Neowin.net

yea....i can't wait...

mmm...but you have to

mee to..

Assuming of course Microsoft are as quick off the mark with definition updates as the likes of ESET, McAfee or Symantec.

If Windows Defender is any indication of this, I'm not hopeful. Pretty much any other anti-spyware product out there is quicker at detecting newer threats than Windows Defender.

Eh? I see definition updates for defender pretty much every day now. How is it slow?

We don't know the resource usage of this tool yet. Hopefully its scanner will at least keep itself below ~50 MB, and not interfer with other apps too much. These things are a bit different than bloat. For example, McAfee's scanner is pretty lean in terms of features, but easily eats 100-150 MB RAM at work (where we're now forced to such tools -- before, we used NOD32 and it was more around like 20-30 MB with a similar feature set).

So my point is that we can't judge the resource usage of this tool by how many features it has and if it "looks" lean. That depends a lot on how it's programmed. Microsoft doesn't have an excellent track record in these areas either, so I'm waiting and seeing in this case. Windows 7 is really a trend breaker for MS.

McAfee? They're still painfully slow with their updates.

Looking forward to testing it.

But RAM usage and hard drive space became irrelevant about a decade ago.

Impact on running applications as well as false positive detection and, of course, antivirus/malware protection AND cleanup will be what I'm looking for.

Running a full scan while I type this, it's not using much resources at all.

Even took a snapshot of it. Here ya go:

wow that really is quite amazing

For me, defender is updated monthly at best...compared to the likes of Symantec which is updated hourly (my trusty Trend Micro isn't too bad, it updates a few times a day) it's beyond slow, it's stationary!

I see one or two updates a day in Forefront Client Security, their enterprise A/V offering. I would assume they're using the same engine in this one.

For me Eset updates atleast 5 times a day, while defender updates once in two weeks or so. I really hope MS's Morro turns out to be a great product with a good backing from MS to release definition files without any delay. AV's need to updated everyday, taking in regard the increasing threats.

You need to turn on the option to show processes from other users also...

The main service isn't showing on your screenshot.

You see this when you look at the CPU Usage...

Also consider showing the real memory usage of processes, instead of the one you show at the screenshot...

When Windows pages out memory, then an app only shows about 800KB-3MB and pages in the data while scanning continuously.

This will cause lots of disk/pc lags cause of the many small reads and memory copys required.

The GUI seems only to be a basic shell for the real scanner, running hidden in the background.

Every scanner that shows you less than 63MB of RAM usage, either tricks you with a bad behavior (streaming the data from disk), using separate service processes to hide its real RAM usage, or simply having too few signatures.

Imagine that a Antivirus app doesn't use real signatures, but some sort of easy hash...
An MD5 would use 16Bytes to store...
Multiply this with about 4 million of signatures and youre in the range of 62MB just for the storage of the signatures.
Now add the programm and resource usage to it, and you see what i mean


If NOD32 only uses 20MB, is just saying that NOD32 has only about 800k signatures, which is really bad.
Data (signatures) can't be stored magically for free without using RAM *g*

Im not saying that NOD32 or the Microsoft tool is bad, i just say... choose wisely and don't trust the things, you think you see, blindly

Uhhh. The total install size of the folder is about 11 megabytes. I can't be sure, but I don't think it'll be generating that much RAM usage.

I'm just curious, all you people who always want stuff that uses less RAM: What exactly are you going to use that unused RAM for? Wiping your ass with?

OneCare was a great product. Very little performance impact unless it was performing a "tune up"; a feature/bug that seems to be missing in this new product.

Although I felt the old UI was simple yet effective, this one definitely fits in with the look and feel of 7. when was the last time anyone was this excited for a new OS from MS? ...hands?

Will this be replacing Windows Defender then and not just complimenting it?

The two things are completely different

Windows Defender is an anti-spyware software integrated into Windows Vista/7
Microsoft Security Essentials is a free standalone anti-virus software package that should be available for free download through Windows Update as a part of Windows Live Essentials Package as Windows 7 hits GA

It hasn't been stated that it will be included in the Windows Live Essentials package and I don't think it will be as it doesn't have the Windows Live branding.

I'm pretty confident this will be a seperate download

Hahaha! xD

Is it bad that this was my first thought also?

I guess we can all hope he doesn't have another cousin named Security Essentials to save him some anguish

Hahaha! Brilliant!

