Well I have switched from MSE back to NOD32


Recommended Posts

I REALLY wanted to like Microsoft Security Essentials, I really did. In my mind it had a bunch of issues. One of which was the seemingly large CPU usage. It always seemed as if the Security Essentials process was always chugging a large amount of CPU. Which is why I never recommended it be installed on an older machine. At least not one without more than 1 core and a lot of ram.

Scanning speeds always seemed ok to me. Though this is in comparison to Malwarebytes which isn't saying very much. I always found them about the same speed wise.

It also seemed to chug on average of 80 megs of ram. Now on my i7 920 with 6 gigs of ram I never really felt any slow down. On older machines it was much more apparent.

The final straw was when I logged into my server yesterday that I Have sitting on the floor next to me. I thought I would install securnia. Once it installed it scanned my computer. Then it just hung at 60%. So after about 5 mins I checked the task manger. Sure enough there was security essentials chugging 100% cpu. So I killed the process and the securnia promptly finished.

I have sense bought a 2 year license with nod32, everything seems to be working much better.

Also I saw some online videos reviews between nod32 and MSE

It went pretty much like this.

If nod32 detected an infected file it would pop up next to the clock saying "This file has been quarantined"

With the same file on MSE, a box would appear asking what you want to do with the file. If you click apply action or clean you would wait about 1-2 mins while the program was thinking about god knows what, and then it would finally complete.

Any way that is my mini story.

Ah ha. Using 41mb.

Still not to bad, and no worse than Avira imo, that was using about the same, spread out over three processes iirc. This is on x64 too so I'd expect it to be a little high.

Just for fun I installed Avira on a machine and OMG the Ad. Yes I know you can hack the ad off ,but OMG the ad. BARF!.

I don't know about you mate, but I can easily say I have installed MSE on 18 computers and none of them are showing any signs of MSE hogging down the system. The lowest system i installed MSE on is a Pentium III 550mhz i think and 256MB, there was no slow down what so ever.

I have MSE installed on a P4 2.8 laptop with 512MB RAM running Windows XP. I've just checked, and it's using about 50MB. It doesn't really slow the laptop down. IIRC, the laptop didn't run any faster before I installed MSE back in June.

But, I agree NOD32 is far superior. I bought a 3 year subscription back in March, and I have been very impressed with it. Nonetheless, I have to say MSE is a great free antivirus solution.

That sucks dude..I've switched all my PC's to MSE and it works fine. No one ever complained or even noticed a difference. I haven't dealt with too many machines that had a Pentium 3 but I got a machine with a low end Pentium 4..still works great!

MSE isn't bad, but using it on 5 computers, I noticed all of them slowed down considerably in general, but especially when lauching apps. MSE in my opinion felt exactly like Norton, you can definitely feel the anti virus is there, running. I switched them all to Avira and they regained all the performance back. I swear it doesn't feel like there's an AV installed. None of the people using the computers mind the popup, either, and it only shows up once a day anyway.

When it comes to free protection, I think MSE is the best I've come across. AVG Home use to be decent but is now very sluggish and the ads are annoying. All the free ones I think have ads or at least nag screens to upgrade to their pay-for editions.

What I want is an antivirus that responds when a virus is found, deletes the virus and then puts a big message on my screen that says something along the lines us: "Threat Eliminated! Your system is now 100% virus free!"

Seems like whenever a virus is found you can delete the file or put it in a virus vault...but there is never a definitive "you are no longer infected" message to give me a nice warm feeling. I'm always left feeling paranoid.

MSE seems to work fine for me. I just have it do quick scans once a week at a time I'm not usually up. I don't notice it slowing down anything on my system. It also never bothers me it's almost like it doesn't exist. I do manual full scans from time to time and run MalwareBytes once in awhile as well and haven't had any viruses/problems.

Guess it just comes down to preference/hardware.

Mate, this family refuses to upgrade to anything higher than that :laugh: . They say it gets the job done, they mainly use it for surfing.

Actually I the sweet Jesus was the fact you have MSE running on that.

I ran mse recently on a computer that was pretty infected. It picked up 2 files. I don't think it works, google searches were still redirecting after the scan. Combofix and running cleanup! seemed to have taken care of the issue.

Hmm good ole reliable 1, MSE 0.

Microsoft Security Essentials has worked great for me so far. In the computer hardware labs where students learn to take apart and build computers, the college has a wide variety of hardware, everything from years old "junk" to our newer iCore 7 machines. Of course, before MSE, students had the option of installing either AVG or Avira, but lately, AVG's definitions haven't been all too great. On top of that, and with personal experience, AVG is seemingly more of a resource hog compared to Avira. Now, Avira's downsides have always been that STUPID popup ad, which I could deal with. Their update servers hanging constantly or moving at crawling speeds though certainly did not impress me more recently.

Since then, MSE has been the ideal choice, mostly because it takes relatively no time to install, there's no stupid toolbars or options that are going to bite you in the ass later, it feels very light, and the usability is surely there.

Now, that said, I was really curious on how it did with actual virus detections and such. Yesterday though, my friend brought his external in to the lab to scan for viruses. Great place to do it too, since infecting one of the lab machines isn't really an issue since we can wipe the OS. Anyhow, he claimed AVG didn't pick up anything the previous night, and had installed Avira without knowing that MSE was already on the lab computer. After updating Avira and everything though, there was nothing found on the drive. I came to help him out, and noticed that MSE had a red flag up down in the corner. Apparently, it had already detected a problem with the drive, finding some sort of Autorun virus or whatever on the drive.

MSE removed it without issue of course, and a full scan afterwards came back clean. No more issues or anything. :)

Now, while this certainly doesn't mean MSE is the best or anything just because it picked up one thing the others didn't, it is certainly reassuring, especially having seen it first hand. (Y)

As more to the topic though, I've never had an issue on any of the old machines, nor the new with MSE. Even my grandmother's old Compaq runs it fine.

The lowest machine I've installed MSE on is a Celery 1.4Ghz and 512MB of RAM. It did slow the machine down a bit, but it was still usable. Even with the slowdown, I'd still install it over AVG, Avira, and Avast. Why you ask?

AVG - LOL

Avira - Stupid Ad and sometimes has problems with false positives

Avast - Its actually ok, but I don't really understand the need for a new free key once per year. I get sick of trying to explain to people how to get a new key only to say eff it and go do it for them.

I'm running the current MSE Beta (1743) and so far, not alot has changed in MSE yet. They need to seriously improve the full scan time along with the CPU usage as Warwagon mentioned. Kaspersky used to be my AV of choice, but got tired of its stupid little quirks and the little problems it caused here and there with basic OS operation.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
    • Compared to the 7735HS it is around 25-30% slower in multi-threaded tasks (according to Google search) I did a review of the 7735HS Beelink SER6 Max in 2023, but thinking about it, it's not comparable to the 7730U. For the example you gave about how it will be used, the 7730U is actually an excellent choice for its power and battery efficiency.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      194
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      71
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!