Protecting over 200 million PCs, Macs, & Mobiles – more than any other antivirus

October 2nd, 2009

And what about Microsoft Security Essentials—MSE?

As many of you many know, Microsoft released their free security product earlier this week. Called MSE (Microsoft Security Essentials), it is a replacement for their One Care Product. It has been interesting reading the press coverage and the reaction from competitors. Some declare it will transform the security business and solve all security problems. Some equate it to a bad movie sequel. And some think it is Shakespearean—”Much Ado about Nothing”.

Ourselves, we are pretty ambivalent about Microsoft entering the free security space. We have long believed that security protection should be freely available.  And there are already several top-notch free security products available (including avast of course). But, we don’t think that MSE is in the “top notch” category. In the last AV-Comparatives (I wrote about it in a previous blog entry), Microsoft’s One Care did not do very well. While it tied with us for 2nd in false positives; out of 16, it was 14th in detection and 13th in speed. And of course, MSE’s performance is the same as One Care’s. So while MSE is better than nothing, and even Microsoft describes it as basic protection, it is not yet up to the standards of the paid products. And, it is even further behind the performance of the top free products (including avast) that handily outscored the paid products.

Microsoft also seems to think that 60% of users have no security protection. I do not know where this number comes from as they do not cite any sources. But, it does not make much sense. There are about 500 million consumer computers in the world (Gartner and IDC data). From published numbers, Avast, Avira, and AVG protect about 250 million; maybe closer to 300 million now. Also from published numbers, Symantec, McAfee, Trend, and Kaspersky, and a few others protect just under 100 million. This leaves 150 million but I would guess that a good 50 million of those are protected by local products (K7/SourceNext in India and Japan, Rising and Kingsoft in China, Ahn in Korea, etc.). So it seems there should only be about 20% (100 million) unprotected. Now of course, that is still too many to be without protection, especially when good security is free. But it sounds like a case of Microsoft offering a solution in search of a problem.

It was also interesting to read how most journalists just recited the Microsoft story. I saw very few mentions of the large free providers. One even dismissively referred to the current free vendors as “no-name” vendors. How can three companies with 250 million users be called “no-name” companies? I have to chalk it up to ignorance and great PR from Microsoft and the traditional security vendors.

A legitimate concern I saw expressed from Symantec and McAfee was something about a “level playing field”. That sounds like whining but it refers to how the product is distributed. Symantec, McAfee, and the traditional vendors distribute through retail, OEMs, etc. The free vendors (such as us) distribute through download servers. Microsoft tried the traditional distribution route with One Care—and failed. They are trying the download server route with MSE. But, they have an ace up their sleeves if they distributed MSE as part of Windows—or if they try to force OEMs to install MSE on new computers as a condition of getting Windows 7. It is monopolistic distribution like this that caused the large anti-trust suits of past years with Netscape and others.

Security is a highly competitive business—it probably has more competing titles than any computing segment other than games. That competition is invaluable. Without it, none of us improves. Having many healthy large companies drives the security industry forward and provides better protection for users. We all learn for each other—and even copy (legally) each other at times. I could name many examples of where a given product has influenced other products. We even share malware samples with each other. Having just a couple of dominant players (such as the recent past with Symantec and McAfee) can lead to stagnation and lower protection for users.

Also, security these days goes far beyond a layer of protection for the operating system (Windows). Many threats have nothing to do with the underlying operating system. They are in Firefox, Mozilla, browser plug-ins, infected web sites, social engineering, other applications (such as Adobe), etc.

So it is healthiest for the security providers, and the users, if Microsoft is on the same playing field—distributing through similar channels and not taking advantage of their almost monopolistic domination of operating system distribution.

MSE is not the silver bullet but it is also not the bad sequel to One Care that some claim—it is just another average security product. It has probably been hyped much more than deserved and thus the Shakespeare comparison may be the best.  A recent review by Neil Rubenking of PCMag (,2817,2353699,00.asp) probably says it best:

So should you rely on Microsoft Security Essentials for free protection? I’d say no, unless you strongly value the Microsoft name. My own testing suggests that you’ll do better with one of the other free anti-malware solutions such as AVG Anti-Virus Free or avast! antivirus Home Edition.

Ultimately security is about trust. The user has to trust that the product (and the company behind the product) will protect them, their computer, and their data. We are glad we have earned the trust of over 90 million users. We aim to keep and enlarge that trust.

Who do you trust?

