According to AV-Comparatives MSE is one of the worst now of the 20+ they regularly test. It should be simply viewed as the default AV software on a new machine (better than nothing) and be replaced asap with something much stronger of your choice.
To be honest, soulboy77, I'd go even further and describe MSE as not fit for purpose and that it should be replaced at the earliest opportunity. Even mediocre paid-for offerings like AhnLab and Norman should be discounted as potential options since these days they inevitably end up in the bottom quarter of any antivirus efficacy test.
To be honest, soulboy77, I'd go even further and describe MSE as not fit for purpose and that it should be replaced at the earliest opportunity. Even mediocre paid-for offerings like AhnLab and Norman should be discounted as potential options since these days they inevitably end up in the bottom quarter of any antivirus efficacy test.
My theory is that if all the software developers for Windows out there are paying a fee to Microsoft to get the code that's required in order to make their program compatible with Windows, Microsoft aren't going to want to take away business from them. I'm guessing that Microsoft are deliberately making their antivirus rubbish.
I'm not entirely sure analysing MSE or Windows defender in its windows 8 form as a stand alone product is fair or what Microsoft designed it for..
I assume Microsoft understandably will have taken steps to make sure it works well with Internet Explorer.
I did a very quick test with the Eicars file using Windows 8.1.
Chrome took an age downloading the file before telling me that my AV had detected a virus.
Internet Explorer immediately flagged a warning that the smartscreen filter had blocked the download. Windows defender never got a chance to become involved as far as I can tell.
My assumption, be it right or wrong, is that it takes Smartscreen filter and Windows defender together to make the complete AV package.
That does somewhat restrict your choice of browser though
I'm not entirely sure analysing MSE or Windows defender in its windows 8 form as a stand alone product is fair or what Microsoft designed it for..
I assume Microsoft understandably will have taken steps to make sure it works well with Internet Explorer.
I did a very quick test with the Eicars file using Windows 8.1.
Chrome took an age downloading the file before telling me that my AV had detected a virus.
Internet Explorer immediately flagged a warning that the smartscreen filter had blocked the download. Windows defender never got a chance to become involved as far as I can tell.
My assumption, be it right or wrong, is that it takes Smartscreen filter and Windows defender together to make the complete AV package.
That does somewhat restrict your choice of browser though
A case of Microsoft forcing you to use Internet Explorer if you want the built-in antivirus package to work whilst surfing websites.
For it to work at its best, yes. Seems to be an entirely reasonable approach to me.
Not really. It's Microsoft being childish and petty. They're trying to get people to use their browser by only allowing the built-in antivirus software package to work properly with Internet Explorer.
Comments
To be honest, soulboy77, I'd go even further and describe MSE as not fit for purpose and that it should be replaced at the earliest opportunity. Even mediocre paid-for offerings like AhnLab and Norman should be discounted as potential options since these days they inevitably end up in the bottom quarter of any antivirus efficacy test.
My theory is that if all the software developers for Windows out there are paying a fee to Microsoft to get the code that's required in order to make their program compatible with Windows, Microsoft aren't going to want to take away business from them. I'm guessing that Microsoft are deliberately making their antivirus rubbish.
I assume Microsoft understandably will have taken steps to make sure it works well with Internet Explorer.
I did a very quick test with the Eicars file using Windows 8.1.
Chrome took an age downloading the file before telling me that my AV had detected a virus.
Internet Explorer immediately flagged a warning that the smartscreen filter had blocked the download. Windows defender never got a chance to become involved as far as I can tell.
My assumption, be it right or wrong, is that it takes Smartscreen filter and Windows defender together to make the complete AV package.
That does somewhat restrict your choice of browser though
A case of Microsoft forcing you to use Internet Explorer if you want the built-in antivirus package to work whilst surfing websites.
For it to work at its best, yes.
Seems to be an entirely reasonable approach to me.
Not really. It's Microsoft being childish and petty. They're trying to get people to use their browser by only allowing the built-in antivirus software package to work properly with Internet Explorer.