Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 6th Nov 2010 00:27 UTC
Privacy, Security, Encryption Well, this was to be expected: an anti-virus company complaining that Microsoft's Security Essentials - by far the best anti-virus tool for Windows - is anti-competitive. Microsoft recently began offering MSE as an optional download via the optional Microsoft Update service (which is not Windows Update), and Trend Micro (a patent troll) is going into boo-hoo mode over it.
Thread beginning with comment 448874
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
b0ne
Member since:
2006-05-19

Your first link points to a study over a year old.
Your second link for some reason points to the Windows XP study rather than the Windows 7 one


On-demand file scans are generally considered to be an OS agnostic task, meaning detection rates should not differ.

I have a hard time agreeing that MSE is the overall "best." Yes it has decent detection rates, but it is definitely not the fastest scanner out there. Quite the opposite. The free price makes the speed tolerable though.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc_od_au...

Total detection rates:
1. G DATA 99.9%
2. Trustport, AVIRA 99.8%
3. McAfee 99.4%
4. Avast, Bitdefender 99.3%
5. F-Secure, eScan, Panda 99.2%
6. Symantec 98.7%
7. ESET 98.6%
8. AVG, Kaspersky 98.3%
9. PC Tools 98.1%
10. Microsoft 97.6%
11. Sophos 96.8%
12. Norman, K7 96.6%
13. Trend Micro 90.3%
14. Kingsoft 80.1%

Reply Parent Score: 2

Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Better than Trend Micro tho'.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I have a hard time agreeing that MSE is the overall "best." Yes it has decent detection rates, but it is definitely not the fastest scanner out there. Quite the opposite. The free price makes the speed tolerable though.


Better than Trend Micro tho'.

Yeah, but still worse than all the other free scanners.

Edited 2010-11-07 11:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, but there are other aspects to the results, such as "false positives" where MSE was better than most. It has also been said in forums that the stuff being scanned, some of it dates back to the mid-90's. While MSE has nothing to be ashamed of for a 97.6% score, I might even suggest that they are trying to make it balanced with performance and also possibly trying to concern themselves with the most modern and typical style of viruses prevalent today.

I was, however disappointed with the middle-of-the-road scripts protection. That was their lowest score at 88.1%.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Do those tests take into account how crap like McAfee and such take over your computer, infesting every corner of it with pop-ups and other annoyances?

If not - fail.

Reply Parent Score: 4

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Do those tests take into account how crap like McAfee and such take over your computer, infesting every corner of it with pop-ups and other annoyances?

You know very well that such things do not belong in a test about the engine accuracy. They belong in a review of the software, or something similar.

Yes, I know how horrible McAfee is: I've had to several times fix computers with McAfee or Norton installed on them, and it's the anti-virus that has been the cause of slowdowns and crashes, and in one case even filesystem corruption, and all the issues went away after removing the anti-virus in question (Of course with the exception of filesystem corruption which required more work), and most likely anyone who's had to repair computers with them installed has similar experiences.

But you could still leave two sentences long flamebaits out of here and grow up a bit.

Reply Parent Score: 6

werfu Member since:
2005-09-15

Hum, I don't see Comodo there... I'm using their Security Suit. It's pretty lightweight and it found threats that AVG didn't found too. There's other using it?

Reply Parent Score: 1