I’m mentioning this because I’ve noticed that Kaspersky is a common choice among many PC users I know. This might be useful information for those who are considering their options.
Additionally, when searching for antivirus recommendations on platforms like Reddit, Lemmy, or YouTube, Kaspersky frequently appears as a highly regarded option.
I haven't found a serious critic that didn't rely on fucking racism yet. If the only real argument is "rUsSian cOmPAny bAD" but you're ok with USA companies, you're just braindead.
I don't even use windows for that same reason, but if a windows user asks me, based on past experiences with low end computers (where you can actually tell the diference), I'd always recommend kaspersky for performance and malwarebytes for precision.
Pro tip: Downvotes without arguments only prove my point.
Once a software vendor demonstrates theyre untrustworthy, why would I risk using their products?
How are you using windows then? They've had innumerable security breaches, not to talk about how MS demonstrates again and again that the only thing they care about is money. Does "trustworthy" mean "american" or "only sells my data to the USA gov and other US companies" then sure, it is trustworthy as fuck.
Of course you will invalidate that with some mental gymnastics, but this same thing happens even with freaking usb (charge only, mind me) cables from aliexpress, with people saying they have fucking chips to spy on you. Again, racism.
And spare us from the sophist personal attack on people you disagree with
Try to put it however you want, but hating anything that comes from one place just because of that, then adding excuses is fucking racist.
except there's no question of there being significant Russian efforts to meddle in the US and other countries.
And here comes the grand patriotic justification for racism! If you really don't have shit to say about the actual software, just block me or something and spare me from your presence :)
Microsoft Defender is good and free, but it is heavier on system resources than any reputable AV. Kasperskey is near the top for least impact on system performance.
That chart doesn't say anything about system resource usage.
Edit: found the performance chart now. Still no explanation on what performance tests(more than two sentences) they performed and how the scoring was applied.
TBH, that still looks good for MS. It suffered a little with compressed archives (mediocre), installation was "fast," and the rest were "very fast." Certainly not as perfect as some, but unless you're doing lots of installs and working with compressed files, I bet nobody would even notice this difference in real world use cases.