×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Security Essentials Released; Rivals Mock It

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the free-but-is-it-worth-it dept.

Microsoft 465

Bimal writes "After a short three-month beta program, Microsoft is officially releasing Microsoft Security Essentials, its free, real-time consumer anti-malware solution for fighting viruses, spyware, rootkits, and Trojans. MSE is available for Windows XP 32-bit, Windows Vista/7 32-bit, and Windows Vista/7 64-bit. 'Ars puts MSE through its paces and finds an unobtrusive app with a clean interface that protected us in the dark corners of the Internet.' The software received positive notes when in beta, including a nod from the independent testing group AV-Test." But reader CWmike notes that Symantec is trash-talking Microsoft's free offering. Jens Meggers, Symantec's vice president of engineering, dismissed MSE as a "poor product" that will "never be up to snuff." Meggers added, "Microsoft has a really bad track record in security." The GM of Trend Micro's consumer division sniffed, "It's better to use something than to use nothing, but you get what you pay for."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

465 comments

It's working great for me (5, Insightful)

mantis2009 (1557343) | more than 4 years ago | (#29588787)

Doesn't bug, silent updates, fast scans, no noticeable performance hit. I can finally get my parents off of their annoying Norton or whatever they paid $50 to use for 12 months.

Re:It's working great for me (5, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 4 years ago | (#29588847)

It might not be perfect protection, but if it's going to be used by all the mum and dad users with zero tech skills, then it's a good thing.

They likely would have never understood why you need to pay a lot for top end protection, nor would they likely have payed for it. This is a nice step between.

Re:It's working great for me (4, Insightful)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589035)

They likely would have never understood why you need to pay a lot for top end protection, nor would they likely have payed for it.

Hell, I never understood that either. Why should anyone who just forked out $xxx for a brand-new OS then be forced to pay yearly "protection money" as well? Sounds like a racket to me.

Re:It's working great for me (4, Insightful)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589373)

Sounds like a racket to me.

Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to shoddy engineering.

Re:It's working great for me (1, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589417)

Why should anyone who just forked out $xxx for a brand-new OS then be forced to pay yearly "protection money" as well? Sounds like a racket to me.

The "service and support" model in FOSS can sound like a racket as well.

The poster here might also usefully remember that the ordinary user doesn't blame Microsoft for malware - he blames the guy who wrote the program - launched the attack - and the culture which produced him.

He doesn't fine distinctions between hackers, crackers and geeks.

"Free" protection is a trojan horse for Onecare. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29589465)

"Sounds like a racket to me."

It is a racket. Microsoft does not allow its programmers to finish their jobs, apparently. Then Microsoft tries to sell protection against the vulnerabilities that Microsoft top managers caused to be there by their management policies. See this web page: Windows Live Onecare, $49.95 [live.com]. The "free" software helps get those who have little technical knowledge become accustomed to the idea that they need protection. Then Microsoft can sell its expensive "protection".

Re:It's working great for me (4, Insightful)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#29588865)

I have to agree. If the independent review is truly independent, I would have to question Symantec's comments. I have to wonder if they are stating such from a professional opinion, or simply in fear for their bottom line. I would take an independents opinion long before I considered a direct competitors negative comments as trustworthy.

Since I don't need a graph or pop-ups (5, Insightful)

earnest murderer (888716) | more than 4 years ago | (#29588921)

To tell me it's working, it sounds like pretty much the best thing out there.

When the CEO of your competition derides your product publicly, you know it's got to be good shit.

Re:It's working great for me (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29589081)

How about false positives? Antivirus software that checks nested encrypted archives often crashes, or marks as a false positive, files that contain a large amount of compressed data. For example:

42.zip [unforgettable.dk] contains 4.5PB of data, compressed to 42kb. My university's mailserver marks it as a false positive.

selfgz.gz [maximumcompression.com] is a gzip file that decompresses to itself. My university's mailserver tries to decompress it forever to scan all the nested files. It marks it as a false positive, since it was unscannable.

