I’m quoting from the article linked in my post. For more information, simply click the link. 
Hi bob3160,
But we are getting contradictory messages from MS about their commitment to MMPC. First they admitted that MMPC only delivers the minimal basic protection for users, now we get this “full commitment to protection” news from Malware Protection Center’s Dennis Batchelder, re: http://blogs.technet.com/b/mmpc/archive/2013/10/09/our-commitment-to-microsoft-antimalware.aspx .
What is the real situation according to you as a “field man” giving your avast! Seminars etc.? I still think Windows Defender is a “waste of time” comparing it to a full-grown and complete av solution like our recommended avast!.
Damian
It is better than having no protection. I’ll leave it at that.
I think that’s the best that can be said about it.
Well, whenever Dch48 says so here, I consider that as a big “amen” to our mutual conclusion.
Hi bob3160 and Dch48, thank you both very much for helping me making up my mind about this one,
and again thank you for your reactions,
polonus
No, there are no contradictory messages from Microsoft. Microsoft did not say they only deliver minimal basic protection for users. Note in particular that the comments attributed to Holly Stewart were to Dennis Technology Labs, which is an affiliate of PC Pro. There is no direct quote of Holly “advising customers to use additional, third-party antivirus”. It is a misrepresentation by PC Pro. As I wrote: Sensationalist Press Got it WRONG! Microsoft Does Not Recommend Two Antivirus Programs!.
Based on a private email with someone in MMPC, I know for a fact that the MMPC article (Our commitment to Microsoft antimalware) was a direct result of the PC Pro article and the others that picked up that article and ran with it. Obviously, it would not be “politically correct” of Microsoft to point fingers at the journalists who took PC Pro’s article as face value.
I would also point to the comments posted by “Blair” (who I believe is the same Blair who owns Geeks to Go and two other security forums), where he wrote:
Not designed to be the worstDesigned to be bottom of rankings does not equal, designed to be the worst.
Microsoft has simply decided not to game the tests. 3D video card test have had a similar problem for years.
In addition, Microsoft has a history of providing performance enhancements with vendors, now they are providing their definitions as well. This means every AV should match Microsoft’s protection, and increase it with their own additions (or test gaming).
The problem with MSE and Defender protection is that it becomes the baseline. If you want to infect a Windows 8 computer, getting past it is the price of admission. Having a diverse ecosystem of supplemental protection is better for consumers, and Microsoft realizes this. All the while making it much tougher for the bad guys (which is their end game).
By Blair on 25 Sep 2013
Bottom line, Avast (and other A/V) customers are benefiting from the samples provided by Microsoft which, added to their research, improves the detection and helps everyone.
I don’t see any misrepresentation at all.
Holly Stewart, the senior program manager of the Microsoft Malware Protection Center
She is a Microsoft representative and did say that MSE was only to be considered as a baseline and designed to be that way. PC mag is not saying that, she (and by extension, MS) is.
It is commendable that MS is now providing information to other vendors but it is certain that they have admitted that their product is not the best.
Tell that to Alice :))
Do you mean Alice from Solitary? 
No, my Alice.
@ Corrine,
All this boils down to is interpretation and context. I’m sure it was spun to prove someones point.
Unless you’re using Security essentials as your primary and only defense, you’re already convinced that
what ever you’re using is better or you would not have gone through the trouble of deleting one and replacing it
with something else.
We avast! users already know that using avast! is better than using another product or we wouldn’t be here.
Hi bob3160,
I won’t repeat his words, but avast! tean member, Milos, would say “we are the best”;
and to my knowing we are not far from that.
Somewhere in the “reliable” top regions.
I know that MS means good and also wants to make an effort in this field,
but I hope Corinne will agree with me.
when I say that av-security isn’t excactly “their cup of tea”.
polonus
To me, Microsoft’s anti-malware offerings are pretty much on a par with their firewall. Good basic protection but other products do it better.