  1. Alexandre
    October 2nd, 2009 at 16:04 | #1

    Nice to see MS in the security field with yet an other product after Giant Antispyware,Windows Defender,Onelive Care,and now MSE; we shall see what happens to it.
    Now all that is needed is an Avast 5 to keep avast on the top of the vendors.


  2. Björn Lundahl
    October 2nd, 2009 at 17:42 | #2

    Hi, actually the only antivirus company I do trust is Alwil. It is this company’s trustworthy “attitude” together with all the features and high detection rate that Avast provide that makes the product so good. With Avast I do not feel vulnerable when I surf the internet. But be aware, use WOT to check if the site is good to download from and always keep the firewall on. An antivirus is only an insurance, it is good to have when something bad is happening but you are never covered to 100%.

  3. October 2nd, 2009 at 17:53 | #3

    I have tried MSE on my Vista, my personal opinion: it is not good. But I kept using it for the next two days and see how it worked, still my personal opinion didn’t change. Then I romoved it totally from my system.

    Still I trust Avast for sure ;)

  4. Tech
    October 2nd, 2009 at 20:29 | #4

    I’ve thought that the detection was better.
    It’s very poor on features. It’s basic in this sense of the word.
    Seven years ago Kubecj did the same question: who do you trust?
    I don’t need to post the answer.

  5. iNsuRRecTiON
    October 2nd, 2009 at 21:55 | #5

    Hi there,

    as Björn Lundahl already says, you’re never covered to 100%.
    So that said, I will never trust any software company, it doesn’t matter whether it is a security software company or not, because no software protection will ever protect you 100%, even 99,5 % is already very difficult.

    So I trust myself by safe browsing and working practices on the computer.

    I look for different independent testing and the overall best product, which fits for me most.
    Combined with my personal experiences.

    In the past prior Avast 4.8, I don’t recommended nor use nor like it.
    Now I will see how Avast 5 develops and what will be the answer from the top competing players like Avira. Eset unfortunately isn’t that good as it was, these days. I hope they will improve as well. As said this, F-Prot is promising, or was? But doesn’t compete in tests..



  6. October 2nd, 2009 at 22:02 | #6

    Insurrection, I must disagree. Just about any good security product will do better than “safe browsing and working practices”. The threat these days is mainly from hijacked legitimate websites. There are no “safe browsing and working practices” that will protect you here. While you may not like Avast, you should at least use something. Something is much better than nothing.

  7. October 3rd, 2009 at 04:31 | #7

    @Vincent Steckler
    Hi Vince and InsuRRecTion,

    Actually nobody is perfect in this world, include us as a creator of the products which all humans right using till today.
    But the important things about products which could earn trust form all of users are : Support and Communication ways.

    If iNsuRRecTion mentioned that user could have a safety way from attackers, i also disagree. Today internet has been primarily function in business and social activities,in analogy same as human life which everyday meet with another human if doesn’t have a strong antibody will could infected by viruses. But users also have an influence in term of IT operational.

    So which product you will trust for protect your system?

    I keep choose avast antivirus till today, but it is doesn’t mean other brands have a bad performance. Each products have their superiority either in business or support ways.

    Yanto Chiang

  8. October 3rd, 2009 at 08:52 | #8

    @Yanto Chiang
    Yanto, you are absolutely right. I have been planning an entry on this someday. No security products are perfect. No operating system is perfect (sorry Apple and Linux). No applications are perfect. But, I would say most security products these days are pretty good–that was not the case a few years ago. They all have some strengths and weaknesses–some are great at detection; some are fast; some are light weight; some are better at website detections…..the list could go on and on. To really get into whether a product is really good (or great) vs. good is beyond the capability of most users (and reviewers). For example, we believe we have the best product for detecting java script infections (the prime vector for delivering infections these days). But, no reviewer tests this–it is incredibly difficult to test for. That is why a selection boils down to trust–users trust their security vendors to protect them and we must do our best to not let them down.

  9. Avast! UseR
    October 3rd, 2009 at 15:32 | #9

    No one and not a thing are perfect nor will be perfect right?
    But why strive for perfectness if perfectness cant be achieved?
    Answer, simple. Its because of our attitude to never be “contented”.
    This has to be the root of all…The root of malware, the root of all evil, all things bad.
    Well, thanks to this attitude, avast was made and protected millions of users,including me, from nasty attacks…
    So it would be fair to say “thanks attitude”
    and by the way avast has been great these days, so Alwil, keep it up!(5 stars)

  10. October 3rd, 2009 at 15:42 | #10

    Nice article about MSE. While I’m glad Microsoft finally decided to provide a product in this form I’m not going to use it. Microsoft has their hands full just trying to keep their various OS’s secure so I’ll rely on them to do that and continue to use Avast and other free products to product PC’s. I think you make an excellent point about legitimate websites being hacked as the main threat these days. The days of just telling someone to stay off of adult sites and they won’t get infected are gone.

