Microsoft Security Essentials sips system resources so sparingly there's no noticeable effect on my computer's performance.

And yet the free application protects my system from malware and attacks.

Lightweight

Security Essentials is lightweight compared with Microsoft's earlier, paid-for, OneCare security.

It only uses 280k of system memory on my test machine. The download is 8.5Mb and the installed program occupies about 12Mb scattered between the Program Files and Program Data folders on my on my C: drive. Of course there could be other components stored elsewhere – getting the full picture about software installations isn't easy when you run Windows 7.

One week has passed since installing the software. There's been no noticable performance hit running Security Essentials. System benchmarks are the same with and without the program installed. This is in stark contrast to Norton Internet Security 2010 which slowed my machine by about 4 percent to begin with, then progressively worsened to the point where it became unusable after ten hours operation.

Microsoft's program took seconds to download, then another five minutes or so to go back and fetch the necessary anti-malware signatures. I'm running Windows 7 beta and am completely up-to-date which meant things went smoothly for me. The Security Essentials installer will insist you download and install all the Windows updates before the application installs.

Scanning goes on for ever

I immediately ran a full system scan and quickly regretted the decision. Scanning isn't fast. The software warns users scans may take some time, but my first scan was still running some six hours after first installing the software. I started another scan before writing this piece and one hour, 15 minutes later the software has only scanned 76,000 items. The indicator bar is only 5 percent of the way across the screen.

It is possible to scan attached drives with the software, but there aren't enough hours in the day to test this.

To date Security Essentials hasn't found anything untoward on this computer. To check the software's effectiveness, I scanned my machine with Panda Cloud Antivirus and Avast. Neither found anything. Nor did Norton Internet Security 2010 find anything before being removed.

Google-like interface

Microsoft clearly learnt a thing or two competing with Google in recent years. The user interface on Security Essentials is minimalist. It uses bright red to show problems and is green while everything is safe. There are hardly any controls – compare this to the user interface on Norton Internet Security 2010 which is like the flight deck of the Star Ship Enterprise. The good news is there are few things to tinker with and break. I didn't notice anything needing changes.

When a threat appears online, the real-time protection mode kicks-in and displays a message in a pop-up window. This appears in the bottom right hand corner of the screen. You can dismiss it with a click or get more information. A lot more information than you'll ever need.

Evil empire

You can't argue with Microsoft's price for Security Essentials. It is free. In fact it looks as if it was part of the operating system from the outset. And it may have been. But Microsoft doesn't include it as standard with Windows 7 because of anti-trust considerations. There are people who are wary of using security software from Microsoft – some argue security problems only exist because of flaws in the company's operating systems. Maybe. But the Macintosh is no longer immune.

Competitors

Norton's paid-for security products are far more advanced than Microsoft Security Essentials – but the name makes that clear. This software does about 90 percent of the job of protecting your computer from attack. If you run a home system, take security seriously, run a hardware firewall and keep all you applications and systems software up to date, Security Essentials should protect you from all but the most serious attacks.

Microsoft Security Essentials is not suitable for business users and not the best choice if your home set-up is, well, let's say anarchic. Paid for products may give you better piece of mind.

Microsoft scrubs up well against the free competitors, but without extensive testing I'd rate Avast ahead of Security Essentials, there's also a solid free program from AVG we run on some of our home machines. We experienced some problems with these at the Bennett household as the free versions are difficult to find among the paid-for alternatives at these two sites.

Another alternative is the excellent Panda Cloud Antivirus – one of the best kept secrets in the security business and neither nags nor hides behind a paid alternative. You can read more about Panda and Avast in Alternatives to Norton Internet Security.

Pluses:

• free
• downloads and installs in minutes
• works straight away
• simple, unobtrusive
• easy to understand
• no performance hit

Minuses:

• slow scanning
• relatively untried
• doesn't offer the best protection

Overall:

A basic security product from a big name at an unrivalled price. Get this if you have no budget and are not confident dealing with other free security applications.

