thank u for bringing that up. I didn't reply to the guy above you because I have no time to waste convincing people not to use that baseline AV. In fact, it is the same not to use any AV than to use MSE or Windows Defender. I also hate how it gets its definition updates as Windows updates rather than update silently.Berryracer isn't wrong though:
"Microsoft has admitted Windows users should install antivirus above and beyond its own Security Essentials, describing its protection as merely a "baseline" that will "always be on the bottom" of antivirus software rankings."
http://bit.ly/14G9DHg
With that being said i've had my AV installed for years and it's still sitting at 0 detected.
So what does that mean. I never get viri or does it mean that Eset isn't detecting the ones i do get?
Berryracer isn't wrong though:
"Microsoft has admitted Windows users should install antivirus above and beyond its own Security Essentials, describing its protection as merely a "baseline" that will "always be on the bottom" of antivirus software rankings."
http://bit.ly/14G9DHg
Please point out where Microsoft is quoted as saying that.
As someone else already made comments along these lines, I'll point you straight to my response to that:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=35570849&highlight=#post35570849
The bottom line is that Microsoft shares their knowledge with other AV companies, so all other AV companies will have *at a minimum* the same coverage as MSE.That isn't a quote.
Example: Berryracer said that MSE is rubbish.
That isn't a quote either.
Here's another example of something that isn't a quote, but an extrapolation from something I read:
Microsoft says that its security software isn't good enough.
"Baseline does not equal bad,"
From same link as above. or here: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Micr...-Just-a-Basic-Anti-Virus-Product-386213.shtml"We provide a high-quality, high-performing service to our customers and if they choose not to buy antivirus on Windows 8... we want to get those people protected."
The bottom line is that Microsoft shares their knowledge with other AV companies, so all other AV companies will have *at a minimum* the same coverage as MSE.
And that's all I was trying to point out. He basically parrots out these claims as if they are fact when all he has done is look at obfuscated statistics (which IMO are based on some very dodgy methodologies and explanations for what the tests involved), and goes on every AV thread saying the same thing. This does not help people.Berryracers argument is that MSE is 100% useless, so he is wrong.
you should really read the source links i provide. For all you know I made it all up.I've never heard that before, citation needed.
"We’re providing all of that data and information to our partners so they can do at least as well as we are,"
But he still has a point that a dedicated AV company can provide a higher level of security. How much higher is a discussion for another day.He's entitled to his opinion, and if he doesn't like MSE, I don't have a problem with that.
On the topic of press bullshit, notice that the first quote you made regarding what MS said does not equal what are apparently quotes from Microsoft in your post I'm responding to.
It's pretty common knowledge the MSE isn't the absolutely best product on the market.
MSE is designed to be good enough. Other AV products are more intrusive because they want to be the best. It's their niche, it's their specialty and it's their primary income stream. So i don't doubt for a minute that they are better. But again, what is better? Eset on my desktop is still sitting @ 0 detected threats.That's a high standard you're aiming for. I don't know that I'd even call it "competitive". MSE is light, and easy. Those are pretty much the only reasons to run it near as I can tell. The big question is "Is that better than running nothing at all?".
I'd be interested in hearing if anyone here has had MSE protect them from a virus. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that. Most people with a clue don't get viruses anyway, so running the best A/V, or nothing at all doesn't make a bit of difference. The best question is "What A/V best protects people that don't have a clue?".
I used to use Avira free, but the adware's gotten out of control. I switched my mother to Ubuntu largely because of that. If she were running Windows, I wonder what the best A/V would be? Best is defined as easy, fairly light, and effective.
I have been using Bitdefender for quite a while now and have nothing but good things to say.Bitdefender AV Plus = very buggy software, although its detections are the best, it acts as a virus by itself in the way it slows down your internet browsing and weird bugs here and there
...I'd be interested in hearing if anyone here has had MSE protect them from a virus. ...
Raises hand. Didn't protect me, but a person I was helping out. They were running McAfee at the time. I think the issue is that names like McAfee and Norton are targets Those designing malware don't worry about getting around/through MSE, since so many people have little faith in it anyway. They go after the names that really get them attention.
Not to say MSE was the only thing I ran at the time (haven't found an antivirus that is especially good at spyware/malware) but it did find threats.