I believe they pretty much did that some time ago. If I am remembering correctly, there were some extended periods where they only offered a site-license.

While I also tend to wallow in the "non-viral" environment our Macs afford our household, as OS X becomes
more mainstream, and surely we all know it will, wont that attract more notice, and will that notice/attention not bring more cr@p down on our smug little fiefdoms?
I realize that the *nix base of OSX makes it very difficult to infiltrate, but does it make it impossible (or nearly so)?
I've never subscribed to the "too small to bother with" scenario, it is more valuable (notoriety wise) to be the one that breaks into Fort Knox, rather than the one that steals the lunch money from the kid on the bus.

nuff said.

If you follow the history of Virex and OS X on MacFixIt, youd hesitate to buy any version of it. Norton Anti-Virus isnt much better. So far I havent seen an anti-virus program for OS X that isnt as much trouble as the viruses it supposedly protects us from. I wonder if the difficulty in designing a virus protection application for OS X isnt as great as creating a Mac virus in the first place.

Depending on the network environment a Mac works in, the cost of Virex might be more or less difficult to justify.

---

Don't anthropomorphize computers - They hate that.