Why Windows Defender may be one of the best AVs but it seems it isn't?

[shmu26]

what WD is missing is BB to block the zero-days, and it's a very good thing it's missing, because BB often blocks clean software, too.
If you want your OS and your software to work right, use WD.
And if you want to also be really secure, use a default-deny solution of some type.

 

[Wave]

what WD is missing is BB to block the zero-days, and it's a very good thing it's missing, because BB often blocks clean software, too.
If you want your OS and your software to work right, use WD.
And if you want to also be really secure, use a default-deny solution of some type.

That's what I mean! Not everyone knows how to work a BB and they'll get confused, it'll cause more problems than good... plus more performance decrease. I think it is a good thing that WD is only just a real-time scanner with an on-demand scan, it is good for me like me who don't want anything additional to that.

Plus mixed with UAC + SmartScreen = even better.

 

[Wave]

Windows Defender performance isn't that great. In testing, it varies from about 50 % to 90 %s. It needs to be supplemented. Software Restriction Policy fortifies Windows Defender quite a bit.

Well it's different for me, varies depending on system specs too. For me WD is fine and feels more lightweight than other products on the market like Avira, ESET, Emsisoft, Avira and Kaspersky.