS replacements for things like Photoshop and Office are anything more than laughable, unstable, ugly toys.

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


That is a matter of advertising. If enough ordinary people don't have ready cash, and decide to go with inexpensive Linux, and then they found out that they didn't actually miss out on a single thing except malware ... word would spread soon enough.


Sure there is the security benefit but it comes with a massive trade-off. Not only is there a loss in hardware/software compatibility but learning a new system is considered a cost to ordinary consumers.

Currently the best way for Linux to achieve any mainstream adoption is to not compete with Windows or OSX directly and instead be sold on ultra-portables where consumers are not expecting a full system. Windows 7 isn't expensive enough for consumers to consider Linux alternative a desktop or laptop. It had a chance to gain some traction when MS botched the Vista release but Linux wasn't ready either and you'll just have to live with the results.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: XP not excrement just yet
by lemur2 on Mon 20th Dec 2010 10:26 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: XP not excrement just yet"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"better functionality


Utter nonsense. Call me when Linux has working graphics and audio stacks. Until then, it's a toy on the desktop.
"

BTW Thom, watch the video:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODkzOQ

It works fine, Thom. Don't try to pull the wool over your readers eyes.

More video of another game here:
http://www.zeroballistics.com/videos.php?um=2&lm=2&PHPSESSID=998u5t...

Edited 2010-12-20 10:34 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

*sigh*.

Sure, it works. But it's miles behind Aero. An application crash can bring down the entire graphics stack, causing you to lose ALL your data. It's layer upon layer upon layer of crap - heck even Red Hat's X.org team has admitted as such, and yet here you are, claiming to know better than the very people actually working on X?

On Windows, I can install graphics drivers without the need for a restart. Most graphics driver crashes are gracefully recovered from (all you see is a screen flicker). It has graceful degradation when it encounters an old application that is incompatible with the new stack.

X.org developers themselves have had it up to HERE with X, and are now beginning to plan the move away from it, for the very same reasons I've been saying fr years. Yet, here you are, claiming that X.org is just fine?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: XP not excrement just yet
by vodoomoth on Mon 20th Dec 2010 14:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: XP not excrement just yet"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

10 EUR? Are you serious? If so, can someone point me to where I can get that? I'm currently in the process of choosing the components for a desktop system I will build so that cheap license would be welcome.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

10 EUR? Are you serious? If so, can someone point me to where I can get that? I'm currently in the process of choosing the components for a desktop system I will build so that cheap license would be welcome.


Become an OEM, ship millions of systems, and then, yes, a Windows license will only set you back about 10 EUR a pop.

Edited 2010-12-20 15:34 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: XP not excrement just yet
by jbauer on Mon 20th Dec 2010 08:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: XP not excrement just yet"
jbauer Member since:
2005-07-06


There is no need to make it law. All that is needed is to allow it to be offered to people, so that they can buy it in stores.

Cheaper system, better functionality, no malware. Side-by-side in the store with Windows systems, let consumers choose.


Now, that's where you're wrong. Consumers have proven that they will systematically choose the more expensive, less functional, malware-ridden system. We're just not smart enough. That's why we need to force open-source. Just to make sure, for the greater good.

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

None of those things will prevent malicious code from getting on to a Windows 7 machine where the author has deliberately included malware wrapped within a trojan horse style application,


So what? They have stopped a long list of drive-by and email attacks. That recent drive-by firefox exploit was using javascript to filter out W7 and Vista users since it would have been triggered UAC. Downplay those technologies all you want but they have a clear record of being effective at improving security.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: XP not excrement just yet
by lemur2 on Sun 19th Dec 2010 22:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: XP not excrement just yet"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"None of those things will prevent malicious code from getting on to a Windows 7 machine where the author has deliberately included malware wrapped within a trojan horse style application,
So what? They have stopped a long list of drive-by and email attacks. That recent drive-by firefox exploit was using javascript to filter out W7 and Vista users since it would have been triggered UAC. Downplay those technologies all you want but they have a clear record of being effective at improving security. "

Agreed. The technologies you mention do indeed improve security a great deal on Windows systems. Without them, Windows systems could easily be compromised through casual Internet use no matter what the end user did. With them, the only still-common means which remains is for the user to be persuaded to download and install a trojan horse.

