From: Lil' Abner on
Bill <wsblevins(a)> wrote in news:i02m9001ts3(a)

> Since Ubuntu Linux has apparently went the way of releasing
> buggy-as-hell software, I reluctantly installed Windows 7 on my PC.
> Much to my surprise, I find that Microsoft has released a free AV for
> Windows users.
> The Microsoft Security Essentials seems to work rather well from what
> I have read, and from a personal opinion the interface is simple and
> functional.
> Anyone else using this product?

I've tried it twice. For me, it slows things down considerably. Especially
obvious in opening Office files. Sometimes MsMpEng.exe will eat up
processor use like crazy. I thought maybe they would have gotten it fixed
by the time I installed it a second time. I've got a Core 2 Quad CPU so it
doesn't affect me as much as some others, but it's still too aggravating
for me. I'm back to Avira and happy.

--- Everybody has a right to my opinion. ---
From: David Kaye on
"Lil' Abner" <blvstk(a)> wrote:

>I've tried it twice. For me, it slows things down considerably.

This part is downright bizarre. I've installed MSSE on about 30 customer
machines with no slowdown at all versus Avast. Then I put it on one machine
and the thing crawled. At first I couldn't figure it out, but sure enough,
when I took out MSSE and put Avast back it was fine.

The machine was an XP SP3 with a Pent 4 processor. And yet I've gotten good
results with slower machines.

From: EX_OWM on
Dave Cohen wrote:
> David Kaye wrote:
>> GrtArtiste <grtartiste(a)> wrote:

> Ubuntu works well enough for internet use but most
> (not all) of the apps lack the polish of their windows equivalent

I've been using it a fair bit in recent months and it takes me straight back
to Windows 3.1, almost uncannily so when you have to keep dropping out to a
DOS prompt .... oops, sorry, terminal ... to do anything that's not run of
the mill.

From: EX_OWM on
David W. Hodgins wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 18:17:00 -0400, ASCII <me2(a)> wrote:
>> So you're suggesting that people don't learn from past activities,
>> and seek to correct and improve their efforts?
>> Isn't that sort of what RaiD claims to have done?
> I'm saying that some people don't, not all. In the case of m$, they
> have a long history of not showing any change in their ability to
> develop and maintain secure software.

Care to tell us what the significant insecurities are in Windows 7 or
Windows Server 2008?

From: David W. Hodgins on
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:58:36 -0400, EX_OWM <allthespamyoulike(a)> wrote:

> Care to tell us what the significant insecurities are in Windows 7 or
> Windows Server 2008?

For w7, they currently only have one publicly known "less critical"
unpatched vulnerability

With server 2008, it's currently two "less critical" vulnerabilities

Those are for the os itself. If you include the various programs such
as internet explorer 8, additional, although at this time, also
"less critical" problems also show up

As with any software from m$, it's only a matter of time till the new
problems are found.

If you skim through
you'll notice that many advisories are fixes for things that allow
remote code execution, and/or privilege escalation.

If you follow the secunia advisories, and the release of fixes from
m$, over time, you'll understand that m$ is not, and never has been,
capable of developing secure software, in my opinion.

Many of the problems seem to stem from bad design choices, where they
are trying to make things easy to use, and then adding security features
after the fact, instead of designing the system to be secure from the
start. Most of the rest appear to be problems where one group of
software developers are using tools/features of other software components
(such as the help fiasco), without properly considering the possible
security implications, of using those features.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

Change to to reply by email.
( has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: TT Livescan Update Info - 6-24-2010
Next: BD (simply put)