Microsoft Security Essentials review: good enough?

When Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE) first launched, I wrote a post about how this could spell doom for security software companies like Norton, but I also expressed my apprehension about free anti-virus software. I mean, Microsoft states it clearly that it is essentials. So is this a good enough anti-malware solution for home users?

I've been using MSE as my sole anti-virus software for three months now on two Windows laptops. One is running Vista business, the other is a netbook with 7 Starter. Before that, I was using Norton products, but when my subscription expired, I figured out that renewing was costly and so decided to give MSE a chance. (By the way, I'm still a big Norton fan.)

So can MSE replace Norton Anti-virus?

If you don't want to read through the rest, the short and simple answer is YES.

MSE indeed lives up to its promise of being a lightweight, hassle-free, top-notch anti-malware software. I don't know if this brings you any assurance, but at least I felt more secure knowing that MSE is based on the same protection technologies as Microsoft Forefront.

Microsoft Security Essentials main console

The installation was fuss-free and quick. Once installed, Windows Defender gets disabled, which is only natural since MSE is a superset of Defender. MSE's user interface is spartan, but extremely clear and well-organised. At one look you'll know if your system is healthy or not. Green means good, red means bad, yellow means at risk... couldn't be more straightforward.

Virus definition updating takes place either within the MSE console, or via Windows Update. You can update manually, or MSE will do it automatically in the background. There are new definitions released daily. It is really unobtrusive - no funny pop-up messages and what not - it just works.

Now the big question on every user's mind: is MSE effective in malware protection?

This I can't speak with authority, because everyone's mileage will vary. But I will say this: if you're a cautious user like me, then MSE is sufficient to keep you protected real-time from all the threats like worms, viruses, spyware, trojans etc.

Of course this gets tricky because 'cautious' is subjective and hard to define. What I mean by cautious includes not surfing dangerous websites, scanning files on download, running only programs you trust, scanning removable media before opening, doing weekly scans and so forth. If you're a careful computer user, and you don't intentionally do stuff that could harm your system, then MSE will keep you safe. But if you purposely visit malicious sites, install suspicious software, then I can't say with certainty MSE will protect you because I haven't been in that situation before.

All I can say is that in the three months, I have had zero virus attacks/infections using MSE as my only anti-virus. So to me, MSE is as good as Norton in protecting me from threats. Just today I plugged my friend's infected thumb drive into my computer, and immediately, MSE alerted me about the trojan before it even opened the contents. So from that one experience I can say real-time protection does work.

But surely MSE isn't perfect. There are areas which I felt could improve. Firstly, the scan times are quite long. I'm used to the super-quick quick scans from Norton products, so in comparison MSE's quick scan is noticeably longer. Also, full system scans may take anywhere between 1-2 hours depending your computer. It's a really long wait.

So to conclude, if you can't afford or don't want to pay for Norton anti-virus or similar products, I can safely recommend MSE to you and I'm sure it will keep your system safe and running. But of course if money is no issue then go get Norton, because Norton does have a few advantages and extra features. The real question is if these extras (like Norton file insight etc) are worth the money. That's only for you to decide. My advice is to first try out MSE, and if it isn't good enough then buy Norton. If it is, and for most people it will be, then keep on using MSE because it never expires!

It's hard to come across such good software. Microsoft has got anti-virus right. It's free, small, light and good. I never thought this day would come.

Internet Explorer 8 screenshots

Thurrott's Windows 7 FAQ

Windows guy Mr Paul Thurrott, over at his website, has published a useful Windows 7 FAQ. He mentions about some of the upcoming features to expect in this version of Windows, and even provides some interesting screenshots.

Note-worthy improvements are changes to make UAC more customisable (and hopefully less irritating), a new Solution Centre to replace Security Centre, new UI for the explorer, and a cool new "ribbon" version of MS Paint. Thurrott also talks about a ton of other minor improvements and additions, but I think we still have to wait for PDC for more news and confirmations.

Windows: life without walls

I have written about Vista's poor public image before, and a recent innovative advertising strategy Microsoft took to sell vista, called the Mojave Experiment.

Today, Microsoft has launched a new campaign to promote Vista, which is a stellar operating platform btw. It's called Windows: life without walls, and there are some print ads available, check it out:



The concept here is really interesting, cool and funky, but more than visual appearance, I think it really captures the essence of the "Vista life". Over this year, I've really come to embrace Vista fully, as a superb and dependable OS. And you should too. I use the Mac on a daily basis, and I know of swarms of friends who have recently "converted" to the Mac too, but you know what? Vista's as great... and this advertisement says it all: life without walls.

What Microsoft promises you are a plethora of choices to select from: both hardware and software. Unlike Macs, you are not tied down to a closed system of hardware. You can choose from a million computers on Windows from so many manufacturers, including tablet PCs, and configure them in almost any way you want (often cheaper than a Mac too). On the software side, Vista offers you so many configuration options and allows for personalisation of your desktop more than the OS X does. It has awesome multimedia capabilities with Windows Media Centre, and coupled with Windows Live and the new suite of "Wave 3" software, you will be connected with friends like never before. Windows Live is a huge part of the Windows ecosystem, and exemplifies Microsoft's "Software + Services" approach as a stepping stone toward full cloud computing. Not to mention Vista is also the platform for the amazing Zune music player, which I've heard (and strongly believe) is the better device over the iPod for pure music enthusiasts.

