Final Release of Windows Defender

[Welshjim]

Since there was the discrepancy in Product ID numbers reported by some, I downloaded and installed another copy of Windows Defender today. (It was dated October 25) I had uninstalled the earlier version previously.
FWIW--here is what is now reported "About Windows Defender"
Windows Defender Version: 1.1.1592.0
Engine Version: 1.1.1609.0
Definition Version: 1.14.1736.7
Product ID: 81664-844-2923435-04065
The numbers are moving fast. It is hard to tell which number shows a later version.

[HAN]

SpywareDr: Thanks for the links on WGA and WGA Notification. After reading through the info, I have decided that I must be a dummy because I still don't see exactly where Notification fits into this puzzle. Of course I think MS is being vague about WGA on purpose so they can do whatever they like and still say it was spelled out all along...

Linda: You're absolutely right! It is the pits! They beta test Defender with Win 2k support from the very beginning and then in the eleventh hour and fifty-ninth minute, they dump the Win 2k support. To me, it looks like somebody farther up the ladder realized that they make zero income from Win 2k anymore. So they closed off another link to it. They did the same thing with MS Anti-Spyware beta 1. (Defender's first iteration.) It was essentially Giant Anti-Spyware with a new set of graphics. But with all the Win 98 support stripped from it.

To all: I have ran the Defender betas on several PCs for quite some time. In general, it has ran quite well. My overall impression has been that it is more useful as a real-time scanner than as a definition based manual scanner. (Of course, over time this could change.) I was disappointed when they made Defender's update pathway the same as Windows Update but with the link to MS's WGA program noted above, the reasoning for that is now abundantly clear.

I am now running Defender final on several PCs and again, with one exception, it is doing fine. The exception involved a Limited User account. Defender is advertised to run for all users. But I have discovered (and I am not alone) that while the real-time component still runs and finds potential issues on a Limited account, it cannot take any permanent actions to either permit or deny those issues. Which of course (until it's fixed) means it's value on Limited accounts is zero...

[SpywareDr]

Well, this is the pits. I replaced the new Defender over my beta as you suggested. When I went to install, it said sorry, since I am NOT running XP with SP 2.

I am running W2K with SP 4.

Microsoft is nuts.

It never occurred to me that Microsoft would do something like this, when the beta ran just fine on W2K.

I have no plans to upgrade to XP or to Vista.

Linda

Sorry about that Linda. Had no idea you were still running Windows 2000.

Microsoft > Security At Home > Frequently asked questions about Windows Defender
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...about/faq.mspx

Q. What are the system requirements for Windows Defender?

A. System requirements:

• Processor: Pentium 233 MHz or higher processor; Pentium III (recommended)
  
  
• Operating system: Windows XP Service Pack 2 or later, or Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 or later.
  
  
• Memory: 64 MB RAM (minimum); 128 MB RAM (recommended)
  
  
• Disk space: 20 MB of available hard disk space
  
  
• Web browser: Internet Explorer 6.0 or later

Note: Windows Defender does not run on the Microsoft Windows 2000, Microsoft Windows Me, Microsoft Windows 98, or Microsoft Windows NT operating systems.


Q. Why doesn’t Windows Defender support Windows 2000 anymore?

A. Windows Defender is primarily a consumer antispyware solution. Windows 2000 was not a popular consumer operating system and mainstream support ended on June 30, 2005. Due to these reasons, we decided to focus more on Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. Both of these operating systems with the latest service packs have significantly better security protection overall, which will also help to prevent spyware on those computers that run those operating systems.

("Windows 2000 was not a popular consumer operating system" but "Windows Server 2003" is?)

Anyway, I do still have "Windows Defender (Beta 2)", (and "GenuineCheck.exe"), that I downloaded directly from Microsoft on April 16, 2006. If you like I can make it/them available for download or email it/them to you:

 Volume in drive D is Vol02Disk01
 Volume Serial Number is 28DA-A93E

 Directory of D:\_new\_anti\Windows Defender (Beta 2)

04/16/2006  02:24 AM    <DIR>          .
04/16/2006  02:24 AM    <DIR>          ..
04/16/2006  02:21 AM           510,696 GenuineCheck.exe
04/16/2006  02:24 AM         5,763,072 WindowsDefender.msi
               2 File(s)      6,273,768 bytes
               2 Dir(s)  242,838,716,416 bytes free

Let me know ...

[SpywareDr]

My understanding is that two "active" (running all the time) antispyware programs should not be allowed to run simultaneously. I believe WinDef is an active program as is SpySweeper, for example. ... Would there be problems running WinDef and, say, SpySweeper at the same time?

Don't know about SpySweeper and Windows Defender, but here on my main home PC I've been running all of the following "Active" (Real-Time Protection) programs for quite some time:

• ZoneAlarm Pro (Firewall, Anti-Spyware, Anti-Virus, Wireless/Email/Privacy/Identity Protection and SmartDefense Service)
  
  
• avast! Home Edition (Anti-Virus with "On-Access Scanner" for Instant Messaging, Internet Mail, Network Shield, Outlook/Exchange, P2P, Standard Shield, Web Shield)
  
  
• ProcessGuard (Blocks Rootkits [protection/prevention], prevents spyware, guards against DLL trojans)
  
  
• Windows Defender (Spyware/Malware detection and removal)
  
  
• WinPatrol Plus (1. Security Monitor alerts you to hijackings, malware attacks and critical changes made to your PC without your permission. The PLUS version includes Real-time Infiltration Detection [R.I.D.] 2. An easy way to comb through existing background-loading programs. WinPatrol PLUS provides easy to understand descriptions of over 13,000 programs).
  
