Microsoft Security Essentials vs. Norton 360
-
Had an opportunity to examine the relative effects of these two products on a (somewhat underpowered) system this past week. 360 is apparently the "lite" Norton product, intended to compete with products like the (now-defunct) One Care. At first glance, it seems to succeed: the UI is simple and reasonably straightforward, the single service is light on memory and CPU, and there's a refreshing lack of intrusive reminders. Unfortunately, this favorable impression fades quickly. It installs several crappy BHOs, and starts to nag you as soon as they're disabled (props to the IE team for finally making this easy to do in IE8). It disables Windows Defender... but not completely... so you're treated to warnings from Windows itself regarding that. And while the service itself doesn't greatly impact memory or CPU load, other programs suffer from increased load time and working-set footprint. MSE replaces Defender, and doesn't mess with IE. While the service itself has something like double the memory footprint and imposes a 10-20% CPU load during startup, it does a much better job of staying out of the way while other programs are loading. So, if you know someone who needs a virus scanner, MSE isn't a bad choice. If you were already cringing when you saw the name Norton, please continue to do so: it's wearing a nicer dress, but still a pig. Granted, 360 offers a few features that MSE does not: automatic remote backup, a defrag utility... But given the weakness of the core AV component, you're probably better finding alternatives to those as well.
-
Had an opportunity to examine the relative effects of these two products on a (somewhat underpowered) system this past week. 360 is apparently the "lite" Norton product, intended to compete with products like the (now-defunct) One Care. At first glance, it seems to succeed: the UI is simple and reasonably straightforward, the single service is light on memory and CPU, and there's a refreshing lack of intrusive reminders. Unfortunately, this favorable impression fades quickly. It installs several crappy BHOs, and starts to nag you as soon as they're disabled (props to the IE team for finally making this easy to do in IE8). It disables Windows Defender... but not completely... so you're treated to warnings from Windows itself regarding that. And while the service itself doesn't greatly impact memory or CPU load, other programs suffer from increased load time and working-set footprint. MSE replaces Defender, and doesn't mess with IE. While the service itself has something like double the memory footprint and imposes a 10-20% CPU load during startup, it does a much better job of staying out of the way while other programs are loading. So, if you know someone who needs a virus scanner, MSE isn't a bad choice. If you were already cringing when you saw the name Norton, please continue to do so: it's wearing a nicer dress, but still a pig. Granted, 360 offers a few features that MSE does not: automatic remote backup, a defrag utility... But given the weakness of the core AV component, you're probably better finding alternatives to those as well.
I use MSE and it keeps out the way. It gave an odd warning about the Google Earth installer but simply said it was uncertain about the file and asked if I happy for it to be forwarded to Microsoft for analysis. Nicely handled.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
-
Had an opportunity to examine the relative effects of these two products on a (somewhat underpowered) system this past week. 360 is apparently the "lite" Norton product, intended to compete with products like the (now-defunct) One Care. At first glance, it seems to succeed: the UI is simple and reasonably straightforward, the single service is light on memory and CPU, and there's a refreshing lack of intrusive reminders. Unfortunately, this favorable impression fades quickly. It installs several crappy BHOs, and starts to nag you as soon as they're disabled (props to the IE team for finally making this easy to do in IE8). It disables Windows Defender... but not completely... so you're treated to warnings from Windows itself regarding that. And while the service itself doesn't greatly impact memory or CPU load, other programs suffer from increased load time and working-set footprint. MSE replaces Defender, and doesn't mess with IE. While the service itself has something like double the memory footprint and imposes a 10-20% CPU load during startup, it does a much better job of staying out of the way while other programs are loading. So, if you know someone who needs a virus scanner, MSE isn't a bad choice. If you were already cringing when you saw the name Norton, please continue to do so: it's wearing a nicer dress, but still a pig. Granted, 360 offers a few features that MSE does not: automatic remote backup, a defrag utility... But given the weakness of the core AV component, you're probably better finding alternatives to those as well.
I second your valuable comments. MSE is far better product.
-muneeb A thing of beauty is the joy forever.
