unconcerned about MSE, is he?
Famous Last Words. MSE is smaller, faster (be still my heart! A Mickeysoft product that's _fast_! What's the world coming to?) and more accurate than most of the competition. That would _especially_ include Symantec's bloated, slow, memory- and CPU-hogging, abortion of an AV system. NAV 2010 is a vast improvement over the utter disaster that was NAV 2009, but then NAV 2009 was very, very, VERY bad, even for a Symantec product. Even the tremendous improvement that 2010 represents is _still_ pretty bad.
I have not paid for AV on my personal WinBoxes for the better part of a decade now; I've used AVG, and Avast, and now MSE instead. The company just got rid of NAV after one irritation too many. They're going to MS Forefront instead, something that I'm not that sure about, not for corporate-level security, but that particular decision was _NOT_ my department. And, fortunately, I don't really give much of a damn as most of the machines I run at the office are Macs and several of the servers are Linux boxes, anyway. <smug> AV software? What's that? </smug>
In any case, I've found that the combination of MSE for live AV support and MalwareBytes or Clam (on the Macs or Linux boxes, to clean anything that gets past MSE on the WinBoxes) for second-line coverage is a lot more effective, faster, and far cheaper (that is, _FREE_) than anything from Symantec, at least for personal use. Corporate use, well, that remains to be seen.
(Of course, <smug> not having to care about AV at all </smug> is better still.)
Tux 'cause he's smug and doesn't need anything from Symantec.