Nevertheless, even with these technologies in place, trojan horse attacks of Windows systems are still common. If a user has up-to-date anti-malware installed, such as MSE, then there is still a small failure rate for detection of malware within the trojan horse ... for MSE this failure rate is about 1.6%.

The only known, effective way to overcome this remaining security hole is to require that the source code of applications is visible to anyone and everyone. Some applications of course don't need that, they can be trusted without the source code being visible, but other applications cannot be trusted, and they contain deliberate code intended to compromise the end users system.

In the Windows ecosystem, with closed-source applications being the norm, there is no way for ordinary users to tell the difference. As a consequence, an estimated 50% of ordinary user's Windows systems are compromised. That is massive.

Reply Score: 2

Odd
by Gone fishing on Sat 18th Dec 2010 09:28 UTC
Gone fishing
Member since:
2006-02-22

The article's about MSE, the debates about XP vs Windows 7. Seems that XP has still many fans over Windows 7 and a lot of people are going to be upset when it is no longer supported (and can't be activated?(interpret as a question)).

Personally I don't think XP is really fit for purpose horribly insecure etc, and i don't think MSE can patch that. Windows 7 doesn't seem to me to be universally loved (I know Thom rates it, but why?). I find it a vast improvement of Vista, but thats about as nice to use as a dose of the pox. I find win 7 a bit slow and clunky, wireless networking is fairly horrid as is printing, some driver issues (I have some older hardware) and some compatibility issues with older programs. Windows 7 is OK but not great I can see why some folk want to stay with XP - but their probably wrong to.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Odd
by lucas_maximus on Sat 18th Dec 2010 10:27 UTC in reply to "Odd"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

After using Windows 7 at home and at my old job for quite a while ... going back to XP in my current job feels like I gone back to using CDE in the University Sun Ray Lab.

There are lots of nice little UI improvements (Windows key + left/right arrow I couldn't live without).

I don't know why everyone seems to hate 7's Wireless networking, works a lot better with 7 than it ever did in XP, but then again I got a Centrino Laptop and so everything on here is intel (including wireless), I have had problems with cheap wireless dongles, but tbh that is to be expected.

Reply Score: 3

overrated
by DaFreak on Sat 18th Dec 2010 10:13 UTC
DaFreak
Member since:
2008-04-08

"it didn't always rank among the very top" ?

Nah, it always rank among the latest place!
http://www.chip.de/artikel/Microsoft-Security-Essentials-Test_43525... Last place on an actual test in June 2010. I don't think that it's far better with this new version.

If you care about detection rate and speed you won't trust MSE.

Reply Score: 1

RE: overrated
by lucas_maximus on Sat 18th Dec 2010 10:36 UTC in reply to "overrated"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

"it didn't always rank among the very top" ?

Nah, it always rank among the latest place!
http://www.chip.de/artikel/Microsoft-Security-Essentials-Test_43525... Last place on an actual test in June 2010. I don't think that it's far better with this new version.

If you care about detection rate and speed you won't trust MSE.


I can't read German but the article you sited seems to go counter to this,

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/01/ms_security_essentials_revi...

"MSSE was able to detect 536,535 samples what's a very good detection score of 98.44 per cent."

"In case of the ad-/spyware testset, MSSE detected 12,935 out of 14,222 samples what's a detection score of 90.95 per cent."

However the article does say that it falls short in dynamic detection

"We have then tested the dynamic (behavior-based) detection with a few recently released malware samples which are not yet detected by heuristics, signatures or the "in the cloud" features. We found no effective "dynamic detection" features in place. None of the samples were detected based on their (suspicious) behavior. However, other AV-only offerings doesn't include dynamic detection features either, in most cases they are only available in the Internet Security Suites editions of the products."

However I think the important bit is at the end of that quote, It falls short in this area if you compare it to fully paid versions of other products, as opposed to a free one.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: overrated
by lemur2 on Sat 18th Dec 2010 11:24 UTC in reply to "RE: overrated"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"MSSE was able to detect 536,535 samples what's a very good detection score of 98.44 per cent."


That is pretty good, considering that there were two million new pieces of malware for Windows that have emerged in just these last 12 months. If a Windows system with MSE encounters a threat on average once every three days, then with a little bit of luck it could last up to a year perhaps before it fell to a threat that got past MSE.

