Is Windows Defender built-in to Vista?

I seem to have Windows defender running on my Vista Ultimate SP 2
laptop. This is despite the fact that I cannot see it in the list of
installed programs, and my download archive does not have a version
that runs in Vista. I used to have Windows Live OneCare installed, but
I've uninstalled that and ran the cleanup tool, yet I still see
Defender in my taskbar (although it complains that its definitions ar
eout of date).

I'd like to clean this up before I install the new Security Essentials
package, so any pointers would be useful. Thanks.

 

MikeB;1149180 Wrote: <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I seem to have Windows defender running on my Vista Ultimate SP 2
> laptop. This is despite the fact that I cannot see it in the list of
> installed programs, and my download archive does not have a version
> that runs in Vista. I used to have Windows Live OneCare installed, but
> I've uninstalled that and ran the cleanup tool, yet I still see
> Defender in my taskbar (although it complains that its definitions ar
> eout of date).
>
> I'd like to clean this up before I install the new Security Essentials
> package, so any pointers would be useful. Thanks.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->


Click Start - All Programmes and you should see it as Windows defender.
Note that it is not an antivirus programme.

If you have been running Windows Live One Care I would suggest changing
to the new Microsoft Security Essentials. It seems to be getting good
reports.

'_http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials_'
()


--
beauparc

 

When you install security essentials it will turn off Defender for good.
Steve

"MikeB" <mpbrede@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ee57809c-7401-4d85-a5e2-aa504f386212@y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I seem to have Windows defender running on my Vista Ultimate SP 2
> laptop. This is despite the fact that I cannot see it in the list of
> installed programs, and my download archive does not have a version
> that runs in Vista. I used to have Windows Live OneCare installed, but
> I've uninstalled that and ran the cleanup tool, yet I still see
> Defender in my taskbar (although it complains that its definitions ar
> eout of date).
>
> I'd like to clean this up before I install the new Security Essentials
> package, so any pointers would be useful. Thanks. <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

Yes but most advanced users disable it.
I removed it at multiple locations - from Windows Components
(Controlpanel-->Programs/features), from Services, but most fundamental is
to disable it in Administrative Console.
I don't have time how to explain how to get to Administrative Tools, turn
off UAC which may interfer with disabling Defender, etc, etc.

All I can say is for advanced users all this garbage is the entire reason
Vista was a fiasco. This nasty things gets in the way and slows you down
versus WinXP.

 

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:28:54 -0500, "STAN STARINSKI" <NoSpam@NoSpam.org>
wrote in <OY3UtFgQKHA.488@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>Yes but most advanced users disable it.
>I removed it at multiple locations - from Windows Components
>(Controlpanel-->Programs/features), from Services, but most fundamental is
>to disable it in Administrative Console.
>I don't have time how to explain how to get to Administrative Tools, turn
>off UAC which may interfer with disabling Defender, etc, etc.
>
>All I can say is for advanced users all this garbage is the entire reason
>Vista was a fiasco. This nasty things gets in the way and slows you down
>versus WinXP. <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Defender actually has little overhead.

--
Best regards,
John <http: avasgroup.com>

 

OK.

 

