What is it with people forcing their preferred Antivirus to other?



  • So I have a conversation with my colleague and the conversation somehow lead to asking what Antivirus I have installed on my computer. I said I have Malwarebytes and Windows Defender. He then proceed to say Windows Defender sucks (I'm not arguing with that since I rarely use it), and out of no where he said I should get rid of both of them and get ESET. [...] I'm like.. WTH. I would understand if he says he use ESET and how good it is, but to tell me what to do with my computer is a bit much. Beside, I've never use ESET before

    What's your thought? What's your recommended (based on your experience)?
    For me I am waiting for Malwarebytes' license to run out in November, and I'm going over to BitDefender.



  • Flip him a nickle and tell him to get a real computer (one that runs linux).

    Problem solved.



  • I generally recommend Windows Defender. It is free and does a good job. And my theory is... if you don't trust Defender, you by extension don't trust Windows and that makes no sense. If you don't trust Windows, don't run it. If you run it, you need to trust it. Windows people who don't trust Defender to at least be decent make no sense to me.

    There are features that Defender lacks, if those features are worth money to you, then Webroot is really good. As are several others. ESET is not one of them, the company isn't ethical and I would never allow them on my network, you can't trust the vendor on your network. It's like having a known con artist also be your lock smith - how crazy would that be? Sure, he's known for being a con man, not a thief, but it's still totally backwards from a security perspective.



  • @dustinb3403 said in What is it with people forcing their preferred Antivirus to other?:

    Flip him a nickle and tell him to get a real computer (one that runs linux).

    Problem solved.

    That made me laugh lol.



  • 240803829_9212773615_o.png





  • @scottalanmiller said in What is it with people forcing their preferred Antivirus to other?:

    I generally recommend Windows Defender. It is free and does a good job. And my theory is... if you don't trust Defender, you by extension don't trust Windows and that makes no sense. If you don't trust Windows, don't run it. If you run it, you need to trust it. Windows people who don't trust Defender to at least be decent make no sense to me.

    There are features that Defender lacks, if those features are worth money to you, then Webroot is really good. As are several others. ESET is not one of them, the company isn't ethical and I would never allow them on my network, you can't trust the vendor on your network. It's like having a known con artist also be your lock smith - how crazy would that be? Sure, he's known for being a con man, not a thief, but it's still totally backwards from a security perspective.

    I get that logic, and does make sense... but it can't always work like that.

    Choice comes to play. I understand some people may rather run Windows for the apps they use, but still may not trust a built-in Windows security program to catch the same things as something like Eset, Avira, Webroot, etc...

    Look at the detection rates here, you'll notice that there are a lot with much better detection rates than Windows Defender.

    That's not the chart I seen before, the one I found before was a lot better and shown a lot more data, I cna't find it atm. But my point is that technically, Windows Defender isn't that great at detecting malware vs other free solutions such as Avira.





  • @tim_g said in What is it with people forcing their preferred Antivirus to other?:

    Choice comes to play. I understand some people may rather run Windows for the apps they use, but still may not trust a built-in Windows security program to catch the same things as something like Eset, Avira, Webroot, etc...

    Look at the detection rates here, you'll notice that there are a lot with much better detection rates than Windows Defender.

    Oh it's not the best, I think we all agree on that. But that it sucks and can't be considered - that's pretty silly. My point is that if the Windows platform, of which Defender is a part, is so unthinkably bad, that it simply can't be used. People who say that they have programs that "need Windows" can't consider those programs to be viable by extension, if they feel that Windows is so unthinkably bad - that problems of Defender are the problems of Windows are the problems of those programs.



  • @scottalanmiller
    I treat Windows Defender like iOS mail on iPhone. It's there.. and it works... but I'll be using MS Outlook instead of native mail app. Nothing wrong with it, but it doesn't have a lot of features other competitor offers (as you have mentioned). Still, I have no intention to disable it.



  • @stess said in What is it with people forcing their preferred Antivirus to other?:

    @scottalanmiller
    I treat Windows Defender like iOS mail on iPhone. It's there.. and it works... but I'll be using MS Outlook instead of native mail app. Nothing wrong with it, but it doesn't have a lot of features other competitor offers (as you have mentioned). Still, I have no intention to disable it.

    Right, no problem using an alternative if it does something better. But like iOS mail, nothing wrong with it. Just very basic.



  • @stess said in What is it with people forcing their preferred Antivirus to other?:

    @scottalanmiller
    I treat Windows Defender like iOS mail on iPhone. It's there.. and it works... but I'll be using MS Outlook instead of native mail app. Nothing wrong with it, but it doesn't have a lot of features other competitor offers (as you have mentioned). Still, I have no intention to disable it.

    Ha! Perfect analogy


Log in to reply