WSA + Crystal Security?

[shmu26]

Is the active protection of Crystal Security a good complement to WSA?
I am asking specifically about the active protection module.
If this is not a good solution, what is?
I am looking for a solution that leaves the system quick and responsive, even if it does not provide bullet-proof protection.
I am presently running WSA, with MBAE premium and glasswire free, on win10 pro x64.
So far, the system is pretty light and responsive, and I have avoided solutions like kaspersky and bitdefender, which tend to entangle themselves pretty deeply into the system, and can potentially cause problems and conflicts at some future (or present) point.

 

[Soulbound]

Stick to WSA on its own, no need to add CS into the mix.
Or go WD route.

Both you can keep MBAE.


WSA is still far superior to CS.

 

[shmu26]

I would guess that WSA on its own is stronger than WD + CS.

 

[Soulbound]

I would guess that WSA on its own is stronger than WD + CS.

WD on its own is fine as it is as well.

 

[shmu26]

so why does WD get bashed so much? because AV companies will be out of business?

 

[Soulbound]

so why does WD get bashed so much? because AV companies will be out of business?

several reasons, I will list some:
*Gets bashed or even ignored in testing made public (which does not in any way translate into Real World experience)
*At least 80% of the bashers are biased and jump on the WD and McAfee is subpar bandwagon (while at least 10% of the users use WD and don't see a reason to use any other security product, while remaining 10% can't care less (this from a total of the population who actually have knowledge about it)
*Some features on other Freemium and Paid solutions are not found in WD.

WD on its own is fine, but doesn't have all the bells and whistles.

 

[shmu26]

several reasons, I will list some:
*Gets bashed or even ignored in testing made public (which does not in any way translate into Real World experience)
*At least 80% of the bashers are biased and jump on the WD and McAfee is subpar bandwagon (while at least 10% of the users use WD and don't see a reason to use any other security product, while remaining 10% can't care less (this from a total of the population who actually have knowledge about it)
*Some features on other Freemium and Paid solutions are not found in WD.

WD on its own is fine, but doesn't have all the bells and whistles.

how does one evaluate real world experience?

 

[Soulbound]

how does one evaluate real world experience?

loading your system with samples and see detection rate + prevention + cleaning is not real world experience.

How many infections one user will have on one day of casual browsing?

I believe others can explain in other words better than me regarding this topic.

 

[shmu26]

I meant to ask like this:
how do we know that WD and WSA do well in real world?

 

[Soulbound]

I meant to ask like this:
how do we know that WD and WSA do well in real world?

their detection rate is fine based on my previous comment:

How many infections one user will have on one day of casual browsing?

Which for that matter, most AV solutions are fine: avast, forticlient, AVG, McAfee, Symantec, Kaspersky, ESET and the list goes on...

 

[Azure]

Stick to WSA on its own, no need to add CS into the mix.
Or go WD route.

Both you can keep MBAE.


WSA is still far superior to CS.

Why? Isn't that product supposed to be used as a compliment to another security product.

 

[Soulbound]

Why? Isn't that product supposed to be used as a compliment to another security product.

You refer to WSA or CS being supposed to be used as compliment to another security product?

WSA can be both and its features overshadow CS.

You can use CS but will net you hardly any improvement if any.

 

[Azure]

You refer to WSA or CS being supposed to be used as compliment to another security product?

WSA can be both and its features overshadow CS.

You can use CS but will net you hardly any improvement if any.

I was referring to CS. Thanks for your reply btw.

 

[Soulbound]

One thing might have been misunderstood in this thread so I will clarify: By no means I refer to Crystal Security being an obsolete program. In its own is indeed a good product and I would definitely use it along with some solutions, just not WSA.

 

[jamescv7]

Its not overkill combination but still it depends on the choice, WSA is more establish than CS which indeed design for companion base.

WSA contains numerous features that can stand as AV alone even on offline matters.

 

[Deleted member 178]

Stick to WSA on its own, no need to add CS into the mix.
Or go WD route.
Both you can keep MBAE.

i agree with this, WSA + MBAM is good enough, CS will not afford much.

 

[TheJokerz]

I have been using WSA and MBAM for years now and have pretty good luck with it. It seems to work well for me!

 

[blueblackwow65]

I am using WSA and CS and both are working good