Oh dear.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: overrated
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 18th Dec 2010 11:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: overrated"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

""MSSE was able to detect 536,535 samples what's a very good detection score of 98.44 per cent."


That is pretty good, considering that there were two million new pieces of malware for Windows that have emerged in just these last 12 months. If a Windows system with MSE encounters a threat on average once every three days, then with a little bit of luck it could last up to a year perhaps before it fell to a threat that got past MSE.

Oh dear.
"

Yes, and how much of that malware targets out-of-date systems, or use social engineering?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: overrated
by lemur2 on Sat 18th Dec 2010 13:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: overrated"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

""MSSE was able to detect 536,535 samples what's a very good detection score of 98.44 per cent."


That is pretty good, considering that there were two million new pieces of malware for Windows that have emerged in just these last 12 months. If a Windows system with MSE encounters a threat on average once every three days, then with a little bit of luck it could last up to a year perhaps before it fell to a threat that got past MSE.

Oh dear.


Yes, and how much of that malware targets out-of-date systems, or use social engineering?
"

Most of it would target out-of-date systems, or use social engineering. The idea of ant-virus, BTW, is to detect malware once it is on a system, however it got on to the system. Once malware is on the system, anti-virus updates after-the-fact probably won't work. The only chance is if the anti-malware system detects the malware prior to or on installation, or on first access. After that, most likely, game over.

<sarcasm>BTW, the Windows systems are still compromised, even if the users did commint the horrendous errors of being out-of-date or of installing something that looked useful but which they had no chance of vetting.

Compromised systems are almost always due to evil end users.

Apparently, current estimates put it at about 50% of Windows end users who are evil in this way. Shocking.
</sarcasm>

Edited 2010-12-18 13:27 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: overrated
by vodoomoth on Mon 20th Dec 2010 14:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: overrated"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

"The idea of ant-virus, BTW, is to detect malware once it is on a system, however it got on to the system."

Sorry but that's not correct. I don't know about other products, but Antivir warns before a suspicious js file is loaded by the browser; it warns before a suspicious file is written to the HDD. So no, it's not always medicine after death.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: overrated
by lucas_maximus on Sat 18th Dec 2010 12:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: overrated"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

That is pretty good, considering that there were two million new pieces of malware for Windows that have emerged in just these last 12 months. If a Windows system with MSE encounters a threat on average once every three days, then with a little bit of luck it could last up to a year perhaps before it fell to a threat that got past MSE.


Oh here we go, Anti-Windows again. You are like a broken record.

Firstly,

Where is this "encounters a thread on average once every three days" you pulled out of thin air?!

Otherwise your claim of "it could last up to a year perhaps before it fell to a threat that got past MSE." is total rubbish.

Secondly,

Common sense is more important than running Anti-Virus software. Anti-Virus will always be "last line of defense".

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: overrated
by lemur2 on Sat 18th Dec 2010 13:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: overrated"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Common sense is more important than running Anti-Virus software. Anti-Virus will always be "last line of defense".


Actually, what would be most useful would be visibility of the source code. People who could understand source code, and who did not write the software, can get to see what is in the software source code.

That alone would eliminate the vast majority of malware.

Where is this "encounters a thread on average once every three days" you pulled out of thin air?!

Otherwise your claim of "it could last up to a year perhaps before it fell to a threat that got past MSE." is total rubbish.


I made no claim, I made a calculation:

MSE detection rate: 98.44 per cent.
If a Windows system with MSE encounters a threat on average once every three days, then with a little bit of luck it could last up to a year perhaps before it fell to a threat that got past MSE.

Now, how often a given Windows system encounters a threat is entirely problematic.

However, I have seen a number of Windows systems used frequently (perhpas daily) as Internet clients which have had MSE installed, and which have gone down to malware in less than a year.

This is just an anecdote (just as my calculation is just a calculation), but there it is.

Edited 2010-12-18 13:34 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: overrated
by lucas_maximus on Sat 18th Dec 2010 16:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: overrated"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Actually, what would be most useful would be visibility of the source code. People who could understand source code, and who did not write the software, can get to see what is in the software source code.

That alone would eliminate the vast majority of malware.


Is there any evidence of this?

Development practices are far more important than whether someone can or cannot see the code. Being able to freely view the code does not make everyone instantly magically understand it, nor does it make it magically more secure.

