Microsoft is working on a new free anti-virus: Now called Microsoft Security Essentials

MBrown

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2001
5,726
35
91
Update: It is now called Microsoft Security Essentials and the public beta is due out June 23. Early preview here.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kewl!

The original article

 

Dualist

Platinum Member
Dec 5, 2005
2,395
0
86
My Windows Live OneCare subscription is going to expire in September, but thankfully I've gotten the free six months extension through Microsoft. I've chose OneCare for Vista because it could detect viruses and spyware that Defender could not.

If it's a lot better than Onecare and Defender, I'd download it when its stable.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
70,212
13,600
126
www.anyf.ca
Nice! Hopefully it will be decent, and remain free, and not have a pay for version (or they'll just make the free one nag you every 5 minutes).
 

mechBgon

Super Moderator<br>Elite Member
Oct 31, 1999
30,699
1
0
I'll be interested to see whether the license terms stipulate "for home/private use only" as the other popular freebie AVs do.
 

tzdk

Member
May 30, 2009
152
0
0
As long as there is money in selling to business world is that not out of the question? http://www.microsoft.com/forefront/en/us/default.aspx still alive :) If they allowed business license Symantec, Mcafee and others would go crazy. Now they are trying to stay calm.

Is there any info about relationship to Windows Defender? Seems to overlap since protection against "spyware" is mentioned. Strange situation where Defender is build into OS so must be important - but Antivirus is optional? Whats the difference? dont make sense to me.
 

rasczak

Lifer
Jan 29, 2005
10,437
23
81
why? wouldn't it be better for them to put their developers on the OS project vs spreading themselves out for antivirus as well? There are many comanies out there that are great at this, why do we need MS to put out a half assed product out there when they could better spend their money on improving their OS product? They aren't going to make any mony off of this so it makes no financial sense whatsoever.
 

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
Originally posted by: rasczak
why? wouldn't it be better for them to put their developers on the OS project vs spreading themselves out for antivirus as well?

Microsoft bought an anti-virus company years ago (Sybari) and an anti-spyware company (GIANT). The result was OneCare and Windows Defender. They have more than enough money to throw around. Their largest expense these days is probably playing games with the European Union.

They aren't going to make any mony off of this so it makes no financial sense whatsoever.
Their OS is so popular that most malicious software targets it. Many users do not have adequate protection because they do not know about free alternatives like AntiVir, do not want to pay for security software, do not care, lazy, do not know the dangers or think that the free 90-day trial of Mcafee that came with their PC that has definitions from 2005 is good enough. Microsoft then gets a bad image due to security issues resulting from these factors.

By the way, Microsoft has a history of doing things that make no financial sense, look at how many billions has gone down the drain with the Xbox franchise mistake.
 

tzdk

Member
May 30, 2009
152
0
0
They should have made this when XP came out. Did not because they are lazy, dont know how people outside their test usergroups use computers, wanted to make money with OneCare or scared of problems with Trend, Mcafee, Symantec or other monsters.

You have always been able to find good free security software but not like they all have worked out of the box or thinking much of grandmas. With the exception of Avast perhaps - at least they try hard. Avast dont have many employees, think Ive read 25-50. So in MS world no big effort required and not new territory for them either. Now they have, for whatever reason, realized AV should be available to all - perhaps also that not all use Windows with high security settings ;)

If you look at one of the better AV-testing sites AV-Comparatives it seems like general level of security can increase a lot when this gets out. MS is not behind or not far behind. Ever changing numbers/results not really important as long as product is decent, easy to install and use. Must understand the level millions are on, or lack of.
 

dguy6789

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2002
8,558
3
76
Originally posted by: tzdk
They should have made this when XP came out. Did not because they are lazy, dont know how people outside their test usergroups use computers, wanted to make money with OneCare or scared of problems with Trend, Mcafee, Symantec or other monsters.

You have always been able to find good free security software but not like they all have worked out of the box or thinking much of grandmas. With the exception of Avast perhaps - at least they try hard. Avast dont have many employees, think Ive read 25-50. So in MS world no big effort required and not new territory for them either. Now they have, for whatever reason, realized AV should be available to all - perhaps also that not all use Windows with high security settings ;)

If you look at one of the better AV-testing sites AV-Comparatives it seems like general level of security can increase a lot when this gets out. MS is not behind or not far behind. Ever changing numbers/results not really important as long as product is decent, easy to install and use. Must understand the level millions are on, or lack of.

As far as I recall, Microsoft was legally forbidden from making a free anti virus come with windows for a very long time.