MS Security Essentials detection rates are pretty poor, historically. Considering excellent products like Avast are free for the home user, I don't see why we'd recommend the MS one.
To be fair, MS has recognized this and has been steadily improving detection rates. It has only recently been able to outdo Avast or AVG. Hopefully, this trend will continue. I imagine MS is under a lot of pressure to contain the Cryptolocker-type infections and the bad press of the past couple years is probably a motivator.
Isn't this claim somewhat refuted by the very article you are posting against? There are other comments in this thread that explain why this doesn't make any sense eg pilif's above[1]
They both have detection rates in the high 90s, which is considered excellent, in general, and certainly so for a no-cost product. MSE only just edged out Avast.
The comment you listed cites nothing, not sure why its so authoritative to you. All software has vulnerabilities, but where's the big attack on AV? What CVEs are we seeing in the wild, if any?
To be fair, MS has recognized this and has been steadily improving detection rates. It has only recently been able to outdo Avast or AVG. Hopefully, this trend will continue. I imagine MS is under a lot of pressure to contain the Cryptolocker-type infections and the bad press of the past couple years is probably a motivator.
http://www.alphr.com/security/6745/best-free-antivirus-of-20...