|
Edited on Fri Mar-31-06 12:37 AM by RoyGBiv
To use the word of one reviewer, it's "abysmal," and this didn't come from someone who is generally anti-Microsoft.
A short list of the deficiencies:
1) It's a resource hog, and it's slow. Since it comes from MS, I probably don't even need to mention this since that's par-for-the-course, but it's notable here. Full system scans can take up to 3x as long as something like Spybot S&D, and since spyware scans tend to take awhile, this can be quite obnoxious. The conventional wisdom is that a longer scan means a deeper scan, but this is not the case.
2) It has poor detection schemes. Using six widely known keyloggers (iow, not obscure things that might easily be missed), PC Magazine found that Defender detected only one of them.
3) One might be tempted to suggest Defender misses some things on purpose. The default home page for IE in a fresh Windoze XP install is MSNBC. This page sets a tracking cookie that every major anti-spyware suite detects except, guess what, Defender.
4) It labels stuff as spyware that definitely is not spyware. It's been known to label necessary system files used by competitors' products as spyware and delete them, thus rendering that software non-functional. It will also do this to software packages it simply doesn't recognize as "valid" Windows software. (ZDNet review and personal experience.)
I could go on, but will simply end with my personal test. I ran Defender, Spybot S&D, and AdAware on a system I purposely infected with multiple kinds of spyware/adware. Spybot and AdAware found things the other didn't find. Neither had false-positives, unless one considers things like Weatherbug's adware component a false positive. (It is adware, and Spybot at least warns you that you might be disabling a program you want by removing it.) Defender didn't find a lot of things these two found, and it found nothing they didn't find.
Defender is, quite frankly, crap, imo.
|