Resolved Why is SSD not recognised as such?

I have just cloned a 120GB Hard Disk Drive and used Easus To Do Clone. The SSD that I wrote the copied software to is a Kingston SSD also 120GB. I did not select 'sector by sector' cloning as this failed on a previous attempt. The software cloning was successful and I have not seen any failure, but things sure happen faster.

I then used Smart Defrag 5 expecting it to Trim the SSD, but although I have had this program trim other SSDs it decided that it should defragment this one.

Does anyone know why an SSD would not be recognised as such when in the past the software has done so correctly?

 

Sorry, but I don't know anything about Smart Defrag 5 as I have seen no need for 3rd party defraggers in many years. Windows knows how to defrag just fine - and can also tell the difference between a HD and SSD. I might suggest you try Windows own Disk Optimize instead of a 3rd party tool.

 

I have Transcend and Kingston SSD's and they show in Device Manager as SSD's!!! As Bill stated - use Windows Disk Optimizer. SSD's have been out for quite a time now and Windows has developed and recognizes the need for specialized software tools.

 

Thanks for the advice but I gave up on Windows defraggers when they did away with the very useful display, and all the other useful options that Smart Defrag, Deffraggler and other third party software offers. As a matter of principle I do not understand why Microsoft in their 'wisdom' seem to leave so much out of their software, e.g.background defragging, content with buying and screwing up other software, e.g. Skype where I found that in order to use my previous login details I had to login to a new copy of Skype with my hotmail login. Why can't Microsoft adhere to the maxim, if it "ain't broke don't mess with it?" Why should I want every contact in my hotmail account to have access to my Skype and phone details. It's a **** liberty for Microsoft to assume these REDICULOUS facts about Windows 10 users. Windows 10 is now so intrusive that magazine contributors are making hay with all their suggestions of how to defeat Microsoft's desire to spread private data all over the internet. If I want others to have my private information I will give it to them It's time that the management at HQ concentrated on improving the right kind of software and perhaps including such things as preventing HDD/SSDs from getting horribly fragmented 10 minutes after a complete defragment.

By the way how do you start the Task Scheduler Service in Windows 7? Disk Defrag won't run with out it being started. Smart Defrag does however!

 

Do you want to defrag you hard disk/ssd at full speed or look at the graphics ? What you are saying about defrag was true in the days of Win95/98/XP but now it's much improved.

You can set the Disk Defrag to defrag your disks on a schedule and just forget about it. And yes it knows the difference between hard disk & SSD.

 

Thanks for the tip, rsinfo. I have set the Disk Defragmenter in Windows 10 to defrag daily but of course defragging is not necessary for an SSD. So although it said that the disk 'Needs optimization' , I have no idea what it did. Did it Trim the disk? Do MS think I am too stupid to understand? At least if Smart Defrag says it will Trim the disk rather than defrag it, you know what is going on, and if you don't know what trimming is, then Google it. I did. Now I know.

By the way MS Disk Defragmenter does not seem to recognise Flash Drives either. I tried with three and it offered to defragment them all!

So I do not seem able to get an answer to my original question. There must be some secret bit of software somewhere that tells Windows the item is an SSD. I know that there are letters that designate the medium/format in use, but maybe this is not programmed into certain drives.

Thanks to all for your contributions. I will leave this unsolved for the moment and see if anyone can come up with an answer.

 

And yet Windows Disk Optimize ain't broke but you messed with it.

Do remember that modern versions of Windows are not XP. What was good for XP is probably detrimental to modern Windows - or at least hogs resources unnecessarily.

I note too that Windows Disk Optimize is designed to work with Windows' fetch routines to load Windows and your most commonly used programs more quickly. By using 3rd party defraggers, you negate those advantages.

And while defragging SSDs is not done, note with a hard drive that any efficiency advantage a 3rd party defragger provides in the defrag process is quickly negated again beginning as soon as you start to use the drive again.

The reason Microsoft "leaves out" (as you say) all those extra features is because they aren't needed. All they do is add fluff and 1000s of more lines of programming code that take up space in RAM, CPU cycles, and disk space that can become corrupted, or perhaps compromised.

Complaints about Skype, whether valid or not, have nothing to do with defragging or Disk Optimize. That's just letting bias cloud your judgement.