Microsoft Security Essentials

I would like to try Microsoft's new free Security Essentials. I'm in New Zealand and locked out of the official download site. Yes, I know there are ways around the lock-out. I’m aiming to stay ethical. If you know how I can get hold of a legitimate copy please leave a comment or use the contact page.

Updated:Microsoft Security Essentials, an impressive alternative.

Avast

When I installed Windows 7 RC on my computers I loaded Norton Internet Security 2010 beta on the desktop and a free desktop security application from Avast on my Thinkpad. We also tried AVG’s free anti-virus software on a Thinkpad.

Both free anti-virus programs are functional and handle everyday security. We’re behind a NAT firewall and keep our machines clean, so our security needs are basic. The features not included in the free versions of the programs are of no interest to me, however I would like to schedule Avast to scan my laptop at regular intervals.

Avast appears to do a better job at hunting down problems, but AVG has a better user interface. We've now standardised on Avast on our laptops because the software appears easier to deal with and, when it comes to this kind of work, a good brain trumps a pretty face.

Both programs slow the computer down less than Symantec's Norton Internet Security 2010 beta – that wouldn't be hard. Their overhead is barely noticeable.

Free anti-virus negatives

Both free anti-virus programs are difficult to find and download. They are hidden behind paid-for products from the same companies. And both nag about updating – in ways that send you off to pay for versions of the software.

Of course, developers have to eat. I’m not complaining, the price of free security software is a small annoyance. Or to put it another way, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. On a point by point basis Avast seems less of a problem than AVG – but this could be perception and not reality.

One downside of the free software asking for updates and not automatically scanning is it  feels as if the PC lacks proper protection.

Update: I took a later look at  an updated version of AVG and hated it inAVG Anti-Virus Free 9.0: far too much trouble

Panda Cloud Anti-virus

For now I'm sticking with Avast on my Thinkpad and we've switched from AVG to Avast on my wife's Thinkpad. But Avast didn't feel satisfactory on my main desktop, so I searched for an alternative and discovered Panda Cloud Anti-virus.

Panda Cloud Anti-virus looks and feels very different from all other security software. Panda is a software-as-a-service application that sends data about dangerous looking files to its own servers for closer inspection. This means no noticeable performance overhead. It also means the checking database is always bang up-to-date.

Panda is still a work in progress. Or more to the point, a beta. But unlike Symantec's beta, it seems fully functional. I've run Panda Cloud Anti-virus for roughly one month without any problems. My biggest fear is I never hear from the program, so I need to check to see it is running – which it always is.

Given the ease at which Panda slips into the background, to the point where it is unnoticeable, I'd have to say this is the most promising security tool I have found so far.

See also:
Norton’s Windows 7 beta – security update

Norton Internet Security has been my main PC protection in recent years. I've a few minor criticisms, but for the most part it has done a good job guarding my desktop, laptop and my wife's laptop. The computers run Windows XP and Vista.

One problem worth mentioning is PC performance drops a few percent while the program is running – which is all the time. A small performance hit really doesn't matter when I'm surfing the web or using Microsoft Word. It is noticeable when there's heavy-duty video, audio or Photoshop processing.

Earlier this year I switched from Microsoft Windows Vista to Windows 7 RC. The new operating system performs better than Vista on my machine. It appears stable enough to for everyday use. It is everything Windows Vista was not, but it doesn’t work with some popular anti-virus packages.

Beta problems with Norton

My copy of Symantec Norton Internet Security didn’t work with Windows 7. So I tried a beta version of an updated version for the new operation system.

I promptly ran into major problems with the beta version of Symantec Norton Internet Security 2010. There are great features, but the performance overhead is huge.

It’s also flaky around the edges. Of course, the software is beta and Symantec made no promises about performance. But the system crashed two or three times a day.

There were also installation problems. Sadly this isn’t a one-off pain, the software repeatedly timed out. Each time this happens you need to download and install a new version. In fact there were times – many times when the older version timed out before a new build was ready and the PC was left vulnerable for days at a time.

The beta appears to be the only version of Norton Internet Security that runs properly on Windows 7, so I needed to find an alternative security package. For details read the next story:
Alternatives to Norton Internet Security