Do you have evidence to support this claim? Because it's not particularly true.
You are almost asking me to prove there are no unicorns, or aliens. Security programs, because of what they must do, typically are pretty resource heavy. So what you typically see when people overload their systems with multiple anti-malware solutions is slow, bogged down systems because of the massive amounts of resources being utilized. I don't consider those problems "conflicts".
I guess I would ask you show evidence where having two installed does cause "conflicts". And perhaps ask that you define what you mean by conflicts then show us some examples.
In the old days, and by that, I mean with XP, if you ran more than one anti-virus program, it was not uncommon for one to report the other is "suspicious", or for one to prevent the other from being updated. Or maybe even quarantine components of the other, or block their installation. I don't see those "conflicts" anymore with today's security programs running on W7/8/10 systems. Again, got examples?
I am not implying it's a good idea to go without an antivirus, just saying that even with one installed, you're still vulnerable to exploits and such.
That's true, but you are implying it is because you have that antivirus installed, you are exposed to vulnerabilities created or exposed by the anti-virus program. I subscribe to and watch carefully the reports of new vulnerabilities and I have not heard of any case where a computer can be exploited specifically because of a vulnerability in the installed security program (assuming legitimate security and not rogue). Got examples?
The two dogs does apply, but that does not suggest they will let the badguy sneak in behind them because they are paying too much attention to the bone, or other dog.
MBAM isn't supposed to be a substitute for an antivirus suite, because it's not an antivirus.
I disagree, and so does Malwarebytes - unless you can show where Malwarebytes say MBAM "must" be used in conjunction with another solution, then I say your claim is just a rumor and left-over beliefs from yesterday.
I keep saying this too, W7/W8/W10 are not XP. What was needed for XP probably isn't for these modern operating systems which, unlike XP, were designed with security as a top priority.
I note for some reason, some folks seem to think malware does not include viruses. Not true. Or that anti-malware solutions don't scan for viruses. Also not true.
Malware, by definition
includes viruses, Trojans, worms, rootkits, spyware and any other "
malicious soft
ware". Therefore, a program that calls itself an anti-malware program scans for viruses too.
Note there
10s if not 100s of millions of users out there running
ONLY with MSE on W7 systems and Windows Defender on W8 systems, plus Windows Firewall and doing just fine! MSE/WD are anti-
malware solutions. You might want check out
Ask Leo! and note where he says,
Leo said:
I continue to recommend MSE as a convenient, low-overhead, low impact anti-virus and anti-spyware tool. It’s easy, it’s reliable, and requires almost no effort to set up or monitor. As others often recommend, MalwareBytes is a fine companion utility to add an extra layer of security should you feel so inclined. (I run with only MSE, and pull out Malwarebytes only as needed, which is quite infrequent.)
Corrine said:
Even with Revo Uninstaller
No surprise there as Revo is really a registry cleaner too.
