I've set up a couple different systems with different antivirus programs, thinking that once in a while, I can enable drive sharing and cross-scan with a different virus tester. The main goal is to have double-checks for any suspicious files. (And no, I don't set up multiple A-V's on one machine) Ideally, on the primary systems, I'd like to minimize CPU load, and avoid false positives, -and- make sure that nothing is auto-deleted without letting me intervene. (As already posted, I've already lost some legitimate files to Bitdefender, and I'm not at all happy about that). Aside from the thoroughly buggy Bitdefender, I've been running Kaspersky on one system (works pretty well), and Trend (not as well). I'm considering Eset or Norton to replace Bitdefender on the main development system. I haven't researched this for a couple years, so I was surprised to hear that Norton is now more highly regarded than the older hoggish Norton that I had experienced. And Eset's ratings seem to have slipped a bit on av-comparatives. Question is then, within those constraints (light CPU, min false positives, user intervention before delete/quarantine), what are the tradeoffs between Norton and Eset? I'd love to hear user opinions, as I'm less trusting of net reviews after the bad experience with Bitdefender.