Everything's better when it's free.

Might test it out just to see how it compares to Eset Nod32.

I smell another EU fine for packaging antivirus

hmmmmm "basic protection" antivirus - does it stop virus's or not?

@apache_lives:

I suspect it means "no frills"... ie, no spam detector, no web phishing detector, no firewall (beyond Windows FW), no red panic button to launch nuclear weapons, etc.

Like, the 9 items in Kaspersky that I disable (I install file & email only).

Hopefully, "basic" includes a checkbox for "Disable startup scan", which I absolutely detest on notebooks.

That was my first thought too. EU really pisses me off.

Well whats next, microsoft packaging a shell into windows? How will you get to pick what shell you want to run if microsoft sticks it right into the OS!!?

A NOD32 counterproduct?

Here ya go buddy: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsse [...] fault.mspx

This is messed up. The whole point of buying Windows is that it's supposed to be secure in the first place. Third party apps exist because of failings in Windows. Now instead of fixing their OS, now they want to join this band-wagon. OMG whatever next?!

I think making MSE an opt in product that you can download and install at will, will make it safe with the EU, it’s not like M$ is forcing it on you.

To mman74, M$ releases updates for it’s OS’s on a regular basis to fix problems that are found in Windows, which is something the competition is a little lax on to say the least. It’s also not Microsoft’s problem if you browse questionable websites and click on every link to download silly little flash games or whatever, that turn out to be viruses, trojans etc, that’s where antivirus software comes in.

Learn to read properly:

If you can't extract a conclusion from this then you're hopeless

They should change it to Microsoft Essential Security so we can call it MES (mess)

I dont really see any problem microsoft bundling lot's of stuff. Because all of other OS do the same thing anyway. But only microsoft get sued. Apple bundled safari, Linuxes bundled Firefox. And anyway what is an OS without a browser. And that also applies to security, it's good that microsoft give extra effort to give user security with free anti virus.

When you buy a house, you will get a standard lock, but I guess you are free to change the lock and gives extra security.

But why no one sued apple when they launch iPhone with safari pre-installed and you can't install any other else

I don't mind I can't uninstall IE, but I can install something else, but what apple did to iPhone just horrible...

Well.. I know it's not fair comparing a mobile phone and a computer..

Soon will be as good as IE6.x vs Firefox. Netscape (ie, Kaspersky and the likes) will be the victims.
MS aquired RAV a long time ago (more than 2 years), which was a very good antivirus and a finished software product. No update and no new software since then. So, nobody really cares about that, just a new thing "for free" to continue to buy their buggy (as in faulty) product.

or even better, call it Microsoft Essential Security Software -> MESS

How does it compare to Antivir though? If it's better, I'll make the switch.

AVG + Malwarebytes = all you really need.


ALthough, a freebie from Microsoft can't hurt.

Not sure who Janice Chaffin is referring to with "A full Internet security suite is what consumers require today to stay fully protected.". Those full suites are why I try to avoid installing antivirus software.

I shudder to think I might be condoning MS's venture into virus scanning, but if it has a small footprint and is a basic virus scanner (with options), I might just go with it. Free and efficient is always welcome.

probably a move by microsoft to encourage users to register and validate their OS.

I can't believe how many people are missing the boat on this or can't grasp a simple concept. It has very little to do with microsoft including a browser with windows. the only thing that was a problem with that was the fact it could not be uninstalled period. some people say that is fixed in Win7. the fact apple includes safari on anything doesn't compare. you're not comparing apples to apples so to speak.

damn microsoft did a great job at slanting this to confuse the masses. when apple includes safari apple is not influencing web sites to use proprietary code that ONLY displays correctly with safari but displays incorrectly with other browsers. thereby making simpletons think other browsers are broken and want to use their product. now if apple did this on the mobile web and used their influence there so that firefox mobile or opera mobile (etc.) did not work on a large amount of heavily used mobile web sites it would be just as guilty. microsoft's IE does not adhere to the web site coding standards. they regularly code things strictly for IE which is wrong. the libraries someone mentioned in that crap article about IE not coming on Win7 in the EU, another example of IE having a proprietary side. if IE followed standards you would not need those but microsoft has so many of you snowed under a blizzard of geez, I don't know what. is it really that hard a concept to grasp? and just for examples - MSNBC, HOTMAIL, MSN, BING, ENCARTA, CITYGUIDES, etc., etc., etc., who owns these sites basically? Hmmm let me think. and what browser do you think they code especially for? they probably only give enough basic coding so the other browsers load the site. sure I get that it is THEIR sites but hey, that's the price for being the King! in today's world no one likes the King screwing the little guys...hmmm, screwing over the other guys? maybe that sounds better. THINK people!

