Test: 'Windows Defender sufficient protection against malware'

Originally published at: https://www.myce.com/news/test-windows-defender-sufficient-protection-against-malware-85832/

According to tests performed by reputable German computer magazine C’T, Windows Defender is sufficient to protect a system against malware. Microsoft heavily invested in the software the last couple of years and it appears to have paid off.

Wow why am I not surprised…by this news…

No matter how much I tell others people keep drinking koolaid from the other side. Also when one uses the older MSE on Win7 or older it does turn the Windows Update on to further protect your system. Something alot of naysayers keep trying to dismiss.

And another freebie it’s free with Windows 10 already you don’t have to pay anyone else to get something that works. This is the point I make time and time again but naysayers keep drinking the koolaid.

According to testing labs its protection is pretty good, it’s false positive and system impact performance however, is not good at all.

I have been using that in general for years as it’s decent enough protection and tends not to mess with things.

but with that said… while I still have Windows 10 installed on my main PC’s primary SSD, I recently switched to Linux Mint v19.1 Xfce (which is running on my backup SSD) as while it’s not immune to malware etc, it’s generally much less likely to get infected with junk to the point people say you generally don’t need a anti-virus for it (but obviously, still be cautious as just don’t randomly install stuff online etc). so for someone who does fairly basic tasks on their computer they would be better off with Linux over Windows, especially for those people who are a bit install happy as they simply won’t be able to install the junk on Linux since what they download will typically be Windows stuff. or put it this way… I would imagine if the average person had Linux their computers would stay in good running order for much longer as it won’t get loaded up with junk.

hell, if it was not for me replaying an occasional game (and a small amount of apps) I would outright dump Windows and switch to Linux.

but one thing going against Linux is that while it’s a powerful OS it does tend to require a bit more knowledge/tinkering than Windows does. but I can say it’s got better hardware detection than Windows 10 does as there is a PCI-E controller card that with Windows I have to install some driver for it where as with Linux it’s automatically detected upon the OS install.

I have been using Windows Defender on my Windows 10 machines for quite some time and it has been my experience that it is comparable for basic antivirus protection as several other free antivirus programs. I do not think that it is as effective at detecting and removing malware so you would be well advised to routinely run a malware detection program periodically. Personally I prefer Malwarebytes which I run prior to creating any system backups because I feel like it does an outstanding job detecting malware. If I was looking for a single, all inclusive, system protection program I would probably consider Bit Defender (either the free or subscription version) or perhaps Norton’s.

Norton is a known bloatware it acts more like malware then a protection.

I quit using Norton’s years ago when it became such a resource hog and was so bloated and I never tried it again. However, some years later I read a review in PC World magazine that indicated there had been significant improvement over earlier versions. The percentages of detected viruses and other malware rated significantly higher than most of the other antivirus programs at the time. I still do not use Norton’s, but I respect the review that was presented in PC World which is why I said PERHAPS Norton’s.

Norton is certainly far more efficient than it used to be and it’s not a resource hog if you go by test lab results. Whether you want the “bloatware” that’s included in the suite is up to you, but in terms of overall impact on the system, it seems to be better than the likes of Kaspersky, Bitdefender and definitely Windows Defender.

On thing to add though, when I tested Norton about a year ago the number of false positives was shockingly bad. May or may not be any better now.