WOW, no NATIVE x64 antivirus..

Eset Smart Security should be compatible with 64-bit and it isn't a complete memory hog.

Hi Jon

I agree, McAfee has never been one of my picks really. I guess I may still be jaded by their REALLY poor choice of business tactics the previous ownership was practicing back in the late 90's...they really got a bad reputation for that and most of us old timer security folk just can't forget how bad they were. I guess I should go by their more recent records with somewhat new ownership and better business ethics.
Yep....Corporate board may be better but the app....Still bad!
McAfee failed the most recent VB100% test for use with Vista and a friend of mine who had it was always complaining about it's resouces useage. Plus it only scored a 6% on the Matousec Leak Test for Firewalls... so I'm with you on this one.

Yes, it is fully 64bit compatible and has a very compact footprint. Still is my #1 choice for AV but I cannot recommend the full suite with Firewall as their new Firewall (which I beta tested for 8 months) is not yet up to snuff. It scored only a 5% on Matousec's latest Firewall Leak test and was among the "Not Recommended". It's difficult to get things right with a brand new product and the Eset engineers know this all too well. I talked with several of them during the testing period and they knew they had allot of work still to do even after they released the suite to the Public. They were already at work on V2 even before V1 went public, and I'm hoping to see several improvements in the GUI, advanced rules and better Leak test results for the next iteration of this firewall. If they can even come close to the quality of their AV engine and heuristics model with the firewall someday, it will surely be one to be considered but for now I would recommend either Comodo Pro (free & ranked #1) or Online Armor (also free and ranked #4)

Oh, BTW...Symantec is a terrible resource monster still!!
My Mother got her very first computer, an HP m7760n Media Center PC and it came with NIS 2008 on it, so I tested it for my own records.
Still bloated big time, passes the VB100% with Vista so it works, but I wasn't impressed with their firewall either. It scored a paltry 32% on Matousec and was ranked "Very Poor". Uninstalling this program is STILL a frustrating experience!!!! It leaves (literally) TONS of stuff behind, so much so that Symantec was Forced to write a Cleanup tool to remove the dreggs it leaves behind...that's right....FORCED! So many users complained about it's uninstall routines that Symantec had to supply a seperate tool for this.

Now, this begs the question...why don't they simply rewrite their regular uninstaller to remove everything the first time...?
Good question, probably because the things left over are things they want to see remain whenever possible would be my guess. And since less than 15% of users who uninstall NIS know about the extra Removal tool, Symantec still has their fingers in 85% of users machines for some reason.

I have been using AVG anti-virus for 64-bit OS for three months on WIN Vista Ultimate 64-bit, and it not only works, IT'S FREE!

i am too searching for native written anti-virus for vista x64 and so far no luck... Task manager will reveal anti-viruses that claim to be for 64bit users are just compatible but nowhere are native and still have application(s) that are *32bit

Oh please...not this again.
This means absolutely NOTHING, so please don't waste your time. Using Task Mgr to find supposed "native 64 bit" is worthless. Every single AV company uses the exact same scanning engine in their 64bit apps as they do in their 32bit apps, even if they don't list a process in TM as *32. They simply are not about to rewrite an entire scanning engine just for 64bit compatibility because it's not needed and it's too complicated and full of problems. New scanning engines need time to mature and no established AV company is going to go thru that at the moment.

I worked in the AV industry for over 8 years so don't bother arguing that point because I know it as Fact.

So this is truly an absolute waste of your time and in many cases, your money. Any AV that has a 64bit compatible program will work 100% under 64bit even if one of their process runs under 32bit.
Eset NOD32 AV is still #1, their security suite (ESS) firewall is new and not up to par yet, Comodo Firewall is the best Free firewall & is ranked in the top 3 Windows Firewalls, paid or free, so it's a safe pick.

I'm in agreement with you there. At this stage of the game, it would cost too much money for every AV producing company to write a true 64bit AV program, and this includes Microsoft with their Live OneCare product, which became 64bit Vista compatible with version 2.0 in the fall of last year.

For every AV company to write a true 64bit program, they would have to blow countless millions of dollars writing a 64bit program, working out the bugs, write said program to detect 32bit viruses and 64bit viruses and so on, which don't exist for the most part except for the recently discovered 64bit virus/trojan for MAC OS X, which can only be picked up at present time if one uses a file sharing program, such as Limewire on the MAC.

Then this issue is somewhat temporarily resolved? Good.

I will stick with free AVG, CA anti-spam, and Mr. Bill's firewall for now.

Exactly WildEagle!!!

There isn't an AV company in the World that is going to go thru all that when it's completely unecessary. The scanning engine itself simply doesn't care what the system throughput is, it doesn't need to care...that has nothing to do with AV scanning. The GUI an dll links..etc, have to be made compatible with a 64bit system and that's all, so every 64bit compatible AV product out there has done that.
This search for "True native 64bit AV apps" is just a smoke & mirror sideshow and needs to be put to sleep for good.

Not "Resolved"....it's DEAD!
In fact it never "WAS" in the 1st place, it's a relative Non-Issue. It was born from a misunderstanding of what comprises today's 64bit systems, that's all.

Of course, I can't say I like AVG myself, and having worked within the Industry may carry a bit of weight, but if Free is your main qualifier for an AV product then thats up to you. Myself, I put more weight on the Independent Test Labs (VB100% Award is my Bible) results and a record of Zero False Positives. If an AV product has even 1 false positive, thats 1 too many.
Eset NOD32 is my recommendation, and will be until they fall from their #1 perch or generate a false positive in their testing...which of course means they fall out of #1 immediately since VB100% allows for no FP's.

Mr Bill's FW is also very low ranked and in fact the first version was the only FW to score a 0 out of a possible 9625 points at Matousec. The latest gets a whole 5%...not much better. Comodo has the best Free FW out there and rates 95%.

I pay attention to Virus Bulletin ratings, and whether or not an AV program/firewall can pass West Coast Labs testing, and ICSA Labs testing. My feelings are is if a program can't get all three of these certifications, it isn't worth touching with a 10 foot pole.

I've read where many a program, some of which I shall not name, can't even pass testing and get certification by Virus Bulletion for 100 percent detection, and can't even get certified by West Coast Labs and ICSA Labs.

Software firewalls alone are a joke in my opinion, give some hacker enough time, and said hacker will find a way to hack the software firewall, and be in one's system, and before the user knows it, they're system is comprised like you wouldn't believe.

I never could stand free AV programs. I tried AVAST on my laptop last year, and guess what, I couldn't uninstall that program, and ended up having to use the restore discs on my laptop. Avast is one program that I myself won't use on my system.

I can name some of the antivirus programs out that can't even get certified by the three labs I mention.

Windows Live OneCare? *ducks*