"STAN STARINSKI" <NoSpam@NoSpam.org> wrote in message
news:OY3UtFgQKHA.488@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Yes but most advanced users disable it.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Not most advanced users I know. Can you document this?
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I removed it at multiple locations - from Windows Components
> (Controlpanel-->Programs/features)<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Not possible in Vista unless it was an upgrade from XP. Once removed, it
cannot be reinstalled. Why go through that trouble when disabling the
service is sufficient?
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> , from Services,<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Disabled, not removed.
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> but most fundamental is to disable it in Administrative Console.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Same function as in services.
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I don't have time how to explain how to get to Administrative Tools,<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Then why bother answering at all? Helping other users involves giving up
your time.
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> turn off UAC which may interfer with disabling Defender, etc, etc.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Turning off UAC is another bad idea, quite often misunderstood and much
maligned. A properly run system can have UAC running without any
interference whatsoever. The ironic part is that this protection mechanism
is no different than the one implemented by linux systems, a requirement to
self-elevate, only the implementation is different.
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> All I can say is for advanced users all this garbage is the entire reason
> Vista was a fiasco. This nasty things gets in the way and slows you down
> versus WinXP.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Vista has more overhead than XP, and when run on XP-era hardware will be
slower and that's part of the problem. Users wanted the new OS on their old
system and expected it to perform better, and this has been a problem with
every new iteration of Windows. Vista got a bad rap because it also included
the new protection mechanisms which were frequently blamed for the
performance loss, but in reality had little to do with it. At worst, UAC is
annoying when setting up a new system and installing software, as it takes
all of what, maybe 5 seconds to be acknowledged in order to prevent a user
from being infected by malware usurping user privilege? Terrible thing to
have to put a user through....maybe they should go back to letting users get
infected sight-unseen.

It's funny how people have such selective memory, talking about how great XP
is. I can still recall all the hollering about XP's mickey-mouse interface
(just google the XP groups from 2001 if you want to see for yourself) and
how it would never be accepted in the corporate world.....

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help -

 

Hi,

"xfile" <coucou@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eu4uiqpQKHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Microsoft acknowledged that UAC cannot prevent malwares neither can it
> replace any AV software which is the reason for them to provide an option
> to turning it off in Windows 7.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

You're right. It doesn't prevent malware nor is it an antivirus product. It
simply forces a user to be more aware of what's happening on their system.
Something that, at least in my opinion, is sorely needed in the malware
fight. I don't say that it's perfect, far from it I think it should be more
intuitive. But, this is the first iteration of it and like anything, it
should get better or be dropped.

Microsoft provides a simple way of turning it off in Vista (msconfig/tools),
they just added another in Win7.
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> The function of UAC is overly exaggerated, especially by MVPs. UAC is
> nothing but another layer of alert which is totally worthless if a user is
> practicing safe hex, and on the other hand, nothing including UAC can stop
> one from getting infected without respect to safe hex.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

I don't think I overexagerate it. I simply try to think in terms of the
intent behind its implementation. Anyone practicing safe hex would likely
not need it, but let's be honest: most users do not do this. Rather they
click willy-nilly on anything that pops up in front of them - including
warning notices from their own AV software telling them not to do that.
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> About XP, maybe it's worthwhile to check if those criticisms were from the
> same groups of people. There are always criticisms, but the question is,
> from whom and what are about? I thought you are more knowledgeable and
> reasonable than an average MVP.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Like I said, I was there at the time and it was wipespread, rampant rants
all over the 'net. From IT pros to high end users to corporate clients and
even home users. They hated it, thought it was horrendous, the biggest
mistake since MS Bob. They all said it would never fly, and now it's looked
upon as one of the best releases ever. It's not my reasoning or knowledge,
it's just an observation on how people forget and views change with time.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help -

 

> Turning off UAC is another bad idea, quite often misunderstood and much <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> maligned. A properly run system can have UAC running without any
> interference whatsoever. The ironic part is that this protection mechanism
> is no different than the one implemented by linux systems, a requirement
> to self-elevate, only the implementation is different.
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> All I can say is for advanced users all this garbage is the entire reason
>> Vista was a fiasco. This nasty things gets in the way and slows you down
>> versus WinXP.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Vista has more overhead than XP, and when run on XP-era hardware will be
> slower and that's part of the problem. Users wanted the new OS on their
> old system and expected it to perform better, and this has been a problem
> with every new iteration of Windows. Vista got a bad rap because it also
> included the new protection mechanisms which were frequently blamed for
> the performance loss, but in reality had little to do with it. At worst,
> UAC is annoying when setting up a new system and installing software, as
> it takes all of what, maybe 5 seconds to be acknowledged in order to
> prevent a user from being infected by malware usurping user privilege?
> Terrible thing to have to put a user through....maybe they should go back
> to letting users get infected sight-unseen.
>
> It's funny how people have such selective memory, talking about how great
> XP is. I can still recall all the hollering about XP's mickey-mouse
> interface (just google the XP groups from 2001 if you want to see for
> yourself) and how it would never be accepted in the corporate world.....<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Microsoft acknowledged that UAC cannot prevent malwares neither can it
replace any AV software which is the reason for them to provide an option to
turning it off in Windows 7.