This is what you should know about Vista. Not the lies that the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" ads churn out, not the BSODs, or the incompatibility, or the horror stories you hear when Vista first shipped. All that's changed dramatically... no longer do I scorn on PCs the way I did 2 years ago. I have two systems running Vista at home, and use them as often as the Mac. I'm proud to be a PC user!

Improvements to Live Hotmail

For all those people who use Hotmail on a daily basis, you'd be pleased to know that Microsoft will be updating it in the coming weeks. The changes include a cleaner interface, and most of all, faster loading time. Great!

The Mojave Experiment: Microsoft strikes back

Vista isn't selling as well as it should have been. That's the hard truth that Microsoft has been battling with for quite a while now. I've written about this before, saying that it is a matter of perception users have as opposed to Vista really being that horrible. Why then does this perception exist? That's because of a few well-known tech bloggers and columnists who mistakenly write that Vista sucks. People read them, believe them, and spread them, despite not have encountered Vista first hand to judge for themselves. Also, many people don't consider that since Vista's launch, many problems have been fixed and the state of it today is vastly improved from its launch days.

But the other half of the equation is a problem that lies with Microsoft: they did not do sufficient and aggressive marketing to sell Vista. Thankfully, this is all about to change. Microsoft has since realised this (albeit a tad late) and has recently launched an innovative and smart marketing campaign in the US entitled 'The Mojave Experiment' to deal with this perception problem that I've mentioned.

It's a controversial marketing strategy they have adopted, but I think it's good. At San Francisco, Microsoft employees headed to the streets and found Windows XP users who had negative impressions of Vista. These willing participants were put on video, asked about their Vista impressions, and then shown a "new" operating system, codenamed Mojave. They then tested out Mojave, and more than 90 percent gave positive feedback on what they saw. Then they were told that Mojave was actually Windows Vista!

This experiment does prove a point: that people are actually dumb enough to believe that Vista sucks when they haven't even tried their hands on it.

This experiment is just the start of more aggressive Vista marketing to 'resuscitate Vista's image as well as lend strength to the Windows platform among stepped-up competition from Apple and Google', as written in a cnet article. I'm glad that at least Microsoft is doing something about Vista, but this should have been done eons ago.

Gates steps down

As of July this year, Bill Gates will be stepping down from Microsoft and will now be a chairman and advisor while increasing his foundation efforts. According to Microsoft, he will be relinquishing his daily role in the company, but this does not mean he will totally take his hand out of matters.

I think it's an opportune time for Gates to make way for new blood to head the company as it transits gradually from traditional desktop software and operating systems to cloud computing and Web 2.0 technologies. In order to do this, Microsoft has Mr Ray Ozzie, who is the chief mastermind behind recent developments such as Live Mesh and the cloud computing stuff. With his past experience on Lotus Notes, he is clearly the figure who will direct the company to slowly place less emphasis on desktop software. Now that Gates is 'leaving', he can have more liberty to grow Microsoft's internet presence without facing outright objection from Gates, because previously Gates would never have totally approved of cloud computing, since it could cannibalize major software sales such as Office. Ozzie will have the new title of Chief Software Architect.

As Gates steps down, CEO Steve Ballmer will also rise to greater power. In recent months, he has come to be known as the guy who proposed the Yahoo! acquisition, and failed. To me, he is more aggressive a business man than Gates, which is what I feel Microsoft needs to do in the face of increasing competition from companies like Google and Apple.

But more than anything, I think Gates stepping down shouldn't be viewed as a big deal, as this does not mean he has fully withdrawn from Microsoft. He's just moving on with life, and that's fine. I think there are great leaders to sustain the company, and it won't crumble anytime soon. As read on Microsoft's website, Ballmer says that "Bill and I are confident we’ve got a great team that can step up to fill his shoes and drive Microsoft innovation forward without missing a beat. "

All the best Microsoft!

Yahoo rejects Microsoft's offer, again

I knew it, Microsoft did not succeed in buying over internet company Yahoo for 44.6 billion. Yahoo's CEO Jerry Yang says that this undervalues the company and the bid is too low. Read this NYT article to find out more.

Ok. So who may Microsoft's next target be?

Microsoft's big bid to buy Yahoo

This story is just too overwhelmingly big to ignore. Whether you are interested in tech or not, I believe you should have heard about computer software giant Microsoft's bid to buy over Yahoo for $44.6B.

News articles about what this means, whether Yahoo should take the offer or not and Google's response etc. are popping up everywhere, both in print and online media. It's hard for me to be ignorant of what's happening, so I decided I should say something, though I must qualify that I'm not in the most knowledgeable position to offer a compelling argument. Much of this is related to business tactics, which I know little of.

First, one must know that this isn't the first time Microsoft is doing this... Yahoo has rejected a previous offer a year ago, 'confident about the "potential upside" presented by the reorganisation and operational activities that were being put in place then.'