-
Had an opportunity to examine the relative effects of these two products on a (somewhat underpowered) system this past week. 360 is apparently the "lite" Norton product, intended to compete with products like the (now-defunct) One Care. At first glance, it seems to succeed: the UI is simple and reasonably straightforward, the single service is light on memory and CPU, and there's a refreshing lack of intrusive reminders. Unfortunately, this favorable impression fades quickly. It installs several crappy BHOs, and starts to nag you as soon as they're disabled (props to the IE team for finally making this easy to do in IE8). It disables Windows Defender... but not completely... so you're treated to warnings from Windows itself regarding that. And while the service itself doesn't greatly impact memory or CPU load, other programs suffer from increased load time and working-set footprint. MSE replaces Defender, and doesn't mess with IE. While the service itself has something like double the memory footprint and imposes a 10-20% CPU load during startup, it does a much better job of staying out of the way while other programs are loading. So, if you know someone who needs a virus scanner, MSE isn't a bad choice. If you were already cringing when you saw the name Norton, please continue to do so: it's wearing a nicer dress, but still a pig. Granted, 360 offers a few features that MSE does not: automatic remote backup, a defrag utility... But given the weakness of the core AV component, you're probably better finding alternatives to those as well.
-
Had an opportunity to examine the relative effects of these two products on a (somewhat underpowered) system this past week. 360 is apparently the "lite" Norton product, intended to compete with products like the (now-defunct) One Care. At first glance, it seems to succeed: the UI is simple and reasonably straightforward, the single service is light on memory and CPU, and there's a refreshing lack of intrusive reminders. Unfortunately, this favorable impression fades quickly. It installs several crappy BHOs, and starts to nag you as soon as they're disabled (props to the IE team for finally making this easy to do in IE8). It disables Windows Defender... but not completely... so you're treated to warnings from Windows itself regarding that. And while the service itself doesn't greatly impact memory or CPU load, other programs suffer from increased load time and working-set footprint. MSE replaces Defender, and doesn't mess with IE. While the service itself has something like double the memory footprint and imposes a 10-20% CPU load during startup, it does a much better job of staying out of the way while other programs are loading. So, if you know someone who needs a virus scanner, MSE isn't a bad choice. If you were already cringing when you saw the name Norton, please continue to do so: it's wearing a nicer dress, but still a pig. Granted, 360 offers a few features that MSE does not: automatic remote backup, a defrag utility... But given the weakness of the core AV component, you're probably better finding alternatives to those as well.
-
Had an opportunity to examine the relative effects of these two products on a (somewhat underpowered) system this past week. 360 is apparently the "lite" Norton product, intended to compete with products like the (now-defunct) One Care. At first glance, it seems to succeed: the UI is simple and reasonably straightforward, the single service is light on memory and CPU, and there's a refreshing lack of intrusive reminders. Unfortunately, this favorable impression fades quickly. It installs several crappy BHOs, and starts to nag you as soon as they're disabled (props to the IE team for finally making this easy to do in IE8). It disables Windows Defender... but not completely... so you're treated to warnings from Windows itself regarding that. And while the service itself doesn't greatly impact memory or CPU load, other programs suffer from increased load time and working-set footprint. MSE replaces Defender, and doesn't mess with IE. While the service itself has something like double the memory footprint and imposes a 10-20% CPU load during startup, it does a much better job of staying out of the way while other programs are loading. So, if you know someone who needs a virus scanner, MSE isn't a bad choice. If you were already cringing when you saw the name Norton, please continue to do so: it's wearing a nicer dress, but still a pig. Granted, 360 offers a few features that MSE does not: automatic remote backup, a defrag utility... But given the weakness of the core AV component, you're probably better finding alternatives to those as well.
In the past I used Mcafee... it weighted a lot in terms of memory usage... Once I switched to Win7 I've been using the free avira package and it continuously was showing popup screens. Now I'm using MSE and it is perfect.
