Reviews and Awards
The public beta version received several reviews, citing its low resource usage, straightforward user interface and price point. Brian Krebs of The Washington Post reported that a quick scan on a Windows 7 computer took about 10 minutes and a full scan about 45 minutes. Ars Technica reviewed it positively, citing its organized interface, low resource usage, and its status as freeware.
Nick Mediati of PCWorld noted MSE's "clear-cut" and "cleanly designed" tabbed user interface. He did, however, find some of the settings to be cryptic and confusing, defaulting to "recommended action", with the only explanation of what that action is to be found in the help file. He was also initially confused because the user interface failed to mention that Microsoft Security Essentials automatically updates itself, rather than having to be manually updated via the Update tab; an explanation of this feature was included in the final release.
Neil Rubenking of PC Magazine successfully installed the beta version on 12 malware-infected systems and commented on its small installation package (about 7 MB, depending on the operating system) and speedy installation. But the initial virus definition update took between 5 and 15 minutes, and the full installation occupied about 110 MB of disk space. Rubenking noted that the beta version sets Windows Update into fully automatic mode, although it can be turned off again through Windows Control Panel. Some full scans took more than an hour on infected systems; a scan on a clean system took 35 minutes. An on-demand scan test Rubenking conducted in June 2009 with the beta version found 89 percent of all malware samples: 30 percent of the commercial keyloggers, 67 percent of rootkits, but only half of the scareware samples. The product's real-time protection found 83 percent of all malware and blocked the majority of it: 40 percent of the commercial keyloggers and 78 percent of the rootkits were found.
On 7 January 2010, Microsoft Security Essentials won the PC Advisor's Best Free Software award. In December the same year, it secured AV-Comparatives Bronze award for proactive detection of 55 percent of new or unknown malware, the Silver award for low false-positives (six occurrences) and the Bronze award for overall performance.
In October 2009, AV-TEST conducted a series of trials on the final build of the product in which it detected and caught 98.44 percent of 545,034 computer viruses, computer worms and software Trojan horses as well as 90.95 percent of 14,222 spyware and adware samples. It also detected and eliminated all 25 tested rootkits, generating no false-positives. Between June 2010 to January 2013, AV-TEST tested Microsoft Security Essentials 14 times; in 11 out of 14 cases, MSE secured AV-TEST certification of outperforming AV industry average ratings. Microsoft Security Essentials 2.0 was tested and certified on March 2011. The product achieved a protection score of 2.5 out of 6, a repair score of 3.5 out of 6 and a usability score of 5.5 out of 6. Report details show that although version 2.0 was able to find all malware samples of the WildList (widespread malware), it was not able to stop all Internet-based attacks because it lacks personal firewall and anti-spam capabilities. In an April 2012 test, version 2.1 achieved scores of 3.0, 5.5 and 5.0 for protection, repair and usability. Version 4.0 for Windows 7 SP1 (x64) was tested in June 2012 and achieved scores of 2.5, 5.5 and 5.5 for protection, repair and usability. In October 2012, the product lost its AV-TEST certification when Microsoft Security Essentials 4.1 achieved scores of 1.5, 3.5 and 5.5 for its protection, repair and usability.
In AV-TEST's 2011 annual review, Microsoft Security Essentials came last in protection, seventh in repair and fifth in usability. In 2012 review, it came last in protection and best in usability; however, having lost it certificate, it was not qualified for the usability award.
Other articles related to "review, reviews, award, reviews and":
... The review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reported that 16% of critics gave the film positive reviews, based on 44 reviews ... the film had an average score of 12 out of 100, based on 19 reviews ... The Avengers was nominated for that year's Razzie Award for Worst Picture, Worst Director, Worst Screenplay, Worst Supporting Actor (Sean Connery), Worst Actress (Uma Thurman), Worst Actor (Ralph Fiennes ...
... American Culture To Turkey Musicpicks Kevin Locke Open Circle, Review Seattle TimesTelling stories, saving heritage through dance Everett Herald Lakota dancer reaches out to kids ...
... The PC version of the game received generally favorable reviews from Metacritic with an average score of 84% based on 39 critic reviews ... Despite the good reviews, the game underperformed in sales and BVG eventually dropped support for the game two years after the game was released ...
... Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology is a peer-reviewed journal for oncologists ... Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology is one of eight Clinical Review journals published by the Nature Publishing Group ...
... Disney-related news, coupled with regular reviews and occasional interviews ... In 2003, the site began to emphasize critical reviews of Disney's DVDs as its primary focus ... In 2004, the site expanded to include reviews of films and television shows from Miramax Films, Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, and other divisions of the Disney Studios that generally produce ...
Famous quotes containing the words reviews and and/or reviews:
“Reviews and magazines are at best ephemeral & superficial reading. Who thinks of the grand article of last year in any given review?”
—George Gordon Noel Byron (17881824)
“The skilful Nymph reviews her force with care:
Let Spades be trumps! she said, and trumps they were.”
—Alexander Pope (16881744)