Re:It's working great for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29589193)

I don't have a problem with those files getting flagged. Though maybe it's best to flag it as "Can't Scan" rather than "Suspicious." Both files seem intentionally designed to break scanners. As long as the scanning software doesn't crash, I'm satisfied.

Re:It's working great for me (4, Insightful)

jim_v2000 (818799) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589269)

How many people who will be running this AV have files like that just sitting around on their hds?

Probably none.

Besides, technically those aren't "false positives", as in the AV isn't matching a signature...the files are unscannable, so the AV plays it safe.

Re:It's working great for me (0)

wellingj (1030460) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589319)

Besides, technically those aren't "false positives", as in the AV isn't matching a signature...the files are unscannable, so the AV plays it safe.

I'm glad you aren't a judge.

Re:It's working great for me (4, Insightful)

jdhutchins (559010) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589403)

Most of these files were developed to break mail scanners, so it's logical that they get marked as malware. E-mail may not be the best way to move files that are designed to be harmful to mail servers.

Re:It's working great for me (1)

TobinLathrop (551137) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589329)

I was just about to run out on the discounted 3 year mcafee subscription from my laptop purchace. I was going to with 'virus database has been updated' avast. But I now have this installed. I will see how it goes. I just hope I got all the mcafee cruft removed.

This is the future (2)

Radhruin (875377) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589375)

Seriously, who better to defend an OS against threats than the developers themselves? Antivirus is just another security feature.

When pressed... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29588789)

When Pressed, Symantec admitted they were actually describing their own products, burst into tears, and chugged the rest of the bottle of whiskey.

Re:When pressed... (1)

dagamer34 (1012833) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589017)

You know a product is good if competitors start shaking in their boots running to government agencies for protections!

Re:When pressed... (3, Insightful)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589171)

You know a product is good if competitors start shaking in their boots running to government agencies for protections!

If that were the case, IE would be the best browser ever made. :)

You DO know that they're scared, though, if they have to trash it like this. You _should_ be scared if Microsoft enters your segment with a free product. It may not be the best, but that's never stopped Microsoft from crushing competitors in the past.

Re:When pressed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29589325)

You know a product is good if competitors start shaking in their boots running to government agencies for protections!

If that were the case, IE would be the best browser ever made. :)

IE 5 WAS, at the time was released. I think you forget how amazingly horrid browsers were, back then. Also, the Tucker Automobile. It was so far ahead of the competition, the big three got it killed.

Re:When pressed... (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589405)

IE 5 WAS, at the time was released. I think you forget how amazingly horrid browsers were, back then. Also, the Tucker Automobile. It was so far ahead of the competition, the big three got it killed.

Methinks perhaps you don't realise IE5 wasn't the first version of IE, and hasn't been the current version for over a decade. Dude, get with the times.

I still prefer Spry Mosaic, myself. :)

Microsoft Security Essentials... (-1, Offtopic)

jcr (53032) | more than 4 years ago | (#29588795)

Step one: install Linux
Step two: install your favorite virtualization product
Step three: run Windows in the VM. NEVER let it run the hardware.

-jcr

Re:Microsoft Security Essentials... (4, Interesting)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#29588845)

A virtual virus can be as bad as a real virus. Deleted files and pirated bandwidth are the same either way.

Snapshots (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#29588973)

Falling back to a clean snapshot regularly (or always... can VM clients be configured to always boot from a snapshot? If grandma doesn't update her antivirus, she's not going to roll back her VM.) would help to mitigate both problems.

Re:Snapshots (2, Insightful)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 4 years ago | (#29588991)

I see. So you want to explain to my parents why their data went away and, no, I can't get it back without spending a few hours implementing a rigorous and thorough virtual infrastructure on their home computer?

Re:Microsoft Security Essentials... (3, Insightful)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#29588859)

And what, use a fresh drive image every time you boot up the virtual machine?

It's still the same problem except it's possible to detect virtual rootkits from the host OS.

Re:Microsoft Security Essentials... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#29588929)

For things that need to be persistent(ie. normal user use) that is a pain in the ass because all your stuff keeps disappearing unless you save it somewhere else; but VMware and friends make it really easy to do, great for testing, paranoid access to IE legacy sites, and the like. The original disk image never gets touched, and the changes that accumulate during use get nuked when the VM shuts down.