Bing!

lol

I think this works with defender since the shots show that it has virus and spyware definitions.

I think it's mostly a superset of defender itself. So It could use parts of defender code already in windows or just replace it totally. I dunno for sure.

Uhhh. I believe this is a free download, not something you have to buy.

Not only that but "Yesterday Neowin exclusively revealed Microsoft Morro to the world" is also a bit far fetched... saw it on Google News hours earlier than here.

i kind of like Microsoft Morro too, not sure why they never stick with the simple names lol

Thats too close to Microsoft Moron!

Win

Morro is a short snappy name? Really?

yea...now it's only a Antivirus...but it will replace Windows Live OneCare...that's the fact

It protects against spyware aswell, as can be seen from the screenshots - it isn't just an anti-virus

I like the name "Microsoft Security Essentials"

[edit] Scratch that. There was a Microsoft Antivirus for DOS (it also supported Win3.1) and it was a bit harsh to call it rubbish, but it was very basic a bit of useless trivia; it was the AV program that reported the Win95 upgrade installer as a virus! (please note MSAV was not made by MS, it was made for MS..the company that made it was later bought by Symantec) which was rather embarrassing for MS. So there you go, didn't really answer the question and give a quick history lesson while I was at it

Last edited by Xerxes on 17 Jun 2009 - 23:44

You history is 100% wrong about the source of the former MSAV. Microsoft licensed the AV product from Central Point for MSAV back around 1995-1998. They DID NOT get any code from the company that Symantec licensed code from in 1998. Symantec did not buy the other companies product, they just licensed it. Those are the facts. I was in the middle of all of it.

The defrag in MS-DOS came from Norton. The AV came from Central Point as njtrout said.

I miss the old defrag. Now I feel old.

The company that Symantec acquired was Central Point Software (which was indeed the company that supplied Microsoft Anti-Virus for DOS/Windows, included with MS-DOS 6.2. I was in the middle of it another way, as a Central Point Software customer (specifically for CPS' PC Tools security suite; version 7 added Central Point Desktop for Windows, a replacement for Windows 3.x' Program Manager, and a competitor for Symantec's Norton Desktop for Windows).

You're right, this follows the free downloaded apps brand which is called "Essentials". You have the Live apps and now the Security apps. I think it makes perfect sense, and that's how MS probably looked at it.

Exactly - it makes sense and the word "Essentials" entices people to download it and use it on their computer. To them, it is essential

^^ And they SHOULD be!

Aren't they phasing out the whole "Live" thing? I always hated that anyway, just call them Windows Messenger, Windows Mail, etc.

It's available, just look a bit on google ;-)

found it and got it installed. i like it so far.

It's available at the usual suspects.
It's multiple installers (32 and 64-bit XP and 32/64-bit Vista, with the Vista installer working on 7)
The darn thing is *small* (it's smaller than the installer for Windows Live *Messenger*, let alone OneCare); the 64-bit Vista/7 installer is less than 4 MB.
It disables Defender because it *integrates* with it.
It's not exactly new (in fact, if you are in an enterprise where Microsoft Forefront Security is deployed, you'll recognize it as the Forefront client, re-skinned), which isn't exactly a Bad Thing (the basic consumer products from Symantec and McAfee are remixed versions of their enterprise clients, so what room do they have to complain?).

Maybe because it many languages it sounds gross?

Yes, Microsoft Security Essentials just rolls of the tongue.

I think you totally missed his point. Besides what is so hard about saying Microsoft Security Essentials? At least it describes what it does and makes sense. Most people would hear Morro and think "WTF is that?"

Everything has a codename before it is produced. Windows had a codename of Longhorn, if you remember, but I don't think I'd like my OS to be called that.

This sums it up.

Defender is not needed with MSE Morro

Defender is anti-spyware, MSE is anti-virus. Two different things so yes it is still needed.

Maybe, Maybe no. Notice the screenshots above that it says "Virus & Spyware Definitions". It would be my guess that Morre disables Windows Defender just like Onecare used to and uses a unified set of definitions in a single product.

MSE (like WLOC before it) uses the same anti-spyware definitions as Defender; however, there are several changes compared to WLOC.

