We're a recent member of Computing.net. But in that short time, the number of posts which deride McAfee seems, well, rather amazing. Amazing, considering the number of posts asking for help to cure problems caused by Norton software. Norton issues seem to be in all catagories: here in the XP forum; in the Security & Virus forum; etc. We've used both Norton and McAfee. It's only our experience, but Norton seems over-rated and over-priced. And considering the inherent problems caused by Norton (again, problems well-documented here at Computing.net) it would seem prudent to find another vendor; be it McAfee or someone else. Example: The only difference between Norton and McAfee when it comes to antivirus software is the price. McAfee costs less, and is every bit as effective as Norton. There's no difference in timely updates and virus definitions. This isn't a commercial for McAfee. Or a diatribe against Norton. Just what we've found through using both. Beer, Barbeque, Best movies in South Tampa

what was the question? how is that a topic for the XP forum? how long have you worked for Network Associates?

Ripdivx: We work for no one but ourselves; whether you choose to believe that or not is your problem. Yes, it's a topic for the XP forum since, as we've already posted, Norton issues seem to appear everwhere on Computing.net. Beer, Barbeque, Best movies in South Tampa

TBH, I agree with what you say, I don't favour a particular AV program, I just try them all and decide which one is best. I have tried NAV and must say it uses up more memory than McAfee and also tends to get corrupted quite easily. Grisoft's AVG is a very good for identfying viruses with it's daily updates, but when it comes to quarantining, it just doesn't know how to do it, even in safe mode when you try to force it to. :-O Norton however deserves some credit more than most for intercepting harmful viruses when it was on call, but excessive use of system memory and the duration for liveupdates seems to drag it right down. According to this forum, I hear the latest version NAV2004 uses up even more system memory :-S At the end of the day, McAfee seem to win hands down, but of course your opinions might differ to mine, but please go easy if you're gonna flame, remember this board does have an admin that takes no prisoners. :-D ER4S3R. My 2 cents (er..pence :-O). ____________________________________________ ### Nobody believes the official spokesman, but everybody trusts an unidentified source ###

ER4S3R: Thanks for filling in the blanks. We've experienced the same. Beer, Barbeque, Best movies in South Tampa

Well, one thing is for certain.......according to the number of posts regarding difficulties with McAfee or Norton; it is quite clear that McAfee easily wins for being more trouble free, and much less of a resource hog.

Well I might as well throw in my two cents (only worth about 1.5 cents though). I, like most people, do not have the time to install many different AV apps and to test them all. Instead, I rely upon reviews within publications such as PC Magazine, PC World, etc and through online sources such as Tom's Harware Guide, CNet, etc. For at least the last three years almost every review I have read concerning AV apps concluded that Norton was the most proficient. However, they have also stated that Norton does take up more system resources than most of the competition. As for the assumption that Norton is more prone to problems due to the number of posts for McAfee vs. Norton, I think that the numbers should be taken into context. Norton has a <u>much</u> larger install base than McAfee does. So if 5% of all users on both application have problems then the NET number of Norton users with problems would be greater thant the NET number of McAfee users with problems. Hwever, they would be equally problematic. Michael J