Re:Microsoft Security Essentials... (1)

Mr. Roadkill (731328) | more than 4 years ago | (#29588951)

And what, use a fresh drive image every time you boot up the virtual machine?

It's still the same problem except it's possible to detect virtual rootkits from the host OS.

No, only use the VM for specific, limited purposes where there is no easily-usable Linux alternative. Although the snapshots or fresh image idea sounds promising too...

A couple of years ago, a friend I've ended up doing free support for (c'mon, we all have a few) wanted a new computer. She ended up with a nice new dual-core machine with 2 gig RAM and Ubuntu. Virtualbox and XP went on there in case she "needed" windows for anything - it was way faster than any Windows install she'd had on real hardware - and it turns out that the only thing she ever uses the XP virtual machine for is her tax return because the Australian Tax Office requires a Microsoft environment. She knows better than to use the XP VM for casual browsing too, as I've cleaned a metric fuckload of malware off her windows machines in the past. I figure I'll need to upgrade her machine to Karmic once the dust settles, but I don't remember the last time I went six months without having to do something serious to her machine - let alone two years.

Re:Microsoft Security Essentials... (1)

PhunkySchtuff (208108) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589155)

There is a downside to the solution you have mentioned... You no longer have an excuse to visit your "friend" as much...

Re:Microsoft Security Essentials... (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589179)

Linux has less low-hanging crapware for the plucking than Windows, but that's no reason to switch. If she switches for that reason then she still hasn't addressed the underlying problem of clicking YES YES YES YES to everything, and it's going to screw her over in Linux land eventually.

Re:Microsoft Security Essentials... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29589327)

Just set her up with a minimalist desktop environment. Then she'll have to run shell commands to install anything hostile :)

Re:Microsoft Security Essentials... (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589223)

And what, use a fresh drive image every time you boot up the virtual machine?

Works for me. Of course, all I use a VM for these days is testing my work with IE6/XP, IE7/XP, etc. :)

Re:Microsoft Security Essentials... (1)

jeremywc (865836) | more than 4 years ago | (#29588903)

If the Windows software you need is storing your data on the Windows VM, it really doesn't matter if it's running on your hardware or not. Assuming you subscribe to the belief that it's difficult to secure Windows, you would still stand to have your data compromised.

Re:Microsoft Security Essentials... (2, Insightful)

pwilli (1102893) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589107)

Using Windows inside a VM makes removing dangerous stuff like rootkits easy (e.g. by simply falling back to a snapshot).

But if someone catches a trojan and then directly heads for his bank website to do some transfers, the VM doesn't do shit to protect him. Same goes for worms, spambots and all the other crazy stuff. As long as the VM is running, they are as dangerous as ever. Telling people by running stuff in VMs makes them immune to threats just gives a false sense of security.

Re:Microsoft Security Essentials... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29589163)

But will it run Crysis?

(sorry...)

Re:Microsoft Security Essentials... (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589181)

Step one: install Linux
Step two: install your favorite virtualization product
Step three: run Windows in the VM. NEVER let it run the hardware.

Meh. I prefer free-range operating systems.

Re:Microsoft Security Essentials... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29589333)

You must really enjoy Solitaire and Minesweeper.

Bad reviews by... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29588811)

...competing anti virus companies?

How and I not surprised?

Of course Trend Micro and Symantec will give it negative reviews (ie opinions) because they don't want people opting for Microsoft's free alternative instead of subscribing to their products.

That said, of course Microsoft's latest offering isn't the only free one, but just by its nature of being released will generate Security Essentials lots of media attention.

Re:Bad reviews by... (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#29588905)

Great job, AC, summarizing that summary and all. I can see your MIT education really pays for itself.

Re:Bad reviews by... (1)

williamhb (758070) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589307)

Great job, AC, summarizing that summary and all. I can see your MIT education really pays for itself.

Oh dear. You've just made me feel that little bit sadder and geekier today for knowing where that reference is from. And you still haven't got me that beer you owe me.