 

Before you set a schedule to defrag your SSD, have a read here Should You Defrag an SSD? You need to be aware of the lifespan of a SSD.

 

Dear Bill, I did not mess with Windows Disk Optimize(Never heard of the program!). As a result of suggestion I used the MS Disk Defrag program on my SSD. It said that my C: drive needed Optimization and immediately optimized it. But to this date I do not know what it did because it did not show or tell me. So I am none the wiser. As I said perhaps MS think I am too stupid to know what optimization was carried out if I was told. I assume that it trimmed the drive. It may have done other things, but perhaps you can tell me.

And while defragging SSDs is not done, note with a hard drive that any efficiency advantage a 3rd party defragger provides in the defrag process is quickly negated again beginning as soon as you start to use the drive again.

This is what I meant about the lack of a smart program in Windows to prevent this from happening. In the back ground a program could be filling in the unused sectors rather than always starting from the beginning to write a new file, and ending up with it defragmented. Back in the 'old days', Bill, even before XP or even Windows 3.1, I wrote a program for my twin external drives (5.25" they were) in Z80 assembly, that migrated the files toward sector zero on track zero in order to fill the gaps left by deleted data. That meant that new files were always written on to the end of the data filled sectors and so were always, or nearly always, contiguous. Now I have given upwriting software, (I am 76 now), but I am sure that some whiz kids at Seattle could come up with something along those lines. After all the HDDs are now so huge that about 60% of most are empty, yet the lower number tracks are always used, and for some strange reason there always seem to be a group of files stranded out in the middle of the disk. Why??

Complaints about Skype, whether valid or not, have nothing to do with defragging or Disk Optimize. That's just letting bias cloud your judgement.

Finally, I have been building computers (from chips) and writing software and using computers since 1979 and my comments are not biased in any way. I almost certainly do not have the deep technical knowledge of the Windows software as you, Bill, and your team colleagues, but I have been a user of MS OS and programs since the mid 1980s, and have experience of using every version except Millenium and 8,8.1. I merely express an opinion on what I see and talk to others about. I have tried Macs and Linux, but prefer Windows with all its shortcomings. I also read magazines which endorse many of the views I express about the Microsoft Operating System Software. I think you need to consider the opinions of the rest of the world of the pig's ear that Microsoft made of Windows 8 (for computers). Fine for phones. By the way, I use Classic Shell with my Windows 10 - is that too retro?

Dear retiredlearner, I am well aware that SSDs and other solid state devices have a life limited by a number of read and write cycles. So, never fear, I have no intention of allowing a defragment program to defrag any solid state device of mine.

You see what I was trying to find out was : is there something special that allows a program, e g MS Disk Defragmenter, Smart Defrag, Defraggler to determine the characterisitcs of the device it is asked to action upon. It seems able to detect only some solid state devices as such. MS Defrag did not detect the three flash drives I tried as solid state and offer to optimize or trim them. So where is the clever bit that flags up the type of device, in the device or in the defrag program?

Finally, rsinfo, I want to defrag my HDDs because I find that the computers run faster, and with other third party software, I have got my boot up times down to 40 secs with Windows 10 and a 2GHz dual core Intel CPU. I do not use XP any more!

Must go to bed, it's 5:35 am!

 

Ummm, that is the name of the integrated disk defragging program built into Windows. It was renamed from Disk Defragmenter to "Optimize Drives" in W8 because SSDs started their march to dominance over hard drives. It knows to defrag hard disks and to TRIM SSDs. And so it will NOT defrag a SSD.

Also, since Windows Vista, defragging, by default, has been happening on hard drives weekly as needed. This is to keep the disks optimized, but also to tweak the various "fetch" routines to make programs you use more frequently load faster. By you using a 3rd party defragger, you "mess" with those fetch settings. And if you did not disable Disk Optimize scheduled optimization, you also put a lot of unnecessary wear on the disks (the HDs, anyway).

But this is not the "old days ". And today's Windows are not XP. People need so start realizing that W10 is way different from XP and stop assuming what was good for XP on 2001 era hardware is good for W10 on 2016 hardware.

