Cnet: Is Windows Defender Good Enough for Win8

forums.cnet.com/7723-33042_102-582140/is...g=nl.e497&s_cid=e497

Had to post! Win Defender on earlier versions. NO. This version, I'd like to think so, but I've gotta laugh for now hoping it is. Security Essentials, isnt bad. But I'd rather go with a Paid Version of something.

Forums been kinda quiet... Good topic starter.

What do you think of the opinions? I'd love to get a debate going!

Just because something is a paid version does not make it better then free solutions.

Only 1 response can't have a debate. Come on keep it coming folks!

That is one way to look at it, If we bring in Avast Pro as Paid program versus regular, studies show the Pro does a better job because you have all "modules" of protection unlocked.

renegade wrote: Just because something is a paid version does not make it better then free solutions.

Pretty much sums it up completely.

Until I see major corporations and schools running it, I'm saying a paid version is the way to go. And I have seen some stories that really nasty rogue malware disable it more easily than the others. Paid or other "free" programs are the way to go in my humble opinion (bows respectfully)

I have used Avast free version for years now and have been happy with it. Never say a need to go paid. If I'm working on someone else's computer i usually scan it first with Malewarebtes, but even then its still a free trial version

For me my favorite two routes are Eset Nod32 Antivirus Paid - preferred. I love this product and it runs very lightly and quietly.
If I have to go the free route for a pc I will install Microsoft Security Essentials.

Keep in mind that if a standard user is going to get a virus, they are probably going to get the virus I've seen pc's infected with every flavor of AV out there. So Renegade does have a point that just because its paid doesn't make it better.

Also, why did Intel buy McAfee? What are they doing with it? Anyone using a current one of their products?

I agree with some of the points. Was hoping for examples, rather than just a flat no, a free version is fine. It ads nothing to debate.

I don't feel like paying for something I don't need. If you are a safe surfer and know what to look for and what not to then you will be fine. Like chrome tells you a page is bad before you even go to it. So that with a free anti-virus like defender can keep you just as safe as a paid version of bloat ware.

Most of the extra options you get in a paid version you can find software free for and I am not talking about torrent either. Like Ccleaner for temp files and registry fixes that some paid anti-virus programs have.

- Protect Against Hackers and Thieves
Block phishing, avoid scams in messages and social sites, and secure your network. Block Spam and Dangerous Email
Fight back against junk email with our most effective antispam ever.

$99 anti virus. If you don't click on every link sent to you or every email then this is worthless addon.

- Protect Your Identity
Lock all your digital valuables in an encrypted vault on your PC.

Run a secure browser and this won't be a problem.


These are just a few things in a paid version that can be done without dropping the cash on a program that still lets virus' through.


Edit: A virus will get through either one. Doesn't matter how good of a paid or free anti-virus you have if you don't use safe surfing habits.

Wingcmdr77 wrote: Until I see major corporations and schools running it, I'm saying a paid version is the way to go. And I have seen some stories that really nasty rogue malware disable it more easily than the others. Paid or other "free" programs are the way to go in my humble opinion (bows respectfully)

You do realize free AV software is typically only licensed for personal use, right? Schools and other large organizations are going to have to pay for the software regardless.

Dreyvas wrote:

Wingcmdr77 wrote: Until I see major corporations and schools running it, I'm saying a paid version is the way to go. And I have seen some stories that really nasty rogue malware disable it more easily than the others. Paid or other "free" programs are the way to go in my humble opinion (bows respectfully)

You do realize free AV software is typically only licensed for personal use, right? Schools and other large organizations are going to have to pay for the software regardless.

Yes Dreyvas, your quoting me. Good point too, But your not adding to the discussion, what are your experiences with Windows Defender vs Paid Solutions?

Wingcmdr77 wrote:

Dreyvas wrote:

Wingcmdr77 wrote: Until I see major corporations and schools running it, I'm saying a paid version is the way to go. And I have seen some stories that really nasty rogue malware disable it more easily than the others. Paid or other "free" programs are the way to go in my humble opinion (bows respectfully)

You do realize free AV software is typically only licensed for personal use, right? Schools and other large organizations are going to have to pay for the software regardless.

Yes Dreyvas, your quoting me. Good point too, But your not adding to the discussion, what are your experiences with Windows Defender vs Paid Solutions?

I disagree, I felt my point did in fact add to the discussion. Just because it doesn't line up with your ideas doesn't mean it didn't add to the discussion. On topic, I do not use Windows Defender or paid AV, I use Microsoft Security Essentials combined with safe browsing habits just like Arxon.

Dreyvas wrote:

Wingcmdr77 wrote:

Dreyvas wrote:

Wingcmdr77 wrote: Until I see major corporations and schools running it, I'm saying a paid version is the way to go. And I have seen some stories that really nasty rogue malware disable it more easily than the others. Paid or other "free" programs are the way to go in my humble opinion (bows respectfully)

You do realize free AV software is typically only licensed for personal use, right? Schools and other large organizations are going to have to pay for the software regardless.

Yes Dreyvas, your quoting me. Good point too, But your not adding to the discussion, what are your experiences with Windows Defender vs Paid Solutions?

I disagree, I felt my point did in fact add to the discussion. Just because it doesn't line up with your ideas doesn't mean it didn't add to the discussion. On topic, I do not use Windows Defender or paid AV, I use Microsoft Security Essentials combined with safe browsing habits just like Arxon.

Great! Good deal, I appreciate your contribution and feedback on MSE Dreyvas. Arxon is totally right, that's a firm foundation for safe browsing.

No one is ever 100% secure from virus'. If they think they are then someone needs their head examined.

Arxon wrote: No one is ever 100% secure from virus'. If they think they are then someone needs their head examined.

Arxon, nice one man!

Virus removal is a big part of the work I do just about everyday. I see infections ranging from the recent rounds of FBI Fakeware/Ransomware to minor toolbar crapware clogs.

One thing that most of these machines have is that the users are not aware of what they are doing or clicking while surfing the web and installing "free" software.

Your original question was.. Is Windows Defender Good Enough for Win 8. Traditionally in the past, I would say no. In Win7 and Win XP, Defender was a good COMPLIMENT to a good free AV program such as Avast or AVG. From what I've read, Defender for Win 8 is supposed to be a full featured AV solution. From the looks of it so far, it must be doing a fine job. I have not had the "pleasure" of delousing a Win8 machine yet. Even Win7 boxes were filling up the shop with viruses by now in its release.

I use MSSE here on all of my machines. We recommend Avast Free to our customers, even to the extent to offer a guarantee for 90 days virus free, or we clean it again no charge (if we install it at the time of service) We find Avast is much lighter on system resources while still providing an acceptable level of coverage that repels most attacks. It even offers a remote assistance, think LogMeIn, that we can use to assist.

Many people think that because they have Norton or McAfee that they CANT get infected. Obviously we all know that isnt true. Here is my thinking... Its not a matter of IF you will get an infection.. Its a matter or WHEN. When you get a virus, does it hurt more that you were paying $40-$90/yr for "protection" or using a free AV?

Thanks everyone whom participated and wrote the pros and cons of paid vs free antivirus software.

I enjoyed reading your thoughts on it.