Windows Defender Is Becoming the Powerful Antivirus That Windows 10 Needs

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Secondmineboy, Jan 30, 2016.

  1. anon

    anon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Posts:
    7,982
    In my case (CPU:Intel Atom N450, 1.66GHz / Memory:1GB / Win 10), I can say the opposite.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2017
  2. guest

    guest Guest

    In my case (CPU:AMD A4 / Memory:1GB / Win 10), the minimal gain won't justify the hassle of a 3rd party vendor which may occasionally smash the system or lock you out of it. Just my opinion anyway :).

    i could install Appguard or ERP however
     
  3. plat1098

    plat1098 Guest

    That's good, very reassuring. My questions were more along the lines of having to go to multiple locations in Windows in order to get the maximum out of the setup. Right? The steps may not be obvious/convenient for many users who may be used to one interface to control everything. Microsoft shouldn't be so mysterious about these procedures re:those who want/need their security versus third party. :)
     
  4. guest

    guest Guest

    Win10 take the direction to put all security functions under one panel, this will help average user. they call it "security control center" or something like that.
     
  5. Anarion

    Anarion Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2012
    Posts:
    36
    Location:
    Finland
    In my experience Windows Defender is so slow that Norton is on another level (probably the rest that have small impact too). Windows Defender has very noticeable negative impact in various situations.
     
  6. guest

    guest Guest

    yes because WD monitor files on access, while some others are set or can be set to moniter files on execution or modification. i only observed slowdowns with WD when i open a folder for the first time after boot, then after i dont see much noticeable slowdowncompare to others. maybe im to used to WD that is look negligible to me.
     
  7. plat1098

    plat1098 Guest

    This continues to astonish me, it's like one extreme or the other. Like some other people here, I chose to keep Defender because third party sec. tends to mess up my Windows. There's no impact with Def. at all whereas other sec. has that gelatinous feel, like there's too much real time moving around and conflicting with other software. You know what I mean? There was a study that someone posted in another thread demonstrating that Defender was by far the most detrimental on performance. Really surprising.
     
  8. Spartan

    Spartan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    1,424
    Location:
    Dubai
    Heck, for me, a simple thing, I have a software folder which has a lot of portable apps, each folder within that main folder has its own custom icon like for CCleaner, AIDA64, etc. if I have Windows Defender, everytime I open that folder, the icons load in slow motion as if I was running a Pentium II CPU! Disable Windows Defender and even install any other AV and the icons all load instantly! Heck I've even added the entire Software folder I talked about to the exclusions list of Windows Defender.
     
  9. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,741
    Location:
    UK
    I think the key here is that no two machines are exactly the same. There are so many system configurations that is it any wonder we hear that product X is slow on one computer but not on another. In the case of Windows Defender, it must be the same software on any given Windows 10 machine so one assumes it can't be that which leaves us to believe it is something else on that machine. I'd love to see a comparative study between machines to try and find the common denominator as to why it would appear software like WD appears to be a hog on some machines and not others. I doubt this could be done because there are far too many variables and system configs to take into account.
     
  10. guest

    guest Guest

    that is the downside of the called "scan on access" so it is expected even with some others AVs if set this way. WD is not the fastest for this kind of situation, well known "problem" of WD.
    However on normal use, i don't see noticeable slowdowns like i had with some other AVs.

    many test labs do "performance test ", i dont trust them for various reeasons , but from their report WD results are not so bad.
     
  11. plat1098

    plat1098 Guest

  12. Spartan

    Spartan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    1,424
    Location:
    Dubai
    look at this bro, WD (Microsoft)) is the heaviest at the end

    It always confuses me when people on other forums keep saying it's light........

    What I do like about it though that it has no HTTP scanning so my internet browsing / downloads don't slow down. All I want is a good file scanner. WD and F-Secure AV seem like the only option here. If I disable HTTP Scanning in NOD32 I don't like getting that amber icon in the taskbar makes me feel something is wrong. Avira can have the web shield not installed but I stopped using it because of the Avira Launcher
     
  13. FleischmannTV

    FleischmannTV Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Posts:
    1,094
    Location:
    Germany
    I find those two consecutive alerts in the notification center after each scan very annoying, especially since nothing was found.
     
  14. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    8,624
    Location:
    USA
    I believe the people that think Windows Defender is light just don't recognize what it is doing as the UI doesn't reflect any kind of activity. When their computer is slow they think it is just slow hardware or some other issue. I've seen it literally freeze PCs at work for minutes at a time while it scans files. I would like to like it, it's free after all. Unfortunately I can't use it until they optimize it or give the user more control or both.
     
  15. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    14,881
    Location:
    Slovenia, EU
    I also don't like that icon. Now I just disable http scanning for specific apps (mainly browsers). This way it doesn't scan network traffic and at the same time the icon stays unchanged.
     