And note how files are written to a disk is not a function of the OS, but the file system - NTFS and that is controlled by the drives own controller, not the OS. But to your "in the back ground" comment, that is exactly what Windows does - only instead of consolidating free space and jamming all the files to the beginning of the disk, it consolidates file segments where they are so Windows, the disk controller and the file system have lots of room to play in to put open files, temp files and file updates in without creating a bunch of new gaps at the beginning of the disk.

In the "old days ", a 10GB drive was HUGE. But of course, not really. Drives back then also were not very fast. So free space was often consolidated and files moved to the front of the disk for faster access. That is just not needed today because drives really are HUGE. As you correctly noted, large percentages of disk space often goes unused. Having 30, 40, 100GB of "free" space is normal. But all that extra space actually means less fragmentation, not more.

And drives are much faster too. It does not matter if files are at the front of the disk as long as the files are not fragmented. Remember, finding the first file fragment is where the most time is spent when retrieving a file. Moving to the next "adjacent" segment takes essentially the same amount of time regardless where on the disk it is. And there is no reason to assume the R/W head will always be at the beginning on the disk before seeking a file. But even if the R/W is on the opposite side of the platter, seek times on today's drives are so fast anyway, you are talking fractions of a millisecond - not seconds. And again, that is only to find the first segment. The next will likely be in the adjacent sector.

And most people back then did not have broadband to the home and program updates were rare - and often came on CDs or DVDs. Today, updates are frequent - even daily or several times a day for our security apps. THIS FACT IS CRITICAL for all to understand! Because files are routinely and frequently updated, there will always be gaps on the drives. So it makes no sense to consolidate free disk space because tomorrow (or as soon as you start using the disk again) files will be updated. And whenever a file is updated (including user files that are modified), the original file is marked as open and in use, the new updated/modified file is saved to a new location on the disk, the file system verified integrity, then the old file (or the space it occupied) is marked as free again - leaving a gap!

And of course, 1000s of temp files will be created as part of the normal process for Windows and just about every other program out there - so more and more gaps.

Because all those gaps allow the file system to freely put files in those open spaces, as file systems are designed to do, without fragmentation.

I don't have as many total years under my belt as you, but you can see through the link in my signature that I've been doing this a long time too - in fact, I've been supporting IS/IT systems longer.

 

Bill, Many thanks for the tutorial. I will read it several times before I appreciate all the finer points.

However I am pleased to say that there is a little light at the end of the tunnel re my original query.
I cloned the 120GB SSD to a 120GB(approx) partition on a 250GB HDD. I have now discovered the unknown program, that calls itself Optimize Drives but is actually listed in the Menu as Defragment and Optimize Drives. Anyway, I have now asked this program to defrag and optimize my HDD.

Low and behold it does not list my C: drive, but lists the D: (System reserved) and the E: (the rest of the Drive.) Tells me that both are 0% Fragmented and has Optimized them! You are right it does not offer to defrag SSDs.

So I set Smart Defrag 5 to defrag the HDD. It now offers to Trim the three partitions!!!!! It thinks that my HDD is an SSD??!!

Defraggler on the other hand has happily defragged all three partitions. So it looks like the answer is on the HDD. When the SSD was cloned to the HDD partitions it marked them with an 'SSD' type mark in spite of the fact that the disk is an HDD.

In case you wondered why I was cloning the SSD to the HDD and not possibly the other way around, the reason is that I have 6 HP G-70 laptops and I want to sell some of them. I downloaded and programmed an SSD with Windows 10 because it is faster, and then I used it to clone the HDDs that I will sell with the Windows 10 CoAs. If people want to just have a CoA for Windows 10, the software will not be validated. Let's face it, £100 is a lot to pay for Windows 10.

Please tell me I am right!

 

I have had a look around the net and googled the problem of incorrect classification of the SSD/HDD. One suggestion was to access the media type using Windows Powershell. The program correctly identifies the disk as a Toshiba 250GB but the Media Type is 'Unspecified'. Ho Hum, back to square 1. It is just so puzzling that some of the partitions are correct and others not, and the various defrag programs cannot agree.

I remember that many years ago it was possible to edit sectors and data of a disk using a Norton Disk Doctor program. Is there a program now that will allow this to be done and possibly solve the problem this way?