I made no claim, I made a calculation:

MSE detection rate: 98.44 per cent.
If a Windows system with MSE encounters a threat on average once every three days, then with a little bit of luck it could last up to a year perhaps before it fell to a threat that got past MSE.

Now, how often a given Windows system encounters a threat is entirely problematic.


You stated it as if it were a fact ... which now you are backtracking and saying it wasn't.

You have no hard numbers your calculation means absolutely nothing as I stated before.

However, I have seen a number of Windows systems used frequently (perhpas daily) as Internet clients which have had MSE installed, and which have gone down to malware in less than a year.

This is just an anecdote (just as my calculation is just a calculation), but there it is.


Which means nothing since they are anedotes. Go and push your agenda another time please.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: overrated
by lemur2 on Sun 19th Dec 2010 08:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: overrated"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Actually, what would be most useful would be visibility of the source code. People who could understand source code, and who did not write the software, can get to see what is in the software source code.

That alone would eliminate the vast majority of malware.


Is there any evidence of this?
"

Sure there is. Wherever there is solid integrity between an open source project development environment (where anyone and everyone can see the source code) and the eventual installation on and end user's machine, there has never been a single solitary case of malware getting on to the end users machine. It is simply too hard to hide something malicious.

Development practices are far more important than whether someone can or cannot see the code.


Hardly. There are malware authors whose active, prime intent is to write malware. The only way that this can happen is that the end user victims (and everyone else for that matter) are not allowed to see the source code. It doesn't matter one whit what "development practices" the malware author employs, he or she is still writing malware. In point of fact, distributing that malware as closed source is just about the ONLY requirement of the development practices the malware author should use.

Being able to freely view the code does not make everyone instantly magically understand it, nor does it make it magically more secure.


Not everyone has to understand it, just one person somewhere (who did not write the code) has to understand it. Visibility of the source code doesn't make code more secure, but it does make sure it is honest code, and that there is no deliberate malicious intent written in to it.

"I made no claim, I made a calculation:

MSE detection rate: 98.44 per cent.
If a Windows system with MSE encounters a threat on average once every three days, then with a little bit of luck it could last up to a year perhaps before it fell to a threat that got past MSE.

Now, how often a given Windows system encounters a threat is entirely problematic.


You stated it as if it were a fact ... which now you are backtracking and saying it wasn't.
"

I did no such thing. I neither stated it was a fact (in fact, the very first word I wrote was IF), nor do I backtrack from anything. My original calculation and the sentence in which I expressed it still stands, unmodified.

It isn't my problem if you are unable to read and understand what was written.

You have no hard numbers your calculation means absolutely nothing as I stated before.


It means exactly what it said. A system with a 98.4% success rate is also a system with a 1.6% failure rate. My calculation just put that into perspective, and serves only to illustrate what it could possibly mean when the system was the sole anti-malware provision on an ordinary person's Windows machine.

"However, I have seen a number of Windows systems used frequently (perhpas daily) as Internet clients which have had MSE installed, and which have gone down to malware in less than a year.

This is just an anecdote (just as my calculation is just a calculation), but there it is.


Which means nothing since they are anedotes. Go and push your agenda another time please.
"

You do what you want, and I will continue to do what I want (which is to speak the truth in the interests of ordinary people), and we should get on just fine.

Edited 2010-12-19 08:58 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: overrated
by lucas_maximus on Sun 19th Dec 2010 18:25 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: overrated"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Sure there is. Wherever there is solid integrity between an open source project development environment (where anyone and everyone can see the source code) and the eventual installation on and end user's machine, there has never been a single solitary case of malware getting on to the end users machine. It is simply too hard to hide something malicious.


Again no evidence. You state it as fact and there isn't a single shred of proof. Again you are mixing up "malware being shipped", with malware getting onto a system. They are different and stop pretending they are.

Hardly. There are malware authors whose active, prime intent is to write malware. The only way that this can happen is that the end user victims (and everyone else for that matter) are not allowed to see the source code. It doesn't matter one whit what "development practices" the malware author employs, he or she is still writing malware. In point of fact, distributing that malware as closed source is just about the ONLY requirement of the development practices the malware author should use.


Malware =! Closed Sourced Application. They are not the same. What are you on about??

