Advice Request What is your opinion about Microsoft Windows Defender (Windows 10)?

[low L!fe]

I do not recommend using it as it is easy to encrypt it .(Evade Windows Defender,Paypass Windows Defender Using VeilEvasion
go to norton / Kaspersky/Bitdefender/GDATA /McAfee I think they are better
too the traditional antivirus not enough .
It is preferable for each period to scan your device with another such MalwareBytes/Emsisoft/ESET Online/Super antispyware.
Also, it does not have additional features like other suites

 

[Azure]

My results are almost 100% when doing a full scan and down to 3% just after:
View attachment 235115
So no issues.

That's nice to see. Glad you didn't encounter any issue. If others report the same, then I would know either the problem is with my computer or that Microsoft fixed the problem. Either way, I would be glad.

 

[bayasdev]

Not bad not good but it feels lighter in 20H1 than how it used to be in earlier W10 versions.

 

[Back3]

Been using WD with Configure Defender ( High) for the last six months. Never did a scan with it. Just realtime protection. For scans, I use second opinion apps: Norton Power Eraser and Rogue Killer once a week. Norton found a false positive once. That's all.

 

[Andy Ful]

I will do it. It will take some time because I was never done this before (why should I?).

While scanning, the computer was slower and overall 76% overall 100% CPU usage was consistently kept both on idle and when running applications. WD got a kind of optimization, so it automatically consumed fewer CPU resources if something else was executed, so I could use other applications.
After one hour ( 1137000 files checked) I canceled the full scan. The WD service CPU usage dropped to 20% and WD alerted to quarantine many H_C executables from my intermediate builds (about 300). After adding them to exclusions, the WD service has gone away (0% CPU usage).

Post edited.
The 76% CPU usage was due to my custom CPU options.

 

[oldschool]

I had to re-configure ConfigureDefender CPU load and restart, then I forgot to scan so I'm starting now.

Edit: Lowering the limit to 30% has quieted scanning down considerably. Now @ ~ 10 - 20+%.

 

[Bikeman0I17]

Results of Full Scan

25 Minutes for Full scan

*keep in mind i got other programs open, but Defender Service cpu usage looks really low after scan*

 

[Arequire]

Finish time:

Decades pass. Humanity has begun to colonize the solar system. Thousands of people are living and working on Mars.
Your alarm goes off; it's 7am. You yawn, stretch, and get out of bed. The low whirr of your computer fan fills the room.
You approach the PC and click the mouse. The screen flashes to life. Your eyes widen, your mouth opens, and three simple words spill out:
"Sixty-two percent complete."​

 

[oldschool]

50.51 minutes, 612,000 files on my Lenovo i3 8th gen with 8GB RAM and 1 TB HDD. It slowed my 3 browsers a bit but no big deal.

I realize this won't be acceptable to some members here, which is why we are here to begin with. People use what suits them, as it should be. For average users, probably no big deal because they'll never run a full scan and rarely if ever be bothered with prompts.!

 

[plat]

Happy to oblige.

Cpu is almost max and it impacts everything on the desktop, but not for too long. I don't run Full scans, ever so no throttling. First image is the scan details, the second is the cpu usage in task manager. Obviously, Defender is running wild cpu-wise, but I think you can use Process Lasso or throttle power in Group Policy Editor if you really want to run full scans.

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[codswollip]

25 Minutes for Full scan

Except for a first-time scan, a full scan is less than necessary IMO.

 

[Andy Ful]

@Arequire,
When you use WD with Cloud-delivered protection, you do not need the full scans at all, except when you have been infected (to remove leftovers). WD performs the quick scan from time to time which is fast enough.

 

[BVLon]

@Arequire,
When you use WD with Cloud-delivered protection, you do not need the full scans at all, except when you have been infected (to remove leftovers). WD performs the quick scan from time to time which is fast enough.

Really? Nothing in Defender is fast.

My condolences. You seem do not like to live long.
I wish you will change your mind.

Never. Windows Defender is something that I will never use. Not with the multitude of free AVs out there and with all my mates in them companies.
I like quality and Windows Defender is a mediocre product. It has always been.

 

[Digmor Crusher]

I think last time I did a full scan it was under 15 minutes, but I really don't care because I run a scan like maybe once a month anyways. Its called real-time protection for a reason.

In the not too distant future the only protection that will being run on W10 is Defender, why you ask, I will tell you. Do you buy a Samsung washing machine and when it breaks buy Sony parts? No. So why would anybody run a anti-virus that is not part of the OS?

 

[Evjl's Rain]

IMO, it's almost pointless to perform a scan with WD because it doesn't integrate cloud engine into the scan and the signatures are very weak compared to the cloud
WD works best on execution

furthermore, WD seems to be extremely light when users only perform easy tasks like web browsing -> simply because WD almost has no web filter + network protection doesn't always work => their users say WD is lighter than other third-party AVs with web filter so that's totally unfair
for example, BD or Kaspersky will definitely feel heavier than WD if users only browse the web

WD is not too heavy if users don't work with projects, exe files or transferring data

 

[Digmor Crusher]

Sorry OT.

Tried to post in the Voodoo Shield thread and got this:


"Digmor Crusher, you need to be a "Verified" member to post a new thread or reply in this forum. "

What the hell does this mean?

 

[roger_m]

So why would anybody run a anti-virus that is not part of the OS?

I don't care if the AV I use is part of the operating system or not. What matters to me is that it doesn't slow down my computer and that I can configure it so that it never automatically quarantines anything. While WD is fine in terms of protection, it fails on both of the above points. So I can't see myself using it anytime soon.

 

[Digmor Crusher]

Valid points, fortunately I don't have either of those issues.

 

[oldschool]

IMO, it's almost pointless to perform a scan with WD because it doesn't integrate cloud engine into the scan and the signatures are very weak compared to the cloud
WD works best on execution

furthermore, WD seems to be extremely light when users only perform easy tasks like web browsing -> simply because WD almost has no web filter + network protection doesn't always work => their users say WD is lighter than other third-party AVs with web filter so that's totally unfair
for example, BD or Kaspersky will definitely feel heavier than WD if users only browse the web

WD is not too heavy if users don't work with projects, exe files or transferring data

Exactly my situation. I never do full scans because of realtime cloud protection, as you and others have pointed out time and again - in testing and other threads. Although even the cruel one used to keep it enabled "because it's there." Who knows? maybe she uses Linux or Cubes now.

 

[blackice]

Really? Nothing in Defender is fast.

For me quick scans have been very...well...quick lately. Not that I need them, but it does them periodically and causes me no grief.