 

I sure don't know what is happening with your system and the way drives are being recognized, but I think if you are planning on getting rid of those 6 systems, you should just wipe the drives and leave it at that, or install Linux on them.

As far as £100 for W10, it is a chunk of change, but I don't think unreasonable - especially considering when you buy W10 (instead of upgrading from previous versions of Windows) it is basically a lifetime license that you can transfer to a new computer (unlike previous versions of Windows).

I used to use Norton Disk Doctor a lot but it has been many years since I edited disks directly. The need has just not come up. Google shows there are still a couple editors around but I have no experience with any so I would not know what to recommend.

 

Bill, I am very attached to my 6, and more, systems as I have rebuilt and repaired them from bits and pieces of broken laptops that I have bought on eBay. It is my hobby and I just love the challenge. I hate to see things thrown out if they can be repaired. I will always try to fix it before throwing it. I suppose being a war baby has made me that way.

I think I will just end this. It has been very enlightening chatting with you, and I thank you for the time you have devoted to me.

Just one final thing. I ran Win 10 Defragmenter and Optimizer, and after 11 or maybe it was 12 passes[sic] it said 0% fragmentation on a 120GB main partition.

So I immediately ran Defraggler and it said 56 files 257 fragments 13% fragmentation. Does it really happen that fast???

Seems like we can't win.
Cheers,

 

I am the same way. In fact, every year I donate as many rebuilt systems as I can to local churches to avoid sending them landfills. I cannibalize parts from different computers to make a working computer, then donate it. But it is important these systems be totally legal. That means ensuring all installed software, including Windows, is properly licensed for that computer, and any disks for that software goes with the computer. If I don't have the license that came with that computer, then I either have to buy a new license, donate one of my own full "retail" license (with the disks) I am not using elsewhere, install Linux on it, or leave it with no OS. Cloning a copy of an OS is NOT a legal option.

In recent years, however, churches have had to turn away such donations if the hardware did not support modern applications or meet modern security requirements. That pretty much rules out all XP era systems. Fortunately, we have a electronics recycling center in my areas that properly extracts the precious metals and hazardous materials then properly disposes of the rest according to EPA and eco-friendly standards. And they pay me for the materials (aluminum, steel, gold, etc.) they can recycle.

Note it is illegal to use any OEM license that came with or was purchased for another computer on these systems because OEM licenses cannot be transferred to another computer under ANY circumstances. Period! And I am aware of no notebook that came with anything but OEM licenses. If you are using a single Windows 10 license to clone an OS on to those 6 notebooks, that's software piracy, theft, and 100% illegal! Even if you have in your possession all the legal licenses for the operating systems that came with those computers (assuming they came with W7 or W8.1), the time to upgrade to Windows 10 for free expired July 29th!

While I respect and admire your desire to "stay in the game ", it must be done legally!

I will also point out there is a HUGE difference between "security" and "privacy ". Microsoft is NOT trying to steal our passwords, hack into our bank accounts, infect our computers with malware, steal our contacts information, nor are they even privy to our personal information! Microsoft does not know our real name, street address, phone number, age, Social Security (or National Insurance) numbers.

If you are as worried about your "privacy" as you claim, you need to be concerned with your ISP, not Microsoft. Your ISP not only knows everywhere you go on the Internet, they do know your full name, street address, billing information, Social Security/National Insurance number, and more. And if you are REALLY worried about your privacy, you should be complaining about your cell phone carrier because not only do they know everything your ISP knows, they also know who you've been talking/texting with, they know where you are physically standing at that moment to within a couple yards (including the aisle of the store you are standing in), they know everywhere you've been, where you came from, the direction you are heading, and how fast you are moving!

If you connect via Ethernet, the best Microsoft knows of your location is your POP (point of presence). That is where your ISP connects their network to the Internet backbone. In my case, that is 10 miles away in the next town over! If you connect via wifi, then they might know your geo-coordinates, but they still don't know the actual street address or other personal information.

Bash when bashing is due. And certainly MS has done much to bash about. But Microsoft is NOT the big evil monster those "magazine contributors" seeking fame and attention with sensationalized headlines want you to believe. Windows 10 has done more to improve our "personal security" than any previous version to date. And it just keeps getting better all the time.

