McAfee vs Microsoft Security Essentials

[#1]

Following a recent crash of my computer, and the re-installation of the Windows 7 operating system, the computer repair engineer who carried out the repair installed Microsoft Security Essentials as the real-time anti-virus system. When I said that McAfee was included in my PN subscription, his view was that Microsoft Security Essentials was as good as, if not better than, McAfee. It is difficult for me to assess their relative merits myself. The main difference I see without McAfee is that I do not get the 'green tick' icons next to  'safe' websites.
Does anybody have any views on the relative merits of McAfee and Microsoft Security Essentials, and whether it is a good idea to re-install the 'free' version of McAfee (which is included in my PN subscription)?
Thanks. 

[#2]

I have to agree
Mcafee is not the best
I always recommend Avast or Microsoft Security Essentials as the are the 2 best AV's atm
I have dedicated test machines which I regularly infect with known malware trojans etc, then install an 1 of the many AV's on them & Avst & MSSE has come out on top
The free version of Avast will give you the green ticks in your browser safe website searches

[#3]

Thanks very much TORPC for your reply, which is very similar to the comments made by my repair engineer. One thing I should have included in my posting was the question of firewalls. McAfee refers to a two-way firewall, whereas my understanding of the default Windows firewall is that it deals with incoming traffic only. The comment made by the engineer to this was that modern routers also contain a firewall, and this, together with the Windows firewall, was good enough. Would that be your opinion as well?

[#4]

If safe surfing practices or observed, then that is sound advice.
With Plusnet, you have a minimum of 3 Firewalls
1 x Windows Firewall
1 x Router Firewall
1 x Plusnet's online Firewall (https://portal.plus.net/my.html?action=firewall)
Therefore you should be quite safe

[#5]

I agree with TORPC...
I used to use McAfee years ago but it became bloated and unwieldy - not sure what it's like now.
For all my and SWMBO's PCs and Laptops I use MSE, Sbybot S&D (v1.62), CCleaner and Malwarebytes. Anything untoward has always been flagged and quarantined ready for further investigation/deletion. I use Windows Firewall as well as the router's but not PlusNet's.

[#6]

Quote from: TORPC

Mcafee is not the best I always recommend Avast or Microsoft Security Essentials as the are the 2 best AV's atm

Oh.    I recently moved my parents' Windows 7 laptops on to the Plusnet-provided McAfee, replacing Microsoft Security Essentials, because of the latest reports at http://www.av-comparatives.org/dynamic-tests/ and http://www.av-test.org/en/tests/home-user/windows-8/janfeb-2013/ (and aren't Microsoft stopping support of Security Essentials because they are focussing on its successor that's part of Windows 8?).  Did I make a mistake?    I remember several years ago that the collective wisdom was that MSSE was about as good as any anti-malware software (especially given that it's free), but I also know that software and the malware universe changes over time so it's worth re-evaluating every so often - which is what I did, and what led me to make the changes.

[#7]

Also remember that any AV is only as good as the use in that regular updates and scans must be done.
Both SWMBO and myself were using the same av systems for many years when around 5 years ago her PC was so badly infected that a re-install of XP was the only viable option. It transpired that she hadn't updated any AV for months
I now remind her weekly and often I simply use TeamViwer to login and action them myself, just in case.

[#8]

Mcafee has such a bad reputation that they have sold it to Intel in 2010, which as of January 2014

Quote

Intel is abandoning the McAfee brand name for its security business.

Quote

Intel is distancing itself from the name of its top security product, McAfee, after years of having its name dragged through the mud thanks to the misadventures of its founder, John McAfee. Intel (INTC, Fortune 500), which bought McAfee in 2010, will rebrand its subsidiary as Intel Security. But Intel will keep the logo we all know well -- that red shield that lives on many of our computers' toolbars.

[#9]

I just ordered my usual 2 x 3 user Kaspersky Internet Security for £8 approx per user from Amazon
As a final security backup I create a full system backup every month just in case

[#10]

Take a look at these reviews,  Microsoft S E was a dont use in a recent issue of Computer Active.
http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/internet-security

[#11]

A lot of AV reviews are so called independent and unbiased  dont belive everything you read, but they  hardly ever tell you the Test environment .
the choice of AV also must depend on what you do with your PC , Obviously a lot of common sense is involved  , if you visit known dodgy sites the chances of getting a virus increases.
the same goes for most people who are aware of risks you dont take , so the choice of AV is simpler .
Myself have never had any infestations using MSE , and regular scans with Malwarebytes , CCleaner 

[#12]

All them reviews are paid for by the AV's
I was approached by AVG via email, several tears back, if I wanted to be paid to review their Product,, & if I said it was the best, they would give a reasonable sum of money, I told them a big fat NO, as I am not going to be influenced in being biased
Utorrents are a well known, infection factory, as you will never know if a file you want to d/load from several machines (will be infected prior to the Utorrent grabbing it & transferring it to your PC) Thus in most cases bypassing the resident AV
I recently cleaned a Boot Cidox.b from a machine (which is a very nasty virus) & installs a Backdoor to Hacker(s)
Which came through via a Utorrent d/load, for some Karaoke music, as that is all my client d/loads
My client was told by Norton over the phone (that their paid for Norton AV picked it up & failed to clean it out of their laptop) would cost £170 for them to remove the Virus

Quote

How dangerous Rootkit.Boot.Cidox.b is? 1. Rootkit.Boot.Cidox.b creates numerous files, occupying a large resource of your system. 2. Rootkit.Boot.Cidox.b messes up your system documents and changes your computer settings. 3. Rootkit.Boot.Cidox.b slows down your system and causes computer crash and computer halted. 4. Rootkit.Boot.Cidox.b spreads its codes through the internet and infects other computer in the same network. 5. Rootkit.Boot.Cidox.b opens leaks to other virus to attack your computer and contacts with cyber criminals to steal your personal information.

& then there are those that turn off their AV / Security Software to play  games / watch films etc, then conveniently forget to turn them back on
Thus leaving themselves wide open to attack

[#13]

The review sites in this post http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,124620.msg1082964.html#msg1082964 are independent and are not affiliated to or biassed by the product suppliers

[#14]

Over the years I have tried many different AV's - and in the last few months have been trying several of the top rated products.
I know that Kaspersky is a excellent product and has very high ratings - but being Russian I dont feel able to trust it.
Given the issues in the USA these days with them intercepting emails etc etc - I have similar concerns for US products.
I have used F-Secure because it has very high independent ratings too, and I have always liked their bloggs. Being Finnish I trust it a lot more. I used to work for Nokia - another fFinnish company and I highly rate the Finns in advanced technologies, and their staff are very active in blogging.
http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/
"Government surveillance is not about governments collecting the information you're sharing publicly and willingly.
It's about collecting the information you don't realize you're sharing at all."

[#15]

I use AVG as my regular AV however, no AV covers 100% of threats, most manage around 80% at best.
Fortunately, the various 80%s don't entirely overlap - partly because there are so many threats, partly because some focus more on different types of threat - so it pays to use multiple AV packages to maximise your coverage.
Obviously, you don't want more than one AV running all the time though, so what I do is have AVG running but periodically scan with other packages like MalwareBytes and Avast!.  They do occassionally pick up things AVG missed - I'm sure the same would be true whatever I used as my primary.