Jump to content

Question on WD for YoKenny


Recommended Posts

You've written elsewhere:

"Windows Defender is un-necessary on XP but is installed by default on Vista and Windows 7.

I keep it updated on my Windows 7 system daily through its portal..."

I was wondering if you could elaborate on this. You're saying WD is unnecessary on the older and less-secure XP operating system, but it nevertheless has some redeeming value on the newer and more-secure Vista and Win7 systems? --- One might have assumed it would be the other way around...

Why is it unncessary on XP? And is that statement dependent on what other (resident or non-resident) security programs a person might be running on their XP system?

What changes/enhancements are included in the Vista/7 versions that give Defender value on these, that it lacks on XP?

[Note: This question is not aimed at MBAM. I posted it in this forum because of YoKenny's quote found elswewhere in this forum (as well as in the avast! forums). That thread was already "hijacked", and I did not want to complicate things any further there.]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Windows Defender on XP and Vista/Windows 7 is a different version

System Requirements

* Supported Operating Systems: Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1; Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2; Windows XP Service Pack 2

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=435bfce7-da2b-4a6a-afa4-f7f14e605a0d&displaylang=en#Requirements

I do not know exactly what the differences are but exile360 probably will.

Also there is a 32bit version and a 64bit version that mainly applies to Vista/Windows 7

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the system requirements specified for download may simply be an indication that Defender is available as a download for XP and Server 2003 (since it's an option that was not built-in to these older operating systems) --- whereas it was automatically included as part of Vista/Win7 (and therefore, no separate download was necessary for these newer operating systems)???

But to play devil's advocate, let's assume that the XP version is indeed different from the Vista/7 version. And let's further assume that the Vista/7 versions are "superior" and have clear-cut redeeming value for their users. What is the basis/source/experience for your assertion that Defender is "unnecessary" for XP?... especially if Microsoft makes available and supports a "separate" XP version?

I am asking this to try to understand your opinion. Until I learn better, I have been accepting an alternative view offered by Bill Castner, as has been preserved (with his permission) by Joe53 here: http://naut.homestead.com/files/Free/castner.html

I'm not saying/implying that Mr. Caster knows more than you. Just that he seems to make a very good/compelling case for it. So I'd like to learn what has led/caused you to believe otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Windows Defender is free, offers many advanced features, provides fast scans, is light on system resources, and includes two free technical support calls. It does not conflict with your antivirus software or other anti-malware utilties. Leave it enabled under Vista. Install it under Windows XP.

If you install Microsoft Security Essentials then it is a part of that system and not individually required on XP -

It is auto installed with Vista and Win7 - Not with XP, so you would need to install or activate it -

I think this is the basis of his statement for using a free M/soft Firewall , rather than paying or looking for another -

Thank You -

Link to post
Share on other sites

ky331

As I do not know what operating system you are using nor what anti virus nor anti malware application you have its hard to add further information.

When was Bill Castner's alternative view published as he does not mention Windows 7 that has been available since October 22, 2009.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kenny,

I'm not asking the question just about my particular system. Rather, I'm trying to get you to clarify what appears to be a general assertion that WD is (always) unnecessary under XP. The point being: I realize that you are active in several online security forums, and people read/consider what you have to say. If I have quoted you out of context, and it only applies in certain circumstances, then by all means, I'd like to find out what you intended by your statement.

Yes, it's clear that in the case of users of MSE --- which includes Defender [or perhaps a version of Defender, or a super-set of Defender] --- there is no need to run Defender as well [and on that basis, MSE's installation disables Defender]. so here we have a specific example when WD is not necessary (on ANY o/s running MSE).

The timing of Caster's post --- pre Win7 --- should not impact whether or not WD has value under XP.

I believe my original post was explicit enough in what I'm trying to find out:

"Why is WD unncessary on XP? And is that statement dependent on what other (resident or non-resident) security programs a person might be running on their XP system?"

Put another way, is there something inherant under XP that makes WD always unnecessary on that o/s? Or does it depend on what other security a person is running on XP? Are there ANY circumstances under which you see merit to an XP user running WD? Feel free to elaborate as much as possible.

Please understand that I don't mean this as a challange to you.... I am simply trying to understand the scope of your statement... and whether I am misinterpreting anything about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
Back to top
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This site uses cookies - We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.