Have you ever blindly defended your favorite antivirus, come hell or high water, no matter the reason? I would ask you to post why but don't think there would be many comments.
You could have done this poll by your lonesome just looking through threads here, lol. What will be funny is either A: Watching those that have say they haven't or B: Watching those that admit they have lock up when they're asked to give a good reason. Anyhoo, no I don't defend any vendor to the death. Why? Simple, they're just as capable of being dimwitted and screwing up as anyone else.
I think that you need to address the issues that you seem to have with MSE users who are still determined to run it even after it getting low scores from AV Comparatives. I have been using MSE on various machines for around two & a half years. I could essentially consider it as a favourite anti-virus application program. Out of the four other AVs I have ever run it is the most trouble free, reliable, competent & easy to use. I am relatively concerned about some reports that claim that MSE isn't catching as much malware as other AVs. Even so, it is the only AV that has given me virtually no trouble whatsoever & is incredibly light on the machines I run it on. I have never been infected whilst running MSE & I use it as part of a layered approach. The layers themselves are not particularly sophisticated compared to some, but have proved to be effective. Would I still recommend MSE to the average punter? Yes, I probably would, I think that in the real world MSE can hold its own as part of layered approach to security. Its advantages outweigh its apparent failings (for me). Is this 'blindly' defending it & does this make me a 'White Knight'? I honestly don't know.
Indeed I'm blacknight but in the past I was tempted to defend Avira also if it seems don't have more the best detection, because it was the first great free av, and it worked fine for me. But I didn't defend eventually. Plato is my friend, but truth is a better friend
