Windows Defender (beta 1) wins an award as . . .

  • Thread starter Thread starter StevenFromTexas
  • Start date Start date
S

StevenFromTexas

Windows Defender (beta 1) wins an award as . . . the WORST rated
anti-spyware program in the September 2006 issue of Consumer Reports. Maybe
Microsoft will provide some competition in Version 3.1 sometime in 2015! :)

All I know so far is Windows Defender (beta 2) appears to be brain-dead
compared with the other anti-spyware programs I use.
 
It's not surprising, really, is it???!! Then again it IS a beta. Only
question is: how long will this particular beta state last?? Going by MS
Vista, it could be years .... And even then, how many service packs will be
required before it becomes reliable???? More years??? Call that secuirty??
Hmmm - me thinks I go look elsewhere ....!
 
Are your dyslexic, or do you merely lack reading comprehension skills?

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...ne-905/ratings/antispyware-software/index.htm

"For an excellent main antispyware program with real-time protection:
1 Microsoft (free download)"

Among the truly ironic features of many proactive anti-threat tools is the
conspicuous absense of "activity". Then again, that is the very same
characteristic of a compromised anti-threat tool. Clearly, the most
delicious irony is the acute cluelessness of most BDEUs (brain-dead end
users). ;-)
 
Your link, Scott D, refers to Microsoft ANTISPYWARE rather than Microsoft
WINDOWS DEFENDER (beta 1), which is the subject of the topic I started.

My initial post on this topic is correct!

-- StevenFromTexas
 
this series of posts has me a bit confused...and a bit ticked off too.

first, StevenFromTexas, your initial post says

"in the September 2006 issue of Consumer Reports. "

is that issue on the newsstands now? it doesn't seem to show up on the
consumerreports.org site, yet. if you did mean Sept *2005*, then i can't
find any reference to "Windows Defender (beta 1)" on that site's ratings.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...-905/ratings/antispyware-software/index.htm#1

Microsoft AntiSpyware (beta) is rated #1. (microsoft antispyware is usually
designated as Beta 1). it may have been designated as Defender 1 as a
transition(?) to the current Defender which is designated Beta 2, although it
really has nothing to do with the MSAS Beta 1.

if you are indeed referring to this year -- september 2006 -- issue; would
you give us all more info on that new ratings sheet, please. thanks.


second, ScottD, your "Are your dyslexic, or do you merely lack reading
comprehension skills? " is despicable and worthy of a big KMA. perhaps your
mirror might help you out here, especially if the reference *is* to *2006*
and you clearly couldn't make out the difference.

this holier-than-thou attitude is only topped by your:

"Clearly, the most
delicious irony is the acute cluelessness (sic) of most BDEUs (brain-dead end
users)."

get a grip scott boy. the problem is *never* with the customer. if you
can't design for the bdeu, than it's your fault, not mine. the irony is that
you’re clueless to this, apparently in your quest to appear superior.

third, ScottD, the tone of your post *is* what's wrong.

maybe you can get some work for your "consulting" and you won't have to
spend so much time posting here, instructing us poor souls just to get your
offensive little ad plug signature posted. Troll on good buddy.
 
Although, StevenFromTexas, the confusion is your fault, since only a
subscriber could access the current Ratings, CR repeats these tests annually
in the September issue and you provided no link.

Until such time as this is visible to the world, your statement is useless.
In fact, it still will be precisely because Defender hasn't been released as
a final version.

The funny thing here is that everyone knows that Defender will work, the
only question is how well. My guess is that Microsoft isn't going to provide
a useless tool to its customers after this much investment.

My interest is in what motivates these kind of attacks. Only ownership in
competing antimalware, association with a purveyor of malware or simple
Microsoft bashing come to mind.

Bitman
 
I don't know if the September 2006 issue of Consumer Reports is on the
newsstand at this time, but I did receive my September 2006 issue of that
magazine on 08-02-2006.

As far as the current Consumer Reports anti-spyware ratings go, here they
are:

#1: F-Secure Anti-Spyware 2006 -- the best

#2: Webroot Spy Sweeper 4.5

#3: PC Tools Spyware Doctor 3.8

#4: Trend Micro Anti-Spyware 3

#5: Lavasoft Ad-Aware SE Plus 1.06

#6: Spybot Search and Destroy 1.4

#7: Zone Labs Zone Alarm Anti-Spyware 6.5

#8: Sunbelt Software CounterSpy

#9: CA/eTrust Pest Patrol

#10: BitDefender Antispyware 9

#11 McAfee AntiSpyware 2006

#12 Microsoft Windows Defender (beta 1) -- the worst

Now, Consumer Reports did not rate Microsoft Windows Defender (beta 2) in
the September 2006 issue of that magazine, so I would assume Microsoft
Windows Defender (beta 2)came out after their testing was done. One could
also conclude that Consumer Reports thought much more highly of Microsoft
AntiSpyware when they tested that product a long time ago than they do of
Microsoft Windows Defender (beta 1), based on the link Scott D supplied.

-- StevenFromTexas
 
Bitman, I simply started a post on what Consumer Reports reported in the
September 2006 issue. I don't subscribe to the online version of Consumer
Reports, so I can't point you to anything on their website. Lots of their
current information, and old information, is unavailable to the public
without an online subscription.