Not everyone has to understand it, just one person somewhere (who did not write the code) has to understand it. Visibility of the source code doesn't make code more secure, but it does make sure it is honest code, and that there is no deliberate malicious intent written in to it.


Being Closed source does not make the code automatically evil. Just means that developers have put a considerable amount of work into something and wish to keep their code theirs, since they want to make money from it which is how the barter system has worked since the dawn of humanity.

Also as I point out time and time again, being able to understand how a large application works is usually impossible for an outsider (of the original development team), unless they invest quite a lot of time into it (few are willing to do this).

Honest Code != Secure Code.

I did no such thing. I neither stated it was a fact (in fact, the very first word I wrote was IF), nor do I backtrack from anything. My original calculation and the sentence in which I expressed it still stands, unmodified.


Your calculation is still rubbish, since you made up the frequency of threats in a particular time period.

It isn't my problem if you are unable to read and understand what was written.


I understood the intent of the post, whether or not you put an "IF" in front doesn't matter it is a minor point, the tone of a post is almost as important as its content.

It means exactly what it said. A system with a 98.4% success rate is also a system with a 1.6% failure rate. My calculation just put that into perspective, and serves only to illustrate what it could possibly mean when the system was the sole anti-malware provision on an ordinary person's Windows machine.


It doesn't illustrate anything since you pulled the "3 threats per" whatever frequency out of thin air and still haven't provided any evidence.

In reality the number of threats someone encounters is totally dependant on their browsing and downloading habits, and will vary considerably from person to person.

You do what you want, and I will continue to do what I want (which is to speak the truth in the interests of ordinary people), and we should get on just fine.


You keep on pushing that Open source is the only way and closed source is automatically evil (it can be). This simply isn't true.

Different developers and companies have different business models and having open code may or may not be the right choice for them, it depends on the business and their revenue model.

It works for Redhat sure, but it wouldn't work for other businesses like my previous employer.

Edited 2010-12-19 18:43 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: overrated
by WereCatf on Sat 18th Dec 2010 23:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: overrated"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Actually, what would be most useful would be visibility of the source code. People who could understand source code, and who did not write the software, can get to see what is in the software source code.

That alone would eliminate the vast majority of malware.


I really doubt that. Like for example I do programming every now and then and even though the source-code to most of my favorite programs is available I never actually go through the code, and even if I did I still wouldn't understand it. Like for example to check a messenger client's code you'd actually have to understand the whole freaking API, just looking at the code isn't going to do any good.

It simply doesn't work like "you have source-code therefore the application is secure!" There can for example be a deliberately made vulnerability that needs very specific methods to take advantage of. That would be impossible to find for someone who doesn't know the API inside-out.

Reply Score: 3

Claiming source code is Overrated is a laugh
by oiaohm on Sun 19th Dec 2010 01:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: overrated"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

Actually, what would be most useful would be visibility of the source code. People who could understand source code, and who did not write the software, can get to see what is in the software source code.

That alone would eliminate the vast majority of malware.

I really doubt that. Like for example I do programming every now and then and even though the source-code to most of my favorite programs is available I never actually go through the code, and even if I did I still wouldn't understand it. Like for example to check a messenger client's code you'd actually have to understand the whole freaking API, just looking at the code isn't going to do any good.


Having the source code goes along way. Also partly checking the code does not require knowledge of what the code is planning todo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tools_for_static_code_analysis and https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Dehydra.

Now due to the improvements in static code analysis there is really no excuse for any program to have a buffer overflow defect. Yet many closed source and open source still do. Even more complex defects are now findable.

Open source allows you to go back and audit what you are using with automated tools. If you are worried about secuirty. Where with closed source you have to depend on the maker of the program doing the right thing.

Even without the source attackers can still by time locate the flaws anyhow.

It simply doesn't work like "you have source-code therefore the application is secure!" There can for example be a deliberately made vulnerability that needs very specific methods to take advantage of. That would be impossible to find for someone who doesn't know the API inside-out.


This is something else some of the coded in privilege breaches hidden away in api's are dug out buy modern day static analysis tools. So claim of impossible to find them without knowing the API inside out is false in some cases today. In the future most likely will become more false.

One of the things that dig out some of those backdoors that static analysis miss is API usage monitoring looking for cold paths. This is only effective if you have the source code.

