roger_m

Level 30
Verified
Content Creator
Defender will work very well for 99% of computers, if it doesn't work for you then maybe you've tweaked your computer too much or your one of the very few where it just doesn't work on your rig.
I find it to be too heavy for my liking on a lot of low end systems. While I have no complaints about it's detection rate, I typically replace it with a lighter antivirus, to avoid slowdowns,
 

Upendra19

Level 4
This is an abnormal behavior 🤔 How much ram do you have on your PC?
I have 8GB RAM with i5 8250U processor.

Defender will work very well for 99% of computers, if it doesn't work for you then maybe you've tweaked your computer too much or your one of the very few where it just doesn't work on your rig. The 1% of uses that have issues with W10 squawk way more than the other 99%.
It was fresh installation of Windows 10 2004. On Windows 10 1909 there was no such problem. So I have to go back to F Secure.
 

Evjl's Rain

Level 45
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Yah, a very small portion of users will have issues, but so will basically every other AV solution have some type of issue with a percentage of users.
the problem is WD is always running by default so most users won't notice the difference between having an AV or not having one
also, many users tend to compare WD, which has no web filter, and other internet security suites, which has many features + web filter. Then, they state that the suites slow down their browsing/downloading speed => I believe this is so unfair
there is no way Kaspersky (for example) has faster browsing speed than WD. However, Kaspersky can be faster than WD after being tweaked and with web filter disabled (virtually nobody does that)

in fact, I have been installing windows on several machines, mostly on weak laptops + 5400rpm HDD. When I forgot to disable WD after installing windows (to install essential softwares), I always noticed it took significantly more time. Disabling WD reduced the installation time by half or 1/3.
By the way, almost all AVs do slow down our PC noticeably. The difference between PC with or without AV is huge, even with a light AV
That's why there are so many people enjoy using their PC free of any AV
 

SeriousHoax

Level 29
Verified
Malware Tester
many users tend to compare WD, which has no web filter, and other internet security suites, which has many features + web filter. Then, they state that the suites slow down their browsing/downloading speed => I believe this is so unfair
Doesn't it have some kind of web filter in the name of network protection. Because I've seen it blocking websites/host but on very very rare occasion. Though it is not a typical web filter but it does have the ability to filter somethings but I don't know how it works compared to other AVs.
 

Evjl's Rain

Level 45
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Doesn't it have some kind of web filter in the name of network protection. Because I've seen it blocking websites/host but on very very rare occasion. Though it is not a typical web filter but it does have the ability to filter somethings but I don't know how it works compared to other AVs.
it's almost non-existent. I have tested it many times and it always got bad results
I don't know how it works but I recall it requires a tweak to turn it on. It's off by default
 

monkeylove

Level 4
There are several tests that show that it doesn't do very well in terms of protection and performance. In my case, I recall experience a slowdown with it in contrast to free versions of other antivirus programs, and I tried to use Novabench and others to confirm it. I also tried other antivirus programs.

You can probably do the same if you have enough time. Otherwise, you'll have to rely on what those tests reveal.
 

Raiden

Level 18
Verified
Content Creator
Doesn't it have some kind of web filter in the name of network protection. Because I've seen it blocking websites/host but on very very rare occasion. Though it is not a typical web filter but it does have the ability to filter somethings but I don't know how it works compared to other AVs.

There is Network Protection which acts as sort of a web filter, but that is disabled by default. The real web-filter is smartscreen for Edge, which is quite good. MS is assuming that the person is using Edge, hence why smartscreen is there, however, a lot of people use 3rd party browsers, so smartscreen (the web-filter aspect) won't be of any use to those people. Network protection can help there, however I am not an expert on how it works, maybe @Andy Ful can elaborate on it further. Most major browsers offer decent browsing protection by default, however one could add an extension (BDTL, Malwarebytes, Emsisoft, etc...) to further their protection if they want to use WD and a 3rd party browser.

The one thing that gets confusing with WD and W10 security in general is that it's not set up like a traditional security suite. Everything is spread out to different parts of the OS, all working together to provide protection like a 3rd party suite. It's a different way of thinking because we are all use to suites where everything is included as one program, not spread out like WD/W10. This doesn't mean WD is necessarily better, or the best solution for everyone, but overall it's quite capable and will fit the bill for the majority of users. Nothing is ever perfect, so as I always say, use the solution that best meets your needs.(y)
 

Local Host

Level 22
Verified
On my system with 8gb ram it almost never goes above 100 mb and on idle usually sits between 50-60 mb on task manager. You face an unfortunate bug/memory leak.
That is not normal, WD uses 150MB on average (on standby, no updates nor scans running) with 200MB of reserved RAM.

Kaspersky and ESET are the only ones I tested with less than 100MB of usage.

1595691216354.png


Left red value in use (not including shared processes, that is all WD alone), and right yellow value is reserved (for WD).
 

SeriousHoax

Level 29
Verified
Malware Tester
That is not normal, WD uses 150MB on average (on standby, no updates nor scans running) with 200MB of reserved RAM.

Kaspersky and ESET are the only ones I tested with less than 100MB of usage.

View attachment 244632

Left red value in use (not including shared processes, that is all WD alone), and right yellow value is reserved (for WD).
As I wrote, I was taking about task manager value only as I believe Upendra19 was checking the ram usage on his system's task manager. So I just compared his to mine. About working set, private bytes, my value is similar to your screenshot. ESET is the only AV I've seen whose working set is always higher than private bytes on my system and I don't know why.
 
Last edited:

Cortex

Level 23
Verified
I think it's great now for everyone that no PC should be without a reasonable AV - In the past often a system would be totally unprotected, the more users that have an AV is better for us all - WD just isn't for me but maybe i'm just from years ago? It was garbage for a long time, no longer.
 
Top