Suspected PayPal Hackers Seek Deal To Stay Out Of Prison
Scripps Employees Called 'Hackers' For Exposing Massive Security Flaw
Microsoft Security Essentials enjoys warm reception in first week
I'm a huge fan of Security Essentials (and Windows 7, and a number of other MS products, but I digress). It's quickly become my recommended free antivirus app of choice and protects all three of the laptops in my house. And I've got plenty of company.
The Microsoft Malware Protection Center blog has posted some interesting numbers. After its first week, Security Essentials has already been installed more than 1.5 million times. From the approximately 535,000 machines reporting statistics, MSE has logged over 4 million detections.
44% of MSE users are already running Windows 7 with XP following at 33% and the remaining 23% on Vista. The number of detections per OS is also interesting. 52% of the 4 million reported were found on Windows XP systems compared to only 32% on Vista.
Windows 7 users fared even better. Though they represent the largest group of MSE users, only 16% of detections came from systems running Microsoft's latest OS. The post also reports 1/3 of these machines are using the 64-bit version, which "is even more resistant to malware than 32-bit due to PatchGuard," states Microsoft's Joe Faulhaber.
Security Essentials is a free download, and is available directly from Microsoft.
The Microsoft Malware Protection Center blog has posted some interesting numbers. After its first week, Security Essentials has already been installed more than 1.5 million times. From the approximately 535,000 machines reporting statistics, MSE has logged over 4 million detections.
44% of MSE users are already running Windows 7 with XP following at 33% and the remaining 23% on Vista. The number of detections per OS is also interesting. 52% of the 4 million reported were found on Windows XP systems compared to only 32% on Vista.
Windows 7 users fared even better. Though they represent the largest group of MSE users, only 16% of detections came from systems running Microsoft's latest OS. The post also reports 1/3 of these machines are using the 64-bit version, which "is even more resistant to malware than 32-bit due to PatchGuard," states Microsoft's Joe Faulhaber.
Security Essentials is a free download, and is available directly from Microsoft.
Comments
28
Subscribe to commentsbarkingghost@gmail.comOct 18th 2009 11:09AM
While I installed this on my wife's computer, I'll maintain a reservation that any AV software actually needs to be installed in order for it to work properly.
In fact, if there was ever a more conspirator of collusion as AV software, this should be a most appropriate example. Why is no one offering an AV solution that doesn't require it to be installed on a computer.
Specifically, what is that prohibits an AV software from being download capable and ready if saved directly to a USB thumb drive, and any necessary update files also saved in this manner?
rcarmOct 18th 2009 11:29AM
ClamWin Portable lets you do that. Just install it to your flash drive then just run it if you need to scan something.
master811Oct 18th 2009 12:32PM
The problem with the ClamWin and anything else similar to that where it doesn't need to be installed is they don't support any kind of pro-active/automatic scanning, it all has to be done manually.
FredOct 18th 2009 11:10AM
I can account for at least four or five of those, as all 4 of my machines now have it, and I have recommended it to several folks I know. It's really a great product, and I am surprised it has not been added to the Windows Live! suite of apps.
CDN CrockettOct 18th 2009 11:21AM
I liking it a lot!!! But why can't I right click on the icon in the taskbar to check for an update or a system scan?
TSSaloicOct 18th 2009 8:15PM
It's version 1.0, but I would like to see that as well.
AndreaOct 19th 2009 7:01AM
You can (double)click the icon in the taskbar, and directly click the scan button. That's two clicks, you wouldn't save clicks by right-clicking the taskbar-icon. And why would you want to update manually anyway when it does so automatically, during normal operation and at installation?
I think it's a good thing they keep things as simpe as possible.
MattOct 18th 2009 11:49AM
I love how little resources it uses, especially compared to McAfee which I had been using on XP before upgrading to 7.
kkzoneOct 18th 2009 12:00PM
I wonder why they didnt provide win xp 64 bit version MSE, infact XP-64 is one of the best os next to win 7but has got no AV support from its originator itself. Well done Microsoft.
NeoprimalOct 18th 2009 1:41PM
Microsoft is a business. They're not going to support a product they've been trying to kill off for some amount of years now. People forget that support doesn't necessarily mean help calls, it also means that given a choice, the company will no longer build XP drivers or software. This is a case in which we're seeing an example of MS flexing their option to now allow a piece of software to run on their own OS.
XP 64 was my single reason for moving to Vista. So stable and soooo very fast/quick because at the time I was running 4GB of RAM, yet many things just weren't written to work on it. At the time, many drivers weren't written for it. Ironically, drivers didn't even start getting written for it en masse until after Vista 64 was out in all its glory. Something very simple drove it home for me..... My printer driver, skipped over XP64 completely and supported Vista 32/64. My Fingerprint Reader (MS made mind you) also skipped over XP64 and got Vista 32 support and finally Windows Live Essentials is/was not installable on XP64. So I said eff it and made the plunge.
I suspect the ONLY reason XP32 is supported is the fact that it's the defacto OS for most netbooks pre-October 22, 2009.
kkzoneOct 18th 2009 9:54PM
The existence of drivers was quite true for XP 64.
I still keep xp running because of good overlay video support that makes my TV card output to look better when compared to that of vista/xp.
Anyway I'm not waiting for MS to release a version for this os I have hell lot of alternatives in the form of AVG,Antivir,etc that works and also outperforms MSE sometimes.
nightmarekirbyXOct 18th 2009 2:08PM
What's the difference with Windows Defender?
FredOct 18th 2009 3:22PM
Defender is only anti-spyware/rootkit only, no AV.
Gardiner WestboundOct 18th 2009 2:15PM
MSE seems to be working but unlike Windows Defender there is no confirmation the overnight scan really happened, so I don't know if it is actually doing anything. There have also been several false positives. I may have to switch back to one of the alternates, like AVG, Avast or Avira.
StrideryOct 18th 2009 2:27PM
I've had quite a few less false positives with MSE then most other paid and free A/Vs. I have been very happy so far with MSE. I've installed it on all of my home computers (all 6 of them) and most of my clients computers as well. Im just happy that Microsoft has been releasing such great products as of lately.
kojo87Oct 18th 2009 2:38PM
i haven't had any false positives with MSE. AVG gave me about 2 a week
JordanOct 18th 2009 4:40PM
If you really need to know, open the program in the morning and see when the last scan was....
cubanresourcefulOct 18th 2009 3:01PM
I tried MSE, it lagged my computer, (though I tried the beta), maybe it was just me, I dunno. So I am rocking Avast! Home and Comodo Firewall Pro and an on demand Malwarebytes' Anti-malware scan and everything is clean and fast. :)
btdownOct 18th 2009 5:13PM
Ok..so do I need MSE *and* Windows defender installed or ? Whats the difference?
cubanresourcefulOct 18th 2009 7:39PM
No, I'm pretty sure MSE replaces Windows Defender. (MSE incorporates anti-spyware protection, which is Windows Defenders sole purpose).