Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Computer Help and Support

Eugene

(66,808 posts)

2. general consensus: Windows Defender is generally good enough.

Reply to dflprincess (Original post)

Sat Jan 3, 2026, 08:18 PM

Jan 3

McAfee and Norton are notoriously bloated and inefficient.

The only minus for Windows Defender is that is relies on static virus signatures, where other anti-malware tools apply heuristics that flag suspicious behavior.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

4 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

temporary311 dflprincess 2naSalit Intractable

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is Microsoft Defender good enough or should I stick with McAfee? thanks in advance [View all] dflprincess Jan 3 OP

Defender is good enough. Nt BootinUp Jan 3 #1

general consensus: Windows Defender is generally good enough. Eugene Jan 3 #2

Defender does use heuristics according to the MS tech doc BootinUp Jan 3 #4

I use McAfee Progressive dog Jan 3 #3

Yes and no. Tetrachloride Jan 3 #5

I've been using canetoad Jan 3 #6

if ones visit dubious sites, click links in questionable emails, downloads unknown programs then.....ta da msongs Jan 3 #7