Windows defender

[Broooz]

Has anyone any up to date views on whether Defender is a reasonable way of
protecting against spyware. It got some poor reviews a while back but I
wonder if it has improved. It certainly picked up some things that spybot
missed.

[History Fan]

"Broooz" <reply@newsgroup.com> wrote in message
news:3H17h.1510$k74.505@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk ...
> Has anyone any up to date views on whether Defender is a reasonable way of
> protecting against spyware. It got some poor reviews a while back but I
> wonder if it has improved. It certainly picked up some things that spybot
> missed.
>


The final version of Windows Defender seems to be more stable than the
beta versions, but I'm skeptical as to its detection capabilities. I'm not
using it now. Instead, I've got WinPatrol as my active anti-spyware
monitor.

[cmsix]

"History Fan" <UnknownplacesonEarth@unknown11.com> wrote in message
news:d3491$455cdc45$48311160$5166@FUSE.NET...
> "Broooz" <reply@newsgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:3H17h.1510$k74.505@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk ...
>> Has anyone any up to date views on whether Defender is a reasonable
>> way of protecting against spyware. It got some poor reviews a
>> while back but I wonder if it has improved. It certainly picked up
>> some things that spybot missed.
>>
>
>
> The final version of Windows Defender seems to be more stable
> than the beta versions, but I'm skeptical as to its detection
> capabilities. I'm not using it now. Instead, I've got WinPatrol as
> my active anti-spyware monitor.

I'll admit that I haven't bothered with it. Call me prejudice or
whatever, I'm givning them another year or two to see if it grows into
a bloated resource hog. Anyone want to be that it won't?

cmsix

>
>

[Si]

I tried it but it was such a resource hog that I got rid of it.

Cheers.

Si

"Broooz" <reply@newsgroup.com> wrote in message
news:3H17h.1510$k74.505@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk ...
> Has anyone any up to date views on whether Defender is a reasonable way of
> protecting against spyware. It got some poor reviews a while back but I
> wonder if it has improved. It certainly picked up some things that spybot
> missed.
>

[Broooz]

"Si" <zen114955@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:455cfef6$0$18045$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>I tried it but it was such a resource hog that I got rid of it.

I can't see any resource impact here?

[occam]

Broooz wrote:
> "Si" <zen114955@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:455cfef6$0$18045$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> I tried it but it was such a resource hog that I got rid of it.
>
> I can't see any resource impact here?
>
>

Si might be referring to the beta versions? WD had a habit of creating
several 'Restore' points per day, thus pushing past (useful) Restore
points off the memory.

However, I agree with you. It is no longer a memory hog, nor a 'Restore
point' destroyer. As for its effectiveness... I have seen no negative
reports. (It does not go after 'cookies', giving safe-hex practicing
people the impression it does nothing useful.)