McAfee or Norton

not my experience at all Trey. Etrust has been one of the the least troublesome and had the least impact on system performance of any antivirus I have ever dealt with, and I have dealt with all the major brands in the 9 years I've been servicing PCs. Perhaps something was awry in your particular system to cause such a performance issue. It certainly isn't the norm for Etrust, I can butture you. Also, as a part-time gamer, I'm very particular about what I allow to run in the backround, and so are my LAN gaming buddies, because demanding background tasks usually result in reduced gaming performance. For that reason, I wouldn't choose any other AV software for a resident scanner other than Etrust. My LAN gaming cohorts report similar results using Etrust, and none of my customers has ever complained about it. In fact several have commented on how efficient it is, and how little it does impact their systems, as opposed to Norton and the like which typically results in an immediate perceptable impact unless you are running a very modern machine. I've had Etrust installed on every PC I've sold over the last 2 years, and the only issues I've run into are update problems for dialup customers (a problem which doesn't apply to the subscription-based EZ version) and a bug that causes pegged CPU usage on some machines, for which a patch has been available for quite sometime now. Perhaps that is the issue that caused trouble with yours. Pure speculation, but one thing is for certain, Etrust normally resulted in very little or no noticeable performance impact on the many systems which I have installed it. My experience has been 180 degrees opposite of yours.