-
Had an opportunity to examine the relative effects of these two products on a (somewhat underpowered) system this past week. 360 is apparently the "lite" Norton product, intended to compete with products like the (now-defunct) One Care. At first glance, it seems to succeed: the UI is simple and reasonably straightforward, the single service is light on memory and CPU, and there's a refreshing lack of intrusive reminders. Unfortunately, this favorable impression fades quickly. It installs several crappy BHOs, and starts to nag you as soon as they're disabled (props to the IE team for finally making this easy to do in IE8). It disables Windows Defender... but not completely... so you're treated to warnings from Windows itself regarding that. And while the service itself doesn't greatly impact memory or CPU load, other programs suffer from increased load time and working-set footprint. MSE replaces Defender, and doesn't mess with IE. While the service itself has something like double the memory footprint and imposes a 10-20% CPU load during startup, it does a much better job of staying out of the way while other programs are loading. So, if you know someone who needs a virus scanner, MSE isn't a bad choice. If you were already cringing when you saw the name Norton, please continue to do so: it's wearing a nicer dress, but still a pig. Granted, 360 offers a few features that MSE does not: automatic remote backup, a defrag utility... But given the weakness of the core AV component, you're probably better finding alternatives to those as well.
I've seen some reviews that suggest that MSE is less than completely effective. That it let some viruses and rootkits take roost where other, allegedly less capable, systems didn't. Any experience with what MSE did or did not protect you against?
Currently reading: "The Prince", by Nicolo Machiavelli
-
Had an opportunity to examine the relative effects of these two products on a (somewhat underpowered) system this past week. 360 is apparently the "lite" Norton product, intended to compete with products like the (now-defunct) One Care. At first glance, it seems to succeed: the UI is simple and reasonably straightforward, the single service is light on memory and CPU, and there's a refreshing lack of intrusive reminders. Unfortunately, this favorable impression fades quickly. It installs several crappy BHOs, and starts to nag you as soon as they're disabled (props to the IE team for finally making this easy to do in IE8). It disables Windows Defender... but not completely... so you're treated to warnings from Windows itself regarding that. And while the service itself doesn't greatly impact memory or CPU load, other programs suffer from increased load time and working-set footprint. MSE replaces Defender, and doesn't mess with IE. While the service itself has something like double the memory footprint and imposes a 10-20% CPU load during startup, it does a much better job of staying out of the way while other programs are loading. So, if you know someone who needs a virus scanner, MSE isn't a bad choice. If you were already cringing when you saw the name Norton, please continue to do so: it's wearing a nicer dress, but still a pig. Granted, 360 offers a few features that MSE does not: automatic remote backup, a defrag utility... But given the weakness of the core AV component, you're probably better finding alternatives to those as well.
I have MSE on machines I don't use much, but I run Norton Internet Security on my main box. With MSE being so new, and it not being as powerful as a AV package from a traditional vendor, I don't know if I will trust it on my main box. Norton may be a beast compared to MSE, but it's better than it was in the past and much quicker. In fact, it won Maximum PC's best AV category 2 years in a row. The only strange thing about Norton is that for me to upgrade from 2009 to 2010 it would have cost me $50-60 or $70 for a new version, but I bought 2010 new from Amazon for $30 for a 3 PC install. C
-
Had an opportunity to examine the relative effects of these two products on a (somewhat underpowered) system this past week. 360 is apparently the "lite" Norton product, intended to compete with products like the (now-defunct) One Care. At first glance, it seems to succeed: the UI is simple and reasonably straightforward, the single service is light on memory and CPU, and there's a refreshing lack of intrusive reminders. Unfortunately, this favorable impression fades quickly. It installs several crappy BHOs, and starts to nag you as soon as they're disabled (props to the IE team for finally making this easy to do in IE8). It disables Windows Defender... but not completely... so you're treated to warnings from Windows itself regarding that. And while the service itself doesn't greatly impact memory or CPU load, other programs suffer from increased load time and working-set footprint. MSE replaces Defender, and doesn't mess with IE. While the service itself has something like double the memory footprint and imposes a 10-20% CPU load during startup, it does a much better job of staying out of the way while other programs are loading. So, if you know someone who needs a virus scanner, MSE isn't a bad choice. If you were already cringing when you saw the name Norton, please continue to do so: it's wearing a nicer dress, but still a pig. Granted, 360 offers a few features that MSE does not: automatic remote backup, a defrag utility... But given the weakness of the core AV component, you're probably better finding alternatives to those as well.
I like MSE. The only issue is that every now and then, it totally sucks up the CPU, especially on boot. This may have been fixed since I haven't had it happen in several weeks, but it can sure be annoying. Ever since Norton all but bricked a system I had, I've never trusted them. Even their business edition, which used to be pretty good, has turned into a resource and CPU hog (on top of that, their updater sometimes consumes all available memory.) And don't get me started on BackupExec.
