Windows 10: Any ideas on how Windows Defender would be?

With the killer features awaiting in the Threshold, pushing for a more converged OS, any ideas on how Windows Defender would prevail across all the platforms? Any changes expected?

http://mobile.pcadvisor.co.uk/new-pr...ndows-phone-9/

:)

 

How to upgrade Windows Defender

Original title: UPGRADING WINDOWS DEFENDER

DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA HOW TO UPGRADE WINDOWS DEFENDER. CAN YALL HELP

 

trojan:Win32/Dynamae!ac

using windows defender I found this from a full scan and told the system to remove but it cant. it came up with an error code 0x80070070. has anyone any idea how I can get rid of it. would appreciate any help

 

I believe MS only does Defender (and MSE before that) so their customers will have at least basic protection out of the box. They can't really bitch about spam or virus botnets if they are the weak link in that chain. They only point it at threats that are actually seen on their user base. Not necessarily a bad thing, but with new threats ever minute, how effective is anything? That said, I doubt they will venture much from that path. Basic protection that targets threats seen on their users PCs.

 

Security is all about keeping everything in order & sane as long as consumer is concerned I suppose and Defender does that to some extent.
Yes, they are not giving anything more than just the basic protection for a normal user,
What I like about MSE/Defender is they are a part of the Windows OS kernel/code now & that means if they want to, they could bring about few good changes & better protection, isn't it?
I have read that Defender is one of the aspects Threshold is working on to improve.. Don't know what is that supposed to be?

 

If they keep Defender at all they should either improve it with better preemption capabilities or just hide it and let it have capability to work with other "real" AVs. Like this, it's just a useless (well almost) encumbrance to system that can't even be uninstalled. Can't really see a reason for something that even it's maker labelled as "Here it is but it's not really good so use something else".

 

I disabled it for Kaspersky *Smile

Really want Defender to get a huge improvement so that all other resource hoggers could get off from the systems,

 

Defender will never be improved. Otherwise, MSFT would probably suffer more "antitrust" whining.

What they should do is offer Defender just the way it is, and improve MSE instead, offer it as a free download to "upgrade" Defender and voila - an actual, useful antivirus that builds on the capability and functionality of Defender that's already offered with the OS out of the box.

 

I doubt Defender will be improved greatly. Although it's better than nothing that's absolutely sure. It makes me wonder if major retailers (looking at you Home Depot) even freaking use anti-virus software of any kind. If they did, I'd doubt I would have needed to sign up for identity protection and possibly get a new debit card... *sarc

 

Defender works just fine. I haven't used a commercial antivirus in years, in fact even back in my Windows XP days I was using only Security Essentials.

Frankly, I don't see the point in an intrusive, heavy, crappy anti-virus product that slows down my system when Defender is light, hardly noticeable, and does its job just fine.

Then again, Defender generally only has to worry about stuff that gets past me, and i'm pretty good about sandboxing stuff I don't trust. Even so, it does occasional find stuff that gets by me, and I've never had it NOT detect something (and yes, I run occasional scans with malwarebytes just to be safe).

I probably wouldn't recommend it as the only anti-virus for someone that wasn't technically inclined, but for me, I have absolutely no need for anything else.

 

It will be just like it is today with MSE. Their will be tens of millions use MSE without problems but their will always be those that prefer 3rd party protection.
Defender will be the same way.
I use MSE and the Windows 7 built in firewall along with Malwarebytes Premium. I have been using them for years on two and three computers without problems.
If Windows 9 has Defender and it's own firewall I will be using them and Malwarebytes Premium.

 

I agree there but if anything can make it safer without me going to great lengths to wander about how safe something (specially sites) is, run in sandboxes and than switching to full setup etc. I'd rather ad another safety layer that would take at least part of responsibility. I rarely go into "harm's way" willingly but fell much safer with Avast and Mbam running. I don't have some great HW but with this combination there is no extra encumbrance that could be felt at all. Nothing is faster without Avast running. Ading McShield against USB borne nasties enables me (with some precautions) ti plug them in and have to do that a lot. Banning them altogether is out of question. If I have a reason to suspect something, I can always fire up Linux from VM to see what's inside.

 

Hi

I ran defender for quite a while, but things started getting through so I switched to AVG.
So far I'm happy with AVG it seems to be doing the job, at least I haven't had any infections.

Mike

 

I tried AVG and while it's nice I like Avast a lot more.
YMMV
Jeff

 

Their you go living proof. Some choose to use different programs. That is the way it should be.
It is nice that one can choose what they want or need.