Why you think I am "attacking" a product is beyond me. I have nothing to do
with any software or computer company. And I plan to buy a brand new
high-dollar computer when Microsoft Vista comes out. :)

-- StevenFromTexas
 
:

""...so far...Windows Defender (beta 2) appears to be brain-dead
compared with the other anti-spyware programs I use."
Click to expand...

what are they? what's better? thanks.

(and btw, i quess my mailperson is holding onto my sept issue for the weekend)
 
:

"Although, StevenFromTexas, the confusion is your fault, since only a
subscriber could access the current Ratings, CR repeats these tests annually
in the September issue and you provided no link...."

come on Bitman, you blame SFT 'cause you and your buddy ScottD can't read?
or won't ask for clarification before ScottD does one of his cute little
hissy fits?

BTW, you seem to follow ScottD around and defend him with lengthy (and
sometimes helpful and informative) posts. are you his alter ego; or are you
one and the same?

""...Until such time as this is visible to the world, your statement is
useless.
In fact, it still will be precisely because Defender hasn't been released as
a final version.""

really? hmmm. so it's *your* statements, opinions that are useful? hmmm.
please, get off your high horse and join the real world. the world of
'professional' unpaid beta testers seems a high calling indeed.

""....The funny thing here is that everyone knows that Defender will work,
the only question is how well. My guess is that Microsoft isn't going to
provide a useless tool to its customers after this much investment....""

now this is just plain laughable. in another, similar, thread down the list
a bit, you wrote:

""As for MS Antispyware, the product was dead the day it was acquired,....""

so it seems, ms has some experience 'investing' time and money on a product
it deems useless.

""...My interest is in what motivates these kinds of attacks. Only ownership
in
competing antimalware, association with a purveyor of malware or simple
Microsoft bashing come to mind....""
Click to expand...

my interest is what motivates these kinds of blind defenses from supposed
non-invested participants such as you Bitman and ScottD. take a breath...a
deep breath...and realize no one is attacking *you*, or any of your basic
belief systems.
r-e-l-a-x.

y-o-u a-r-e O--K.
m-i-c-r-o-s-o-f-t i-s a m-u-l-t-i--b-i-l-l-i-o-n d-o-l-l-a-r
e-n-t-e-r-p-r-i-s-e ---
it can take care of itself. and they actually pay people to do just that.

have a *nice* day.
 
I haven't read every word of their article yet, but didn't find any text
description of the testing methods, or how each product fared. All I
spotted was the ratings table, which is minimal, and confusing--it describes
the product as Windows Defender (beta1) (sic)--and has features checkoffs
which don't seem to me to align with either version of the product
perfectly.

The current issue's articles are not yet available at their web site--they
will be in time--perhaps not before September, though.

In a previous article, they rated Microsoft Antispyware at the top of the
list, as I recall. Not sure what the testing was behind that earlier
article, however--they may have been quite different.


--
 
I saw the article and they didn't hate it and it shows how lame Consumer
Reports are. They rated a program that has been dead since February. They
didn't even include WindowsLive OneCare in their A/V round up. I have found
that Consumer Reports is usually wrong.
 
ohnonotnow! said:
"come on Bitman, you blame SFT 'cause you and your buddy ScottD can't read?
or won't ask for clarification before ScottD does one of his cute little
hissy fits?"
Click to expand...
Note, ohnonotnow!, I only pointed out that SFT did not provide clear
reference to the basis of his statement. I provided no defense of anything
else.
"really? hmmm. so it's *your* statements, opinions that are useful? hmmm.
please, get off your high horse and join the real world. the world of
'professional' unpaid beta testers seems a high calling indeed."
Click to expand...
Again refering to the lack of a valid basis to SFT's statement.
now this is just plain laughable. in another, similar, thread down the list
a bit, you wrote:

""As for MS Antispyware, the product was dead the day it was acquired,....""

so it seems, ms has some experience 'investing' time and money on a product
it deems useless.
Click to expand...
Taking information out of context is a classic trick of those with no basis
in their argument, now used by both SFT and yourself in this thread. My
earlier statement refers to the earlier MS Antispyware as 'dead' because it
was never intended to become a released product itself, rather the valuable
portions of antispyware detection and SpyNet were integrated into the current
Windows Defender.

So the existing product was useless, but the core detection and collection
systems and the people who developed them were what MS required to jump start
their effort. Thanks for reminding me to clarify that.
my interest is what motivates these kinds of blind defenses from supposed
non-invested participants such as you Bitman and ScottD. take a breath...a
deep breath...and realize no one is attacking *you*, or any of your basic
belief systems.
r-e-l-a-x.

y-o-u a-r-e O--K.
m-i-c-r-o-s-o-f-t i-s a m-u-l-t-i--b-i-l-l-i-o-n d-o-l-l-a-r
e-n-t-e-r-p-r-i-s-e ---
it can take care of itself. and they actually pay people to do just that.
Click to expand...
However, I am free to point out what was obviously an attack, introduced in
a way intended to invite viewing and backed up with questionable statements
that are difficult to verify. If such a statement remains unchallenged, some
with less knowledge of the realities might believe it, especially those who
read little else and need the most help.
have a *nice* day.
Click to expand...
I will, I know why I posted. Why did you?
 
I am a subscriber to CR magazine too, and I can confirm that on page 28 of
the 9/2006 issue, 12 anti-spyware programs are ranked, and Defender was at
position #12.
However, Defender was the only software on that list to get an excellent
rating for "Ease of use".
So there.

You can view a copy of CR from you local library.
 
Back
Top