-
I have MSE on machines I don't use much, but I run Norton Internet Security on my main box. With MSE being so new, and it not being as powerful as a AV package from a traditional vendor, I don't know if I will trust it on my main box. Norton may be a beast compared to MSE, but it's better than it was in the past and much quicker. In fact, it won Maximum PC's best AV category 2 years in a row. The only strange thing about Norton is that for me to upgrade from 2009 to 2010 it would have cost me $50-60 or $70 for a new version, but I bought 2010 new from Amazon for $30 for a 3 PC install. C
-
CincDev wrote:
In fact, it won Maximum PC's best AV category 2 years in a row.
:omg: :wtf: Any one dug through the maze of shell companies to prove that norton owns maximum pc yet?
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
I'm forced to use norton at work. I've used avast, avg, and avira at home. There's no way norton could win an honest competition in which quality was the determining metric. Norton doesn't come even close to sucking as little as avast (just needs a UI redesign), and sucks somewhat more than the other two (AVG is bloated, avira free spams get the payware nags).
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
CincDev wrote:
In fact, it won Maximum PC's best AV category 2 years in a row.
:omg: :wtf: Any one dug through the maze of shell companies to prove that norton owns maximum pc yet?
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
Had an opportunity to examine the relative effects of these two products on a (somewhat underpowered) system this past week. 360 is apparently the "lite" Norton product, intended to compete with products like the (now-defunct) One Care. At first glance, it seems to succeed: the UI is simple and reasonably straightforward, the single service is light on memory and CPU, and there's a refreshing lack of intrusive reminders. Unfortunately, this favorable impression fades quickly. It installs several crappy BHOs, and starts to nag you as soon as they're disabled (props to the IE team for finally making this easy to do in IE8). It disables Windows Defender... but not completely... so you're treated to warnings from Windows itself regarding that. And while the service itself doesn't greatly impact memory or CPU load, other programs suffer from increased load time and working-set footprint. MSE replaces Defender, and doesn't mess with IE. While the service itself has something like double the memory footprint and imposes a 10-20% CPU load during startup, it does a much better job of staying out of the way while other programs are loading. So, if you know someone who needs a virus scanner, MSE isn't a bad choice. If you were already cringing when you saw the name Norton, please continue to do so: it's wearing a nicer dress, but still a pig. Granted, 360 offers a few features that MSE does not: automatic remote backup, a defrag utility... But given the weakness of the core AV component, you're probably better finding alternatives to those as well.
I switched over to MSE when it was released. After a short time I started putting it on friends computers that we were cleaning viruses off of that blew by AVG. So far no problems. I now instruct everyone I know to at least get MSE installed (easy to locate on the internet and install) so I am not gettting those, "I don't know what I did, but some virus warning keeps coming up and has taken over my system" type phone calls from friends. This has been keep them safe so far. My only issue is the install will not work in safe mode. Makes it hard to install on a corrupted system.
Rocky <>< Recent Blog Post: Coca-Cola In Israel..
-
I've seen some reviews that suggest that MSE is less than completely effective. That it let some viruses and rootkits take roost where other, allegedly less capable, systems didn't. Any experience with what MSE did or did not protect you against?
Currently reading: "The Prince", by Nicolo Machiavelli
Brad Stiles wrote:
Any experience with what MSE did or did not protect you against?
I don't use any AV program on my own machines; I'll grudgingly install them on friends' machines though, understanding that they don't know what to watch for and tend to not use firewalls. So I can't really speak to effectiveness; the only "malware" i found on the machine i was last working on was MyWebSearch, which sadly neither MSE nor 360 had the guts to remove. My biggest concern is always performance, since that's what the complains involve ("My PC has gotten so slow, can you have a look?")
-
I have MSE on machines I don't use much, but I run Norton Internet Security on my main box. With MSE being so new, and it not being as powerful as a AV package from a traditional vendor, I don't know if I will trust it on my main box. Norton may be a beast compared to MSE, but it's better than it was in the past and much quicker. In fact, it won Maximum PC's best AV category 2 years in a row. The only strange thing about Norton is that for me to upgrade from 2009 to 2010 it would have cost me $50-60 or $70 for a new version, but I bought 2010 new from Amazon for $30 for a 3 PC install. C