1. Unlike WLOC, there is no backup component (this is something that got Microsoft into hot water with some of their partners for including into WLOC, mostly because *they* either didn't do so at all, or did it rather poorly). That is something I'll actually miss, especially in XP clients, where WLOC's backup was simply too darned useful.

2. Different engine altogether. As opposed to WLOC (which, except for the anti-spyware component, was actually written specifically for WLOC in-house), the client is a re-skinned version of the Microsoft Forefront client. Much smaller, and nowhere near as *busy* as WLOC (or even most other basic AV/security products; it's smaller than either Avast or AVG, let alone Kapersky, Symantec, or McAfee basic AV products).

3. Integrates much better with Windows (definitely 7, and I suspect Vista as well). While WLOC worked VERY well with XP, it didn't fit in as well with Vista, and naturally never supported 7.

That's not really a secret, and Forefront will still have more features.

http://blogs.technet.com/forefront/archive...-forefront.aspx

extremely low footprint and at least 5 always-running processes less than your average AV like Avast!

The fact that it's smaller than most IM installers (both WLM and even YM have larger installers) is what's really weird. If they still used such a thing, it would fit on three 1.44 MB floppies (with space left over).

Maybe it's just a bug since it is PRE-BETA. Of course there are going to be bugs, I have been using it for a day now, no real issues, low on resources, and actually works.

It's only during the first update that the real-time protection isn't running. MSE doesn't seem to ship with any definitions, it downloads them all on first run, so it can't be enabled until it has some definitions to work with.

+1

yes they will lost market share, because AVG is very heavy performance.

You do that.

EVANK, I'm a Symantec beta-tester (and have been one for over a decade), and even I'm not THAT much of a brand snob.

Also, have you been following sites such as SecurityWatch (where they actually track how security holes are discovered and patched in *all* operating systems, including Windows, Linux distributions, and UNIX, along with MacOS and the BSDs)?

My beef with Symantec's basic security products is as follows:

1. They don't work alongside what security the operating system already has.
2. They are very RAM and resource-hungry.

The suites are a whole different kettle of fish (and Microsoft Security Essentials is not meant to compete with them). Also, Windows has included a decent, if basic, firewall since XP and Service Pack 2. Has anyone found an issue with that basic firewall that wasn't related to either third-party software or IBK error (in short, an issue with the firewall itself)?

Other than what I've stated, I have no bone to pick with Symantec, and I have recommended McAfee's security suite to friends and relatives; however, where I DO have an issue with them, I will whack them for it.
Symantec does not currently have a basic security product for Windows 7 that is NOT resource-hungry and/or RAM-hungry (McAfee is in the same position), and Avast and AVG both use too much RAM and too many resources compared to MSE (worse, both have a higher-incidence of false-positives than Forefront Client Security, which MSE is based on). I came to MSE from Avast (as a Windows 7 beta tester with no need for a full-boat security suite, both Symantec and McAfee were eliminated due to their lack of a basic security product that was not a RAM/resource pig, even in beta), and when I was running Vista 64-bit, my options were Symantec or Avast (McAfee did not have a 64-bit ready AV security suite at the time; the only one they have currently is in beta), and Symantec was too RAM/resource-hungry.

64-bit isn't all about gobs of RAM (a single gigabyte of RAM, which is what I have, is barely a demitasse cupful). It's about getting the most out of the resources you have available.

I switched to 64-bit, despite the serious lack-o-RAM, because of fewer crashes and NOT losing hardware support. I have no hardware that isn't supported by any of the 64-bit operating systems I've run, with the sole exception of the BSDs (and even with the BSDs, I do have fallback support for my HD3450, the only unsupported hardware in PC-BSD/FreeBSD 7.1).

Windows has included a basic yet solid firewall since XP's Service Pack 2; most routers and most xDSL/cable *modems*/eMTAs also include a basic SPI firewall. (Neither Vista or 7 has seen the removal of said basic firewall, and nobody, even within the EU, has asked Microsoft to do so; 7 E retains the basic firewall and Windows Defender.) So the only real lack in 7 is AV.

However, in following the security suites and the performance thereof, I have seen that each suite has strengths and weaknesses, and the most glaring weakness in most of the security suites is in the firewall portion. In a lot of cases, it's actually proven weaker than the basic firewall that's included with XP/Windows/7. (I don't know about you, but that's something that flat-out frightens me; a security suite is supposed to have better, not worse, security, in every facet, than having on the basic security included with the operating system.)