 

Bill old chap, you are preaching to the converted. I am cloning the systems ONLY because it takes so long to install them from a disk, and along with the OS I include a number of other programs(all free) that I use to check out the full facilities of the laptop for sale eg Skype for video and sound and others for cleaning up any extraneous rubbish left on the drive. When I sell the laptops, they have a working OS but it is not validated. I supply a new and unused CoA that can be used to validate the software should the buyer wish to do so. If not the CoA can be used to install a copy of the same type software on another computer.

I am fully cognisant of the fact that validated OEM software cannot be transferred to another laptop, and that it is only on loan from Microsoft. Somehow there are people who seem to be able to sell valid CoAs at knockdown prices. How they do it I do not ask but I don't mind buying these CoAs. I assume that is not illegal.

As for privacy and security I have few worries. I have nothing to hide, and all the information about who I call, text and speak to on my phone/laptop does not bother me. If someone has nothing better to do than listen to my prattling then good luck to them. If they want to track me as I move about the neighbourhood, so what, let them. The things I want to keep secure are well protected and I have had my Yahoo mail account hacked only once in about 10 years, but then so have probably 499plus million others.

To the best of my knowledge and intentions, the days when I used to use illegal copies of software are over now that I can afford to buy it. But that does not stop me from switching off all the things in Windows 10 that make use of my location, send my usernames and phone numbers to everyone in my mailing list etc etc. As I said before, if I want to buy something I will look for it. I do not need to be bombarded by advertisements suggesting I buy things just because I bought one once. I do not want to be suggested websites to visit because I once visited something similar. Microsoft Windows 10 is INTRUSIVE and Microsoft have no inalienable right to include all these extras that have NEVER been in any previous edition, and don't try to convince me that this new software will improve my surfing, gaming(don't game anyway), buying, selling, emailing etc etc. It is all load of eyewash! Microsoft should just stick to producing software that is strictly for purpose and leave the user to decide on the extra use he/she might want to put it to.

I applaud the ease with which new hardware can be installed by the OS, as opposed to going all over the internet trying to find drives etc. The additional facilities and capabilities in programs that actually make life easier for the user are great and I thank Microsoft for introducing them, but all these sneaky extras should not be there and Microsoft nor any other program supplier should include them. I hope you are not in favour of all the PUPs that one has to avoid these days on the basis that if someone writes a new program it is their right to add it to requested software downloads.

Any way enough of my rants. I want to assure you Bill that I am remaining legal in my activities and just today I bought two more laptops, one with licenced Win 7 and the other HHD'less. So I will have to find another CoA if I sell them.

TTFN, Richard

 

Not sure I would. These are often stolen volume license CoAs. If the price sounds too good to be true... .

Sure they do. Previous versions have nothing to do it. And of course, nothing says you have to install any Microsoft product on your hardware. Linux is fully capable supporting all your needs. You can use OpenOffice instead of Microsoft Office. Firefox or Chrome instead of IE or Edge.

I don't either. But why are you assuming that is because of Microsoft? Amazon and Newegg do this all the time? I am not saying Microsoft doesn't also do it, I am just saying they definitely don't hold exclusive rights to that practice.

Not at all. But again, and maybe especially so, PUPs are not exclusive to Microsoft. In fact, PUPs most often come bundled from 3rd party application developers.

The problem is, users demand everything be free. Most of us don't want to pay for our security programs. I sure don't. I fully believe the bloated Norton and McAfee and the other "paid" security suites are total rip offs. They hog resources, slow down our computers, cost an arm to buy and legs to renew every year or two. And they just are not needed because two of those extras you so vehemently oppose, Windows Defender and Windows Firewall are perfectly capable of keeping us safe!

But we also like programs like CCleaner, Speccy, MBAM, HWiNFO64, Chrome, Firefox and other "free" programs that take extensive resources to develop and maintain. How are those developers suppose to shelter and feed their families if consumers demand their products be free? How is Microsoft suppose to keep developing Windows 10 now that it has a lifetime license (which, if you buy separately, you CAN legally transfer to your next computer, BTW)? How is Google suppose to keep providing free email service and one of the best search engines around?

Consumers cannot refuse to pay for products and services and expect no PUPs or ads in return. If you can come up with a way we can have our cake and eat it too, I'm all ears.

