Ten years ago, if someone asked me who made the best antivirus product, I would say Norton. No hesitation. Peter Norton's company was really on the ball, and it seemed like everyone had a little doctor's kit in their system tray. Fast forward five years, Norton 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 reached increasing heights of suck. They hogged memory. They broke easily. They detected very little; and when they put product activation in there, you needed two licenses if you had a dual-boot configuration. Techies turned from the company that was now a symantec front in disgust, giving rise to the popularity of companies that were still hungry, instead of just resting on their reputation. Kaspersky and Eset built names for themselves and continue to deserve their popularity. But I must say, it seems like since 2007, Norton has been slowly improving. 2007 brought a much cleaner interface and somewhat lower system resources. 2008 dropped the resource footprint considerably. And 2009, well, to be honest, 2009 just has me impressed. I really like the new interface. I LOVE the "incremental scanning" option that only scans files that have changed or been added since the last scan. And for people who have multiple computers but no server, the ability to monitor all the systems is nice. It's very user friendly, and I'm not seeing constant complaints about crashes anymore. Then today, I saw an ad for Norton antivirus "gaming edition", which uses even less resources, and has a "gaming option," which snoozes the heuristics engine, the update engine, the updates, alerts; basically, anything that would interrupt your game. The only thing that's been keeping me from reccomending it is that it just didn't have the detection rate of the big dogs anymore. But looking at the last few avcomparatives.org reports, it looks like it's actually doing as well ask the big two! I guess what I'm saying is, is it time to re-evaluate Norton? Would YOU trust it?