Windows 10: Is there still any reason to use Windows Defender?

Defender works fine for me here. I can get Norton 360 for free from my ISP, I tried Norton for a little while but had problems between it and my MBAM Premium. Then I tried Avast and AVG, both slowed my surfing way down. I had some registry errors when I tried to restart Defender on my laptop and had to reinstall Windows to get Defender to work, but thankfully did not lose any files. That little ordeal started me thinking it is best to just keep it simple and use Defender. Third party AV's are too invasive and I really have little use for all the extras they push on you. I really thought I had serious damage back when I had to reload Windows.

I am also just now trying Edge after years of using Firefox. I have to say I really like the way Defender and the Smart Screen integrate with Edge in the Creators Update. Edge is super quick, faster than Firefox and very lightweight with Defender. I don't believe all the hype from the tests and reviews saying Defender is bad. Defender and MBAM work great for me. I am looking forward to the Fall update.

Jimmy

 

I havent used real time antivirus since 2010 or scanners since 2011 but if I was to use one, I would definitively use Windows defender. I would not even ponder about it. I think WD is as good or better than the rest of antiviruses and it doesn't break Windows, no false positives with Window files and is simpler. In W10, even more so, I would be scared to use an AV other than WD. Other antiviruses can end up blocking Windows updates and hurt the system during the process, another good reason to use WD. I think most AV on paper, try to appear to do a lot but reality is they can not.

Bo

 

All these posts apart from great response by @NavyLCDR just seem to get into the perpetual is A better than B argument.

In reality, there is little to choose between any package these days in terms of VIRUSES which are a subset of the wider category of MALWARE. The wider category of malware is primarily focussed on click bait. No package can 100% protect against users common sense.

This is why I would install Win 10 S on some peoples pcs but I was shocked - a licence in UK is over £200!

 

How can one answer NO or YES to this open ended question?

YES or NO are only valid answers for closed questions e.g does pure water freeze at 0 deg C?

The above question is open ended like "Does pure water boil at 100 deg C?".

Here the answer needs qualifying i.e. answer is "Yes at a system pressure of 1 atmosphere".

So simply put, your answer is meaningless without qualification. You are only stating an opinion.

 

Aside from all problems WD causes, it always scores the lowest, that never changes. The detection is nice, but if it is unable to remove it, what is the point? WD is the first thing I disable, after clean install on every computer. *Rolleyes

Antivirus Lab Test Results Calculator: 10,000+ Lab Tests

Screenshot source: AV-Comparatives Removal-Test + MRG Effitas Online Banking Certification Q2 2017

 

Hi,
I used MS security essentials and mbam pro for years without issue of course I give most of the credit to mbam pro not any MS product.

I switched to Panda free a few years ago and still use mbam pro/ premium and still have no issues.

Best part of the switch to Panda free is I don't have to deal with windows defenders very slow scanning anymore so it's a win win for me *Smile

So if someone thinks windows defender is good well that is also opinion *Smile
All I'm saying is a lot of free antivirus offerings are as good if not better than windows defender and is not the most important protection to have installed.
Malware protection seems the most important now days which mbam premium fits the bill nicely.

I chose Panda free mostly because it is lightweight and scanning time is pretty reasonable at less than an hour for a full scan *Smile
Windows defender would often take 2-3-4 hours and that is unacceptable.

 

Yep, I developed a keen interest in malware since Wannacry and not defending any AV as such (I even defended WD in some .. well 1 post, I think .. lol ) .. anyway it's good that a discussion around AV alternatives ensues in as much as each persons habits...

 

Hi,
lol I have bad habits *Devil

 

What is the point of quoting outdated tests....ie:- September when a completely new comprehensive version which includes exploit protection among other extras was released in the fall update.

Quoting removal figures is pointless.....far better to have been blocked in the first place.....I note Defender anti-virus have been included as among the best using your same testing sites at blocking in the wild.

You do appear to pick charts that suit your point of view.

 

What's the "User dependent" thing?

 

I suspect it means not using an alternative AV*sarc

 

From what I guess from this:
" User-dependent cases are given half credit. For example, if a program blocks 80% by itself, and another 20% of cases are user-dependent we give half credit for the 20%, i.e. 10%, so it gets 90% altogether."

It's user blocked stuff... so false positives included.

 

A user has to Allow or Block the detection, which might or might not be malware. Like opening docs with macros.
It is usually based on heuristics/behavioural engine, which detect a suspicious activity, which might be normal.
This is considered as bad, because users tend to ignore it and click to allow, like for UAC/firewall's prompts.