AntiVirus for Macs?

[danoistheman]

I have just ordered a MacBook Pro, I know this is a long running issue but will i need to buy Antivirus for my apple?
I will not be connected to a work network with other PCs and i am tech wise about not opening unknown files in emails etc.
Will programs like Sophos/Norton be a waste of my money and computer resources, or are they a good purchase just to be on the safe side?
Your advice would be greatly appreciated

[Rhisiart]

You don't need anti-virus for your MacBook Pro. However, if you want to protect your friends from PC virii, you may chose to install an anti-virus programme. This might prevent you unwittingly passing on a virus, which wouldn't harm your Mac, but might harm their PCs.

ClamXav is good and is free.

There have been numerous other posts in this forum on this subject.

[tbsingleton73]

I use a virus scanner on my Mac (better safe than sorry).
I heard issues about Norton (any product) running on newer versions of OS X.
McAfee as a scanner called Virex but you can get the free ClamAV.

So to answer your question, get the FREE ClamAV and stay protected.

[Lt Major Burns]

and of course, Stay Away From Norton. i don't think anyone will stress that enough. it is widely known to cause more problems than it claims to solve.

[MisterMe]

Norton Utilities for the Macintosh did nothing useful and reputedly did some measure of harm. This is why Symantec discontinued the product as well as the SystemWorks bundle. However, I know of no credible reports of harm done by Norton Antivirus for the Macintosh. My take is that people heard "Norton" and understood "Norton Antivirus." I am a Norton Antivirus user and have never had any problems with it. If you want to go "naked," that is your choice. If you want to use a competing product, that is also your choice. However, you are ill-served by making choices based on misinformation.

[fryke]

The "Stay away from Norton/Symantec on the Mac" has a looooooong history. And while it's true that there don't seem to be many problems with their antivirus tool, you have to see this in a more political context. About 10 years ago (!!!), these problems with Norton Utilities started to become a big problem. And as long as people bought applications from them, they went on to produce newer versions of their products. It was a very long fight to persuade Mac users to stay away from Norton products altogether, but it finally bore fruit, and now their Mac product line looks better, because they killed their main faulty product. However: For me it's been too long a fight and to hard a fight to ever support another Norton/Symantec product on the Mac. I'll keep on stating that the _first_ rule of Mac support is to remove *ANY* software from Norton/Symantec, and that rule has never done any harm, really.

So: Stay the *heck* away from those products. There are enough other vendors around.

[MisterMe]

Originally Posted by fryke

The "Stay away from Norton/Symantec on the Mac" has a looooooong history. ...

As a Mac user since 1989 and a Symantec user since 1990, I consider myself diehard Mac user and fairly well-informed one, to boot. In 1996, I subscribed to MacWorld, MacUser, and MacWeek. I frequented the Mac forums on CompuServe and AOL. I also had access to the Internet. Yet, this is the first time I have heard of this long campaign against Norton. Even now, lo these many years later, you are being awfully cryptic. Would you care to elaborate on the issues involved in that political fight?

[easterhay]

Don't take this the wrong way, fryke, but you once scolded me on a now-forgotten thread for recommending Mac Garden to someone seeking free games. I accept the rebuke entirely on the grounds of the highly questionable licence status of some of the games to be found on the Mac Garden site.
But it seems a tad contrary to stand up for fair commercial practice one minute and then basically libel Norton the next. They are running a business and deserve a fair hearing among those who have not had the bad experiences with them you appear to have had.
I've had my run-ins with them too, and wouldn't bother with their products, but does that mean they are universally bad?