Is Security Essentials Microsoft 's answer to Linux 's security record?

One of the areas where Linux really shines is security: you do not really need an antivirus if you are running Linux as an end user. In the Windows world however a good antivirus is almost a requirement as viruses and malwares are commonplace. I have personally seen Windows computers being infected less than an hour after being connected to the internet. Microsoft is now trying to fix these issues with it's new free security offering: Microsoft Security Essentials.

Microsoft security essentials is a new free lightweight antivirus from Microsoft. The problem that Microsoft faces with security is not only technical but also caused by the behaviors of the average Windows end user. It is estimated that despite the abundance of antivirus solution for Windows machines, more than half of home computers are simply not protected!

There are several reasons behind this. Ignorance certainly plays a part, but the main point is that most home users are simply not willing to pay for antivirus updates. A lot of people don't really understand the problem, other are not willing to pay to solve what is in fact Microsoft's problem, other still are willing to take the risk, too bad if this causes the viruses to spread. There are free antivirus solution available for Windows such as Avast or ClamAV, but these are almost never pre-installed on computers because antivirus vendors like Symantec pay computer manufactures to load a demo version of their products in the hope of cashing on the fee updates.

These updates fees can run into a lot of money: a one year subscription to Norton antivirus will cost you $39 per year on the Symantec website (Money saving tip: it is actually cheaper to buy the full product from Amazon than to renew your subscription!). If you consider that the average PC has a lifetime of 5 years that's a $195 bill! This is an hidden cost that a lot of computer users are not ready to pay.

In the case of the home user this can give Linux a huge TCO advantage: an Ubuntu CD costs between $12.99 and $19.99 on Amazon, or the CD image can be downloaded for free. This means that a home user can save a lot of money on the lifetime of his computer by replacing Windows by Linux instead of keeping their antivirus updated. This is of course bad for Microsoft.

There are free antivirus programs available, but most of them leave a lot to be desired. I had a bad experience with Avast on an Eee PC 900: the antivirus detected viruses correctly but was using so many resources that the netbook became sluggish to the point of being almost unusable for surfing! Also you need to contact avast every year to get your free update code, meaning that the product manufacturer can start charging for updates at any time.

Microsoft Security Essentials is an attempt by Microsoft to solve this problem. The product is currently in beta testing and should be available in certain countries as early as next week for Windows XP, Vista and 7. Unlike other free antivirus Microsoft Security Essentials should not consume too many resources, as the requirement are quite low for Windows XP: 256 Mb ram and a 500 Mhz CPU. On Windows 7 or Vista the requirements jump to a 1 Ghz CPU and 1 Gb ram, which means that Microsoft Security Essentials will probably be more of a resource hog on the future Windows 7 based netbooks.

On the issues side there is the fact that Microsoft Security Essentials will not be pre-installed on Windows computers but will require a download from Microsoft's website. Microsoft can not include the software for antitrust reasons which I can understand, but this means that a lot of home users won't bother. Also the download will require the users to pass the Windows Genuine Advantage test, something that will restrict adoption further! Part of Microsoft's problem is that Windows has been insecure for so long that a whole antivirus industry had the time to crop up, meaning that it is not longer possible for Microsoft to impose a free product like Microsoft Security Essentials as a default preload.

All in all this is still a good move from Microsoft to reduce the cost gap between Linux and Windows, even if in my opinion Microsoft does not go far enough. They should heavily promote Microsoft Security Essentials as well as pay PC manufacturers to include it as default. A better solution still would be for Microsoft to include with every Windows license a voucher for 5 years of upgrades with the antivirus vendor of the customer's choice, but somehow I doubt this will ever happen.