  
• SpywareGuard (Anti-Spyware, Browser Hijack and Download Protection)

Since there was the discrepancy in Product ID numbers reported by some, I downloaded and installed another copy of Windows Defender today. (It was dated October 25) I had uninstalled the earlier version previously.
FWIW--here is what is now reported "About Windows Defender"
Windows Defender Version: 1.1.1592.0
Engine Version: 1.1.1609.0
Definition Version: 1.14.1736.7
Product ID: 81664-844-2923435-04065
The numbers are moving fast. It is hard to tell which number shows a later version.

Interesting.

FWIW, Windows Defender's definitions automatically updated here this morning:

Windows Defender Version: 1.1.1592.0
Engine Version: 1.1.1609.0
Definition Version: 1.14.1742.4
Product ID: 81664-432-8534294-04329

[SpywareDr]

SpywareDr: Thanks for the links on WGA and WGA Notification.

You're welcome.

I was disappointed when they made Defender's update pathway the same as Windows Update but with the link to MS's WGA program noted above, the reasoning for that is now abundantly clear.

Yep, Microsoft is definitely making it tougher to try and enhance and/or protect illegimate copies of Windows.

[LindaHewitt]

But when I went to download the latest version of Defender, my computer had to pass the Geniune Windows Validation, which it passed.

There is an old saying. You can get people to do more with honey than with threats. No doubt, they are trying to force people to purchase Vista but I think that this will just add a lot more resistance to consumers upgrading to Vista.

I have heard many a Microsoft presenter say that the biggest competition for Office 2000, Office 2002 and Office 2003 is Office 97.

Does an appliance store refuse to service an appliance because it is 6 years old or 12 years. Of course not. If the vendor did this, then the consumer would just buy their replacement appliance from another vendor and NEVER do business again with the vendor, who set such arbitrary rules.

Microsoft lives in a very strange world, if it thinks that Windows 2003 Server is a consumer product.

SpywareDR,

I have been told that updates for the Defender beta will stop as of 12-31-2006. If this is so, then I don't see the point in installing it for 2 months. I really do appreciate your offer. If you find out that my information about the end of the deadline is wrong, then I would like to you to post the Defender beta here on VDR.

Thanks,

Linda

[HAN]

I have heard many a Microsoft presenter say that the biggest competition for Office 2000, Office 2002 and Office 2003 is Office 97.

And they were/are right! The only justifiable reasons we have seen in our office to upgrade has been when running Office 97 presented compatibility issues with other software.

One thing that MS does not understand very well (if at all) is that many businesses cannot afford to constantly upgrade. There needs to be a reason other than just upgrading. (An example of how poorly they "get it" would be the the MS Office ads within the last year or so that portrayed Office 97 users as dinosaurs. I know that in my case, I was royally ticked off about it every time I saw one.)

Anyway (calming down now ), IMO they seem to be losing focus as to how to meet their customer's needs. And because of this loss of focus, options are growing stronger each day (Linux, Firefox you name it.) How are they dealing with the new competition? They close off support, treat each and every customer as though they WILL become thieves (otherwise why do WGA checks ALL the time?) and on and on.

It's just sad...

[LindaHewitt]

I think Microsoft wants to see the same level of growth that they enjoyed in the 90's, so they come up with all of these ridiculous straight-jacket rules.

When a company is young, it can have a straight up growth curve but once it becomes an established company, this growth curve can not be duplicated. The company may continue to grow but not on a straight up growth curve basis.

I remember the old IBM rules, where the only software that could be used on their mail frame computers was IBM's and all hardware components were manufactured by IBM. The courts ruled that IBM could not continue these practices but IBM continue to believe that they could maintain the same policies and growth that they had pre-1975.

By the 80's, IBM was still operating based on the 1960's model and then Microsoft appeared on the agenda.

Microsoft may well be making itself into the next IBM.

Cheers,

Linda

[Welshjim]

SpywareDr--Yes when I went to the update site yesterday, I got
Windows Defender Version: 1.1.1592.0
Engine Version: 1.1.1609.0
Definition Version: 1.14.1742.4
Product ID: 81664-844-2923435-04065

On the subject of running more than one antispyware program, I am not familiar with any of the antispyware programs you mention (except, of course, WinDef), including those that are part of suites. So I cannot tell if they are resident (or active)--as is SpySweeper--rather than being manually started scanners such as AdAware.

[buf]

Hey Linda. I would consider taking SpywareDr's offer to post the beta version; download and install it for those 2 months. Who knows, MS might forget or change their mind(s) about yanking it. It may be better than nothing for Nov & Dec.

[LindaHewitt]

SpywareDr,

Would you please post the latest beta version of Defender?

Thanks,

Linda

[buf]

I think/hope you made the wise decision. Nothing to lose and all to gain, esp. since you liked it so well.