Question is with static and cold path monitoring that both really need source code to perform well. Will backdoors avoid showing themselves as a possible problem. Ie cold paths are either code bloat or secuirty issue either way an issue that should be investigate thinking both can be sign that the program is poorly coded.

Open source allows you todo rough quality assessments using third party tools. Closed source kinda does not.

Edited 2010-12-19 01:37 UTC

Reply Score: 1

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Having the source code goes along way.


Having well written documentation is far better. Being able to view the code != documentation and never will.

That is my main point. Being able to view the code is all good and well. However having adequate documentation is far more useful. I don't have to go look through code trying to work out what it does, I have a document telling me what it is supposed to do.

If there it does not work as the documentation says it does I know there is something wrong. Looking at code this is not immediately obvious.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: overrated
by lemur2 on Sun 19th Dec 2010 08:35 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: overrated"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Actually, what would be most useful would be visibility of the source code. People who could understand source code, and who did not write the software, can get to see what is in the software source code.

That alone would eliminate the vast majority of malware.

I really doubt that. Like for example I do programming every now and then and even though the source-code to most of my favorite programs is available I never actually go through the code, and even if I did I still wouldn't understand it. Like for example to check a messenger client's code you'd actually have to understand the whole freaking API, just looking at the code isn't going to do any good.

It simply doesn't work like "you have source-code therefore the application is secure!" There can for example be a deliberately made vulnerability that needs very specific methods to take advantage of. That would be impossible to find for someone who doesn't know the API inside-out.


The thing is, it doesn't have to be you, yourself who goes through the code. All it takes is that there are people somewhere who could understand source code, and who did not write the software, can get to see what is in the software source code.

So imagine that was the global "paradigm". We could only have code where anyone and everyone could read the source code ... everything else was somehow the same as today apart from just that one thing.

In that imaginary world, it would be many, many times more difficult to write code with malware in it.

Your system would be far, far less threatened by malware, even if you never in your life read a single, solitary line of code yourself.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: overrated
by bassbeast on Mon 20th Dec 2010 14:01 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: overrated"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Uh huh...explain the SIX YEAR OLD X server bug that was passed through nearly a dozen kernel revs with NOBODY noticing it? Not even once? Your ENTIRE premise hinges on a logical fallacy, the "if the code is out there SOMEBODY must be checking it" which the X server bug drove a stake right through the heart of.

The simple fact is all OS level code is COMPLEX...full stop. Even the guys who work on it every single day can't figure up the complex interactions between their code and the rest of the OS, which is why we have patches. Pretending that "ohhh source code is magic protection!" is just a complete fallacy. There is good and bad of BOTH.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: overrated
by BallmerKnowsBest on Tue 21st Dec 2010 04:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: overrated"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Actually, what would be most useful would be visibility of the source code. People who could understand source code, and who did not write the software, can get to see what is in the software source code.

That alone would eliminate the vast majority of malware.


Yes, that's the ticket. Every computing platform should be so fragmented that the only way to spread malware is as source code with build instructions.

That approach works wonders for the FLOSS world!

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: overrated
by lemur2 on Tue 21st Dec 2010 05:38 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: overrated"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Actually, what would be most useful would be visibility of the source code. People who could understand source code, and who did not write the software, can get to see what is in the software source code. That alone would eliminate the vast majority of malware.
Yes, that's the ticket. Every computing platform should be so fragmented that the only way to spread malware is as source code with build instructions. That approach works wonders for the FLOSS world! "

WTF?

Making the source code visible does not prevent simultaneous distribution of binary executables for the purposes of installation on end users machines.

What in heavens name are you on about?

Despite your apparent attempt at sarcasm, if the source code is visible and it can be shown that the binary distribution packages can be made from that source code, then there can be no malware in the binary packages.

Indeed, exactly as you point out, this system does work very well for the FOSS world. It has a history of over ten years distributing thousands of software packages to millions of end users without any malware.

Edited 2010-12-21 05:48 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: overrated
by BallmerKnowsBest on Tue 21st Dec 2010 20:52 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: overrated"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

"[q]Actually, what would be most useful would be visibility of the source code. People who could understand source code, and who did not write the software, can get to see what is in the software source code. That alone would eliminate the vast majority of malware.
Yes, that's the ticket. Every computing platform should be so fragmented that the only way to spread malware is as source code with build instructions. That approach works wonders for the FLOSS world! "

WTF?

