Vista - UAC and Windows Defender - OFF or ON

I am just generally against running Windows firewall and Windows defragger and stuff like that. I heard many times that in XP these things were not as good as the commercial programs and it was a good idea to turn them off and use a good one instead.

So with that logic I turned off UAC as soon as I got Vista because, well, IT WAS ANNOYING AS HELL... and then I turned off Windows Defender because my AVG Firewall has always seemed to protect me from everything in the past (I've used it for years, done a lot of downloading and never had a virus or trojan or anything like that (knock on wood).

But I thought I'd ask here. If you think they should be on, please tell me why. I am not sure whether AVG will even allow Windows Defender to run, but I guess I could turn on UAC if I really felt it necessary. But yechhh, I hope not!

I just found one answer on the net that I think makes a lot of sense.
Anyone disagree with this? Check it out:
Am I at risk if I disable UAC?

It is part of a site that offers a free tool to alter and control the way UAC works. I am not endorsing it in any way, I don't know how or if it even works! But I liked the logic of the reason why it's okay to turn UAC off.

I also read some other very good criticisms of how UAC was poorly implemented, and I agree. The idea wasn't that bad, but the implementation was very poorly thought out and poorly executed. IMHO.

I personally recommend UAC and windows defender ON, also DEP if you have it.

They're great features and hardly affect PC performance so imo there's no gain switching them off.

Both ON, or you will find youself infected with malware (i.e., clickjacking, Drive-by-downloads), and then suffering data corruption/data loss on top of windows crashes/

Running without UAC will allow Malicious programs to install and run without you being aware that they are doin so in the background.

I have both off as I feel the programs I run are better. Ad-Aware, Avast, Zone Alarm, and a few others.

I am the only user on the computer and it is shutdown when I am not using it.

I see that there is agreement on this!
First of all, I am not sure I CAN run both Defender and my AVG Firewall. I have a question about that into AVG but so far no answer. (They are not nearly as good at tech support as they are at making a good Firewall/Anti-Virus.)

Rive018, is there something different about Vista that would make it MORE prone to malware than XP SP2 was?

I ask because with XP SP2, I only ran AVG Firewall, I do a LOT of surfing the net and downloading, and I never got a virus or trojan or any kind of malware thanks to AVG. Now, if I can run Defender AND AVG and Defender does not drive me nuts like UAC does, I will run it just for that extra defense.

But as for UAC, it is totally annoying and poorly conceived. I would run it ONLY if I were convinced that my AVG Firewall were not enough. I have run tests against AVG Firewall where the site is hoping to find security holes so they can sell you THEIR firewall, and I have always passed as 100% secure with AVG. That's why I use it, that and the fact that I never have had a bug since using it.

Without UAC and Defender on, is Vista LESS secure than XP SP2? Or the same? If it's the same then I think I will stick with UAC off. But I welcome more comments and maybe someone could convince me otherwise.

By the way, did you read the link I posted above? I think it makes a lot of very valid points re this discussion:
http://www.tweak-uac.com/am-i-at-risk-if-i-disable-uac/

Vista is less suceptable to malware than XP. Better firewall (to see firewall test results: see post #34). , its got UAC (which prevents malware from obtaining elevation rights to run or execute on the sly, or in the background unnoticed), and Defender. Running without these will comprimise system security, and put you on par with XP that runs in Admin mode all the time, and is suceptable to amongst other things, drive-by-downloads (malware), and click Jacking. [as a result of the User aways running with full elevation rights]

Second of all, AVG isnt very good of late. Out of three 3 star certification it got only 1.
There are other, better and free antivirus programs available.

Avira Antivir (downloadable free software)
Avira is one of the best Antivirus vendors on the market. ((AV-comparative 2008)

Avast! (Alwil) (downloadable free software)
Free Home Edition antimalware progam.

What id DEP?

It is hardware/software data execution prevention. helps prevent damage from viruses/security threats

What I meant to ask was, is VISTA - WITHOUT the Defender and built in Firewall - less secure than XP is, without its firewall? In other words, let's say we do not run any 3rd party software at all - no AVG or Avast or whatever anti-virus, Firewall and anti-virus. Is Vista any worse off than XP would be under these circumstances?

If not, then I should be okay without UAC because I never had it with XP and I never had any problems because I used AVG Firewall and various other programs and policies.

As to AVG not being as good as it was before, that could be true. But where are you getting those ratings?

I am somewhat skeptical as to that chart you inserted because in my experience both McAfee and Symantec/Norton (whatever it's called now) are both really lousy anti-virus software, yet they put them above Avast, AVG, etc. I have heard great things about Avast lately.

In any case, I have already paid for another 9 months or so of AVG so unless I hear something really conclusively bad about it, I will stick with it to the end of my license period. Did that site give specific reasons why it is no longer good? My problem with it has been that since 2 updates ago - back in Fall of '08 - it began being a little buggy. But I've still never had a virus or trojan or anything.

Now, as to UAC:

When I used XP, I didn't have UAC and I had no malware, etc.. So, if I use the same security programs with Vista that I used with XP, why would I now get it with a UAC-less Vista?

Why should we have to put up with all those nag boxes every time we make a move? They should have made this UAC function less invasive, give you options to always allow certain apps or certain types of activities to the Admin's preferences.

Or how about acting like AVG Firewall where it allows you to answer the question once for a program then it gives YOU the option to nag you again, or not, for that activity?

UAC is universally disliked, so I think it's clear that it was not well implemented. Does it do its job? Yeah, probably (though one should read the link I gave - it makes the argument that UAC really is pretty useless). But does it do it in a way that doesn't annoy the hell out of Vista users? No. It gets an "F" there, for sure!

It is a very ill-designed and implented program in my opinion and isn't a good firewall and good anti-spyware program just as good, without UAC?

Again, I am open minded about this, but so far I am not seeing much evidence that UAC is all that necessary.