Why isn't Windows Defender the Best ?

[Tim Clark]

Please note, I am not trying to be a snot here.

Why isn't Windows Defender the best antispyware out there?

Note I am not asking why isn't Defender the first to have it's definitions
updated or why isn't it the fastest, but why isn't it the best over time?

My logic goes like this, MS makes the OS, and you would think knows it and
what it can do better than anyone else. Once malware is discovered and
becomes known you would think that once it is added to Defenders database
that Defender should be able to stop it / cure it as well or better than
anybody else because they know the OS best, right?

From time to time we get reports of someone getting infected with something
and a member here suggesting this, that, or another product. It does not
really make sense to me that once a baddie is discovered and a cure is known
that MS wouldn't be able to have the best, most accurate cure put into
Defender, again because they should know how the OS works better than anyone
else, and therefore how to repair and protect it.

Again, I understand that someone else may discover a baddie first and build
a defense / cure into their product first, but once it's known you would
think that within a week WD would be able to handle it as well as anyone one
else.

This is a serious question, and I would like serious replies please. This
is not an attack on WD or MS. It is an attempt to understand.

Respectfully submitted,

?

 

[Tom Emmelot]

Hi Tim,

Maybe here some answer!!!!!
http://www.windowsnewsletter.com/current-issue.html

Regards >*< TOM >*<

Tim Clark schreef:

 

[Stu]

Tim!!

Yes you are! Just kidding!

You `ve come out of hiding. Good point and one which I often wonder about
that myself. So why don`t we `throw down` the gauntlet to our developer
friends at MS - not that we would expect a response cos Defender is seemingly
not giving anyone a problem anymore and who cares about XP anyways with Vista
current and win 7 over the horizon. For XP users WD was always a `bolt on`
product`and like most `bolt ons `will not really provide you with the same
protection designed for those to who MS really wants to promote and sell
their product.

Thats a shame cos I think MS could have done a lot more integrating WD with
XP users . They have the market and demand. When will they learn? As an end
user I have always had the utmost respect for the quality of product on the
one hand, while on the other being made to feel very much like an end user
with little or no knowledge which I don`t care for much. They need to get
closer to the people who use their product.

Its all very well MS taking us thru the 21st century and beyond to the point
we have to buy a new comp to cope with their OSs, but have they ever
considered the average user does not want to make the transition - at all?
Have they ever bothered to do market reasearch to establish? These people are
not into hyper intensive gaming or a world where you can control your house
from your com. Isn`t that why Vista has been something of a FLOP! Sorry Tim
... digressing. Short answer. WD? Don`t expect much by way of an XP OS.

Stu


Can`t offer an answer to your question other than there are some very
complicated issues out here. MS may develop the code for WD while being fully
aware of their OS code BUT (and there`s always a BUT)

 

[Stu]

Hi again Tim.

Now I`m goin` to give you the short answer. Cos they want WD to be like that
with XP

Stu

 

[Stu]

Hey ho Tom!! Not a typical British greeting huh? How RU? How`s Engel?

Stu

 

[none]

Tim Clark had de volgende lumineuze gedachte op 03-03-09 19:04:

Please note, I am not trying to be a snot here.

Why isn't Windows Defender the best antispyware out there?

Note I am not asking why isn't Defender the first to have it's definitions
updated or why isn't it the fastest, but why isn't it the best over time?

My logic goes like this, MS makes the OS, and you would think knows it and
what it can do better than anyone else. Once malware is discovered and
becomes known you would think that once it is added to Defenders database
that Defender should be able to stop it / cure it as well or better than
anybody else because they know the OS best, right?

From time to time we get reports of someone getting infected with something
and a member here suggesting this, that, or another product. It does not
really make sense to me that once a baddie is discovered and a cure is known
that MS wouldn't be able to have the best, most accurate cure put into
Defender, again because they should know how the OS works better than anyone
else, and therefore how to repair and protect it.

Again, I understand that someone else may discover a baddie first and build
a defense / cure into their product first, but once it's known you would
think that within a week WD would be able to handle it as well as anyone one
else.

This is a serious question, and I would like serious replies please. This
is not an attack on WD or MS. It is an attempt to understand.

Respectfully submitted,

?

Dear Tim,

I believe this is by design. MS has been prosecuted because of its
anti-competitiveness. With WD MS does not do anything of the kind. Even
if you use it, you still need third party anti-virus, anti-spyware,
anti-rootkit programs. Isn't this a good thing tot give the competition
a fair chance?

Erik Jan.