  11. wavierwister
    October 3rd, 2009 at 21:32 | #11

    Where the hell rub is?…..
    Where so many hackers or Spyware or viruses come from? Just like many people have lost their jobs, having nothing to do.

  12. October 4th, 2009 at 11:58 | #12

    @Vincent Steckler
    Hi Vince,

    That is good if you have a planning to make an article about my opinion, it would be very informative for all antivirus users someday.

    Anyway, keep avast quality up and then quantity will follow it up too.
    Nice and good job for whole avast team.

    Yanto Chiang

  13. hmmz
    October 4th, 2009 at 17:36 | #13

    Sounds great, but if you are complaining on MS PR work, what are U doin in this field? Writing blog is “cool”, but its mainly for your customers, I guess… interesting in your article is, that if the current growth continues, there are not many computers left to conquer with your security products… Looks like Western civilisation starts to be a small fishpond in couple of years, heh.

    • October 7th, 2009 at 18:01 | #14

      Hi Hmmz. Sorry for the delay on your comment. It got flagged as spam for some strange reason. You are right, we have to do more PR and marketing. Is vastly more difficult for a small company with limited resources. And of course, adoption curves will flatten out–that is the point I was trying to make.

  14. iNsuRRecTiON
    October 4th, 2009 at 20:40 | #15

    @Vincent Steckler
    Hi Vincent Steckler,
    I haven’t said, that I don’t use any protection..
    Working and surfing without an amdin account is an good practice.
    Surfing with Firefox last version and update is an good practice.
    Surfing in an virtual environment is an good practice, like VirtualBox.
    Making weekle backups of your important files and monthly backups of your whole OS, is a good practice.
    And I’m aware of the surf by or download by threats, even on legitime websites.
    I’m using an AV protection and it depends on how Avast 5 develops, whether I will use and recommend it or not.
    I also like alternative methods, like the PrevX approach (esp. RC Version 3.0.4.x (SafeOnline)), HIPS approaches, heuristic and behavioral approaches (ThreatFire, esp. 4.6), F-Secure exploid shield (alpha 0.7), etc.


    iNsuRRecTiON from Germany.

  15. October 5th, 2009 at 05:21 | #16

    The best technology-related article I’ve read this week!
    I just wanted to see Opera Software name instead of Netscape in the legal processes part of this great blog post.

    Thanks for all your care with your users Avast! Now I definitely can say I have a new vision of MSE.


  16. DarkLegend
    October 5th, 2009 at 06:04 | #17

    I personally will not use MSE for one reason and that is because they don’t have “our” privacy in mind. In their privacy policy for it clearly says they collect information about you that “that can/will personally identify you and give that info according to the law.” in other words there isn’t the guarantee of “We will not Share/Sell/Distribute your personal info with ANYONE” and info about your pc. They even mentioned that if they sold MSE your private info goes with it. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    Now, I’m not doing anything I’m worried about them finding out,and at the same time it is great for catching those baddies that are… But personally that to me is the opposite of protecting it’s users and bringing security to us. You may not need to worry about a virus with MSE, You may have to worry about MSE. Keeping in mind they are “watching you”. I don’t need or want “Big Brother” watching over my shoulder. Really though, You don’t have to worry about this if you aren’t in the U.S. (Which I am)

    Anyway, That reminds me.. since IMHO MSE may be able to detect virus’ it doesn’t offer any protection FROM them, So since I noticed avast 5 will have a behavior shield does this mean I can remove Threat Fire 4.6.0? Which is an Behavior blocker too. O

  17. Björn Lundahl
    October 5th, 2009 at 09:01 | #18

    Well my security boils down to this:

    1/ I use the Windows firewall

    2/ I use WOT to give me an “indication” that the site I am visiting/downloading from is good or bad.

    3/ I use, of course, Avast as an anti-malware application. Since it was equipped with anti-spyware I only use this. Seldomly I check my PC with NOD32 online scanner. It has never found anything.

    4/ I browse the internet with Firefox.

