I’ve just been using Windows Defender, but the number of false positives and the lack of autonomy in dealing with them is making me wanna look elsewhere.
Common sense.
Linux
Defender with Malwarebytes as already mentioned should be enough. What false positives do you get exactly?
Personally I have a Linux distro on my PC and don’t need AV software at the moment.
Defender is all you need
I’ve used everything under sun starting with Norton in DOS
To build on what you are saying, enterprise solutions are built up lock out the end user and provide reporting. Assuming your solution is receiving regular and timely updates, and it is able to respond appropriately, there is no issue.
I personally recommend Defender. It hits the minimum check marks. Almost all the other products out there are snake oil.
Defender can be bypassed with a simple Powershell script iirc, so it can be trivial for malware to stay undetected from Windows Defender. While it’s good enough for most people, if you’re concerned with security I would suggest either Malware Bytes or Bit defender instead. At least, I heard both of those are decent. If not them, just avoid Norton and McAfee like the plague since you would rather just deal with malware than them
You need to explicitly grant the script admin access or have totally disabled UAC, which already punches a large hole through Windows’ security model. Malware that’s in that situation doesn’t need to block Defender to do harm.
Not using Windows
Microslop windows is the virus
Linux TROLOLOLLOLLLLL
i like not having one at all. just use virustotal for scanning possibly malicious stuff.
Defender with malwarebytes run every few weeks.
Bitdefender has a good free version, and so does Sophos (or at least they used to)