The function of UAC is overly exaggerated, especially by MVPs. UAC is
nothing but another layer of alert which is totally worthless if a user is
practicing safe hex, and on the other hand, nothing including UAC can stop
one from getting infected without respect to safe hex.

About XP, maybe it's worthwhile to check if those criticisms were from the
same groups of people. There are always criticisms, but the question is,
from whom and what are about? I thought you are more knowledgeable and
reasonable than an average MVP.

"Rick Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:OkkZEaoQKHA.352@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> "STAN STARINSKI" <NoSpam@NoSpam.org> wrote in message
> news:OY3UtFgQKHA.488@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> Yes but most advanced users disable it.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Not most advanced users I know. Can you document this?
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> I removed it at multiple locations - from Windows Components
>> (Controlpanel-->Programs/features)<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Not possible in Vista unless it was an upgrade from XP. Once removed, it
> cannot be reinstalled. Why go through that trouble when disabling the
> service is sufficient?
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> , from Services,<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Disabled, not removed.
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> but most fundamental is to disable it in Administrative Console.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Same function as in services.
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> I don't have time how to explain how to get to Administrative Tools,<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Then why bother answering at all? Helping other users involves giving up
> your time.
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> turn off UAC which may interfer with disabling Defender, etc, etc.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Turning off UAC is another bad idea, quite often misunderstood and much
> maligned. A properly run system can have UAC running without any
> interference whatsoever. The ironic part is that this protection mechanism
> is no different than the one implemented by linux systems, a requirement
> to self-elevate, only the implementation is different.
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> All I can say is for advanced users all this garbage is the entire reason
>> Vista was a fiasco. This nasty things gets in the way and slows you down
>> versus WinXP.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Vista has more overhead than XP, and when run on XP-era hardware will be
> slower and that's part of the problem. Users wanted the new OS on their
> old system and expected it to perform better, and this has been a problem
> with every new iteration of Windows. Vista got a bad rap because it also
> included the new protection mechanisms which were frequently blamed for
> the performance loss, but in reality had little to do with it. At worst,
> UAC is annoying when setting up a new system and installing software, as
> it takes all of what, maybe 5 seconds to be acknowledged in order to
> prevent a user from being infected by malware usurping user privilege?
> Terrible thing to have to put a user through....maybe they should go back
> to letting users get infected sight-unseen.
>
> It's funny how people have such selective memory, talking about how great
> XP is. I can still recall all the hollering about XP's mickey-mouse
> interface (just google the XP groups from 2001 if you want to see for
> yourself) and how it would never be accepted in the corporate world.....
>
> --
> Best of Luck,
>
> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
>
> Windows help -
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

Rick,

Yes it's true progress involves getting better hardware to accomodate
supposedly better Operating System.
I still have DOS vs. Windows3.1 discussions in memory back in early 1990's,
you should've see DOS fanatics foaming at mouth, blasting Windows and even
mouse as a "useless" addition to a keyboard, they would ramble on & on how
keyboard is faster. Which it is - power users don't move a mouse whenever
possible.
I also realize replacing hardware generates revenues for corporations &
jobs. In Capitalism it's bad to be stuck with the same TV for example, for
a decade, as such behaviors cause recessions.
Albeit constant replacing of material things is KILLING environment.
But Socialism has proven to kill even more nature & environment despite it's
slower consumption rate - talking form experience
Ok we established that.

