they can whine all they want, but the reality is that unless Microsoft includes some sort of basic protection many would simply go without it. As it stands defender is pretty decent and I haven't had any issues using it as my sole antivirus since windows 7.
That said, Kaspersky is shit imo and if you want a 3rd part AV then use ESET. It really is just a pointless expense for most people though.
[QUOTE=nintenman1;52320966]they can whine all they want, but the reality is that unless Microsoft includes some sort of basic protection many would simply go without it. As it stands defender is pretty decent and I haven't had any issues using it as my sole antivirus since windows 7.
That said, Kaspersky is shit imo and if you want a 3rd part AV then use ESET. It really is just a pointless expense for most people though.[/QUOTE]
Honestly I couldn't care less about Kapersky, I think it's more the fact that there is something inherently crooked in baking in an antivirus to your OS, essentially killing all outside business to the majority of consumers.
everyone has a right to their own opinion I guess, but continued hand wringing over anti virus "monopolies" within win32 space ignore the fact that consumer AV as we know it has practically been rendered irrelevant on any modern application infrastructure. Android/desktop Linux/iOS/mac/windows(UWP) etc really aren't vulnerable to drive by viruses in the same way that 9x-XP were. Proper permissions structures and application sandboxing keep *a lot* of nasty shit from just happening like it used to in the old days. Most malware that proliferates tends to originate from user action, such as executing a downloaded program, giving it root/admin permissions etc.
That said, some sort of last line of defense against malware needs to be included with windows for practical reasons, mostly due to the (continued) use of win32 so heavily after all these years. The insistence that consumers be forced to go above and beyond and use a 3rd party AV doesn't make much sense to me. Is it really something that needs to be yet another thing people are expected to buy, if everyone benefits from using it? Anyone using a chromebook isn't expected to buy an antivirus package, why should a windows user be expected to do more, simply to have a secure pest free operating system? The argument basically comes back to companies like Kaspersky getting mad that their lucrative consumer market where they rake in money hand over fist with expensive subscriptions is getting scuttled. They aren't any sort of hero, and I see these attempt to throw the courts at MS as a desperate grab for money. If their product really is superior then those in need will seek it out. But why should everyone else be made worse off so that some feelgood anti Microsoft measure can make its way through European courts once again?
The thing is that Microsoft don't even recommend using Defender over a paid antivirus.
It's basically made to defend you until you download a new one.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.