Windows Defender Updated!

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by Legendkiller, Mar 14, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Legendkiller

    Legendkiller Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Posts:
    1,052
    Report From Neowin.Net:
    ************************************************************
    Download Page: Link
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 14, 2007
  2. cheater87

    cheater87 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Posts:
    3,125
    Location:
    Pennsylvania.
    I'll still keep Spyware Terminator.
     
  3. Legendkiller

    Legendkiller Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Posts:
    1,052
    i did not find any of those updates mentioned by softpedia's reviewer....just waste of time....
     
  4. HAN

    HAN Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    2,080
    Location:
    USA
    After looking at the "new" version here at work, all they seem to have changed is the installer. ALL of the version numbers (Defender itself, the engine and the definitions) of the "new" Defender and the previous one are the same...
     
  5. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    What about GUI, settings etc?
     
  6. HAN

    HAN Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    2,080
    Location:
    USA
    The same. :)
     
  7. zapjb

    zapjb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Posts:
    3,518
    Location:
    USA - Back in a real State in time for a real Pres
    Still Cr*p!
     
  8. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    I am not a typical MS basher but WD is a poor antispyware.
    MSAS was much better. Shameful.
     
  9. Perman

    Perman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Posts:
    2,160
    Hi, folks: I was a loyal user of Giant AS, then a reluctant keeper of MSAS, turned to a deserter of WD(early version), never had a chance to glance it again until now. Just because WD 7 is available only to Win2003,WinXP and genuine copy users, I feel being treated like a VIP, I gave it another run.
    The result is not too bad, generally speaking. I will keep it for further observation. Keeping an open mind perhaps,IMO, is a better approach towards this MS product. Time will tell. If you have disk room and RAM to spare, why not give it a spin, you may hit a jackpot :) Have a nice one, always.
     
  10. HAN

    HAN Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    2,080
    Location:
    USA
    My feeling is that Defender has a fairly decent real-time scanner. So if it's installed on a clean machine, IMO, it would do a pretty good job of warning you about intrusions. That said, it's cleanup ability is where it has quite a ways to go. (Add that it does not yet work correctly for Limited User accounts. It loads ok, and does trigger warnings on incidents. But it does not prevent events from continuing as it does in an Admin account.)
     
  11. Simon6776

    Simon6776 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Posts:
    282
    Would anyone like to comment on how this new version of WD compares to Spyware Blaster? I currently run SB, but the license is due for renewal in about a month. If WD is comparable, I may not bother with SB. I should stress, these are only intended as backups for my main protection, which is currently the F-Secure suite.
     
  12. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    put it this way f-secure may have a slow boottime and use alot of processes but it will block tons of nasties out there.
    it blocked 3 trojans by the on access scanner in the 2 years i used it
    lodore
     
  13. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    put it this way f-secure may have a slow boottime and use alot of processes but it will block tons of nasties out there.
    it blocked 3 trojans by the on access scanner in the 2 years i used it
    normaly f-secure did work fine for most of the time i used it and now i suspect that the ram was bad back then but i didnt know at that time.
    lodore
     
  14. Simon6776

    Simon6776 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Posts:
    282
    So, your opinion, Lodore, is that neither WD or SB are needed?
     
  15. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    Sb is just an immunizer and u don,t need to pay for it except if u choose for auto-updates. If u do manual updates, free is enough.
     
  16. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    It depends. I can say more if u tell about ur surfing habits, ur browsers, system and security appliances.
     
  17. Simon6776

    Simon6776 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Posts:
    282
    F-Secure Internet Security 2007.

    Mozilla (Sea Monkey) browser.

    System - mid-high spec when built 4 years ago. 1.5Ghz CPU, 1Gb RAM.

    Surfing habits - usually fairly safe. Occasionally wander into torrent territory. Oh, and some dodgy forums. ;) :D

    Yes, but it's fairly cheap for the auto updates, and I prefer that to remembering manual updates.
     
  18. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    SWB > WD ;)
     
  19. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    you dont really need SB
    im not even gonna bother with SB on my new system.
    f-secure should be enough even with sometimes bad habits.
    if you havent already download superantispyware free version and use it for on demand scans.
    if you want to buy a seprate antispyware program get superantispyware pro
    lodore
     
  20. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    .
    Torrents might be risky, not sure, never used.
    As a rule risky surfing can reak through of any security measure. But in my opinion Windows Defender will not protect anything more than F-Secure.
    U can add on-demand AVG antispyware free and SuperAntispyware free.

    As u are using Mozilla, SB not needed. It can only control some cookies( if everI that u can do by ur browser very well.
     
  21. Simon6776

    Simon6776 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Posts:
    282
    OK, thanks guys.

    Aigle, it's not usually the torrents themselves, it's the host websites that can be dodgy, but on a scale of 1 to 10, compared to warez /crack sites, which would be at least 8, if 10 is the riskiest, torrent sites come in at about 3½, providing you don't click on any ad-links. Obviously, anything downloaded is manually scanned before activating.

    Lodore, yes, I had SuperASfree before, so I'll probably reinstall it, but it did seem to have some constant running processes, even though it's not supposed to be resident.
     
  22. cheater87

    cheater87 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Posts:
    3,125
    Location:
    Pennsylvania.
    I have Firefox and I still use SWB.
     
  23. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    it onlu has one process called superantispyware.exe
    once installed go to the prefrences and untick start superantispyware when windows starts then click close
    lodore
     
  24. Simon6776

    Simon6776 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Posts:
    282
    OK, thanks.
     
  25. duke1959

    duke1959 Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Posts:
    1,238
    I thought I read that Windows Defender uses Heuristics for RealTime detection. This in my opinion would make it better for use with Firefox, and better than say AVG Anti-Spyware which uses only signatures for RT detection.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.