    5/ My Windows update is always on.

    6/ I back up my documents, photos and music files once a month on a external hard disk. All software which I have bought (and sometimes freeware too) I have burnt on a DVD (the OS as well). If it is something very important I will back it up immediately.

    7/ “Money related information” or personal information I encrypt with AxCrypt or TrueCrypt (open source software).

    8/ My spam filter in my Yahoo e-mail account is activated. By the way, Yahoo also scans inbound and outbound e-mails with an antivirus and when my e-mail client in my PC picks them up (IncrediMail or Thunderbird), Avast will scan them too.

    Well that is about all and it is working just fine. I think it is an “art” to not overdo it. Otherwise the security by itself will be a problem and a nuisance. Some security applications (especially firewalls) seems to be worse than a virus. I have tried out a lot but my least troubles have been when I went for simplistic but good security measures.

    So I do not have nagging screens or that my internet connection is cut off and I do not either have malware. I can enjoy my PC.

    But I do believe that the main defense is the firewall and not to visit bad sites or not to open email attachments from people who I do know nothing about. Even so a antivirus is needed as you can never be sure. Sites as Vincent mentioned, can be hijacked.

    Björn Lundahl

  18. Björn Lundahl
    October 5th, 2009 at 10:56 | #19

    But I do insecure things too.

    I have early noticed that downloading music files with the use of LimeWire is a quite dangerous thing to do. When I first tried out that software, Avast attacked the music files very often. So I uninstalled LimeWire and have not been using it since then.

    But downloading videos and music with the use of torrents is another matter. If a torrent is bad it will be removed from the site which it can be downloaded from. That is if it is a serious site. “Avast has not complained even once” when I have been downloading. Naturally there is a risk, but it does not seem to be very risky.

    Björn Lundahl

  19. Ph-Eagle410
    October 5th, 2009 at 11:02 | #20

    It’s good to see MS securing there own OS with a Free Antivirus, That’s there GREAT RESPONSIBILITIES but me I still TRUST ALWIL. AVAST is THE BEST AV.

  20. October 5th, 2009 at 20:43 | #21


    Worth noting – if users are running Windows 98 and 2000, MSE will not work – this is one reason why your security solution stands head and shoulders above the MSE security offering. Lastly I do think (like you) it is certainly healthy that MSE has arrived, as it will push all the AV vendors to deliver even higher quality solutions and detection rates. My only concern like you would be if Redmond started pushing it through their OEM channel and retail outlets. We all know what this will mean…


  21. Björn Lundahl
    October 6th, 2009 at 00:10 | #22

    Vince would not probably agree but is not this upgrade to Avast 5 a response by Alwil because of MSE? Alwil and other security software producers have probably for a long time been aware of the introduction of this product and have in different ways responded accordingly. Nortons security products used to be bloated but might have changed to be much leaner just because of the same reason. Microsoft is a software giant and if they do something others might react.

    Björn Lundahl

  22. October 6th, 2009 at 15:59 | #23

    @Björn Lundahl
    Hi Bjorn, you are right, I don’t agree in this case. V5 was actually designed long before Morro was even announced or known about. But, it is definitely influenced by the capabilities of competitors. And Norton got much better probably as a response to Kaspersky. N360 came about because of Microsoft OneCare. Industry 3-user licensing for suites came from MS One Care….there are lots and lots of examples.

  23. October 6th, 2009 at 16:19 | #24

    @Julian Evans
    Hi Julian. I would not be too worried about retail and OEM. They tried that with OneCare and were not able to succeed. OEMs make way too much money from the big AV vendors to distribute a free product (there is a blog entry about this a few months back).

  24. Björn Lundahl
    October 6th, 2009 at 17:14 | #25

    @Vincent Steckler

    Hi, well, I just speculated. Thank you for answering.

  25. xatzaras
    October 6th, 2009 at 17:42 | #26

    well avast is very good and effective.i don’t plan to leave it.

    only way to do so would be a bad new version of avast 5 when released.

    so pls avast keep it first of all light memory consuming ,add some more frequent virus signatures updates and compatible with the rest of my pc software configuration on version 5 and nothing else matters!!

  26. October 7th, 2009 at 02:43 | #27

    When will the Avast 5 final version available? I’m waiting for the turn.I don’t prefer beta version as it crashes a lot.Hey you Avast guys what do you say about open source antivirus like clamwin, Moon secure, CS antivirus Beta…don’t you guys think that open source antivirus will kill all the paid counter parts some day?