Re:Bad reviews by... (4, Insightful)

uncoveror (570620) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589037)

Symantec? Ha! I would rather have nothing at all than Norton products. They are bloated resource hogs, and any script kiddie's concoction can disable them. People who know nothing about computers, but still own one for their work or their kids' school buy Norton crap purely on name recognition. All they are buying is a false sense of security.

Symantec is a bunch of crap (5, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#29588821)

Sorry to throw Symantec under the bus, but the AV program and AV mentality that they have created amounts to a CPU tax. We don't have 4 core machines, we have 3 cores plus for one for Symantec, which manages to have the deadlock everything while it scans a single file.

Re:Symantec is a bunch of crap (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#29588889)

Symantec operates on the TSA theory of security:

If you aren't being harassed by a mouth-breathing subnormal, you aren't secure.

Re:Symantec is a bunch of crap (4, Funny)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589005)

My father, also in IT, has the theory that Symantec's goal is to consume your computer's resources to the point where a virus would give up and realize that your computer isn't worth being used in a botnet or for extortion.

Symantec shouldn't talk (5, Funny)

toastee (132341) | more than 4 years ago | (#29588837)

Around the computer shop's i've worked at we joke that we'd rather have a virus than norton on our machines, at least the virus won't charge you a fee to mess up your OS.

Re:Symantec shouldn't talk (4, Interesting)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589289)

You joke about it, but I say it with a straight face.

I don't do a lot of virus removal - maybe one per week, just as a service for friends and friends of friends - but about 30% of those "virus" removals are actually tossing out Antivirus and Firewall products.

Ethernet broken? Programs taking 4 minutes to start and 30 minutes to install? Horrible graphical lag, and start menu lockups? Can't shut down the computer or open IE?

First thing I do is disable the AV already on the computer, to check if that's causing it. 30% isn't "usually", but it's high enough that I can't help but want to scream "WTF" at these AV vendors.

Pot/Kettle (1)

GrahamCox (741991) | more than 4 years ago | (#29588853)

Symantec's vice president of engineering, dismissed MFE as a "poor product" that will "never be up to snuff."

Pot, meet kettle.

Re:Pot/Kettle (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#29588875)

Please, please. Symantec offers an "expensive product" that has managed to sink further away from the figurative snuff as time goes on...

Pot, meet Kettle! (4, Informative)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#29588855)

Jens Meggers, Symantec's vice president of engineering, dismissed MFE as a "poor product" that will "never be up to snuff." [CC] [GC] Meggers added, "Microsoft has a really bad track record in security."

Symantec's products aren't exactly admired for security and effectiveness in recent years. Pot, meet Kettle,

Get what you pay for? (5, Interesting)

Inverted Intellect (950622) | more than 4 years ago | (#29588867)

Last I checked some of the highest detection rate AV solutions also happen to be free.

I use Avira AntiVir, which came in #2 in the last comparative study I read. It's gratis, with the sole "cost" of a popup-ad every 24h, disabled in the paid version (or for free, if you know how to set up a local security policy under windows and don't mind breaking the EULA).

Re:Get what you pay for? (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589245)

When the likes of the paid virus scanners bad mouth MS security tools, they are not thinking of those of us who use free security tools. We will continue to use the free tools, possibly supplemented with the MS tools.

The vendors spread FUD because they are afraid that customers will make the very reasonable decision that they do not need to buy security tools when MS is giving them away. This might be especially true in corporate environments trying to cut costs. One wonders if this is one way that MS claims corporate will save nearly $400,000 a year in reduced security, management, and energy costs... [theregister.co.uk] using MS Windows 7.

Unbiased review? (4, Informative)

babyrat (314371) | more than 4 years ago | (#29588887)

So let's see, independent groups give positive reviews. One of the main competitors give it a negative review. Who to believe?

Re:Unbiased review? (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 4 years ago | (#29588955)

For that matter, who's been writing the headlines recently? First "Porn Surfing Rampant At US Science Foundation" and now "Microsoft Security Essentials Released; Rivals Mock It". Since when has Slashdot started acting like a sensationalist tabloid?

