Microsoft Security Essentials - Ars Technica review - Page 2

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

Re: Microsoft Security Essentials - Ars Technica review




Quoted text here. Click to load it

I could spin it and say that I was giving Microsoft credit for an
aditional .1 million downloads the second week, but actually, I goofed
on the numbers. Regardless, 1.5 million downloads the first week and
1.1 million downloads the next week is still a declining trend.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

_ _
joemooreaterolsdotcom

Re: Microsoft Security Essentials - Ars Technica review



wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well the author does not have show much bias towards other MS products
(and often quite the opposite) so I have little reason to be live he is
trying to spin anything here.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Have you any data to show that this is not normal for all software new
and *first* releases? If not your summarising shows nothing.
If the numbers are going up. It is an upwards trend, no matter how much
*you* try to *spin* it.

Be interesting to see how many downloads of any of the other
anti-malware solutions there were in their first weeks.
Much MUCH lower I would think.

Re: Microsoft Security Essentials - Ars Technica review




Quoted text here. Click to load it

You might be right. It could be he just didn't give much thought to
what he said.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

No.


According to your logic, if only 3 copies were download next week, two
the week after, and one the week after that, it would still be an
upward trend because the TOTAL is going up even though rate of
downlading is obviously going down. Would it take an outbreak of folks
*uploading* the software before you conceded a downward trend?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That may very well be true. But it still wouldn't make the fact their
TOTAL numbers increased from week to week newsworthy. It's hard to
imagine any other possibility unless their server broke.

Don't get me wrong. Anything which makes life easier for the average
computer user is fine by me and I hope this product works well and is
easy to use. It's just that hype of any kind annoys me no matter who's
doing it.

_ _
joemooreaterolsdotcom

Re: Microsoft Security Essentials - Ars Technica review



wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it




Re: Microsoft Security Essentials - Ars Technica review



wrote:

Ignore last 'incomplete' post.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, I would see a trend when a trend is set. Many weeks of continuing
lower volume of downloads may indicate a trend but could also indicate
normal download activity.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I hope so and I also hope they quickly iron out the bugs that seem to be
affecting a few people.

Re: Microsoft Security Essentials - Ars Technica review




Quoted text here. Click to load it

I don't see Microsoft dedicating the time or resources to compete in the
antivirus/antimalware fields. They have enough problems writing code for
the OS that works and doesn't break something...

I don't see this app lasting long or becoming anybodies favorite for
cleaning up an infected machine.


--
Dustin Cook [Malware Researcher]
MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org
BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk

Re: Microsoft Security Essentials - Ars Technica review



On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:37:06 GMT, Dustin Cook


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Like I said, time will tell.
I have no issues with any current MS OS (possibly Vista is the
exception). The only objection I have is they try not to break older
legacy applications when they develop a new OS. Personally I would
prefer if they started an OS from the ground up and to hell with any
existing apps. The OS is the backbone. Application developers need to
develop applications that work in the OS. and not blame their failings
on the OS or MS.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I see no reason why MS would not continue to develop this and improve on
it.
As a priority I would expect it to prevent infections rather than clean
them up.
Maybe there is some bias to your opinion? There is none to mine. I am a
completely independent party.

Re: Microsoft Security Essentials - Ars Technica review




Quoted text here. Click to load it
 
For the same reasons MS developed (bought) MSAV and MWAV. Malware is a very
time consuming process; and it takes people seriously dedicated to it on
both sides. If preventing infections 100% of the time could be achieved I'd
be out of a job, along with thousands of others in this field. :)

I suppose one could suspect bias with my opinion, but I believe I've had
the same opinion of malware in general long before I ever worked for an
antimalware company. I really try not to get work related things mixed up
with personal opinions of this or that.



--
Dustin Cook [Malware Researcher]
MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org
BugHunter - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk

Re: Microsoft Security Essentials - Ars Technica review




Quoted text here. Click to load it

I *love* parties!




Re: Microsoft Security Essentials - Ars Technica review




Quoted text here. Click to load it

Nope. I think your Malwarebytes has the market on that. But I was hoping
that MSE would be turn out to be top notch realtime protection.

I just installed Windows 7 Saturday and immediately installed MSE. It
acts the same way it did in XP and Vista. And this was before I
installed *anything* else. And I changed my mind, it is *not* tolerable
on a quad core". :-)  

So to whoever it was that said that "other processes" were interfering
with it, then Windows itself must be interfering with it.

I uninstalled it right away so it wouldn't slow down the installation of
all my applications.

--
        --- Everybody has a right to my opinion. ---

Site Timeline