Obviously, Microsoft won't give up, and this move is unexpected and aggressive too. Why? Because now that former CEO Bill Gates has stepped down, and Steve Ballmer is now in charge, he is starting to show his true colours as 'a fighter, willing to do what it takes to win' (in the words of Paul Thurrott). I can tell that Microsoft, or at least Ballmer, so badly wants to outdo search giant Google in areas of search-based text advertising, cloud computing and internet search, which are currently churning millions for Google. This time round, he's clearly being hostile.

In fact, a report mentioned that he 'vowed to "kill" internet search leader Google Inc. in an obscenity-laced tirade, and Google chased a prized Microsoft executive "like wolves," according to documents filed in an increasingly bitter legal battle between the rivals.' He was even quoted saying "I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again... I'm going to fucking kill Google."

So how will the merger help Microsoft win the battle against Google, and hence gain dominance on the internet? Paul Thurrott (yup him again) provides a logical (and lengthy) explanation which I shall not try to paraphrase:

To quote: 'So if Microsoft isn't interested in Yahoo's technology, why merge? Even though a combined Microsoft and Yahoo would not equal the market share and search ad revenues of Google, it does provide Microsoft will a much-needed market share boost that will make its online platform more credible to advertisers and thus will raise ad revenues, which, by the way, is how all these companies make money on this stuff in the first place. Yahoo also brings its ingrained vision for cloud computing, a business model Microsoft has not fully embraced because of the success of its traditional PC products. So even if what we're left with is a familiar-sounding set of Windows Live services, those services will hopefully be influenced and improved by the ranks of Yahoo employees that will flood Microsoft's online business. And for whatever its worth, Microsoft may trash cloud computing in public, but the scope of this deal--which seems specifically designed to ensure that Yahoo can't say no--suggests that Microsoft takes the Google cloud computing threat very, very seriously. Put another way, Microsoft's actions speak louder than its words.'

Make no mistake that this is a huge offer, that if accepted, is going to affect every single user who uses the web, in one way or another. It could affect Yahoo Mail/Windows Live Mail, or even Yahoo Messenger/Live Messanger... But ideally, both parties should aim for a win-win situation, and this offer should not be simply dismissed as another futile acquisition like the previous attempt, but consider the possibilities when Windows Live merges with Yahoo's services. Then, there would be much more competition for Google, and as we all know, a monopoly isn't good and at times, a healthy dose of competition would keep companies on their feet to constantly improve their services and offer the best for consumers.

Google responds:
This being said, all that every company cares about, at the end of the day, are profits. Hence, it is natural that Google disapproves of the merger to protect its hefty share of the online search-advertising market. Forbes reports that on Sunday, Google accused Microsoft of its unfair tactics in dominating the internet. David Drummond, chief legal counsel for Google wrote in a blog entry: "Could Microsoft now attempt to exert the same sort of inappropriate and illegal influence over the Internet that it did with the PC? While the Internet rewards competitive innovation, Microsoft has frequently sought to establish proprietary monopolies--and then leverage its dominance into new, adjacent markets."

This report also wrote that 'soon after Google lobbed its shot at Microsoft, the Redmond, Wash.-based software giant issued a rebuttal. "The combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! will create a more competitive marketplace by establishing a compelling number two competitor for Internet search and online advertising," Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith said in a statement. "The alternative scenarios only lead to less competition on the Internet. Microsoft is committed to openness, innovation and the protection of privacy on the Internet. We believe that the combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! will advance these goals."'

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe there's so much more to discuss about, you can read and find out, but I shall stop here for now, this is cheem stuff... tell me what you think!

Let's Zune!

Welcome to the social.
This is the tagline Microsoft has been using for the past year to market the Zune music player as a device that allows users to share music in a community. It's relatively unheard of in Singapore, since this is a US-only product, but even in the US, this has yet to bite off a significant portion of the iPod market share.

Around this November, however, Microsoft will release the Zune 2, a revised version of the Zune with native podcast support, more product versions, new Zune PC software and a fresh new UI.

What does this mean for the iPod? Well, we'll have to wait and see. Are you joining "the social"?

Monopoly is not a game

Random thought: Google, Microsoft and Apple are all monopolies in their own rights.

Google, the fast-becoming monopoly of the internet. They dominate over internet searches, ads, gmail, gears (online apps), and soon over desktop search too, now that Microsoft has caved in to Google's harsh request to make Vista's Instant Search accept third party search software. With Vista now, if you install Google Desktop Search, this will run together with Instant Search, meaning decreased system performance as two indexers are running simultaneously.

Microsoft - need I say more? The market share of Windows says it all. Complete monopoly. That's why the EU is always after them, and they are almost always entangled with anti-trust lawsuits.

Apple, the lethal combination of iTunes and iPod has locked away any other form of competition in the music player market. If not for iTunes on Windows, the iPod wouldn't have made it big. In the music player market now (US), iPod ranks first, then the Zune, then all other music players by other companies.

Monopoly, its more than a game. It's being infused into our everyday culture.