I see exactly the same behavior across the systems from low end Atom netbook with 2GB RAM and eMMC to Ryzen 2500U laptop with 8GB RAM and NVMe DRAMless SSD to a highly overclocked desktop with 32GB of RAM and super fast SATA SSD. It's just awful at scanning speed and while people keep on saying it's my system's fault I disagree. However my biggest issue with it is that it's engine just sucks ass when it comes to performance. Windows Defender on the other hand has been pretty mediocre and has relatively recently improved to a point where I don't see a reason why one wouldn't use it. People can argue their privacy practices, but their protection has been top level for a lot of years now. And as much as people hate it, avast!/AVG does too.
Unexpectedly, Trend Micro is also a top performer for many recent years. Bitdefender has one of the best track records and has been consistently a top performer for many many years now. The only thing that can be done is avoid being low hanging fruit. No one can stay on top.Ĭomputers aren’t really capable of adequate security. The one that works best gets used most and therefore gets stuff written specifically to attack it. Companies do the work to get to the top of the pile and then attempt to coast. Back in the day it was even macfee for a while. It’s been bitdefender, it’s been avast, it’s been malware bytes.
The issue is which software is “most effective” changes frequently.
