>>I agree with you here. People complain about Norton hogging system resources, but I've seen McAfee take more, sometimes as much as 30%.
>
>Yep. I'd seen McAfee take up a lot of system resources -- and often more than what Norton usually did. However, I've never run into situation where McAfee let something through it shouldn't have, while I'd seen a lot of stuff get by Norton that it probably should've blocked. In the cases where Norton did eventually discover the malware, it often couldn't remove it (not sure why, but it had trouble accessing the system restore data -- something that most ofher antivirus programs do w/o problems).

Do you mean Norton or Symantec? What I remember of Norton was rock solid. What I can't remember is seeing anything from Symantec that worked right, specially the pieces they bought from Norton. They first remove any features that can't be explained in less than three sentences, then limit the rest, then dress it up in some fancy GUI that may look nice to their sales department, but is actually a hindrance.

Even their fillware on my wife's laptop, with its "your computer is not secure!" warning (meaning "this is only a demo, not real protection, but it still takes 30% of your cycles") failed as a threat - I uninstalled. Took some hours to do it, its technique of installation is very much like what they claim they're fighting against.

And I almost forgot the best piece: pcAnywhere. Between version 9 and 10, the only difference I was able to find is that it stopped losing connection when you tried to overwrite a file open by someone. ONE bug fix counts as a whole new version.