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
Inactive Support Threads
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
Windows Defender Antivirus awarded as "best antivirus"
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ForgottenSeer 72227" data-source="post: 828848"><p>Very well deserved IMHO. MS has done a lot to improve WD and still continues to do so. It performs fairly constantly across many test and I am assuming that most of these tests are done at default settings like most tests. While I do agree that MS does leave a little to be desired when it comes to changing settings, but at least there are still settings to tweak.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite110" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> Quite frankly just using Configure defender will do it for you in like 3 seconds. Performance wise, it has improved quite a bit over the years as well and seems to keep getting better and better IMHO.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think it's quite simply that the old stigma about WD is still very present and some just don't want to believe that it is far better now, than it was before. Some will point to YouTube to post examples of it failing, but YouTube really isn't a good place to base decisions on IMHO and this is for all programs, not just WD. Like [USER=23015]@Nightwalker[/USER] said, tests in generally for all products should be taken with a grain of salt anyways. People are starting to come around to liking/accepting WD, but will still take some time. It's no different than when Norton finally turned things around, it's bad reputation stuck around for quite a while before people starting accepting that it did indeed get better.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed!</p><p></p><p>While it would be nice to have easy access to these settings via the interface, MS has done it this way for their own reasons. Quite frankly I think they just don't want people messing with it and potentially creating issues for themselves, especially if they don't know what they are doing. In all honesty, most programs have their default settings out of the box, which is to be a good balance between protection and performance. While many have easy access to change them if one so chooses, but lets be honest, most average users don't even go in to the settings, so I would hazard to guess that most people are just using default settings.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's true that when you look at everything as whole, the OS is indeed very capable of protecting itself. To b fair though, no program (WD, or any 3rd party) can give you 100% protection every time. Those who believe that they are getting 100% protection by using x product is really only fooling themselves. Your habits will really be the biggest factor in determining if one gets infected IMO. Follow good practices, chances are you will be malware free, practice poor habits, your luck will run out at some point, no matter which program you are using.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think part of the reason is that PUP's really aren't necessarily "malware", it's very much a grey area. Furthermore, I think the reason as to why WD and others have/had it off was there seemed to be this fear that they may get dragged to court because their software flagged a program as a PUP. It seems silly, but I think this may be the reason as to why PUP protection has traditionally been off by default in many programs. Heck even Google chrome could be considered a PUP if it is bundled with another piece of software and the user didn't have, or want Chrome. So, you can see why it's always be a difficult area. Maybe one day MS will change this setting, but for now they must have their reasons.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ForgottenSeer 72227, post: 828848"] Very well deserved IMHO. MS has done a lot to improve WD and still continues to do so. It performs fairly constantly across many test and I am assuming that most of these tests are done at default settings like most tests. While I do agree that MS does leave a little to be desired when it comes to changing settings, but at least there are still settings to tweak.;) Quite frankly just using Configure defender will do it for you in like 3 seconds. Performance wise, it has improved quite a bit over the years as well and seems to keep getting better and better IMHO. I think it's quite simply that the old stigma about WD is still very present and some just don't want to believe that it is far better now, than it was before. Some will point to YouTube to post examples of it failing, but YouTube really isn't a good place to base decisions on IMHO and this is for all programs, not just WD. Like [USER=23015]@Nightwalker[/USER] said, tests in generally for all products should be taken with a grain of salt anyways. People are starting to come around to liking/accepting WD, but will still take some time. It's no different than when Norton finally turned things around, it's bad reputation stuck around for quite a while before people starting accepting that it did indeed get better. Agreed! While it would be nice to have easy access to these settings via the interface, MS has done it this way for their own reasons. Quite frankly I think they just don't want people messing with it and potentially creating issues for themselves, especially if they don't know what they are doing. In all honesty, most programs have their default settings out of the box, which is to be a good balance between protection and performance. While many have easy access to change them if one so chooses, but lets be honest, most average users don't even go in to the settings, so I would hazard to guess that most people are just using default settings. It's true that when you look at everything as whole, the OS is indeed very capable of protecting itself. To b fair though, no program (WD, or any 3rd party) can give you 100% protection every time. Those who believe that they are getting 100% protection by using x product is really only fooling themselves. Your habits will really be the biggest factor in determining if one gets infected IMO. Follow good practices, chances are you will be malware free, practice poor habits, your luck will run out at some point, no matter which program you are using. I think part of the reason is that PUP's really aren't necessarily "malware", it's very much a grey area. Furthermore, I think the reason as to why WD and others have/had it off was there seemed to be this fear that they may get dragged to court because their software flagged a program as a PUP. It seems silly, but I think this may be the reason as to why PUP protection has traditionally been off by default in many programs. Heck even Google chrome could be considered a PUP if it is bundled with another piece of software and the user didn't have, or want Chrome. So, you can see why it's always be a difficult area. Maybe one day MS will change this setting, but for now they must have their reasons. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
