Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #121222

Re: Do you use the native default Windows 10 Windows Defender as your sole security/av protection?

From	"wasbit" <wasbitremove@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups	alt.comp.os.windows-10, alt.comp.microsoft.windows
Subject	Re: Do you use the native default Windows 10 Windows Defender as your sole security/av protection?
Date	2020-09-03 09:39 +0100
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<riqa4f$3qm$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<rih0ml$bae$3@news.mixmin.net> <XnsAC2B839B01612MajorLanGodyahoocom@69.16.179.29> <7h1ukf1v4k5d1n3ikt37v75kd7r7jgiqtq@4ax.com> <rin8h6$6me$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

"Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote in message 
news:rin8h6$6me$1@dont-email.me...
> Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Sep 2020 17:56:15 GMT, MajorLanGod <lonelydad58@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I use (and pay for) Malwarebytes for the extras it offers like 
>>> protection from rootkits and other things that Windows Defender doesn't 
>>> offer (TTBOMK)
>>
>> When I installed Kaspersky it asked me to uninstall Malwarebytes.
>> Apparently they clash in some way.
>
> AV programs are set up to complain, if a second "real time protection"
> AV is running.
>
> The paid version of Malwarebytes is "real time protection".
> The 14 day trial version of Malwarebytes is "real time protection".
> But the free version of Malwarebytes is "on-demand scanner", and
> for those, there is no complaint.
>
> After the 14 day trial, Malwarebytes removes its "I'm a real time 
> protection
> program" flag, then Malwarebytes reverts to being "on-demand scans only".
>
> If you have too many Real Time protection programs, the I/O
> on the machine gets slower and slower, the more of them that
> are present. They take turns reading the file in a sense
> (each could be implemented as a stacked filter driver,
> so that data read from disk, is passed through each filter
> as each one gets a chance to scan the data).
>
> As an example of what the penalty for real time scanning
> is like, if I run hashdeep64 (a recursive checksum program
> that generates checksums for the entire partition), it runs
> at one seventh the normal rate if Windows Defender is
> doing real time scanning. If it normally ran at 98MB/sec
> on WinXP, it would run at 14MB/sec on Windows 10. If you're doing
> something I/O intensive, the penalty adds up. Imagine two or three
> real time scanner programs doing that while you're running hashdeep64.
>
> And there's only so much that buying a faster ("5GHz") CPU can do.
> Some of the processes insist on all hogging a single core,
> so it's not even a matter of "buying a 64 core processor to fix it".
> Even that would not help. The ability of software people to waste
> resources, is much better than the ability of the hardware guys
> to make faster hardware.
>
> Your NVMe drive can't help you, on CPU-bound behavior cases.
> Such as scanning the crap out of every small file you access
> on the drive.
>
> If the guys developing software were given slower computers,
> we would get better "more efficient" software :-) It's because
> they all got 18 core HP computers with 64GB of memory, that
> everything they write, stinks.
>

+1

-- 
Regards
wasbit

Thread

csiph-web