I've been using Norton with no problem.
I had McAfee before and it slowed down my machine ALOT. Also had problems with the update feature.

¢¢

If you have XP, the Norton version will automatically update to the latest data file all by itself in the background and pop up a greeting letting you know you're current.

McAffee doesn't make VirShield anymore apparently and it got real buggy after years of no program updates.

Norton is a system hog and I wouldn't go near Norton stuff these days.

after testing a bunch, my choice was F-Prot Antivirus. right now it is taking 832K. bloated Norton or McAffee couldn't touch that.

http://www.f-prot.com/

it's basic. it doesn't do any more than I want it to. you have to know what you are doing to use it properly it isn't going to hold your hand through anything.

it's the finest I've used though.

I guess. Like you don't mind if your hard drive is severely fragemented and you file allocation tables look like swiss cheese. To each his own. ROTFLMAO!

The point is use some kind of anti-virus protection. So-called "bloated" software is a matter of prospective. Have you checked out how bloated XP itself is? I prefer to use a "name brand" anti-virus product like Norton, based in part because they have a much larger staff and tend to get on top of newer malicious software faster then some small up start company can. Besides I like install it and forget it with their automatic update feature. One less thing to worry about. Wasting time getting and installing the latest data file was always way down on my things to do list. Now one less thing to worry about.

>>>I guess. Like you don't mind if your hard drive is severely fragemented and you file allocation tables look like swiss cheese. To each his own. ROTFLMAO!

my opinion on Virus Protection has something to do with the fact that I don't defrag my drive as often as you do? I don't get it... what's so ROTFLMAO about that?

it is a mistake to disregard someone's opinion just because you don't agree with something else they said.

btw - f-prot has automatic updating as well. I get a new virus list twice a week. look at the facts, check out the test results. Norton has nothing over F-Prot except bloat, and hand-holding. the assertion that Norton are more 'on top' of things is not supported by the test results.

Indeed. So why does it seem you disagree with me expressing my opinion? Everyone is entitled to THEIR opinion. I sometimes think a couple guys here think they need to "correct" other people's opinion, like if it is their duty or some such silly thing. Care to guess who I think likes to do that?

Sorry if you got your feathers ruffled. I see humor in lots of things. One of my favorite things is guys that get apparently rather upset over what someone else says in a forum or newsgroup.

Now if you want to discuss annoyances, one my pet peeves are guys that make comments like "...you have to know what you are doing to use it properly it isn't going to hold your hand through anything." which suggests a superior attititute which I assure you I have no use for. Really. Such condescending remarks aren't helpful and some will find them insulting. I did.

NAV 2002 is great. My tip is just to disable auto-protect whenever you are working on videos, this way NAV won't scan your AVIs when you access them. A quick right click on the taskbar icon turns it on and off. It's a great AV program with automatic updating and email protection.

>>>Now if you want to discuss annoyances, one my pet peeves are guys that make comments like "...you have to know what you are doing to use it properly it isn't going to hold your hand through anything." which suggests a superior attititute which I assure you I have no use for. Really. Such condescending remarks aren't helpful and some will find them insulting. I did.

apologies to BillyBoy and anyone else who was offended by my post. it was absolutely *not* intended to be a condescending remark. I just wanted to make sure anyone who might take my recommendation of F-Prot knew that the program is best for people who already have an understanding of viruses and how to deal with them.

the reason is this... F-Prot doesn't automatically do anything when it discovers a virus. (except prevent other programs from accessing the infected file of course) it is up to the user to decide what to do about it once the virus is caught. other virus protection software (like Norton) may automatically clean or delete the file or step through a "wizard" type process where you can choose different methods of dealing with the virus. it seems to me those features are geared for people who don't know what they are doing *when it comes to viruses*.

typing quick sometimes comes across in a "curt" way but it's just me saving time :) (or trying to I should say ;) this is a line from a review of F-Prot that I just looked up and they have a much more tactful way of saying what I said:

" The Bottom Line - F-Prot for Windows is top-notch protection, though perhaps more suitable for users already experienced with antivirus software. "
http://antivirus.about.com/library/reviews/winscan/aaprfpwin.htm

>>>Indeed. So why does it seem you disagree with me expressing my opinion?

the reason I responded was
1) I thought the information in the post was misleading and promoted a common misconception of software that doesn't carry a big brand name. in any case, it's not a matter of *opinion* whether F-Prot's staff can keep up with virus control as well as Norton's staff. this assertion can be tested and proved right or wrong. the test results I saw did not show any of the advantages of having a supposed "larger staff".
2) because I thought there was kind of a personal shot at me in the post... and from reading the follow-up post... I see that I was correct.

>>>Everyone is entitled to THEIR opinion. I sometimes think a couple guys here think they need to "correct" other people's opinion, like if it is their duty or some such silly thing. Care to guess who I think likes to do that?

it seems I'm also the target of that remark. this is an important point so I'm glad to respond to this question. if I see something that looks incorrect or misleading, I will try to post the correct information (after first verifying it usually) so that others are not mislead. having that ability is one of the biggest advantages of participating in a forum like this, not because I like to correct people, but because I want *others* to correct me and each other.

there is so much information out there that is incomplete, incorrect, or maybe half-correct and there isn't much you can do about it except tell the author and hope. but on a user forum like this, mistakes are usually caught and corrected out in the open where everyone can see it. because of that process, I have more confidence in the info I get from this forum. I wouldn't be here if people didn't debate issues and correct each other's mistakes. when someone asks a question on a user forum like this, the real story is often a few posts *after* the initial responses. but you learn even more on the way, I think.

>>>One of my favorite things is guys that get apparently rather upset over what someone else says in a forum or newsgroup.

yes, I can see that. you would have a lot more fun on Usenet though. (no, that is not a suggestion for anyone to leave or anything, it's just that you get a lot more of that on Usenet than this forum)

>>>My tip is just to disable auto-protect whenever you are working on videos, this way NAV won't scan your AVIs when you access them.

you may be able to configure that in the program... to ignore .AVI files. maybe that would save you some time and trouble...? I know McAffee could do that.

accessing PPT's (PowerPoint) sometimes really slows down a system too, but there are those nasty Macro viruses to worry about so it isn't a good idea to disable it then!