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.
Thread beginning with comment 453972
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 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 Parent Score: 4

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 Parent Score: 1

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 Parent Score: 2

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 Parent Score: 2

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 Parent Score: 1

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 Parent Score: 2

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 Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: XP not excrement just yet
by Andre on Sat 18th Dec 2010 10:23 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 Parent Score: 1

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

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

Edited 2010-12-19 18:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: XP not excrement just yet
by nt_jerkface on Sat 18th Dec 2010 21:40 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 Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: XP not excrement just yet
by lemur2 on Sun 19th Dec 2010 09:25 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 Parent Score: 1