Re:Unbiased review? (4, Funny)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589237)

It's kdawson, if Microsoft somehow cured the common cold his headline would be "Microsoft technology responsible for deaths of trillions of living organisms".

Microsoft about to kill another industry? (2, Interesting)

TheNarrator (200498) | more than 4 years ago | (#29588911)

Anyone remember a software product called QEMM back in the DOS days? It was a tool to deal with this horrid thing known as "high-mem" back in the bad old days before Windows 95, allowing one to have more memory to run Win 3.1. It was written by a company called Quarterdeck Office Systems and it built their business. Microsoft came out with a tool that did the same thing called memmaker that worked well enough and did the same thing and they bundled it with DOS 5.0 (I think it was 5.0). Though, not as efficient as QEMM it was good enough and ultimately led to the demise of Quarterdeck (along with a bunch of other dumb mistakes).

Re:Microsoft about to kill another industry? (1)

dbcowboy (162210) | more than 4 years ago | (#29588965)

yes so true. MS doesn't mind coming out with a weak product... It makes current Vendors feel safe... they mock it. But little by little the MS product takes over... usually not because its better, but rather its free or bundled or way cheaper. But... then MS did create the Virus protection industry by creating such a crapy OS.

Re:Microsoft about to kill another industry? (1)

Datamonstar (845886) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589097)

OR because they use their muscle (read lots and lots of $$$'s) to strong-arm the (sometimes not so) little guys out, like with the Xbox.

Re:Microsoft about to kill another industry? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29588979)

Is your comment (A) an irrational rant about anticompetitive M$ with their illegal monopoly killing all that's good in the world or (B) a commentary on the fact that companies like Quarterdeck and Symantec should not bet their whole company on filling the gaps in Windows since (sooner or later) Microsoft will do the right thing and bake it in?

Re:Microsoft about to kill another industry? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589167)

But thats a bit like saying the memory manager in Linux locks out commercial memory managers. DOS should have had better memory management from the word go, along with 1000 other obvious things.

Re:Microsoft about to kill another industry? (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589343)

What I'd like to know is why upper memory, which btw is easily accessible in real mode, requires a fancy device driver like EMM386.

If it were up to me I'd just as soon followed the toolbox principle of "every program should do one thing and do it well".

I would rather write a UMB.SYS to handle the grunt work and factor that out of the expanded memory manager.

Re:Microsoft about to kill another industry? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29589421)

Anyone remember the days when you had to buy a TCP/IP driver for Windows? Any modern OS/platform should have built-in protection against viruses/malware or at least an optional one.

I like it and will recommend it to anyone. (5, Informative)

farbles (672915) | more than 4 years ago | (#29588919)

It's a sweet little anti-virus program. A well designed and simple user interface, updates unobtrusively, doesn't bog down the computer and it is very effective at detecting all threats I've thrown its way. It also is easy to tell when it is unhappy thanks to a well designed and simple system tray icon. Credit where credit is due, Microsoft has put together a good program. I've tested this on dozens of machines and have not a single bad thing to say about it, which is not something I would have thought I'd ever say about a Microsoft product.

If I do have a quibble, it's that it requires a validated Windows. If I were Microsoft I'd throw this on automatic Windows Update and push it out to everyone not already running an anti-virus.

Symantec can blow me. I've seen more hosed computers where the owners thought they had current updated Symantec AV just to have me discover that their definitions had last been updated in 2007 or something with no indication from their Symantec AV they were vulnerable.

/not an MS fanboi but when they get one right, they deserve praise, and they got this one right folks.

Re:I like it and will recommend it to anyone. (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589029)

It also is easy to tell when it is unhappy thanks to a well designed and simple system tray icon.

Of all the things Microsoft software doesn't do well, failing to let you know that it's unhappy is pretty low on the list.

Re:I like it and will recommend it to anyone. (-1, Troll)

tokul (682258) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589139)

If I do have a quibble, it's that it requires a validated Windows. If I were Microsoft I'd throw this on automatic Windows Update and push it out to everyone not already running an anti-virus.

