Yep, on one laptop F-Secure, and one with Avast free. I like to keep the Defender icon visible on both, just in case it notifies me of something that changed or happened apart from the AV.
Consumer Summary Report 2025
- Thread starter Minimalist
- Start date
Actually, I do. On a 5-6 year old machine that I only log into monthly for updates, the performance degrades significantly with Bitdefender free, while it remains almost unnoticeable with Avast free. I'm sticking with Avast because of that for now. These discussions are helpful for getting a glimpse beforehand.
My 3-year-old "business-class" mini-PC has a 256GB primary SSD with a TBW of 150TB. I'm worried because my CrystalDiskInfo's health status percentage is going steadily downhill. It's inevitable, but I dread the day I have to replace it.
In fact, this icon relates to the Windows Security Center (not specifically the Defender program), and will display the status of all security-related programs on the device, including third-party programs.
Some old habits, terms, die hard
It looks like it's ready for me to install. This can help to build the case that Windows/WD can be enough apart from a 3rd party AV? Especially when using the available WD hardening tools. Just curious, why do we still call it, tend to call it Windows Defender when It's really Windows Security, or is it just a semantics thing, an old habit?
Last edited:
SSDs do wear out because each cell has a finite write limit (TBW), and CrystalDiskInfo drops the health percentage like a digital hourglass. That doesn’t mean it’s going to die tomorrow, only that the counter keeps ticking.
Bitdefender isn’t the secret villain here: its writes are minimal, so the wear you see is just normal aging. What really shows up on older machines is the weight of updates: Bitdefender tends to feel heavier, while Avast slips through more lightly.
Mini‑parable: the antivirus only scribbles in the margins; updates are the backpack, and depending on your PC’s age, every extra kilo feels different. And like any notebook that eventually fills up, it never hurts to keep a copy of the important pages.
Bitdefender isn’t the secret villain here: its writes are minimal, so the wear you see is just normal aging. What really shows up on older machines is the weight of updates: Bitdefender tends to feel heavier, while Avast slips through more lightly.
Mini‑parable: the antivirus only scribbles in the margins; updates are the backpack, and depending on your PC’s age, every extra kilo feels different. And like any notebook that eventually fills up, it never hurts to keep a copy of the important pages.
256GB SSDs health degradation is much faster than larger ones.
Btw I noticed that both Hard Disk Sentinel and CrystalDiskInfo show different data. I know both are supposed to read the same data, but I found HDS more reliable and accurate.SSDs do wear out because each cell has a finite write limit (TBW), and CrystalDiskInfo drops the health percentage like a digital hourglass. That doesn’t mean it’s going to die tomorrow, only that the counter keeps ticking.
Bitdefender isn’t the secret villain here: its writes are minimal, so the wear you see is just normal aging. What really shows up on older machines is the weight of updates: Bitdefender tends to feel heavier, while Avast slips through more lightly.
On a side note, please never forget to install firmware updates to SSDs as they tend to fix critical issues.
On my old Dell Latitude which had a WD SN740, the health dropped by 3% in less than a month. After installing the firmware update from Dell, the health stayed at 97% without any change. I have used the device for 13 months and I did many clean windows installations and restored many system images.
To improve your mental health look in Crystal Disk infrequently, my view is SSD's don't break any-more frequently that rust spinners, the countdown to death in Crystal is unhelpful, there is an undesirable possibility you may die before your SSD 
Agree; I have two dead spinners, no single SSD sccumbs.
Yes, cannot rely on; one of the two dead HDD showed warning in advance, the other died suddenly after hours of checking by both Crystal disk info and Hard disk sentinel, both showing 100% life with no single problem.
I only look when I have CrystalDiskInfo's updates
. Some people seem to have said that some SSDs will survive past the 0% point.True enough.there is an undesirable possibility you may die before your SSD
Going to the crematorium to be consumed with life left on my Samsung SSD is very worrying indeed, added to that who will do the updates when I'm not here
Well, I have HDS running in the background and the health and temp can be seen in the taskbar. That's the most important frature of such a software; to warn you if sth is wrong with the SSD not to panic. If it throws an error you can backup or migrate your data. Hardware are prone to failure. What is important is your plan of what to do in the right time.To improve your mental health look in Crystal Disk infrequently, my view is SSD's don't break any-more frequently that rust spinners, the countdown to death in Crystal is unhelpful, there is an undesirable possibility you may die before your SSD
I dont care if my ssd health is 100% or 70% what I care about is my data and performance.
Current pending sector and uncorrectable sector: HDD is dying.
CRC error: SATA cable is defective.
The difference between Hard Disk Sentinel and CrystalDiskInfo isn’t that one “knows more” than the other, but how they interpret the same S.M.A.R.T. data. CrystalDiskInfo shows the raw values, while HDS applies its own calculations and predictions, which is why it often feels more “accurate.”
As you rightly mention
, firmware updates can make all the difference — sometimes the health drop isn’t real wear but just a misread by the drive’s old firmware. Your WD SN740 case is a good example: after the update, the health stabilized, showing that the issue wasn’t actual degradation but how the firmware was reporting it.Bottom line: it’s fine to use both tools for comparison, but what really matters is the firmware and the manufacturer’s utilities.
I still feel some residual disappointment that Avira doesn't at least fare better for system performance. It ranked 14 in the last AV-Comparatives performance test.
I had a fondness for Avira AntiVir many years back. Does anyone have some recent experience with it? Does the core product work any differently from the SDK?
I had a fondness for Avira AntiVir many years back. Does anyone have some recent experience with it? Does the core product work any differently from the SDK?
Not very recent, years ago.
Yes, it has a significant negative impact on OS performance, with protection subpar to Avast/AVG.
It was a bad experience to the extent I did not try it again, like it I do occasionally for 3rd party AVs when I get bored of MD.
Last edited:
If you like Avira, then you should use F-Secure which is basically Avira with a better inflterface and does not come with any of Avira's bloat.
You may also like...
-
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) Test 2025- Started by Minimalist
- Replies: 23
-
Consumer Real-World Protection Test July-October 2025
- Started by Minimalist
- Replies: 14
-
Consumer Summary Report 2024- Started by Gandalf_The_Grey
- Replies: 16
-
-
