Good points in this thread. It's good to finally see a discussion taking place without the usual mindset members that appear with the copy/paste posts, bold-facing to all members, "don't use the Pro version....".
I've read the same threads from quietman7 over at Bleepingcomputer.com in addition to posts elsewhere from PC users that have been using MBAM Pro for years without conflicts with mainline AV's.
From reading this forum, my perception is that some members are grouping any real-time scanner tool as one entity, regardless of whether it's an antimalware-specific tool or an AV tool.
That is the reason that quietman7 posted in the thread Imacri referred to, regarding conflict issues with MBAM Pro.
That's where I don't agree with this mindset here as, and I've asked this before, where are the Symantec staff members, Admin, etc, that state clearly that "You should not use Norton AV products simultaneously with MBAM Pro."
Of more significance to me is: Where are the lab test results, and Norton customer's testimonial reports that offer incidences of being infected due to the conflicts between MBAM Pro and Norton's scanners?
The MBAM Admin has posted this question at this site and the results were, to me, revealing.... zero replies providing data to substantiate this oft-repeated statement that we read here daily at this forum about the jeopardy of running the Pro version alongside N360 or NIS.
I've been here for over a year and am waiting for a definitive post that states this with no ambiguity.
Regarding posts that continually link Bleepingcomputer.com threads in attempts to justify the position that running MBAM pro alongside Norton AV's is placing your PC in jeopaedy, I've located numerous posts at that forum that will refute that stance.
I'm a member there and have asked quietman7 (a well-respected Bleepingcomputer.com volunteer there with over 30k posts) about this mindset here and his guess is that it's due to Symantec's stance that they would like to be perceived as a product that provides all protection requirements for PC users.
That's certainly understandable.
However, we've all read here repeatedly, "there's no individual product that can offer 100% protection." I agree completely with that as well.
This is why it's ironic to me, and contradictory, when we see the same members continually posting statements as facts in evidence, when they aren't factual (ie, any secondary real-time scanner tool will result in your PC being vulnerable to harm).
Since we acknowledge that there's no one AV or protection product that can provide 100% protection, why do we see repeated recommendations to members to use a reactive scanner (ie MBAM Free ver) when we continually see members arriving at this forum with the same issues, PUP popups, browsers hijacked, etc?
DaveH's post includes this sentance that sums it up, in my opinion:
"The people who say you can't run MB pro with Norton have never posted proof of a problem or even documented a problem."
Regarding expert malware volunteers, it's worth noting something: Repeating a mantra with dogmatic regularity doesn't necessarily make a statement factual.
Also, linking threads elsewhere (ie, Bleepingcomputer.com links, etc) in attempts to justify a mindset here, that's a two-way street. There are many posts elsewhere, here in this thread as well, from Norton customers that have been running the Pro version for years without conflicts.
This was posted by the MBAM Forum Admin recently in a thread over there in response to a Norton customer that was asking about the conflict question:
"Our program will not fight over detection or removal with an antivirus program. We've even asked some antivirus vendors to show verifiable proof that can be replicated to show such behavior and to date no one has provided us this information. Kaspersky antivirus has a big list of security software that they are not compatible with when using their antivirus but we are not on their list as we do not conflict with their antivirus in that manner."
I underlined the part that, to me, is the most significant part of this ongoing debate. This could be put to rest with one post from a Symantec staff member, providing lab test results of this ongoing insistance of members posting repeatedly about this topic.
I've been a member here for about 15 months and, to me, one of the notable effects of this mindset is that we see new members arriving here daily, seeking assistance regarding PUP issues, and they're being provided unsubstantiated advice about this issue which, my opinion, is doing those members a disservice.
From MBAM's Knowledge Base section:
"Malwarebytes Anti-Malware is engineered specifically not to check files before your antivirus has had a chance to analyze them first, thus preventing conflicts which can occur when two security programs detect the same file as a threat at the same time."
Another link from MBAM's Knowledge Base:
https://helpdesk.malwarebytes.org/entries/20818081?
The part of this issue that I've found interesting is some of the replies that I've read and have been posted in replies to me about this topic.
This was posted in a reply to a new member that was seeking help with PUP intrusions:
"Thank goodness you weren't running the Pro version, otherwise, you'd have been infected."
Besides being inaccurate, it's rather pretentious at best, to presume specific information about a member's issue on their PC at that time.
I've also read replies to me, with bold-faced font, telling me "When your system crashes (due to MBAM Pro), let us know."
Someone else said "Some claim to be able to use the Pro version without issues."
Well, I'm here to say it's not a "claim", it's a fact. MBAM Pro periodically blocks or notifies me that a potential threat or action has been taken whereas, at the same site[s], N360 indicates no issues at those sites.
To clarify, this isn't about critiquing Norton AV regarding such detections, it's about the benefits of using a dual-layer protection, ie, a mainline AV tool in addition to an antimalware-specific real-time protection tool.
There are numerous posts elsewhere authored by experienced IT people that recommend a dual-layer protection scheme for one's PC. This is the main reason I installed MBAM Pro in Oct '12.
Another long-standing member here posted a reply to another member wich whom they agreed about the topic, "Another battle won."
When you read comments like this, it's clear to me that we're dealing with an emotional issue with some members here, and that's unfortunate since that kind of approach tends to shut down discussions that are fact-based.
We see that daily in the N360 and NIS forum sections, mainly when new members appear asking for assistance.
Bottom line for me is that, regardless of this one topic where I disagree with numerous members, this is one of the best PC/tech forums that I visit regularly. There's a lot of first-rate advice being dispensed here as well as most members being civil and abstaining from the unfortunate 'net habit of replying with emotional sarcasm.
Hopefully, this discussion won't veer into that direction. I've kept behind the curtain with this topic for a long time since I know it's a "hot-button" topic for some here. After reading posts here from other respected longtime members that have decided to speak out about this issue, I decided to post my take on the subject.
Imacri, thanks for the exclusion list info. Interestingly, I've not added any exclusions to MBAM Pro (1.75) since it's install. I'm holding off on installing V2 to allow time for MBAM to resolve some issues with it.
. 
(As a matter of fact, I've told folks on a couple of occasions who are wedded to their Malwarebytes that I would rather see them dump Norton and just use Malwarebutes PRO than try to run both together.)
