Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Secondmineboy, Jan 30, 2016.
Thank you, roger_m
@act8192 You're welcome.
It is accessed in the group policy editor. Gpedit.msc from an administrator command prompt.
Didn't Microsoft abandon a previous virus protection program? Hum now they claim this is the one for Windows10? Okay if ya all buy this then good luck to ya,
What program did they abandon?
Also not scanning zip files is useless. a zip file cant harm you can it? DO any of you remember all the great people they hired? I can remember two.
Russ from Sysinternals and EP_XOFF the creator of rootkits and Rootkit Unhooker. You would think that alone would make a big difference in the OS and any security programs they are innovating. I am still wondering why they never hired another one of the best: Kevin from BoClean
Scanning ZIP archives on-access is unnecessary wasting of resources. Only time when you want to scan ZIP archives is on transient file/data server. Files inside ZIP's are harmless until they get unpacked. Which is when malware gets detected.
Maybe @wildman was thinking about Giant Antispyware. Microsoft bought Giant, killed it, and gave us Defender
Given the same test mentioned in the article, I chose the free version of Panda.
Thanks! See it. How to use it is a whole other story. I'll have to reread a lot of threads here.
You have to create a rule set for it which isn't as difficult as it looks. When you do, there is a default allow execution rule for the Windows and Program Files folders. I add to that a rule to deny execution in the Users folder and all its subfolders and in the Windows\Temp folder. There is more that could be tweaked but that that is a good starting point. Rules can be created for both .exes and scripts.
This shows that the AV's are only as good as the crowd/community because they sent the samples into the cloud which the AV then can scan/detect. Besides HIPS and other stuff they are mostly all the same and working the same. I don't see any argument why someone not recommend to use Defender, it's clean/fast and not confuses people like many other products.
That's not the case at all. The difference in system impact varies greatly from one product to the next.
How about the fact it makes my Core 2 Duo laptops run a lot slower at times? That's more than enough reason for me to use an alternative. I perfer to use an antivurus which is so light that there is never any noticable impact. On a Core i5 powered laptop I have, which I've only used briefly, Windows Defender has been very light (with no noticable system impact). However, as I said, I've barely used that laptop, and need more time get a complete picture.
I doubt that the engines work quite different (not without any proof) because to open/unpack and scan stuff into memory are mostly the same (as an example) the implementation can be different I agree because other coding languages but overall it's the same.
How about the fact that every AV affects you're PC performance while it scans stuff? What's the news? That's more than enough for me to not use any AV. I highly doubt that someone really notice any AV on i5 that much, because most stuff is depending on RAM and HDD speed and not processing power since the calculation for CPU does only matters if additional stuff was enabled like HIPS.
Wanna bet that on a 4.5GHz hexa core CPU, 32GB of RAM and hybrid HDD+SSD setup? Because WD is still very slow and I can notice the slowdown quite a bit when opening never before scanned folders. Or Steam client for the first time...
I dont think WD has changed much, is just a bit of PR.
Still the forced scheduled full scans for no apparent reason.
Infrequent signature updates.
Nothing except signature and heuristic based scanning, which to be fair is all I expect a anti virus to do, but I dont see any evidence of it doing anything else.
Regarding performance of WD:
@CHEFKOCH The system impact really does vary greatly between different antiviruses. Some antiviruses make my computer run much slower all of the time - not just when doing a scan. Just about all antiviruses make my computer run noticably slower at least some of the time, even when they are not doing a scan. It is very rare for an antivirus to never noticably slow down my computer. Of course, if I had a more powerful computer, then the impact of antivitruses would be less. But, I have no need for anything faster than a Core 2 Duo processor, as it's more than fast enough for anything I use it for.
Some antiviruses cause slow downs due to high CPU use, and some cause slow downs due to excessive disk use, while using very little CPU time.
Actually that doesn't surprise me all, considering how much WD slowed down my Core 2 Duo laptop. I was quite surprised when I found WD was very light on my i5 powered laptop.
Seriously all i can say is on windows 10 on my machines (as well as older windows) WD bogs down the system noticeably, its not as bad as webroot and comodo. But avast is a lot faster, and eset is by far faster. Yet on those tests they claim WD beats both.
I also observe WD appears to have no type of cache mechanism, so it slows down executables all the time not just first time like avast.
WD is crap ware please get real...
Well I don't know how accurate such test's are because it is tested with default settings and I generally still not see it, it's not perfect but I wouldn't say it's bad. For tools like Visual Studio or others that needs a lot of I/O I suggest to exclude it (and not only with defender).
Agreed but sounds more like memory leak or CPU eating bug which is possible on every Av, I could now search for bugs and I'm sure everyone got such problems in the past/present but I would not say it's a bad product or 'slows' down an i5 .. or we have different fews of 'slow down'.
Actually its not. It doesnt take a RS to see that in the last 12 -16 months Microsoft is doing what is needed to make it anything but, crapware.
You are not reading the test correctly, the lower the value the better.
WD has caching, but the initial scan is horrendously slow compared to lets say avast! that just sweeps over the files.
Separate names with a comma.