I have removed this product because

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

a) I do not leave my computer on "over night and unattended"
b) I have experienced significant and serious degradation of performance
eventually traced to the "automatic scan" feature taking over the computer's
system
c) I employ other anti-virus, anti-spyware software that is mucjh more
user-friendly.
 
H. Gilman said:
a) I do not leave my computer on "over night and unattended"
b) I have experienced significant and serious degradation of
performance eventually traced to the "automatic scan" feature taking
over the computer's system
c) I employ other anti-virus, anti-spyware software that is mucjh more
user-friendly.
Click to expand...

That sort of thing is often true of beta programs.

--
Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM
Please respond in Newsgroup. Do not send email
http://www.fjsmjs.com
Protect your PC
http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/
 
Thanks for posting the feedback. Microsoft does read these groups, and your
feedback is valuable.

Some comments:

a) is not necessary. It is possible for a scan to run at night on a machine
with no user logged in, but that's not a requirement of the program--I scan
at times I expect my machine to be idle--it's a home machine, but I use it
very regularly via remote desktop at all times of the day and night--so my
scan is set for 10 AM when I figure if I am working that day, I'll be busy
earning $ rather than doing volunteer work here.

b) This one is of concern to the development team, I am certain. One
misunderstanding I suspect many have--I would recommend doing quickscans,
rather than fullscans, on a scheduled basis. I take the Microsoft
statements about what a quickscan covers seriously--I believe it is a good
indicator of whether there's a current infection. If something is found,
and it appears to be real, as opposed to a false positive, I would consider
doing a fullscan--or, perhaps, as an initial scan on a "new" machine.

c) bugs are not user friendly, for certain. I personally like the lack of
an icon and the behind the scenes way the program runs and updates.
 
So far I have to admit that I'm surprised at just how different Windows
Defender is from the Anti-spyware Beta... it's like Microsoft Anti-spyware
Beta Lite... and that's not a good thing in my opinion.

"Microsoft, What happened?" I know it's all Beta and you're very nicely not
charging us (yet)... but Microsoft Anti-Spyware Beta was AMAZING!... Windows
Defender is a dud. (Don't mean to offend anyone because I know programming
is a complicated art but really you guys need to understand that this product
doesn't replace your former Anti-spyware offering at all.)

Honestly I'll be keeping my users on Microsoft Anti-Spyware Beta until you
guys kill support for it (and I'll be passing on that recommendation to all
my IT friends at other companies.)

Thanks!
Paula
 
I totally agree! The GUI for Beta 1 was far superior to this new Windows
Defender Beta 2 interface. Why oh why did they change it?

Marty
 
Add another to the growing list of voices. BETA1 was far superior to BETA2
and of what I saw, in every feature offered.

Yes. I understand MS removed many of advanced features from BETA2 to lessen
the chance of overwhelming those who are shall I say 'technically
challenged', but in their removal of features they have alienated those of us
who were seriously utilizing the advanced features offered in BETA1.

At this point I am so unhappy with BETA2 I'm considering it's removal.
 
Back
Top