In my other life I support corporate networks. More than half of the virus infestations I've seen on these networks originated from a user bringing in media that had been in an infected home PC.

Of course, one could argue that AV software on a home PC isn't going to stop any viruses that the corporate network won't stop as well, so nothing is gained. So, maybe the vendors are being altruistic - hoping to eradicate this worthless scourge from as many machines as possible, and in the process, protect the company's users' home PCs as well.

>Hi Bruce,
>
>Assuming that the AV software in question does the job it is intended to do... that is, to protect the business system(s) it is purchased for and installed on... then why would there be any need whatsoever to also install the software on home machines attached to that/those business systems?
>
>Is it because the software has certain deficiencies on its 'receiving end' and so benefits from also running on the 'sending end'? If so, wouldn't that mean that a buyer is not actually getting what they think they are getting?
>
>If it's just a niceity for the folks who work there well, that *is* nice but shouldn't necessarily be a deal-maker. Though I could see buying this one on that basis to "encourage" other vendors of other software products to also offer similar in their agreements.
>
>So now do you *HAVE TO* install it on your home machine, or is that optional?
>
>Regards,
>
>Jim N
>
>>>Since I don't know of an AV vendor that won't negotiate this sort of agreement, I find it rather unfortunate that the purchase decision is not based on the quality of the AV software itself...
>>
>>I'm pretty sure those in charge of these decisions were already happy with the quality of several AVs, which are re-evaluated every couple years, but NAI has been very good on both customer relations and pricing...