I used to use Norton back when (Systemworks 2005), but got sick of the yearly subscription model.

I've been using COMODO on my computer ever since, and it's been just as good as Norton, with less troubles. (Norton freaked on uTorrent, the final straw.) It also has very good active protection that can quarantine an infected file on access, before it can do any harm. The user interface is also very polished. (What was with the media player interface on Avast? How annoying is that?!)

I've also installed it on many other people's computers and they all haven't had any problems with it. In particular, I have one friend who had so many viruses I wiped her computer and reinstalled windows. In the year since, she hasn't changed any browsing habits, and nothing has slipped past COMODO (though many things have tried unsuccessfuly).

PC World's results may be on the lower settings, because I have never had an issue. And the interface and usability are well above many of the other free solutions I have tried. The firewall is a nice touch too, and blocks many intrusion attemts. (Most of which originate in China and attempt to access system.exe. What gives? Seriously...)

When I get my next computer, plan on giving MSE a ride, and the new interface on Avast looks much improved. After I upgrade my XP box to Win7, I think I'll play a little comparison work...

You know, it makes sense that XP machines might have had more detections. It's not that XP is totally insecure, but think for a moment...

My XP box has been running XP for over 5 years. Some people have had XP on their computers for the better part of a decade. Vista, however, has been out for less than half a decade, and Windows 7 for less than a year.

Now doesn't it make sense for a younger, 'fresher' install of an operating system to have less problems than one that has been running for years? Think of all the extra time my XP system has been under attack from malware compared to a newer system only a year old. Sure, I keep it pretty clean, but some people I know have had their computers for years as well, and still look confused when you mention anti-virus. When I recommend they install Security Essentials, it has to deal with years of buildup on the first run.

That set of statistics unfortunately puts XP in a bad light. The XP I know and love is very stable and still my OS of choice.

PS. I prefer Comodo Internet Security (CIS) myself, but some of the people I know only trust software that has a big "M$" on it, so it's nice that this finally came out. It will also make free AV more of a no brainer for computer novices who wouldn't research free antivirus options (like my grandparents).

"In the event the potential winner of any prize is a Canadian resident, he/she will also be required to correctly answer a time-limited mathematical question to be administered by email, mail or phone to receive the prize."

What, you have to know math to win this if you're Canadian? What they heck's that for? Personally, I think they should do that for Americans too then.

(And before you say anything, I am American. However, based on the sad state of some of our citizens, I believe this would give me higher odds of winning by weeding out a lot of potential winners.)

Awesome! I need this! I just maxed out my hard drives the other day!

I could totally use this. My desktop is getting taxed and a separate unit would be nice.

So... SDHC video card. What does that mean when they specifically call it a 'video card' ?
I know it's SD and 8gb, but I want to use it in my camera for pictures! :-D

Even so, it's better for software developers to have people pirate their software than to have people move to the open source side. Look at it this way:

If 50% of users paid for MS Office, and 50% pirate it, that's still 100% MS dependancy. Everyone wants it because they know it's the 'standard' that everyone else is using. Eventually, some of the 'pirates' may actually be able to pay for a newer version, and MS would make some more money. I know I'd rather own a legit key, but if I can't afford it, I can't afford it. (If it wasn't for severely discounted keys through my college, I might have considered a pirated version.)

Now, if 50% paid for MS Office and 50% used OpenOffice, there wouldn't be a standard anymore. Some of the MSoffice users might think "Hey, that's free and it works just as well. Maybe I should save some money." MS could lose control of the market, and lose money in the process. Even though MSoffice has a few extra features, it wouldn't justify the cost.

Face it, MS Office IS the de facto standard. If it wasn't for pirating, more people would be forced to use open solutions which would gain popularity. But when something is a standard, you can't deny it. I've read many articles on OpenOffice where the writer said that they love it, but still use MSoffice because there are some things that OpenOffice can't do.

And it's true, large developer software from Adobe, MicroSoft, and similar companies goes through a lot of development and usually has some more features than open source competitors.

And to them, it's better to have everyone on their page, regardless of if they've paid.

ME! ME!

I don't have an iPhone, but I could still use this. Besides, there may one day be a way to control it when I eventually get a WinMo phone.

500gigs of portable bliss! Heck yeah! I could use this to bring my collection of.. um.. public domain music and videos!!!

Yeah, that's what I'd use it for...