Microsoft Security Essentials
in [Spyware]
|
From: David H. Lipman on 30 Dec 2009 18:11 From: "PajaP" <pajap(a)news-only.co.uk.invalid> | On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:26:08 -0500, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> | wrote: >>I have a Dual CPU system with 32GB RAM, a test box, running Win 7 Prof >>64 bit and Avira free, I didn't notice any difference between it running >>Avira and having no-AV/anti-malware tools installed. >>That's one of the reasons I asked about your hardware, to try and see >>why you were seeing the performance issue when others are not - I'll see >>if I can duplicate the performance issue on several machines - only >>because I'm interested, since I use Avira. | OK. I will also fire up my old laptop. This has Avira on it I think (if | not it can do). Will check its performance with and without and compare | it with other software. When I get the time ;) http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/performance-tests See WorldBench tests WB Score w/o AV 116 Avira 114 Microsoft 107 BTW: I was looking at another thread where there was an indication MSE was dragging down the system. Subsequently they added... "CPU Full Name AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3500+" Maybe that's it. MSE doesn't do well on AMD CPU based systems. -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
From: Buffalo on 30 Dec 2009 19:11 The Real Truth MVP wrote: > Leythos is the resident troll in this and other groups. As you > already found out he is an idiot and you should ignore him. I run > MSE, MBAM, and Avast on the same system at the same time without any > issues and I do this on multiple systems. The only issues I have come > across is on infected systems when MSE is trying to remove an > infection specifically TDSS. I purposely infect these boxes for > testing and the reason MBAM resident scanning is low on resources is > because it does not work. I have done numerous tests and informed > them at MBAM but then they have 4 people working for them who has > ZERO credibility with me. MSE catches almost everything I throw at it > and what it misses Avast catches. MBAM misses everything but then > when you do a scan it finds it. Their resident scanner is nothing but > eye candy and they use it to sucker people into buy it when it is not > needed. now since I posted in this thread the resident troll Leythos > will reply with his same BS and completely ignore the subject, > Dustbin Kook who works for MBAM will reply in a few days and ask for > clarification like it is something new. Do you find SAS as impotent as MBAM in its resident scanning function? If so, when was the last program number and definition number used? Thanks. Buffalo
From: Dustin Cook on 30 Dec 2009 21:28 Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> wrote in news:MPG.25a52ddfc4b8898598a04e(a)us.news.astraweb.com: > In article <73nmj51f89vjffjhieqm0sj5fegf4s9e33(a)4ax.com>, pajap(a)news- > only.co.uk.invalid says... >> >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:52:59 -0500, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> >> wrote: >> >> >In article <a5blj59hfqb7p29pr8491hsiv10udq93ae(a)4ax.com>, pajap(a)news- >> >only.co.uk.invalid says... >> >> MSE obviously works on a much higher percentage of systems without >> >> issues. The same would apply to Avira, Avast and MalwareBytes. >> >> Everyone's system is different. >> >> Does now make someone an MS shill just because they prefer an MS >> >> product and are not afraid to recommend it here. >> >> >> > >> >Microsoft didn't write MSE, it's a company they bought, so it's no >> >more likely to work "better" or "higher" on any computer than any >> >other product. >> >> I never said it would more than any other product. Those are your >> words. I was comparing the amount of systems it works on to those it >> does not. I really do not care how they acquired this or any other >> product and it has no relevance to this discussion. > > Yes, it does, it's very relevant - you implied that because it was > from Microsoft that it would likely run on a "higher" percentage of > machines with less trouble - that's not true based on many decades of > experience with Microsoft and the vendors they purchase. > >> >> >For proof, just look at Service Packs and Updates, something >> >that MS does write, and how many machines are negatively impacted by >> >those. >> >> Irrelevant. Though I dare say the percentage of machines that are >> impacted negatively is far lower those that are not. > > Again, it is VERY relevant - it shows that MS is not building apps > that are more stable or less troublesome than the non-MS vendors, and > MS has the inside scoop on their OS. > >> >Why would you trust MS to protect your computer, with another >> >product, when they didn't protect it in the first place? >> >> Why would I not? Unlike yourself who chooses to slate everything MS, >> I choose my own experiences to make my own decisions. You are a known >> MS basher and as such I ignore most of what you write, which is >> probably a shame (but I prefer to ignore those with obvious bias). > > You're wrong about my view on MS - I make a TON of money by building > enterprise MS solutions all over the country and I have 20+ MS OS > machines in my home, and several Linux ones. > > I am not a "known MS basher" at all - I'm very honest and very > realistic. I love XP and server 2003/2008 and love Win 7 (don't care > for Vista). Thanks for letting me know my memory isn't shot. :) when I read the MS basher comment, I nearly fell out of my chair. > MS has proven time and time again that they can't secure the OS > platform, even with their own antimalware tools, there has never been > a case to trust them to build another app to protect the OS. It's really not the OS's fault... tho, in all fairness; it's the way many users have been taught to use computers. An OS is only doing what it's told to do; some programs do nice things, and other programs don't do nice things. If you forced Windows to harden a bit like linux, users would complain... -- .... Those are my thoughts anyways...
From: Dustin Cook on 30 Dec 2009 21:30 PajaP <pajap(a)news-only.co.uk.invalid> wrote in news:e68nj5tfsq0umsnf46krn39b7ahhlftij5(a)4ax.com: > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:21:54 -0500, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> > wrote: > >>Don't take this wrong, I'm not saying this as an insult, but your >>analysis is flawed and based on willful ignorance. > > I was one step ahead of you. > MSE and MalwareBytes working together flawlessly, so far and both are > resident. > > The performance is definitely much better than when Avira Free and > MalwareBytes were both running resident. > > Not sure what will happen if some spyware is detected though. > Better test this when I get the chance if I am to keep both. > Still I do not think there is much point in keeping it running, as MSE > will work well enough on its own. > > Looks like it was Avira that was the resource hog on my system. > Just for curiosity sake, which version of malwarebytes are you running? V1.43 was released earlier this afternoon... -- .... Those are my thoughts anyways...
From: Dustin Cook on 30 Dec 2009 21:33
"The Real Truth MVP" <trt(a)void.com> wrote in news:hhgc06$em1$1(a)leythos.motzarella.org: > Leythos is the resident troll in this and other groups. As you already > found out he is an idiot and you should ignore him. I run MSE, MBAM, > and Avast on the same system at the same time without any issues and I > do this on multiple systems. The only issues I have come across is on > infected systems when MSE is trying to remove an infection > specifically TDSS. I purposely infect these boxes for testing and the > reason MBAM resident scanning is low on resources is because it does > not work. I have done numerous tests and informed them at MBAM but > then they have 4 people working for them who has ZERO credibility with > me. MSE catches almost everything I throw at it and what it misses > Avast catches. MBAM misses everything but then when you do a scan it > finds it. Their resident scanner is nothing but eye candy and they use > it to sucker people into buy it when it is not needed. now since I > posted in this thread the resident troll Leythos will reply with his > same BS and completely ignore the subject, Dustbin Kook who works for > MBAM will reply in a few days and ask for clarification like it is > something new. > > *shrug*. Christopher, is there a specific reason you find it difficult to properly spell my name? Do you really think it offends me or something? Malwarebytes (the creators of mbam) consists of far more than 4 individuals whom all have extensive credibility with the antimalware community. You on the other hand, awe hell; google "pcbutts" and read for yourself. -- .... Those are my thoughts anyways... |