Avast 6 free antivirus vs Microsoft Security Essentials.

[Tommy]

I would go with Avast free antivirus due to all it's features and I think it eats less RAM this Microsoft Security Essentials. Microsoft Security Essentials is really just an antivirus with nothing added in my opinion.

[Tweak]

I think Avast without question, simply much more offered, self protection MSE lacks, just a much better option in my opinion.

[Chiron]

I'd choose Avast.

MSE is good, but it doesn't have the configurability I need in an AV.

[Valentin N]

100% avast; it has more features and you can config as you want it

MSE2 is user friendly because the user has few options and since average users don't like to play around or explore the product it is so user friendly.

[Linuxfever]

Avast 6, it has more features and it offers a better prevention rate.
MSE is just a basic antivirus solution.

[bogdan]

Here-s my experience with MSE (some time ago): Really simple interface, targeted at every Windows user. When it came out it had really good detection rate (maybe it still has) and almost no false-positives. I am sure that the low FP rate is still there because I don't think that Microsoft can afford having many false-positives (companies will complain if their files are detected as malicious). It includes cloud technology: Dynamic Signature Service Feature and SpyNet (scary name). On the downside, removing a file (even if it was not running) was slow. Full-scans were extremely slow and RAM usage was high. Again, this was some time ago.

Avast has good signatures too and it is light on system resources. Not all shields are useful to me, I only install the webshield and the Network Shield. Since I mainly use webmail I have no use for the mail shield and the only p2p that I am rarely using are torrents - there is plenty of time for the AV to scan a file. Avast evolved allot, v5 was practically a new product and it was mostly bug-free. V6 introduces important technologies, but at this point they do not work at their full potential.

Both products can't protect the system on their own. Maybe if you have a low security risk, run under a standard account (LUA) and have a router that includes a firewall an av can be sufficient. You need backups too. But in most cases you'll need to pair it up with some other form of protection.

[bunyip783]

Would it be wrong of me to prefer MSE? As of now, I think it outperforms Avast. Sure, maybe once they get the auto sandbox working properly, it will be better, but for now I prefer MSE. The performance of a product is more important than it's mass supply of features, especially when they can't protect you as well as something so basic.

[AyeAyeCaptain]

I would say Avast, due to what it offer... In my opinion I find MSE very limited but is good enough for those who want free turn on and forget protection (if you can call it full protection?!). It's all just a case of opinion and what works for the end user to be honest.

[bogdan]

bunyip783 wrote:Would it be wrong of me to prefer MSE?

No, you are allowed to say it

Actually you might be right since avast doesn't have good heuristics, according to the last av-comparative test. Avast Free detected only 43% of the samples, the only product that detected less was PCTools SywareDoctor+AV. On the other hand, MSE scored more on the on-demand test.

I was just disappointed at that time with MSE's high memory usage and slow scans. It also lacked self-protection.

[Tommy]

(03-01-2011 12:29 PM)bunyip783 wrote:  Would it be wrong of me to prefer MSE? As of now, I think it outperforms Avast. Sure, maybe once they get the auto sandbox working properly, it will be better, but for now I prefer MSE. The performance of a product is more important than it's mass supply of features, especially when they can't protect you as well as something so basic.

Don't worry we don't attack other people for there opinions. Unlike somebody I know but that's off topic I love to hear others opinions.