> It was ostensibly done to improve the user experience by keeping the system up to date and perhaps malware free, but the truth is that a built-in antimalware protection in Windows is simply horrible (according to various AV comparisons Microsoft Essentials misses over 20% of in the wild malware)
Not much to misunderstand though. You attempt to say it's a bad thing that Microsoft is attempting to keep their software always up to date... because Essentials is bad? Also you should perhaps cite your statistics rather than pull them out of thin air. Essentials got 98.1% detection rate here[1], 94% 'real world protection' here[2] and 84 points here[3]. It's not perfect, but it beats some paid for competitors and is a lot less of a resource hog than something like Norton.
> said updates mean nothing for security because over 90% of infections happen due to the user actions (like downloading and installing dubious applications). No Windows update can prevent such a behaviour.
That's simply not true. Where the hell are you getting 90% from, and how can you possibly go from that number to the conclusion that 'No Windows update can prevent such behaviour' (and so updates are... also bad??).
Updates are good. The user might download a dodgy word document but hey look it was an update got through Windows update that meant she won't get compromised when she opens it. The user might click on a link that is sent via an email, but hey look it's an update to Windows that stops their PC getting rammed by that exploit pack.
Sorry but the whole article stinks of anti-MS FUD and anyone who attempts to argue against keeping (or features that keep) their PC up to date is ignorant at best.
1. http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/av...
2. http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/av...
3. http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/av...