Started talkin' 'bout norton (I asssumed firewall) but then switched to
virus protection. Anyway, I use eTrust from CA, easy update and catches
some. I know it's not the best but I've heard fprot is good, so probably
going to that next. I've had Norton headaches too, installed 2002 in my Win
98 machine and liveupdate wouldn't work. Scan took about a week, various
other problems. Never did get it totally uninstalled (still pieces
everywhere). Installed Win XP home and got rid of it that way. It still
sites on the shelf.

--
Andy


email: sweetandylicious at eml dot cc
"Jay T. Blocksom" <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in message
news:nsf8ivomjest37k1ek5bc5vuu53flq0dm1@news.rcn.c om...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:25:14 -0500, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "Little
> Johnny" <missb93@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have to agree with you about big and goes everywhere. But what is
> > better and easier to use. Please don't say McAfee as I'v been there,
> > done that and don't like it. Misses to many virus.
>
> Message-ID: <84fqhv44vvuar4pt53v4mincimk6u8u3m7@news.rcn.com >
>
> --
>
> Jay T. Blocksom
> --------------------------------
> Appropriate Technology, Inc.
> usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net
>
>
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
> NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to
mail.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
> Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly
prohibited
> under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
> $1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-