3 ms·

You have to take into account that Microsoft can modify their own OS and implement what needs to be done in a proper way. On the other hand, third-party vendors

by ambrop7 14y ago

You have to take into account that Microsoft can modify their own OS and implement what needs to be done in a proper way. On the other hand, third-party vendors can only use the public interfaces exposed by the OS, or resort to unreliable and/or undocumented methods that may break at any time. There probably is no solution to that, any third-party software that needs tights integration with the OS is going to have that problem.

nolok 14y ago
MSE for windows XP had no associated patch or service pack, was using the same api as every other AV out there, and was about a thousand time better. One could argue Microsoft doesn't need to turn a profit so they can afford to be less intrusive, but the truth is that I would pay for MSE. I wouldn't pay for any of the others.
- T-hawk 14y ago
  That argument is indeed the core of it. Every other antivirus needs to be in your face constantly so you think you're getting value out of the purchase. They all suffer from the "this rock keeps tigers away" problem, that their enemy shows up too infrequently to justify their own existence. So they need to noisily invent enemies. MSE's existence makes a ton of sense when you realize the reason for its creation. It was developed to reduce Microsoft's own support workload, as a significant proportion of Windows support tickets are caused by both malware and belligerent antimalware. MSE justifies its existence by reducing OS support costs rather than by annoying users into paying for antivirus. So Microsoft's incentive is simply to have users use MSE, which is nicely aligned with delivering a clean quiet positive user experience.
- criley 14y ago
  a thousand times better I was under the impression that MSE routinely did OK in AV benchmarks and rarely even ever held the top spot. How is it a thousand times better? Or does it's ability to keep you safe not really factor into your analysis of the software?
  - nolok 14y ago
    To be honest with you, my point of view is that no antivirus is going to protect me 100%, I always have to care about what I open, where it's coming from, ... What I want from my AV then, is to catch the most obvious (and thus numerous) ones, and do so in a way that doesn't bother me. MSE just doesn't get in the way. It updates silently. It scans silently. It detects silently, ask you for something but take the safe course by default. You are in a full screen app ? It doesn't crash everything trying to take control, it just deals with the threat and show a red icon in the tray. It doesn't make my computer safer than the other, but it makes me lose way less time when it does its job.
    - criley 14y ago
      Fair enough, I use Lavasoft because its free version is incredibly well featured and it routinely outperforms MSE in AV tests. I'm just confused by all of the mad-love for MSE. It's good, but I never thought it was the best myself, and I've not seen any objective reasoning for calling it the best.
wfunction 14y ago
> "You have to take into account that Microsoft can modify their own OS and implement what needs to be done in a proper way." Yes, they CAN, but the question is, DID they? Not as far as I know.

by ambrop7 14y ago

nolok 14y ago

MSE for windows XP had no associated patch or service pack, was using the same api as every other AV out there, and was about a thousand time better. One could argue Microsoft doesn't need to turn a profit so they can afford to be less intrusive, but the truth is that I would pay for MSE. I wouldn't pay for any of the others.

T-hawk 14y ago
That argument is indeed the core of it. Every other antivirus needs to be in your face constantly so you think you're getting value out of the purchase. They all suffer from the "this rock keeps tigers away" problem, that their enemy shows up too infrequently to justify their own existence. So they need to noisily invent enemies. MSE's existence makes a ton of sense when you realize the reason for its creation. It was developed to reduce Microsoft's own support workload, as a significant proportion of Windows support tickets are caused by both malware and belligerent antimalware. MSE justifies its existence by reducing OS support costs rather than by annoying users into paying for antivirus. So Microsoft's incentive is simply to have users use MSE, which is nicely aligned with delivering a clean quiet positive user experience.
criley 14y ago
a thousand times better I was under the impression that MSE routinely did OK in AV benchmarks and rarely even ever held the top spot. How is it a thousand times better? Or does it's ability to keep you safe not really factor into your analysis of the software?
- nolok 14y ago
  To be honest with you, my point of view is that no antivirus is going to protect me 100%, I always have to care about what I open, where it's coming from, ... What I want from my AV then, is to catch the most obvious (and thus numerous) ones, and do so in a way that doesn't bother me. MSE just doesn't get in the way. It updates silently. It scans silently. It detects silently, ask you for something but take the safe course by default. You are in a full screen app ? It doesn't crash everything trying to take control, it just deals with the threat and show a red icon in the tray. It doesn't make my computer safer than the other, but it makes me lose way less time when it does its job.
  - criley 14y ago
    Fair enough, I use Lavasoft because its free version is incredibly well featured and it routinely outperforms MSE in AV tests. I'm just confused by all of the mad-love for MSE. It's good, but I never thought it was the best myself, and I've not seen any objective reasoning for calling it the best.

wfunction 14y ago

> "You have to take into account that Microsoft can modify their own OS and implement what needs to be done in a proper way." Yes, they CAN, but the question is, DID they? Not as far as I know.