HOWEVER,
Vista is one of the exceptions. It was an OS targeting home & clueless
users, which reflect Security/worm-attack hysteria of the mid 2000's.
So people got
a) Ballons, warnings, UAC, Defenders, blockers, OVERHEAD....
Multimedia which shifted the focus of computing from accomplishing actual
WORK to playing games, music, videos and ironically audio quality is wrose
than WindowsXP despite Vista being tauted as more entertainment-friendly.
This is rubbish for actual work.

Now you know why BUSINESS OWNERS stayed away from Vista.
Microsoft has ADMITED it being one of their weak products (though there was
a worse incident - "Microsoft Bob" which was swept from the store shelves
quickly because it was quickly realized, "Bob": is a piece sh**, just like
Palm PDA from 1990's).
Vista is a toy OS.
I can watch TV on it. Play great games. And other rubbish. But I am not
doing any of that on a computer
The fact of pumping even small files over a Network or file copy being so
ridiculously slow versus WinXP is far more important.
The fact of me spending a WEEK to disable a boatload of junk services and
features, and UAC getting a way is more important
All such things were meant to increase security, for whom? For
nonprofessional, computer-challeneged people who visit a P o r n site and
next morning wonder why their Google Search is hijacked & someone used
their creditcard.

Vista is not a business OS.
Ask yourself why so many businesses either stayed with WinXP or went thru
trouble of downgrading to XP after having a bad taste of Vista.
My current client also asked me if I have an XP disk.

Now you see the reason for Windows7.
Windows7 is a "plug" for Vista hole, or Vista fiasco we should say.

You can tell me whatever about inadequate hardware to run Vista, but fact is
things like Aero & Multimedia Center have ZERO VALUE for a busienss.
It's total trash.
I don't care for surround sound either. BUSINESSES DON"T CARE for Vista.
The way WindowsExplorer behaves in Vista versus good old WinXP is abhorrent.
it forgets views and adds columns like "tags", "ratings", "camera usedz',
"artist" toa folder of mixed documents, none of which has anything todo
with showbusienss.
Why do I need to see 'artists" and on the othe rhand why "FILE TYPE" is not
shown, who decided that I need to know some stupid tags on a PDF file,
instead of organizing a folder by filetype (or name)?
I tell you who.

It was a redmond Knucklehead who decided that computers are from now on for
taking pictures and having "seksi" conversation in some retarded teeanage
chatroom.

I hope WIndows7 will take us back to business or some common-sense balance,
along WinXP style.
WinXP & Office was one of MS's geatest products, Vista was a fiasco. F
Vista, really. I am much tired of it.

 

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:01:31 -0700 (PDT), MikeB <mpbrede@gmail.com>
wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>I seem to have Windows defender running on my Vista Ultimate SP 2
>laptop. This is despite the fact that I cannot see it in the list of
>installed programs, <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

It's in the Security Center..

 

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:28:54 -0500, "STAN STARINSKI"
<NoSpam@NoSpam.org> wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>Yes but most advanced users disable it.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

And YOU know that HOW?


PLONK

 

On Oct 1, 5:59 pm, "Rick Rogers" <r...@mvps.org> wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Hi,
>
> "xfile" <cou...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:eu4uiqpQKHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
> > Microsoft acknowledged that UAC cannot prevent malwares neither can it
> > replace any AV software which is the reason for them to provide an option
> > to turning it off in Windows 7.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> You're right. It doesn't prevent malware nor is it an antivirus product. It
> simply forces a user to be more aware of what's happening on their system..
> Something that, at least in my opinion, is sorely needed in the malware
> fight. I don't say that it's perfect, far from it I think it should be more
> intuitive. But, this is the first iteration of it and like anything, it
> should get better or be dropped.
>
> Microsoft provides a simple way of turning it off in Vista (msconfig/tools),
> they just added another in Win7.
><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Rick, Can you help me here please? I know I turned off UAC in Vista
and then did something else to turn off the red shield nagging me that
UAC was turned off. This just bit me in the rear end, as I had no
warning that I was running without a firewall after uninstalling WLOC.
And of course, now I can't recall what I did.