  27. DarkLegend
    October 7th, 2009 at 07:04 | #28

    Quote ” So since I noticed avast 5 will have a behavior shield does this mean I can remove Threat Fire 4.6.0? Which is an Behavior blocker too. Or keep them both? ” End Quote. Was there and answer to this yet? Posted somewhere else maybe? Or did I just miss it? Anyway, Let me know please =)

  28. October 7th, 2009 at 07:35 | #29

    Hi Legend. Yes, V5 will have a Behavior Shield. V4.8 has behavior detection but it is not running as a shield. In V5 it will be running as a shield. The shield will be in both the free and paid products. I am sure Ondrej will give his assessment sometime of how it is vis-a-vis Threatfire but he is pretty busy right now getting the V5 products ready for release.

  29. October 7th, 2009 at 07:37 | #30

    Hello Tashi. What is crashing with the beta. I have been running the beta for over a month and it has not crashed on me once. The final is pretty close…..The point of open source is so the user can modify the source code…..or so the “community” can. It has been successful in a few areas but I have not seen any broad-based adoption of opensource by mainstream users.

  30. Chetzz
    October 7th, 2009 at 12:12 | #31

    hi.i was an avast user i like it but this is a complety false article here really guys u should test a product i dont like microsoft but i can tell since im using windows seven and microsoft security essentials they are on the rigt got nearly 98% detection capability and no false positive only av with no false positive check this video [code][/code] i personally download some virus just to chek it;)

  31. October 7th, 2009 at 12:20 | #32

    Chetzz, Sorry you are not using avast any longer. Why did you change? I must disagree with your statement that this is a false article. The blog entry is reporting the results of AV-Comparatives. That is a very exhaustive test of millions of samples. The link you posted is a rather informal review/test by an individual. I do not see it as anything close to an exhaustive review of the virus detection capabilities of a product. There are millions and millions of pieces of malware out there. Detecting whether a product finds a handful of them is not necessarily the best test. While AV-Comparatives and many other tests are far from perfect, they are worthwhile benchmarks.

  32. Chetzz
    October 7th, 2009 at 12:44 | #33

    its not that im not an avast user anymore ive been using avast for years if tomorrow avast 5 is good i will use it but to tell thats a product is not good doesnt sound good when the product is good,dont misunderstand me;)

  33. October 7th, 2009 at 12:48 | #34

    Cheetz, the point is that AV-Comparatives says the detection rate is not good–and that is the fundamental point of a security product. And PC-Mag says it is OK but better free solutions exist. Those were the points in the posting. I actually hope MSE is better than these two imply. Users need good security.

  34. Björn Lundahl
    October 7th, 2009 at 13:39 | #35

    This “Matt” on YouTube is quite a silly guy who thinks that his testing are “scientific”. Serious reviewers who test different antivirus and publish the reviews in magazines do not test detection rates as they know that they do not have the knowledge, time and resources to do that. They leave such inquires to Virus Bulletin, AV-Comparatives etc. They just review the programs different features and mention sometimes the results of those test that Virus Bulletin, AV-Comparatives have undertaken.

    Björn Lundahl

  35. October 7th, 2009 at 17:13 | #36

    @Vincent Steckler
    Hello Vince, just read the blog entry from a few months ago. Point accepted. Hope all is well with the v5.0 project. Excited to see the final release very soon! Julian

  36. Uhm!?!
    October 8th, 2009 at 02:38 | #37

    under the vid that chettz posted about MSE, The guy has a list of attack sites… well I tested those sites with avast and only 2 out of the 10 that are on that list got caught… this is very bad….I checked the resident shield to make sure that it wasnt just silently blocking them… and It wasn’t it let connection to the site. And of the two it did catch, if you go back to the site avast doesnt say anything else… as if it only blocked it that one time. I have current VBS and engine using avast 4.8 under professional trial period…

  37. Uhm!?!
    October 8th, 2009 at 02:44 | #38

    Is it possible that my Noscript and NoRequest (or w/e its called) as well as WOT in firefox may be blocking it for me? could it be my firewall since i have it set to block incoming connections(pc tools firewall) could it be that they are in the block list that spyware blaster 4.2 makes? ANY possibilites here? I really don’t wanna here that avast isnt protecting me against drive by’s or rogues… This is the list of software installed on my PC.

