It never worked when two separate AV's were installed on one windows install, they stopped each-others actions and made the system unusable.
You won't believe me, but in my past career as repair guy, i saw a system with 10+ Avs installed. When i asked the user "Why?!!!" , he replied "why not, in a car you use all security features? no? " .....
It's not logical You install an AV because you believe it will keep you safe. By installing another AV you admit that you believe it won't. Why install an AV you don't trust? And if you don't trust the first AV, what makes you think you can trust the second AV?
Never run two AV at once or it will keep on quarantine that very virus the other AV just quarantined and vice versa in a endless loop. Like a ping pong ball.
with a decent ad blocker on a decent browser, you will rarely get a virus, you don't even need to use a hosts file if you are using ublock. 99% of not getting a virus is common sense though. 1% is a sneaky something being embedded in a installer from a source that seems ok. firewall is more important than a av imo.
It may not be logical, but at least it is not stupid. If "You install an AV because you believe it will keep you safe", then you are ignorant. Most people are aware of this, and so they look for a way to circumvent the existing problem. Seeking the advice of an Av-Software company about this would indeed be illogical, as telling you the truth would be detrimental to their basic purpose of making money. Eliminating software offers of that kind, it helps to avoid companies that show that they consider you a moron anyway, by offering "Free Downloads" on their website, and in the middle of installing tell you the price to actually make it work! #1 No malware will install itself on your computer unless YOU help it ! #2 NO Av-Software can help against Zero Day Exploits. #3 Windows Essential is enough, if you do not open every garbage you are offered, and use any of about a dozen of so called Emergency Tools, about which you will soon learn that all they find are basically false positivs
Wow! What a long post! All just to justify and defend this: Regardless your long post, you're still wrong and correct in many points LOL Btw and just to be emphatic and clear I do not use any A/V program or defending any position other than criticizing @ThomasMann point 1