While I've never run WSA for a long period of time, I have found serious issues with it. The first time I was running it, at one point it was using 96% CPU use. That was for an older version, and to be fair maybe if I had emailed technical support, maybe they could have found out what was going wrong. Also, it is common to see posts here at Wilders saying how light WSA is. Maybe I was just unlucky and encountered some weird rare bug, but at the time it was enough for me to immediately uninstall it. There's no point having antivirus software installed if it makes your computer unusable due to excess CPU use. My comments are not meant to be an anti WSA rant, but directed to any security software which causes a noticeable drop in performance. Recently I was working on a laptop on which after doing a restore to the factory settings, the included antivirus was using 50% CPU at times, causing major slowdowns. It is a mystery to me why a manufacturer would decide to include an antivirus which causes some a major hit in performance. Another laptop I had to fix recently was high end Toshiba laptop (just a few years old), and installed Norton 360 was making it run slowly despite having a powerful CPU. I'm guessing this antivirus came preinstalled as the customer said their laptop had always run slowly, even when it was brand new. In this case, since they had a valid licence for Norton I upgrade to the latest version of 360, and fortunately the computer ran much faster after that. The alternative would have been ditching it for a free antivirus with much less system impact. Which brings me to another point. It really bugs me that some of the paid antiviruses don't automatically check for new versions, and prompt you toupgrade when a new version is released. The free version of Avast has checked for new versions, and upgraded to the latest version without any user input required, if you choose to let it upgrade when prompted for years. So I don't know why certain paid security products don't work the same way.