    Avast Pro v4.8
    PCTools Firewall 6.0
    Threatfire 4.6.0
    SpywareBlaster 4.2
    Ad-Aware(IDK ver but its the latest)

    All updated.

    firefox addons:
    Web Developer Tools

    Can It be any of these? and how would I know? Or do I simply have alot of malware on my pc now?

  38. October 8th, 2009 at 09:20 | #39

    Hello Uhm!?!

    I have just seen the video you are talking about and have just tried all 10 urls here in lab. 8 of those web links are dead -> doesn’t serve any malware now (ERROR messages 404,403 etc). This might be the answer for you. When have you tried those urls? Only 2 urls from the list are live, both look to be legitimate site – one is still infected, the second one looks to be clean now.

    And about single detection: Current malware very often uses something called “hit only once”. It means that only one sample will be sent to one ip address. So if you try to replicate the attack you will be without any success. Server will not you serve same malware anymore.

    About your add-ons: Yes, if you have installed all of those add-ons it may block many known web malware. Specially NoScript componnent, because most malware needs to run javascript.

  39. Uhm!?!
    October 8th, 2009 at 22:38 | #40

    @Jiri Sejtko
    Ok thanks for clearing that up for me. And to answer your question I tryed them yesterday.

  40. October 11th, 2009 at 01:39 | #41

    @Björn Lundahl: I agree with you and Vincent that Matt’s reviews are not scientific nor statistically relevant at all, but I think you missed the the main point of his reviews. These type of reviews are pretty straightforward and they simply try to reproduce what a typical user may come across when surfing the net. It also tests an AV’s proactive protection (his links are probably from a malware link list, so most of them are zero-day and widespread malware). Taking all this into consideration, it makes sense to use a reduced of random urls.

    For extensive and serious tests on detection capabilities, we gotta trust Av-comparatives of course.

  41. October 11th, 2009 at 08:03 | #42

    Hi Kai….I have to disagree with you. If a test is not “scientific or statistically relevant at all” then it has nothing to do with what a typical user would encounter. It is a curiosity but is just not relevant. Jiri gave some of the reasons for the different results in his reply up above. Testing for malware is a very complex and difficult activity. Also, our lab people took a look at this “review”…..we took it seriously but it is just not meaningful for so many reasons.

  42. October 11th, 2009 at 18:05 | #43

    Microsoft’s offer of security products sounds like a real estate dealer who first sells you the house and only after a few months delivers the front door. As for the keys to close that front door, you will have to wait till next patch.

  43. Björn Lundahl
    October 13th, 2009 at 13:59 | #44

    @Alexis Kauffmann
    Yes Microsoft should have delivered a free antivirus years ago.


  44. John A
    October 15th, 2009 at 06:04 | #45

    While Avast seemed to do a good job for me for a while, there is a major problem with 4.8 that I don’t think the company has addressed yet. If you look on the Alwil forum and other tech sites, you’ll numerous comments about Avast 4.8 causing Windows XP to freeze. Only the mouse continues to move. Most have had to reinstall or repair Windows. I had to do a system repair. When I tried to download and reinstall 4.8, the installation froze and froze Windows. When I rebooted, I deleted the setup file. Alwil needs to fix this fast.

  45. October 15th, 2009 at 16:57 | #46

    Developments are certainly taking place with regards version 5.0. The look and feel is much improved and certainly ‘cleaner’ than on the previous 4.8. We downloaded it last month so the developments have been fast since then. What is the behavior shield? Currently it says it’s on, but not entirely sure what it is or what it does.


  46. av
    October 16th, 2009 at 10:57 | #47

    does avast 4.8 work well with MSE??

  47. ken
    October 17th, 2009 at 12:21 | #48

    Unlike Avast Home Edition, MSE does not require annual registration. Any plans to remove registration from the free versions of Avast??

  48. October 18th, 2009 at 07:17 | #49

    Hello Ken. We plan on making the annual registration simpler and the registration key automatically injected. We do not plan on removing it though. I am sure you know our product does much, much more than MSE. As you saw in the lastest AV-Comparatives, we have a higher detection rate and we are faster. And of course we have many other features such as the behavior shields.

  49. October 19th, 2009 at 08:07 | #50

    AV, yes Avast works with MSE……but you should remember that avast is about the only product that can work with other AV’s. Most do not allow it. What has MS told you about the ability of MSE to work with other products?

  50. ken
    October 19th, 2009 at 09:17 | #51

    Good to hear you are planning to make registration simpler. Thanks.

Comment pages
1 2 618
Comments are closed.