 

Bill, I do not think we are ever likely to agree! As a team member I realise that you are interested in pushing the party line, and I do not in any way disagree with that. However, may I take you to task on one or two of your assumptions.
1. I have never mentioned Windows Defender or Windows Firewall. If you want an opinion, read some of the test reports. They are so basic that they are never recommended as the only defence/AV/anti-malware programs that one needs. How am I supposed to test out the efficacy of these programs? Wait until I get a virus or some other nasty bit of malware? I prefer to take the opinion of the magazines who have people who specialise in testing software.
2. How can I prove that the cheap licences that are being sold are stolen, and what am I supposed to do about it? If a computer is damaged and not sold and the CoA is never validated, is it illegal to sell the CoA? The person I have bought licences from recently assures me that these CoAs have never been used. Am I to call him a liar and refuse to have any dealings with him? What further proof can I demand? If Microsoft identify a CoA as one of a stolen volume batch, (I assume they can?), they can refuse validation. Otherwise they accept that the CoA is legally obtained and validate. They do after all hold the whip hand.
3. I buy software, and what I object to is the development companies, e.g. iobit ( I buy their software as well as use freebies), include Dashlane as a PUP in one of their downloads. Occasionally this program slips past me and is instantly uninstalled. I do not want a password manager. I can manage my own passwords. Furthermore, to mention CCleaner. Piriform are quite happy to give away free copies of this program. It is after all their choice. I do not need any assistance with using it, or the extras the paid copies provide, so I settle for the free copy. However I have to be devious if I want to get it from Piriform rather than fillehippo, cnet or any other third party. I have leaned the trick. AVG used to be a simple AV program. Then along comes AVG ZEN that will protect your phone, smart TV, tablet, washing machine, etc. etc. I do not want ZEN, I just want Antivirus protection of my emails, downloads and surfing on the computer on which it is installed.
4. I went to University and did a one year course in software during which I learned some Java and HTML4. However, try as hard as I could, I just could not get to grips with command line Linux. While Linux (Ubuntu) might be great for the casual user who just wants to use Free Office, Mozilla, VLC and a few other user friendly programs, I cannot get any deeper into it than these user programs, and I want to be able to drill right down into the hardware of my computers, so it is Windows for me out of choice.
5. Developers of software would go out of business if they did not make money! How many have recently? In the majority of cases they sell more capable versions of their software and offer support; people who reckon they need those versions, buy them. I know because I can see the difference in performance between the paid for and free versions of iobit software that I buy. I use the paid for versions on my personal computers and use the free versions to keep the others in reasonable running order. I am not going to tell iobit not to give away free versions of their software, after all it is not my place to dictate policy to a software company. There are many companies out there who trumpet 'Free Download', identify problems and then when you click 'Fix all' they demand payment. Caveat Emptor! Hit the 'X' if you don't want to pay.
6. I actually do not use Microsoft Office or any of the free Office programs. I buy my WP, Spreadsheet and Presentation program from a German company. So it may not be quite as wizzy as MS Office, but it is compatible with all the file formats and satisfies my simple requirements. I get lots of offers of low price software as I have been a regular customer for more than 10 years. They also offer free copies of superceded versions of their software. It is not always necessary to use the 2016 version!

Bill, as much as I enjoy our conversations, as I said at the start, we are never going to be in complete agreement. Bill Gates et al might be able to pay for every bit of software on his PC, and have only the wizzy, do everything versions, but I am not going to look a gift horse in the mouth! As long as free software does the job I want it to, I will continue to use it. I do actually make donations to the odd developer!

 

Then it is abundantly clear you know NOTHING about me, or this site!

I will only address this as the rest of your post is just blather. Sorry.

It is clear you don't know anything about these two programs either. Firewalls are such basic technologies, that is all they have to be! They all work to block ports and unauthorized access the same way! So to suggest you need some fancy interface or extras in a firewall just demonstrates a lack of understanding about software based firewalls.

I know of no one who recommends the use of only one anti-malware program. No one program is perfect therefore, regardless your primary anti-malware solution of choice, you should have a secondary scanner just to make sure you (the user and always weakest link in security) did not let something slip by. I generally recommend Malwarebytes Antimalware (MBAM) for that. And for the record, I have dozens of computers I am responsible for. Beginning with W7 in 2009, they have all used Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE) and Windows Firewall, along with MBAM Free. When MSE was upgraded and renamed Windows Defender in W8, all W8 systems used WD and WF and now all systems have been upgraded to W10 and all use WD and WF. Not one system has ever had anything more than a couple PUPs (that were not unwanted anyway).