1. Does it detect Microsoft's spyware called WGA?
2. Pushing new products with software updates is very Microsoft style. They can't compete other way.

Re:I like it and will recommend it to anyone. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29589239)

Didn't Microsoft PROMISE that all "security updates" would never require validation?

Oh, nevermind...

"You get what you pay for"? (4, Insightful)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 4 years ago | (#29588963)

I've used Avast Antivirus (free), Malwarebytes Anti-Malware (free) and Comodo Firewall (free) for a couple of years now. I've never had a virus and various other types of malware are promptly and efficiently dealt with.

Trust the inventors of Windows Genuine Advantage with my security? Or freakin' Symantec? I won't bore you with the horrible, hellish experience of getting Norton Antivirus off my machine. It was harder to get rid of than the virus it failed to catch.

Fat chance. I'll stay with something that works, thank you very much.

Re:"You get what you pay for"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29589371)

But for your average consumer, 1 small program from the company that you got your OS from will probably be far more convenient than 3 freeware programs you have to spend 5 minutes to find.

And at the very least, Microsoft caters to the lowest common denominator.

The only thing Norton is good for... (1)

Deathlizard (115856) | more than 4 years ago | (#29588983)

Is This [youtube.com]

Frankly If this was an actual product Demonstration, Chickens would become Extinct before Norton did anything about it.

Re:The only thing Norton is good for... (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589065)

That's actually a good commercial. Too bad its for a shitty product.

microsoft released it's free Anti virus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29589031)

At last microsoft released it's free Anti virus

Regards
Meer Akbar Ali

Screw Trend Micro (1)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589055)

The bastards blacklisted my IP claiming it was dynamic and a possible source of spam and it was neither. Bunch of jerks and I'll never believe anything they say.

Very slow on single core CPU (5, Informative)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589069)

I just formatted and installed XP SP3 on a machine running an Intel 2.4Ghz CPU (Northwood and non-HT). I've noticed that installing applications take about four times as long after having installed this program. The culprit seems to be a running process "MsMpEng.exe" pushing CPU utilization to a total of 100%. I did not have Windows Defender installed, but it's interesting to note this is the same file that it uses too. I'm guessing Microsoft Security Essentials is a close cousin to Windows Defender code which would explain a lot.

Other than that, it seems to stay out of the way under general computing. But for those looking to do a format/reinstall of Windows, I recommend installing this program AFTER you get finished with everything else on your to-do install list.

Re:Very slow on single core CPU (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589173)

Try setting the priority of MsMpEng to BelowNormal or Idle, this should keep it from eating all your CPU time.

You can also try disabling real time protection temporarily if something is going too slow thanks to the slower disk access and CPU.

I seem to recall having some framerate slowdown in online games while playing with the beta. I will have to try this new version though because of all the good reports. It shouldn't be too bad if I disable real time protection while I'm in-game... I'll do my own benchmarks to be sure.

Re:Very slow on single core CPU (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589189)

I'd love to know what you did. I've run this since the beta (just updated to the full version) and the only process it runs is MSSecEs.exe which rarely takes up more than 1% of my cpu (2% max) and maybe 8 MB of RAM doing a full scan. So I have to say, your results are NO typical and I think your MsMpEng.exe is from something else you installed, not MSE.

Re:Very slow on single core CPU (4, Insightful)

GF678 (1453005) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589475)

I'm guessing Microsoft Security Essentials is a close cousin to Windows Defender code which would explain a lot.

According to the Ars Technica link in the summary, MSE is a superset of Windows Defender, to the point where the MSE installer will disable Windows Defender completely if detected.

As for the single core issue, quite possible. I noticed for example that Vista's Windows automatic update detection check utilized 100% CPU of my (then) single-core machine for several seconds, affecting performance considerably. But when I moved to a dual-core, the effect was completely unnoticeable. Seems as if single-core is no longer considered when testing software performance and impact on the rest of the system.

Symantec aside... (1)

kutulu13 (1469583) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589115)

Symantec aside how can a corporation, Microsoft, make an antivirus solution for their own product?
Execuse me if I'm missing something here but shouldn't they fix the security holes to prevent the problem in the first place?