Making the source code visible does not prevent simultaneous distribution of binary executables for the purposes of installation on end users machines. [/q]

Ding-ding-ding-ding! Congratulations, you just inadvertently pointed out the MASSIVE flaw in your own half-baked "solution" to malware. There's not a single reason for malware authors to distribute their source code, and every reason not to.

Despite your apparent attempt at sarcasm, if the source code is visible and it can be shown that the binary distribution packages can be made from that source code, then there can be no malware in the binary packages.


Right, brilliant plan. We'll somehow convince all malware authors to publicly release their source code - and when they distribute binaries, we'll just take their word that the binaries were built from that source with no modification. Because malware authors are widely known for being trustworthy.

Indeed, exactly as you point out, this system does work very well for the FOSS world. It has a history of over ten years distributing thousands of software packages to millions of end users without any malware.


Not that UNIX OSes have ever needed malware to have rampant security vulnerabilities, sendmail anyone? And where do you think rootkits originated?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: overrated
by Gone fishing on Sat 18th Dec 2010 13:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: overrated"
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

Users make mistakes, many know next to nothing about security etc and it would be nice if they had common sense, many don't they need some help, maybe lots of help thats the point of MSE isn't it? And lets not absolve MS from all responsibility.

Now MSE just looked it up on http://www.virusbtn.com/ it been tested 4 times and failed once to detect a virus found in the wild (Avast failed non of these tests) the best performing AV has been tested 65 times and failed 3 times.

Edited 2010-12-18 13:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by DaFreak
by DaFreak on Sat 18th Dec 2010 12:37 UTC
DaFreak
Member since:
2008-04-08

"MSSE was able to detect 536,535 samples what's a very good detection score of 98.44 per cent."

> That is pretty good

98.44% SOUNDS very much but it isn't very good if you compare it to the other tested FREE antivirus tools. in my (unfortunalety german) linked article MSE comes to 96 percent.

avast 97.87%
avg 98.66%
avira 99.41%
panda cloud 99.88%

so in relation MSE had the worst detection rate... beside the other bad facts:
- no email scan
- bad on-demand & on-access speed
- problematic update interval
- MUST registration to microsoft's spynet community

i'm not anti-ms; i bought a couple of ms products but MSE is lousy.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by DaFreak
by Soulbender on Sun 19th Dec 2010 08:15 UTC in reply to "Comment by DaFreak"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Sure, the others scored higher but that may or may not be important depending on the sample. Does it include DOS boot sector viruses from 1991? Who gives a shit of MSE does not detect viruses that does not exist in the wild anymore and can not even spread these days.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by DaFreak
by jokkel on Mon 20th Dec 2010 03:21 UTC in reply to "Comment by DaFreak"
jokkel Member since:
2008-07-07

MSE is lousy.

MSE is free, doesn't nag or throw pop-ups all the time and is well integrated into windows.
No E-Mail scan? Mail is scanned by the server already.

Reply Score: 2

Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

...brings to the table.

I found 1.x to be sufficient and inobtrusive. Hopefully 2.0 comes with some interesting improvements.

One other comment, people talk about memory usage for operating systems... that it being 2010 is a good excuse for an OS to require a ton of RAM. The only reason an OS would be chewing up a lot of RAM is because it is trying to be faster by caching data and/or apps/processes. The other reason is if it starts a myriad of processes. I *still* don't understand why operating systems with UI's like X-Windows (VMS, unices) or even built-in like BeOS, Mac OS 9, etc., got away with using minimal RAM, but that cannot be accomplished today. I guess I'd have to see the internals for all those OSes but ... it just seems like they aren't TRYING to make operating systems memory efficient anymore.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Very simple. Optimising code is tedious and very difficult. Hence.

Open source: why optimise when I can dish out frivolous features which are much more fun to work on?

Proprietary: why optimise when it's much easier to advertise with frivolous features?

Very simple, really.

Reply Score: 1

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

The first step of optimizing is not to make things worse, and it's not exactly tedious and difficult.

If OS manufacturers were simply not so quick about adding new features and took more time to design them, everything would magically run much faster.

But well, as you said, why should they do that when it's easier to sell shiny features than to sell clean, reliable, and fast code ?

Reply Score: 2