For starters using AVG Free Antivirus & Windows defender might be a problem since having more than one AV enabled can cause conflicts.The same rule of thumb also applies to firewalls.

 

Far as anti spyware is concerened more than one is suggested since what one program may miss,the other may catch.

 

I wouldn't compare Ad-aware with AVG AntiSpyware.AVG anti spyware catches trojans and Ad-aware doesn't.

 

I've also read about Ad-aware 2007 being buggy.

 

Regarding windows defender,I just don't care for MS security programs.

 

For additional security you can try spyware blaster which is not a scanner,but rather a preventer.

 

http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html

 

Tom

 

 

 

 

 

TomRon wrote:  " using AVG Free Antivirus & Windows defender might be a problem since having more than one AV enabled can cause conflicts"

Tom:  Windows Defender is an anti- SPYWARE (anti- MALWARE) program, not an anti-VIRUS.  

It offers both resident protection, as well as an on-demand scanner.

It should not cause any conflicts with AVG AntiVirus. 

 

MikeFtw wrote:  " windows defender isnt nearly as good as the other antispyware thats available."

Mike:  That's probably an accurate statement... windows defender is perhaps best described as "adequate".   However, we need to distinguish between resident anti-spyware programs, and on-demand scanners.   The point being, that among FREE resident anti-spyware programs, there really aren't too many choices:   Windows Defender and Spybot's TeaTimer are the primary candidates.   So, unless you want to get involved with  paid  resident anti-spyware programs... or unless you find another better free resident anti-spyware program that i've overlooked... I would suggest you keep running Windows Defender and/or Spybot's TeaTimer for their resident protection.   And then rely on SuperAntiSpyware for its great on-demand scanner.

 

BugBatter:   I have been testing running Windows Defender, together with SpyBot's TeaTimer (since beta 1.5.1.12 was released) [along with WinPatrol] on two Windows XP systems, and have been very pleased with the results/interaction.   I don't believe I've experienced any slowdown... nor any conflicts.   I believe they complement each other quite nicely.

But I would concur with you that  if  anyone had slowdown/conflict problems, then they should disable one of them.

Tom:

 

Understandable source of confusion... that first google hit you mentioned indeed describes/alledges it to be an "anti-virus program"... but at the same time, take note that the URL given there refers to spyware:

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/software/default.mspx

 

the URL is legitimate, with further details contained here:

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/software/about/overview.mspx

David,I don't have windows defender and was going by this.

 

Note the first link in google.

 

 

 

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/5171/dell1vo3.jpg

I really don't think there are any good tests from independent sources that I would trust, which allows one to compare Windows Defender with TeaTimer, or any of the reputable paid anti-malware apps (at least not regarding efficacy in detection). In this respect, the anti-spyware industry lags behind the AV. The few comparo's I've seen all come from the magazines, or are commissioned by a vendor. And even these tests generally test just the on-demand scanners- not the resident protection.

 

We have a certain collective sense in this forum as to which are reputable, which are compatible, which cause problems, slowdowns, false positives, but when it comes to ranking, it tends to come down to individual opinion. I think it is fair to say one can trust the list of programs recommended here:

http://spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm#trustworthy

 

I like WD because it causes me no problems, plays well with my considerable collection of defensive apps, seems to provide resident protection equal to the paid apps I formerly used, and doesn't slow down my PC. I can't recall it ever generating a false positive. And we don't see many problems posted about WD here. Thus I cannot see much downside in recommending that others at least try it out.

 

Finally, I can't help but notice that very few posters of HJT logs are using WD. I can make no conclusions from this- it's just an interesting observation.

Joe,

 

it's articles/reviews such as the one you recently cited, in your post " The sad state of Antispyware Programs" 

http://www.dellcommunity.com/supportforums/board/message?board.id=si_virus&thread.id=63002

 

that at least make me wonder whether or not Windows Defender is "playing in the same league as" the paid competition.

 

I have never tried the paid products, so I have no first-hand experience in evaluating them.

 

As I'm sure you'll admit, you and I are not the prototype examples of how truly effective these products are... since we both strive to surf-safely [a critical and unevaluated "component" of any PC security "system"], and consequently, never detect anything other than tracking cookies [or false positives].

 

Also, since we each have multiple layers of protection, I don't know that there's any way for us to determine precisely  which  application(s) might be intercepting potential problems first:   for example, if SpywareBlaster or Spybot's Immunization prevent you from accessing/downloading a bad file in the first place, it would never even "get" to Windows Defender or SpyBot's TeaTimer to see how they would fare in responding to that threat.

 

As you may know, my own personal list of recommendations for anti-malware programs was culled by matching-up the joint [and free] recommendations from the "trustworthy" link you cited above, together with those listed here:

http://wiki.castlecops.com/Malware_Removal_and_Prevention:_Overview

the "common" results being (in alphabetical order):   Ad-Aware (presumably SE), AVG Anti-Spyware, Spybot (presumably 1.4), SuperAnti-Spyware, and Windows Defender

 

(of course, i know we both have reservations about the new Ad-Aware 2007)

 

I have used Windows Defender from the time it went mainstream (i.e., non-beta), and have had no problems with it.   I continue to recommend it as a primary source of free anti-malware resident protection (along with SpyBot's TeaTimer, which we have discussed separately).    But the more I read, the more I have to at least question how good it really is, relative to the paid alternatives, in pre-empting a malware attack.

All your points are well taken, ky331. I think we are, in general, in agreement on most matters. And I certainly have no way of determining if WD is of any use at all to me.

 

However, I posted  " The sad state of Antispyware Programs" more out of interest, not as an endorsement of their findings. Consider these points:
1) That comparison comes from PCWorld (which relies on advertising from the products it evaluates).
2) It rated 3 paid programs well above Windows Defender.
3) It rated "Spyware Doctor 5.0" as the best by a large margin. So I gave it a trial.
4) The only free trial it offers does not include disinfection (a point not mentioned in the article). Other trial versions of paid products (AVG Anti-Spyware, Sunbelt's CounterSpy, a-squared Anti-Malware) have been full-featured 30-day trials.
5) I updated and ran a scan with SD 5.0: It found no less than 5 infections, all rated as " high" (its highest threat level). Every one of these detections was a false positive (confirmed by analysis of uploaded files to Virustotal and virusscan.jotti). The PCWorld tests claimed a 0% FP rate.

 

I can only conclude that PCWorld recommended as "best antispyware" a paid product that does not offer a full free trial, that only detected many false positives, and that wants your money to remove them. Obviously not a program I could recommend, based on my experience.

 

In this context, I can hardly credit their negative evaluation of Windows Defender in the same article. I'm no fan of MS products, but I find it very hard to believe PCWorld's tests that claim that WD found 0% of spyware. After all, we are talking about a product previously known as MS-AntiSpyware, that went through extensive beta testing.