which malwarebytes strategy?

[Njem]

None of the anti-virus programs seem to block recent attacks. So either A: MB is that much better (not likely with all the resources Symantec has), or B: blocking doesn't really work and what does work is scanning after the infection to get rid of it. If it's B then is there a way to put MB in a pretty much continuous scan but at a very low priority?

[DarkSnakeKobra]

Malwarebytes is not an antivirus. It is antimalware and focuses on high rate malware and ones commonly missed by antiviruses. It does not have same functionality an antivirus has and should not be used as a replacement.

[Njem]

I think you missed what I was trying to ask. I would not give up other antivirus. But it is consistent lately that all kinds of systems I work on with all kinds of different anti-virus are infected, many having been infected for some time. MB finds it and almost always gets rid of it. Are these anti-virus programs failing to block because they aren't as good at knowing what's a virus? Or because it is a more sure fire thing to find an infection after it's in and remove it? And if that's the case is there a way, along with some anti-virus, to get MB to run continuously or hourly or something, except in that case it would have to run at a low priority to not slow down the system (much). Or if not, then this is a suggestion.

[exile360]

Our protection module is excellent at hitting threats before they get in and we deliberately focus our efforts on a very quick response time to get updates out quickly, excellent heuristics to detect new and unknown threats, and to deal with infections that most antivirus software fails to detect. Scanning after the fact with MBAM generally wouldn't be necessary if you were using the PRO version because MBAM would block it from getting in before the infection ever took hold on the system.