Windows Defender Is Becoming the Powerful Antivirus That Windows 10 Needs

+1
IE head-to-head with Windows Media Player

 

yep , i removed most of the legacy features

 

Problem is that WD is updating its signatures through WU => only once a day, should be twice. But you can easily set that up. No
gpedit: Computerconfiguartie, Management templates, windows Updaten, frequentie for automatische updateshttps://i.imgur.com/f9Qbtgr.png

 

Mmmm, I suspect using native Microsoft security would lead to greater revenue indirectly, as from use of the Store, which is also expanding in interesting ways. With this idea, you'd think Microsoft should be objecting, but silence. It's always fundamentally about the cash, always, though I'm sure Microsoft wants this: { M$} to disappear off the face of the earth, it messes with the elegant corporate image. lol.

Edited for grammar and stuff!

 

seems updating via the center is more reliable.

 

Enterprise will surely subscribe to Windows Defender APT

 

Is it? Mine only updates once a day if I am lucky.

I also enabled the PUP detection with no issues. It does not past the AMTSO Phishing test but I expected that.

 

not the number of time a day, but seems faster to get them than via WU.

 

Ahh ok I hear you. yeah coming through via WU is slow as molasses.

 

LOL, couldn't have said it any better. Those Win Defender fan-boys should stop making fools of themselves. This test isn't about UAC and Win SmartScreen, it's about the effectiveness of AV's, nothing more and nothing less. It's not rocket science. And Win Defender did a pretty bad job, deal with it.

 

@Rasheed187 And you still doesn't get it right?

My point is you don't compare a single scanner with a full featured product having BB/HIPS/sandbox/webfilter... and honestly i don't care of WD being the best or not (because i don't like AVs, plain BS to me) but things must be done fairly.
Compare WD with other single scanners and i won't say anything.

It is expected that WD will be low ranked because it wasn't designed to block all 0-day in the world but only prevalent malware. It was made so every Win8/10 user get a simple, hassle-free and decent protection.
Most beginners i met enjoyed having WD, they all said they are no more infected as before. WD isn't the best , but it does its job properly.

 

Windows Defender was designed to work along side Smart Screen on a fully patched OS. It will always test lower when Smart Screen is disabled but it isn't a fault of WD, that's just how it is designed.

 

exact, Thanks to mention it, im so tired to repeat this point to people who doesn't even understand the built-in security of Win10...

 

Smartscreen may complain about not being connected to the Internet. Whitelist it.

 

No need to be humble, Windows Defender is the best as it's properly integrated and doesn't break Windows security model. Only AV that does things right and doesn't make the OS less secure.

SmartScreen is a part of Defender, it's kinda obvious since you control SmartScreen through Defender's configuration. It's an equivalent of 3-P AVs' ***** web protection, it's just properly integrated.

 

+1 and they call us fanboys where it is just common sense and experience.

Told this here since ages...but i guess i need to use a drill to push it through the skull

 

I think it's not fair to label "fanboys" to whom discuss about WD on its, let's say, "own thread". What I see here is many 3rd party AV users "visiting" WD topics (which is not bad, of course). Now, speaking of "effectiveness of av's", if you really want a fair test and you don't like to see WD users complaining on the MRG's methodology (disabling Windows's UAC, SS, etc) you should ask the tester to do the same with [type your favorite AV here] and start disabling its whole extra protection features to see what happens.
In other words, throw the swimmer in the water without his arms and legs and cheer him to victory using only his trunk.

 

2 possibilities:

1- the tester doesn't even know that the swimmer need his legs and arms...
2- the tester has a contract with other swimmers and want one to drown...

And since the tester need cash to test...

 

The independent testers should conduct two forms of tests for all vendors.
1) As is done already with Microsoft extra security features off
2) With Microsoft extra security features on.
The second test will closer reflect reality since most punters do not switch Microsoft features off.
I assume Windows Defender will benefit most from the second test, and the gap between Microsoft and the strongest commercial programs will narrow considerably.

 

+1
Perfect scenario

 

Should, would, could. Yet quarter after quarter, the same paradigm. I spoke to this months ago. These studies are a variation of advertising but are cloaked in "scientific" garb, right? . If the horse's mouth would speak, it would be the key to unlock the door to understanding why this is set up to skew results in favor of third party software. In testing and statistical analyses, any subjectivity is contamination. Monetizing is a contamination. Don't think for a second the above "perfect scenario" wasn't considered by the test organizations, they chose to run it like that, most likely.

 

+2

They could do it, i'm sure they know they can do it, but if they do as we said, Average Joe won't see the need of a 3rd party AV as a necessity but more as a "bonus" then 3rd Party vendors won't be happy , then the lab won't get "funds"...

 

lol you beat me by a second

 

People in general are enchanted by colorful graphs, charts and other "scientific" representations. They are powerful marketing tools. Very few would question if it involves, gasp, antivirus software! Besides, who cares, right? My opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_graph