Re:Symantec aside... (3, Insightful)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589201)

Execuse me if I'm missing something here but shouldn't they fix the security holes to prevent the problem in the first place?

You want MS to block everyone's access to shady porn sites?

Ah...my favorite conspiracy theory. (2, Interesting)

icannotthinkofaname (1480543) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589137)

Okay, now that Microsoft makes an antivirus, someone explain to me why they haven't simply dedicated all this effort to debugging Windows, closing security holes and stabilizing code? Can anyone now sufficiently explain their motivation to do so? I don't see anymore reason for Microsoft to clean up the mess that they made, now that they've thrown a board over the pothole instead of repaving the frickin' road.

If Microsoft makes Windows secure and stable, then, in theory, the antivirus industry is out of business. Someone, please, convince me to remove my tinfoil hat.

Re:Ah...my favorite conspiracy theory. (1)

Korbeau (913903) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589243)

Okay, now that Microsoft makes an antivirus, someone explain to me why they haven't simply dedicated all this effort to debugging Windows, closing security holes and stabilizing code?

It's easier to research and market beauty creams than find the fountain of youth.

You are describing an impossible task. But you highlight correctly that AVs are full of BSs.

Re:Ah...my favorite conspiracy theory. (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589283)

You seem to be confusing malware and virus detection as being in someway linked to bad design or poor code of an OS. It isn't.The biggest security hole in every OS is the moron sitting behind the keyboard (yes that includes OSX and whatever flavour of linux or BSD you happen to chose). There will always be users that simple must download and run that program that promises to show you free nude pictures of movie star X or get free game y, Anti Virus/malware mainly addresses the moron factor on computers where vendors go and find bad things that people are doing on the internet and then build the detection for it. Virus detection does not cover holes in an OS or hide instability so their motivation would be completely unchanged by this.

Re:Ah...my favorite conspiracy theory. (3, Insightful)

shird (566377) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589297)

You are implying that these viruses/spyware aren't being installed by people clicking 'Yes' to "Do you want to run setup.exe from codecs.xxx_teens.com" prompts.

This 'hole' will never be closed. The only option is to develop software which scans for and intercepts these installs for people that can't make an informed judgement for themselves. (i.e 90% of computer users).

No XP 64? (1)

PrimaryConsult (1546585) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589251)

Wow... I mean, I expect third party developers to ignore it, but not MS... unless this is a ploy to encourage upgrading to Windows 7. Well, my XP 64 install boots after the dots make 1.5 trips across the bar, I have yet to see any Vista (or XP 32) do it with less than 3. It's going to take a lot more than this to get me to upgrade, you hear!

Re:No XP 64? (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589423)

Yeah I noticed that too. XP64 has always been the redheaded stepchild, but now MS isn't even trying to hide it.

that's never mattered (1)

jipn4 (1367823) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589397)

Symantec's vice president of engineering, dismissed MSE as a "poor product" that will "never be up to snuff."

That has been true of every major Microsoft product when it was released; it has never stopped Microsoft from killing its competitors through persistence, pressure, backroom deals, marketing, and deep pockets.

Like an army of dead zombies, Microsoft products may be ugly, stinky, and brainless, but they just won't die.

Wow.... (-1, Troll)

Jager Dave (1238106) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589431)

I'm sitting here wondering how many people are on Microsoft's payroll and/or getting kickbacks or some various other form of compensation, for giving this "new" product such rave reviews.... I've been using AVG (both free and purchased) for YEARS, and have had NO issues and NO viruses/trojans/malware.... Sorry to be skeptical about a Microsoft product, but I DO still use Windows, so I know full well of what kind of bad programming they're capable of releasing.... d.

Man.. (1, Insightful)

JonJ (907502) | more than 4 years ago | (#29589463)

Lots of humourless Microsoft shills here today. The "Uninstall Windows"-posts aren't trolls, there attempts at being funny. Lighten up for once. To be slightly on topic: I'd trust neither Norton nor Microsoft with the security on my systems, but if it actually does protect people and doesn't get in the way for the users, it's all the better.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...