What is the recommended way to disable UAC without also having to
disable the warnings of the security center?

Might you be able to hazard a guess as to how I can reenable the
warning s from the security center as well?

Thanks

 

Hi Mike,
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Rick, Can you help me here please? I know I turned off UAC in Vista and
> then did something else to turn off the red shield nagging me that UAC was
> turned off. This just bit me in the rear end, as I had no warning that I
> was running without a firewall after uninstalling WLOC. And of course, now
> I can't recall what I did.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Control Panel/Security Center/"Other Security Settings".
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> What is the recommended way to disable UAC without also having to disable
> the warnings of the security center?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

It's not recommended to disable UAC, but when you do just don't change the
warnings.
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Might you be able to hazard a guess as to how I can reenable the warning s
> from the security center as well?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Re-enable UAC, then reboot and disable it and the warnings should restart.


--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help -

 

On Oct 2, 6:34 pm, "Rick Rogers" <r...@mvps.org> wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Hi Mike,
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
> > Rick, Can you help me here please? I know I turned off UAC in Vista and
> > then did something else to turn off the red shield nagging me that UAC was
> > turned off. This just bit me in the rear end, as I had no warning that I
> > was running without a firewall after uninstalling WLOC. And of course, now
> > I can't recall what I did.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Control Panel/Security Center/"Other Security Settings".
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
> > What is the recommended way to disable UAC without also having to disable
> > the warnings of the security center?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> It's not recommended to disable UAC, but when you do just don't change the
> warnings.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Right, I used the word "recommended" inadvisably.

What I should have asked was: What is the best way to disable UAC and
also not get the red shield in taskbar?

I'd rather suffer a security risk than have that infernal red shield
and the balloon every time I start Vista warning me that I have a
security risk. And I'd rather go back to Win XP than have Vista keep
nagging me every time I want to install a program.

I think I've read somewhere that I can use some policy settings to
deactivate UAC?

 

How can I disable the User Account Control (UAC) feature on my Windows
Vista computer?



MikeB wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> On Oct 2, 6:34 pm, "Rick Rogers" <r...@mvps.org> wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> Hi Mike,
>><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> Rick, Can you help me here please? I know I turned off UAC in Vista and
>>> then did something else to turn off the red shield nagging me that UAC was
>>> turned off. This just bit me in the rear end, as I had no warning that I
>>> was running without a firewall after uninstalling WLOC. And of course, now
>>> I can't recall what I did.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>> Control Panel/Security Center/"Other Security Settings".
>><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> What is the recommended way to disable UAC without also having to disable
>>> the warnings of the security center?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>> It's not recommended to disable UAC, but when you do just don't change the
>> warnings.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Right, I used the word "recommended" inadvisably.
>
> What I should have asked was: What is the best way to disable UAC and
> also not get the red shield in taskbar?
>
> I'd rather suffer a security risk than have that infernal red shield
> and the balloon every time I start Vista warning me that I have a
> security risk. And I'd rather go back to Win XP than have Vista keep
> nagging me every time I want to install a program.
>
> I think I've read somewhere that I can use some policy settings to
> deactivate UAC?
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

"MikeB" <mpbrede@gmail.com> wrote in message news:822aa3f5-525d-4a36-bced-a3a08bb194cd@m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Right, I used the word "recommended" inadvisably.
>
> What I should have asked was: What is the best way to disable UAC and
> also not get the red shield in taskbar?
>
> I'd rather suffer a security risk than have that infernal red shield
> and the balloon every time I start Vista warning me that I have a
> security risk. And I'd rather go back to Win XP than have Vista keep
> nagging me every time I want to install a program.
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

To turn off UAC:
Control Panel > User Accounts and Family Safety > User Accounts > Turn UAC on or off.

To turn off the red shield etc.:
Control Panel > Security > Security Center
On the left pane ' Change the way Security Center alerts me' select:
'Don't notify me and don't display the icon (not recommended).