I, a self-proclaimed socialist, have something to admit:

[Deja Q]

I would rather buy Norton Internet Security 2003 than use freeware AVG and plain-old Zone Alarm for my virus and firewall protection.

:P

Comments, anyone?

edit: spelling :eyes:

[derrald]

1. AVG

I had way too many problems with Norton's after a while, so I just bought the full version of AVG - trust me, I think it's a much better investment.

But of course, each pc is different.

[Deja Q]

2. Each indeed

Both my real XP boxes, my vmware XP session (which I recently deleted and won't be reinstalling), and my vmware Win2k session seem to run Norton just fine. Especially the firewall which catches EVERYTHING thrown its way. (From what I remember reading, I think ZoneAlarm Pro is a bit superior in how it closes unused ports by default, but Norton certainly does the job of keeping people out well enough, and that's what counts. It's mega-easy to configure, too.)

And as I use kazaa on occasion, Norton does merrily intercept any goofy excuse of a virus embedded in transmitted files. It's quite slick.

My only complaint is that norton's subscription service denies older versions of their program (2 years I gather). But as I've encountered mime virii which passed through mcafee 4.5.1 version yet get caught by 7.0.0, I think it's fair they exclude people after 2 years. So it's really not a complaint... :eyes: It's weird I'd use Mcafee as an example to justify Norton's marketing tactic, but it's still the truth.

What sort of problems did you run into, maybe I just haven't noticed?