[macnuke]

AndrewRodney said:

The question I'd like to see answered is why upgrade from version 4? Certainly not just for that "lovely" (NOT) UI. I can still purchase and use the actual virus updates though NetUpdate in V4. So why actually upgrade the app?

so it can load your menu bar up with useless crap like windows does.

[GazelleIntense]

Only one problem. Apple says macs do not need virus protection. So not only is this overpriced, it's not needed. At least not currently.

[rlockhart]

I use my Mac in a corporate environment and so don't have a choice of whether I can or can't run an AV client. With tens of thousands of computers on our network, the security folks don't want to take even the slightest risk.
Symantec Anti-Virus (SAV) Corporate edition is our standard, and I dutifully ran it on my MacBook for about two years. I came to hate the way it would trigger AutoProtect and start consuming CPU resources. That in turn would heat up the CPU and start the fan going, which on the last generation MacBook sounded like an APU for an airplane. This was especially true when I did a SuperDuper backup. I'd come back to the computer and the fan would be going at full speed until I either disconnected the backup drive or shut off AutoProtect.
I just purchased the new MacBook Pro and decided it was time to switch to Intego. The difference is night and day. This is a totally non-obtrusive product that just lives in the background. Other comments on this review state that it is probably because the Mac doesn't suffer from viruses or trojans like Windows, and that may in fact be true. If, however, you're required to run an AV client, or you just plain don't want to take chances, my initial reaction to Virus Barrier is that it's a better designed product. What I'd really like to see is an empirical study as to which product identified viruses most effectively. What I read in this review was simply anecdotal evidence that it found viruses.

[eparg]

Whether or not Macs will remain safe from viruses is just part of the scenario.. Remember, your Mac can be a carrier of Windows viruses (such as those housed in MS word macros), but not be affected. If you share files with Windows users, they can be affected by the virus the mac passes on.

[gregk]

Not anymore - http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2550

[steve333]

Apple removed that page. I find that interesting. First they recommend an antivirus program, then they remove that page entirely.
I just bought a new Macbook Pro, havent received it yet. I want to keep it prtected but not sure if I should bother with Virus Barrier, Virex, or not bother at all?
What about tracking cookies, how do we keep them away?

[Shinerkyd]

Macs are not Gods computers, they are still subject to everything a Windows based computer is. Macs, while holding 13% of the worlds computers, is not where most companies are. Therefore, taking the time to make a virus for a mac is less useful than one for a Windows based platform.

P.S.
Macs are still the best compared to Windows, but you have to look at everything, not just the face value. After spending $2500 is $40-100 going to hurt to protect your investment?

[Chris Breen]

Shinerkyd said:

Macs are not Gods computers, they are still subject to everything a Windows based computer is.

No, in fact they're not. And saying it in multiple threads doesn't make it true.

[Shinerkyd]

Yet you seem to think that Macs cannot be hacked, get viruses, malware or anything else.

[Chris Breen]

Shinerkyd said:

Yet you seem to think that Macs cannot be hacked, get viruses, malware or anything else.

Either you didn't read my antivirus article or you haven't taken the time to understand it. Try again.

[pathfinder]

I run 10.5.5 and bought VirusBarrie X5. The worst experience of my life online. The program did not work! Buy Norton instead at least it works.

[alucas]

shanx24 said:

Do yourself a favor and read up on OSX viruses. Google is your buddy, it'll make you look smarter on public forums.


Secondly, learn to look a little beyond your own little cocoon. There are advanced users who use Parallels or VMWare to use Windows on their Macs, because they have to. For code testing, or for some functionality that is not yet available on Macs (e.g., Adobe Captivate). For these users it is important to have an av tool installed.

LOL. Wow. You are funny. I've been a Mac power user for years. Never had the need for AV software. Only time I have EVER seen a virus on Mac, was when Word Macro Viruses on Windows attacked the normal.dot on the mac as well... Turn off macros and that eliminated the issue. Why waste the CPU power for viruses that are so few and far between that you have little worry of getting? Besides, in order to get a trojan horse to run on a mac, you have to actually open the executable... Easy to avoid. Also, if you are not pirating software from warez sites , you really do not have anything to worry about.

Secondly, running an AV program on the Macintosh will not protect your Parallels and VMWare virtual machines from viruses. For that you would need a Windows AV product if you are running windows and something for other operating systems you can run under these virtual machines depending on the platform your are running. In fact, if your virtual machine got a virus, only that virtual machine will be affected and not your Macintosh itself nor any of your other virtual machines unless you open the same infected file in them. So before you open your mouth to say something stupid like telling someone to get a Mac AV program to protect your Windows virtual machine in VMWare or Parallels, you might want to actually get to know how virtual machine actually work.

[cerebralpro]

Norton's does a better job even though it slows down your system. Avoid Virus Barrier at all costs, it fails with error and is a waste of money.

[jyharris]

I tried Norton Internet Security 4 for Mac. It slowed my system way down as well as made it unstable. I DO NOT recommend this software to anybody.