You need to understand that, unlike the 3rd party scanners out there (who need the advertising fodder), Microsoft does NOT code Windows Defender for, or strive to score well in synthetic lab tests of artificial scenarios. They code WD to thwart today's threats. To suggest they are not successful at that just further demonstrates your lack of understanding of reality. If WD were as bad as you make it out to be, there would be 100s of millions of infected computers out there, but that is NOT the case.

Ask yourself this, "what incentive does Norton, Kaspersky, McAfee, Avira, AVG, Bit-Defender, Comodo, TrendMicro, et al have to rid the world of malware?" The answer? Absolutely none! Why? Because that would put them out of business.

Now ask, "what incentive does Microsoft have to thwart malware? " They have all the incentive in the world because they know there are naïve and biased people like you, as well as unscrupulous, wannabe journalists, bloggers and others in the IT press who out seeking sensationalized, exaggerated and even false headlines just to get attention who are looking for any reason to blame Microsoft for any and everything - just as you have done above.

BTW, ridding the world of malware is exactly what Norton, McAfee and the others said was their job when they cried and whined to Congress and the EU years ago when Microsoft wanted to put AV code in XP. They cried "monopoly" and claimed Microsoft was trying to rule the world! They were, but not the point! Congress and the EU heard "monopoly" and that was all it took. So Microsoft was ordered to remove the AV code from XP or Congress would break up Microsoft!

So how well did Norton and McAfee do? They FAILED!! Miserably!!! And why? Because they had no incentive whatsoever to put themselves out of business.

So what happened? The bad guys took over while Norton and McAfee sat back watched while raking in the cash. But who got blamed? The bad guys? Nope! Norton and McAfee? Nope! The users who disabled Windows Update and failed to keep their systems updated? Nope! Microsoft got blamed - relentlessly for over a decade.

Now ask yourself, "why isn't Norton, McAfee, Kaspersky, TrendMicro, et al complaining to Congress and EU today that Microsoft is trying to do their jobs again?" "Why aren't Congress and the EU threatening and accusing Microsoft with monopolistic tactics again? " It should be obvious. Congress and the EU know they blew it! And Norton, McAfee and the others don't want to lose their cash cows by bringing unwanted attention to their intimidation tactics.

Contrary to what many want us to believe, we don't need to drive around in an Abrams tank to be safe. We do, however, need to have a decent car that is properly maintained and most of all, we must drive defensively.

This is old now but still applies: Do I need to stop using Microsoft Security Essentials? But this is new: Is Windows Defender sufficient and enough for Windows 10? Bottom line, for normal users doing normal day-to-day computing tasks including social networking, Windows Defender is just fine. If you partake in risky behavior like using torrents, you should pile on 3rd party alternatives, then cross your fingers and make sure you have current backups.

Now IMO, this topic is done.

 

I have looked back through my previous posts and cannot find any such suggestion. I merely stated that they were not considered to be the only programs needed. I have checked my Windows 7 laptop, and Windows Firewall and Windows Defender are both switched on and have not so far found any malware or blocked any attacks! I do not have Microsoft Security Essentials. I rely on Panda AV and Iobit's Malware Fighter that so far have been successful. I read that Kaspersky is the best in tests, but I am not a user. I have AVG on most of my other machines.

I think that this comment is rather an endorsement of your avatar, Bill. You give me the impression that you are an intolerant and angry young man, relatively speaking. I have never claimed to be the expert you obviously are, and quite frankly I do not follow US politics closely enough to appreciate what goes on in the ivory towers of DC and elsewhere. My knowledge and experience of IT is gained by practice and reading many opinions, including even yours!

I suggest that if you want to assist those of us who you claim are

then a more conciliatory tone would be more acceptable than the tone of your previous post.

Sorry, Bill, but I felt I needed to round this off on a more gentle tone. I will bear in mind your positive advice and facts, and draw a line under the more vilified opinions you have expressed. Nothing personal.