  16. Spartan

    Spartan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    1,424
    Location:
    Dubai
    ohh thanks for this tip I didn't know that would work :)
     
  17. Spartan

    Spartan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2016
    Posts:
    1,424
    Location:
    Dubai
    Totally agree there, they probably think it's light because they don't know how their computer can perform without it, then they'd think wow! this is like a hardware update once they disable it or change to another AV
     
  18. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    14,881
    Location:
    Slovenia, EU
    You're welcome. I've sent you PM with some more info. :)
     
  19. Krusty

    Krusty Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Posts:
    10,209
    Location:
    Among the gum trees
    I think it is light because there is hardly any difference between having Norton or WD installed and running on this machine. Norton is no longer the pre-2009 AV it was.
     
  20. Anarion

    Anarion Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2012
    Posts:
    36
    Location:
    Finland
    I have bunch of folders (with application shortcuts in them) put in my task bar and opening those with Windows Defender is painful. No issues with Norton. Avast was definitely faster than WD but still way slower than Norton (that being said I have not tried Avast in two+ years). Installing apps is one use case where I noticed that WD has really high performance impact. Resource usage wise Norton definitely wins too (though that's kinda irrelevant these days unless PC has 4GB RAM or less).
     
  21. plat1098

    plat1098 Guest

    I've disabled Defender, enabled Defender, no difference, great performance. There are also two permanent real time security apps that are utterly transparent. There are relatively few processes on this machine (24-30) and not a lot of permanent 3rd party software. That's why Windows Defender is so dreamy on here, there's nothing going on. zzzzzzzz.
     
  22. roger_m

    roger_m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Posts:
    8,627
    I consistantly find that WD causes very noticable slowdowns at times. I'm mostly working with older computers with Core 2 Duo processors, and typically when they are running slower than they should, WD is the cause. A couple of days ago, I did a clean install of Windows 10 on an old laptop. I opened Task Manager when the computer was downloading Windows Updates, and WD's CPU use was ranging from between 26 to 47%. A few minutes later, CPU dropped with it mostly being 0 to 2%, but there were occasional spikes of up to 22%.

    While Windows Defender is not as heavy as some antiviruses which seem to put a constant load on a computer, at times on slower computers it can cause noticable slowdowns. I've witnessed this behaviour on many computers. Of course, if your computer is fast enough for WD to not slow it down, it is an excellent choice. But for slower computers I feel there a better alternatives, which will never cause noticable slowdowns.
     
  23. Martin_C

    Martin_C Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2014
    Posts:
    525
    @plat1098 :
    When worded like that, it sounds like something exotic. :)

    I have been running a pure Microsoft security setup for years and years now and still am - never any problems.
    Every setup I do for others are pure Microsoft security - never any problems.
    At work we run pure Microsoft security - never any problems.

    Here at Wilders there are tons of MSE/Defender users. Quite a few of them are very frequent posters. The majority of them just don't mention their AV quite as often as users of other AVs does.

    From a security point of view you have nothing to worry about.
    So many years both privately and at work with such setups - any possible problems would have surfaced by now. But there aren't any.

    The beauty of it is that everything in your OS functions as intended.
    And with each OS update, every aspect of the native security works as intended. The teams behind it are all part of the OS development, so they are never caught by surprise as Windows evolves.
    To me - nothing is more important. :thumb:

    Part of the problem is that to anyone that has poked around Windows for years, then the placement of everything feels natural and it's difficult to imagine that anyone could have a hard time finding a setting.
    I think it's like that with all things in life.
    But like others have mentioned in thread, Creators Update in a few months will bring Windows Defender Security Center.
    That will definitely make it a lot more user friendly for anyone that prefer only having to look in one place for peace of mind.
     
  24. guest

    guest Guest

    My system is optimized, unneeded services are disabled, only needed processes are running, i use mostly portables apps and i don't put hundreds of exe in the same folder and surely not put them on C:, etc...

    i don't know for others , but on my system , i don't see it crawling as you explained, folders and windows open normally, if there is a slowdown, it would be in Milliseconds , which i honestly don't care.
    As said above, i even tested the difference with Webroot and ESET (supposed to be the lightest) , the difference is minimal.

    Every system is different what is true on one is the opposite on another. Every user has a different approach on how his security should be and should perform and what they are willing to sacrifice for it.
    For me what is important is the integrity and leanness of my system , and for this , i know that no 3rd party AVs can replace WD for that; with it, i don't have to worry about drivers, added files and registry entries, or system files False Positives that smash my system and those crazy kernel hooks that reduce the OS integrity & security which may lead to frequent BSODs.

    I have to say i don't like AV and real time engines (for the various reason above, and experiences i had with many of them while beta-testing them), but WD is part of the native security in Win10, does it job properly, and is transparent to me so i kept it.
     
  25. plat1098

    plat1098 Guest

    True, and where I speak from, it's the regular users who may not have the time/inclination to go searching in the registry for that PUP tweak or even know tweaks for better security via Defender exist. I'm maybe half a step away from regular user so I slop some third party stand alones to fill any gaps. There's still this notion that Defender is sub-par in some crucial ways and it's difficult to shake. I bet the new build coming up will go far to shake that just by changing it to a more cohesive interface.

    Thanks for the good info!
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.