[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

My mother, for one, prefers to leave her computer on rather than have to wait for Windows to start.

And many people will argue with you (violently) about whether Microsoft's builtin AV is worth the disk space it consumes.



Review after review rates it as pathetic when compared to other free AV suites.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1926596,00.asp
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/windows-...view-2209.html
http://www.pcworld.com/article/25987...r_options.html
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/security-esse...er-2015-review
http://www.darkreading.com/vulnerabi.../d-id/1111240?


The consensus is that it is severely incapable of actually detecting malware (although it does well at removing what it does find)... possibly the price you pay for having a very lightweight AV that doesn't eat system resources.

It is a while since I read something about that and I am in no way an expert, but I remember that some specialists accuse the makers of this tests to make them on purpose to make ms look bad. MS uses a completely different approach then others. One area were defender is not as good as the others is heuristics. By the way, no av is perfect in that. But MS does not do much heuristics at all. That gets them bad tests. For everything not totally new it is as good as the others. I for one rather take nearly no false positives and very good performance over that slightly more security.