Sounds good to me. A lightweight antivirus that will work flawlessly with windows. I HATE those suites from other vendors, I just want lean and mean. I use NOD32 currently which works well, but I wouldn't hesitate to switch.

I SURE hope MS offers a "what would you like to install?" screen during Win7 install. It would be great to check the boxes of the software add-ons available. That would really be great and make everyone happy.

Oh, and theGh0st, IE8 for example is just as perfect when it comes to web standards as anyone else - even better in many ways, go do some research before posting. And BING frankly is awesome, I use it more than google now, also because it's faster to type.

MSE = FAIL in the naming dept.

This will effect the business of many Anti-Virus companies, even thous who have free versions. The danger here is... if MS destroys the AV market and their MSE software ends up being a semi-usable product, then everyone's computer would be less protected.

Just like with OE... there are some hackers out there going "goodie".

The concept is kind of on "the good side", but we'll see.

IE8 sucks... horrible interface and NO, it doesn't meed all standards. IE8 is ugly, crappy layout, waste of space but that maybe my opinion.

Outlook 10 is easily a much nicer and sensible design. I'd use Chrome over IE8... and Chrome is featureless.

I wanted to vote down Belardo, but I agree with a few things he mentions big time.

IE8 Beta sucked. I have not had time to use the finished product enough to render judgment.

Personally I do not see the appeal of Chrome when Firefox is around. I have used Chrome for a month or two ... but I keep falling back to Firefox.

"MSE = Fail in naming" ... when does MS get naming right? I mean seriously. The only name recently I have ass like is Windows 2008 Server. I somewhat like Hyper-V as a name (please don't hate me for using it I had no choice)

ummm, one of the sheep right here. dude try thinking period before you post. I did NOT say microsoft does didn't create its own browser to render other people's/company's sites correctly did I? NO, I didn't "mister no reading comprehension graduate". I did NOT even say microsofts sites were bad. the point is microsoft makes things so that they display the way they want them to in their own browser and don't give a rat's ass how they render is other browsers. is that simple enough that you can understand?

and by doing so they make sheep like you think other browsers aren't as good because other browsers cater to internet web design standards and not microsoft design standards.

that all being said - to get actually on topic - I agree with most people - I like simple and efficient. and if this microsoft AV is that it sounds good to me (though I'm not sure the effect it would have on the rest of the AV companys would be good). I also agree with the with a lot of the commenters in that anti-virus sweets are overly bloated and I turn the majority of the stuff off anyways.

Can't complain about a free, light weight, and simple anti virus program. I wouldn't use Macaffe or Norton even if they were free. The affect my system worse than any virus I might catch. Just use some brains when surfing the internet and checking email and you will be okay.

I think this is a perfect example of how retarded Microsoft haters are. They can't even talk with proper spelling and grammar. Like did you actually try reading what you posted? It doesn't even make sense.

And @thegh0st (which is yet another good example of Microsoft haters who sounds mentally challenged when they type. Seriously, read your post over before you click submit, you're embarrassing yourself)

When Microsoft first made IE6, web standards weren't really standards at all. Web standards were just starting to catch on and therefore IE6 didn't follow them very closely. Now that web standards are very specific and important in today's world, Microsoft regrets that IE6 didn't follow web standards and they are trying to push all of their customers onto their new browsers, IE7 and IE8, which follow web standards much better. Granted, IE7 and IE8 are still terrible products because they're slow as hell and are buggy, but they aren't that far off from today's web standards. Microsoft isn't trying to make other browsers look like crap. All of today's big browsers, Opera, Chrome, Firefox, work just fine with 99% of websites (excluding websites which use proprietary IE plugins, which pisses my off cause I can't submit my University assignments within Chrome). If you do any website design, you would know that you usually need extra code to make your website render properly in IE6. But most code you write for IE7 or IE8 will pretty close to the same in Firefox and vise-versa. And one other point, Microsoft can't completely remove IE from Windows because they included IE in their C# API's. So there are many programs in the world that actually use mini IE windows inside the actual program. If you remove IE, all of those programs stop working and then you have some very pissed off developers.

