Reviews:
 ·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | reply to StraitShoot
Re: Microsoft Security Essentials..... Comments?? Having used Windows Live Onecare in the past, and having slight issues with it over the time i had it, from backup not working right at times. I have to say Microsoft Security Essentials is the least intrusive antivirus out at the moment, working good on my Vista Desktop, and now 4 XP machines.
On the Second XP machine had the beta on there since it was released, and had to be one of the most stable Beta's i've ever used in recent memory. I did beta test Onecare when they released that, but had a boot sector on my test machine then, and unforuately missed alot of the testing time trying to fix that, when really i could've had it fixed sooner back then if i had known it was a boot sector virus causing all the issues.
So in conclusion i do plan on staying with Security Essentials
Even runs good on very old XP Desktop with these specs
Pentium 3 700
120mbs of ram
320gb hard drive
onboard video
(oldest Pc i have it on at the moment) |
|
|
|
upbPremium
join:2004-03-15
Carriere, MS
kudos:1 | I just removed Security Essentials from a Dell 9300 Inspiron laptop running XP Pro, because it turned the machine into a pig after it was installed. What it did was to reactivate all of the background processes listed by msconfig — processes which had been laboriously disabled after checking them out one by one to make sure they weren't essential. S.E. apparently restored the INI and other configuration files, as well as silently resetting the hosts file. My wife was less than pleased with the resulting sluggishness of her favorite laptop.
Thanks to Drive Snapshot, I was able to revert to an image made just prior to the installation of Security Essentials, and that cleared the problems up. If you have installed many apps on your machine prior to installing S.E., beware of background processes showing up again. Also, if you are using the hosts file as a security tool, S.E. does rename the file to hosts.bak, so it's possible to get it back. |
|
| said by upb:I just removed Security Essentials from a Dell 9300 Inspiron laptop running XP Pro, because it turned the machine into a pig after it was installed. What it did was to reactivate all of the background processes listed by msconfig — processes which had been laboriously disabled after checking them out one by one to make sure they weren't essential. S.E. apparently restored the INI and other configuration files, as well as silently resetting the hosts file. My wife was less than pleased with the resulting sluggishness of her favorite laptop. Thanks to Drive Snapshot, I was able to revert to an image made just prior to the installation of Security Essentials, and that cleared the problems up. If you have installed many apps on your machine prior to installing S.E., beware of background processes showing up again. Also, if you are using the hosts file as a security tool, S.E. does rename the file to hosts.bak, so it's possible to get it back. This does not sound good. I am surprised no one else noticed all these changes, especially the hosts file. I'll be extra watchful if I every try SE. |
|
upbPremium
join:2004-03-15
Carriere, MS
kudos:1 | said by bangaroo:This does not sound good. I am surprised no one else noticed all these changes, especially the hosts file. I'll be extra watchful if I every try SE. It seems to be more complicated than I thought. The SE installer appears to use some kind of heuristic to examine the configuration files (hosts, win.ini, etc.) before it makes any changes to them. It appears that the installer is looking for modifications that may have been made by malware.
I have SE running on a desktop machine, and upon taking a closer look at that machine, it could be seen that SE left all of the configuration files unmolested. The processes which were disabled remained disabled. However, the XP Pro installation was a new one, and there weren't many apps on the machine. My wife's laptop, by way of comparison, has had many, many applications installed over its four year life.
Other people have reported that the hosts file can be modified (Steve Gipson of »grc.com reported it during a Security Now netcast a few weeks ago), so I'm not alone in some of these observations. It's too bad that the installer is silent about modifying the files when it decides to do so. The resulting surprises can be unpleasant.  |
|
| Can anyone tell me how many running processes MSE adds? |
|
| reply to upb
I second upb and uninstalled it for all the changes it made without my consent. |
|
Indy SabreSabre Rider From Indianapolis
join:2003-10-02 | reply to upb
said by upb:said by bangaroo:This does not sound good. I am surprised no one else noticed all these changes, especially the hosts file. I'll be extra watchful if I every try SE. It seems to be more complicated than I thought. The SE installer appears to use some kind of heuristic to examine the configuration files (hosts, win.ini, etc.) before it makes any changes to them. It appears that the installer is looking for modifications that may have been made by malware. I have SE running on a desktop machine, and upon taking a closer look at that machine, it could be seen that SE left all of the configuration files unmolested. The processes which were disabled remained disabled. However, the XP Pro installation was a new one, and there weren't many apps on the machine. My wife's laptop, by way of comparison, has had many, many applications installed over its four year life. Other people have reported that the hosts file can be modified (Steve Gipson of » grc.com reported it during a Security Now netcast a few weeks ago), so I'm not alone in some of these observations. It's too bad that the installer is silent about modifying the files when it decides to do so. The resulting surprises can be unpleasant.
Sorry to dig up an older thread but -
I have been considering this for a new Windows 7 install and an older Vistsa install. Has anyone else seen had it change settings or hosts without asking first?
I get the part about setting it to quarantine instead of delete stored apps etc. but if it changes disabled settings and stuff that won't be acceptable to me.
I also read that it replaces defender so does it have the alerts to newly added startup items like defender did? I found this to be a nice feature in defender. |
|
 siljalineI'm lovin' that double widePremium
join:2002-10-12
Montreal, QC
kudos:17
·Bell Sympatico
1 edit | If no joy in this thread, Indy Sabre  post a query at:
Microsoft Security Essentials Forums
Edit to add:
See this extensive thread on the subject of MSE and Custom HOSTS Files.
»social.answers.microsoft.com/For···98a1f1da |
|
| reply to Indy Sabre
said by Indy Sabre:Sorry to dig up an older thread but - I have been considering this for a new Windows 7 install and an older Vistsa install. Has anyone else seen had it change settings or hosts without asking first? ...I also read that it replaces defender so does it have the alerts to newly added startup items like defender did? I found this to be a nice feature in defender. I've had no issues with my hosts file in Windows 7 (64bit). I installed MSE first, then used HostsXpert to replace my hosts file with MVPS hosts. I also made my hosts read only with HostsXpert. No issues yet and my hosts file is working properly.
I haven't had any alerts of newly added startup items while using MSE. I agree it's a nice feature to have. I would love to see it integrated with MSE. |
|
