Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Software
Security Apps
Microsoft Defender
Is the improved performance of Microsoft Defender a myth? Should we necessarily be using a 3rd party AV?
Message
<blockquote data-quote="show-Zi" data-source="post: 968233" data-attributes="member: 69581"><p>I've been using Defender(SWH+DUI+VS). We performed regular second opinion scans and found no infections. I have been troubled several times by quarantining online software due to false positives.</p><p>Another pc uses emisi. This is also used in the same way, but there were almost no false positives.</p><p>I think they both did the same job in terms of detection. However, this is influenced by how the user uses the pc. I don't do very adventurous web patrols. Office software is not installed, and most emails are checked on a smartphone.</p><p>Organize my opinion.</p><p>Even a defender can provide sufficient protection. However, the defender was inferior to emishi in other aspects than detection, such as false positives, subsequent actions, and download speed.</p><p>Detection is a pillar of security software, but I think we should consider other aspects such as false positives, subsequent processing, and deceleration by checking when downloading files. In such cases, the Defender is not always the best.</p><p></p><p>Search for a heavy sword in preparation for a battle with a beast you never meet.</p><p>While reading the topic of security software, I sometimes think so.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite109" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="show-Zi, post: 968233, member: 69581"] I've been using Defender(SWH+DUI+VS). We performed regular second opinion scans and found no infections. I have been troubled several times by quarantining online software due to false positives. Another pc uses emisi. This is also used in the same way, but there were almost no false positives. I think they both did the same job in terms of detection. However, this is influenced by how the user uses the pc. I don't do very adventurous web patrols. Office software is not installed, and most emails are checked on a smartphone. Organize my opinion. Even a defender can provide sufficient protection. However, the defender was inferior to emishi in other aspects than detection, such as false positives, subsequent actions, and download speed. Detection is a pillar of security software, but I think we should consider other aspects such as false positives, subsequent processing, and deceleration by checking when downloading files. In such cases, the Defender is not always the best. Search for a heavy sword in preparation for a battle with a beast you never meet. While reading the topic of security software, I sometimes think so.:) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top