Why are we talking about IE when the article is about anti virus?

Oh and, I'm currently using the leaked MSE on Windows 7 and it's perfect. Probably one of the lightest antivirus programs I've ever seen. So far, after installation, I have not gotten one single little peep or annoyance from it, I actually had to check to make sure it was actually running. You can schedule scans to run whenever you want, or turn the schedule completely off, and it's default settings are to ALWAYS perform the recommended action when a virus is found and not interrupt the user at all. I think it just shows a notification saying that it removed a virus or whatnot. Clearly Microsoft was aiming for a very light weight, and no annoyance program when designing this, which is exactly what it should be.

ummm another sheep...dude don't try to go grade school. you are you the one seriously embarrassing yourself here. first you're going to make fun of other people's typing mistakes yet you don't proof read your own vomit of a comment? and you aren't even smart enough to grasp the concept that some people who comment here don't have english for a first language? maybe that poster is one of them.

second, you give perfect examples of what I am talking about yet you don't even see it or grasp that concept either. you obviously did NOT read what I typed or you just did NOT understand it. again for the sheep, I did not say microsoft didn't make it browsers to follow web standards when browsing, I'm talking about standards that they design web sites in or get others to design them in that supports web design that strictly works correctly in IE. such as sites with IE plugins as you even stated - duh.

ok for examples that will hopefully the sheep will understand (and you say you're in school...*shudder*...heck maybe that's microsofts problem they believe their own crap) - try browsing a hotmail account in any other browser - it works for crap because hotmail is designed for IE (maybe some of the other browsers actually work now but I'm sure they all don't still). try searching opera forums or other browser forums to see the trouble the people who design other browsers have to go through just to get their browser to limp through such a web site. heck opera 9.64 still doesn't work 100% as it should in hotmail (haven't tried the 10 beta there). next on the list, I have not been there in a while so this is "old" news but might still apply - xbox is great example of a web site with IE plugins. all the game trailers there used to be in windows media plugins and you couldn't get them to work without downloading something extra in other browsers and even then they didn't all work properly but IE sure worked without any extras being downloaded. is that clear enough for you?

lastly, you "actually" had to check - is there any other way to check? did you actually read this time? did you actually take the time to think? just actually wondering.

So you're complaining that there is no standardized plugin API for all browsers? Firefox has it's own proprietary plugin API. Chrome has it's own API. And I don't know for sure, but I'm sure Opera has some kind of API as well. There are no two browsers that are compatible with each others plugins. So web designers have to write a different plugin for every browser if they want an interactive website. Sooo, a good example of this, is again the website my school uses to submit assignments and give online tests. It is only compatible with IE7 and Firefox 2 and 3. It's not compatible with IE6, IE8 (unless you use compatibility mode), Chrome, Opera, or Safari. And that is because in IE6's case, its just a piece of crap which doesn't follow standards at all. And IE7, IE8, and Firefox 2 and 3 make up over 90% of the web browser market share. And the company who designs the website, doesn't find it economically worth all of the work to write code for 8 different browser plugins just so that it is compatible with browsers which have a 1%-2% market share. So it has nothing to do with Microsoft. Web developers will code their site for the least amount of work while still covering 90% of users. Simple as that. If a browser wants website compatibility, it needs more market share. If it wants more market share, it needs more compatibility. It's an unfortunate circle, but obviously Firefox was able to get out of that loop. It's not Microsoft's fault, it's how the market works. And currently Microsoft has the most market share so they get the most compatibility.

And as far as your examples go for hotmail.com and xbox.com, I just viewed them in Firefox 3, and in Chrome 3 beta, and they all rendered flawlessly. And you're saying that it is the developers who write opera and chrome that have a hard time getting Microsoft sites to render in their browser correctly? Well so what? Obviously they are Microsoft owned websites so they're going to test the websites design within their own Microsoft owned browser. Microsoft isn't going to cater to it's competitors. They aren't trying to prevent their competitors products from working, they just aren't going to spend their own resources just so that it's competitors products will work better.