'Windows Defender' vs Avast and etc etc?

I notice in my Windows 7 of recent incept here, that its 'Windows
Defender' (who makes those names?) gets frequent updates and it wants
more than 3 hrs to checkout files in the machine. The various
commercial anti malware softwares do that quicker, but at least some of
them, are intrusive and distracting nuisances.

Which raises some questions. Does Microsoft 'Defender' do the check
quicker because it does it better? Or because being a product of
Microsoft, it puts up a good show that is hollow in back of it? And so
the assorted commercial anti malware products that say they are so much
better than Microsoft, *really are*? ??

Which to believe? That sets my focus: Do I best improve my machine
security with Microsoft's 'Defender'? And the commercial anti malwares
just lighten my wallet for no particular return to me? Or are the
commercial products the more effective choice? Really the better
choice, despite the nuisance of them? (I tried Avast! -- for three or
four weeks.)

Surely someone has some reality based (i.e. well made tests followed by
good statistical thinking) info on this. As vs, sales and PR noise?
Here in this Windows newsgroup, can someone answer that question?

Titeotwawki -- Martha Adams [2011 Jly 13]

On 7/13/2011 11:35 AM, Martha Adams wrote:
> I notice in my Windows 7 of recent incept here, that its 'Windows
> Defender' (who makes those names?) gets frequent updates and it wants
> more than 3 hrs to checkout files in the machine. The various commercial
> anti malware softwares do that quicker, but at least some of them, are
> intrusive and distracting nuisances.

You have some solutions that want to do an in depth scan and it's going
to take hours to complete. They you have the option of doing a quick
scan that only takes 40 minutes, Of course that is based on machine cpu
speed and how many files total are being scanned.
>
> Which raises some questions. Does Microsoft 'Defender' do the check
> quicker because it does it better? Or because being a product of
> Microsoft, it puts up a good show that is hollow in back of it? And so
> the assorted commercial anti malware products that say they are so much
> better than Microsoft, *really are*? ??

I don't think WD is all that good. It is setup to run on my Vista
machine and it barks if I don't run it for awhile. My Windows 7 machine,
I don't use WD, but I do use MS Security Essential an AV. On the Vista
machine I use NOD32, but after the license on NOD32 runs out, I am
switching to MS MS Security Essential.
>
> Which to believe? That sets my focus: Do I best improve my machine
> security with Microsoft's 'Defender'? And the commercial anti malwares
> just lighten my wallet for no particular return to me? Or are the
> commercial products the more effective choice? Really the better choice,
> despite the nuisance of them? (I tried Avast! -- for three or four weeks.)

Some believe in a layered approach of running various security
solutions. The way I look at if WD can catch something that some other
solution missed, more power to it.
>
> Surely someone has some reality based (i.e. well made tests followed by
> good statistical thinking) info on this. As vs, sales and PR noise? Here
> in this Windows newsgroup, can someone answer that question?
>

There is some Web site that gives monthly reports on various AV(s) and
there detection rate. Maybe someone will give you a link, because I
don't remember it.

I also use PCtools Spy Doctor on the Vista machine which has caught some
things WD and NOD32 missed. Spy Doctor is suppose to be good at
detecting rootkits too.

I might put Spy Doctor on the Win 7 machine.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:35:39 -0400, Martha Adams <>
wrote:

> I notice in my Windows 7 of recent incept here, that its 'Windows
> Defender' (who makes those names?) gets frequent updates and it wants
> more than 3 hrs to checkout files in the machine. The various
> commercial anti malware softwares do that quicker, but at least some of
> them, are intrusive and distracting nuisances.
>
> Which raises some questions. Does Microsoft 'Defender' do the check
> quicker because it does it better? Or because being a product of
> Microsoft, it puts up a good show that is hollow in back of it? And so
> the assorted commercial anti malware products that say they are so much
> better than Microsoft, *really are*? ??
>
> Which to believe? That sets my focus: Do I best improve my machine
> security with Microsoft's 'Defender'? And the commercial anti malwares
> just lighten my wallet for no particular return to me? Or are the
> commercial products the more effective choice? Really the better
> choice, despite the nuisance of them? (I tried Avast! -- for three or
> four weeks.)


There is no issue of Windows Defender *versus* Avast, because they are
two different kind of programs, and they don't compete with each
other.

Avast is an anti-virus program, and Defender is an anti-spyware
program. Viruses and spyware are two different kind of malware and you
need a program of each type to get good protection.

Avast is one of the better ant-virus programs, but Defender is not one
of the better anti-spyware programs.

For an anti-virus program, I recommend eSet NOD32, if you are willing
to pay for it. If you want a free anti-virus, I recommend one (do not
run more than one) of the following three:
*
Avira AntiVir
Avast
Microsoft Security Essentials
*
You also need anti-spyware software (even if you run a program like
Microsoft Security Essentials, with anti-spyware capability built into
it). I recommend that you download and install (freeware) MalwareBytes
AntiMalware

Big Steel wrote:

> There is some Web site that gives monthly reports on various AV(s) and
> there detection rate. Maybe someone will give you a link, because I
> don't remember it.
>

There are PDF files on this site, which compare the
performance of various anti-malware products in a
report form.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/en/comparativesreviews

Paul