I use alternatives to Bitdefender, such as other antivirus solutions.
I use alternatives to Bitdefender, such as other antivirus solutions.
I don’t download anything I don’t understand the source of. If you’re careful with your PC, you might not even need antivirus software.
Not true. Demonstrably so. Statistics would say this is more luck than common sense because there are many silent viruses for Windows that are unavoidable with common sense. Norton is a terrible idea, there are several viruses that exploit vulnerabilities in Norton to shut it down and make it appear like nothing is actually infected. The whole tuneup software is a scam as well (except sometimes for registry, by sometimes I mean 10+ years) because there is really no such thing as harmful "junk" on your computer. Browsing smart doesn't help in all cases, as I have said before. This is not true, and by spreading lies like this you are creating a larger attack surface for the entire Windows community. Don't ask this kind of question in an online forum. All you are going to get are responses like these. If you want scientific evidence, avtest.org tests and validates antivirus softwares. I would advise not getting rid of BitDefender, it has been consistently among their top five choices (often number one) for the past several years.
I understand where you're coming from, but if it's a matter of chance, then my basic judgment has to be quite strong. Even in sports, winning seven years in a row is extremely tough, so I think I'm doing something right. Most statistics aren't always accurate unless they're dealing with a small group of people. A big number usually comes from a tiny portion of the world—like 1000, 100,000, or even 1 million—but that's still less than 2% of the total population. With over six billion people globally, it's nearly impossible to get a precise figure right.
And what you explore along with other activities. Used to skip antivirus for savings, but it saved me a lot of money compared to the time spent fixing things. It’s also useful for checking viruses on other users’ computers during backups. I was virus-free for a long time until just before Windows 8’s release, when my Firefox kept getting infected even after rolling it back.
I’m questioning the sample size used, yet I can’t provide a solid reason to support it. Seems like you’re not well-informed about this topic. I’ve actually worked with Windows weaknesses before, so I suspect you’re missing the point. There are straightforward methods to reach Windows via Internet Explorer, and more complex approaches through Chrome and Firefox. Creating a stealth virus that downloads silently is quite simple, and manipulating users into downloading malware via a trojan is even more manageable. You can also design viruses that target antivirus software itself, which is challenging. Norton has known vulnerabilities, but there’s a method to breach all antivirus programs. Windows Defender/Security Essentials falls short, and even with a genuine antivirus, detection rates are low—often just around 70%. That’s why I recommend using a Linux VM for browsing or switching to another Linux system or BSD. You’re speaking with someone who isn’t fully aware, especially when I know you’re not.
Just like proving something on a large scale is impossible due to the lack of universal agreement, your statement highlights how contradictions arise when trying to apply general rules. No pun intended.