PIRX  The keyword is compliance. If you work in the corporate world with a computer, no matter what make it is and what operating system it runs, your business partners may request you to run AV, no matter if you yourself are affected or not. Noncompliance = no business. Plain, straight, as simple as that.  
(Version 1.1.1)

MRGLSMRC  unix based snow leopard machines are very secure. there is no justification for running antivirus software on them or spending fifty bucks to do so.

even clanAV which is free and available for the mac is unnecessary because most if not all clamAV virus definitions are for windows machines.

for the commenter who said he 'found something' with this application, i am not surprised you got a false positive because antivirus software which doesn't convince you of a non-existent threat won't sell.

there is however a definite need for windows based AV software for macusers running bootcamp. that's because your windows disk partition is NOT safe viruses like the mac partition is.

there are many useful ways to protect a mac that doesn't involve virus software. you should regularly eliminate tracking cookies. you should perform backups of your system startup disk. you should use passwords for merchants with strong encryption and these should be stored in a password protected database. you should not accept malware plugins to your browser from unknown sources.

all of these actions are more important than AV software that costs fifty bucks. unfortunately all of these actions require using your brain and while most people have fifty bucks to throw at imaginary problems, few of us really have the time to think and solve our own problems. that's a pity.  
(Version 1.1.1)

SONELTA  I know lots of people have posted comments about this being a rip off, and lets all use CLAMAV etc etc. Perhaps those who think that can provide a more detailed "Review" of this product and compare it fully with opposing applications so that people like me can make more informed choices from reviews and comments that are helpful.

My personal opinion is that this was easy to use and during the trial it detected a virus that Virusbarrier had not. So it may have been a Windows but since I value my friendships and communication I was that I avoided passing this on to PC users. I dealt with the problem effeciently. I like the user layout and it is easy to configure to how I want it to work with scheduled scanning and option to choose with folder/files to scan should I wish to limit it. Compared to Integos virusbarrier I would rather have this one. CLAMAV may be free but I find it out dated and not very configurable. I am however, reluctant to pay the price that is being asked for but since there are not as many options for MAC I guess we can expect higher prices.   
(Version 1.0.6)

CREEPSTER  For those worried about Mac malware, read this.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/01/29/the-mac-malware-myth/  
(Version 1.0.6)

O5220803  This version of ProtectMac AntiVirus 1.0.5 is excellent, complete and thorough! It works superbly on my MacIntel Mini! Fast, stable and secure. I Appreciate the fact that they continue to support OSX 10.4.x! I purchased a license and it's well worth the price. Remember, since Apple is using Intel-based processors in their products, Windows-type viruses will become more prevalent on Apple systems in the future; since Apple and PC instruction sets are now very similar! Give ProtectMac AntiVirus a shot during their free trial period; most of you will not be disappointed.   
(Version 1.0.5)

SHOTGUNWEDDINGS  $45 for something that basically serves no purpose for Mac users. Cheaper or free alternatives would be a wiser investment for people seeking a lesson in futility.

Sure it might be useful for removing windoze infections before you pass on some files to them. But honestly, who cares about windows users anyways LOL

Overpriced and bloated , even if the developer paid me $45 , I still wouldn't install it  
(Version 1.0.3)

LEOOFBORG  Unless the vendor has gone out of their way to strip documentation out of the Clamav code in violation of the GPL then you can't call this a 'rip off'.

Maybe one of the 'critics' should verify this before using the 'R' word.

As for me, well. there's LCC [good all around util that invokes ClamXav] and the front end available elsewhere.  
(Version 1.0.2)

BIGDAVE56  I agree $45 seems overpriced, esp for what may just be a gussied-up version of ClamXAV. That's why I stopped using Intego's VirusBarrier: It never found a single thing, which means either there was no threat, or it didn't work, period.

ClamXAV *WILL* quarantine infected files, but won't "sanitize" them. But on my machine, it has never detected a threat either.

iAntivirus looks interesting but its small footprint is apparently achieved at the cost of omitting windoze viruses from the db- fine for protecting your mac, but doesn't do anything to protect windows users you may share files with.

Just my 2 cents.  
(Version 0.9.1)

CALL ME YO DADDY  Everybody has a right to make a living but if you must have an AV, iAntivirus by PCTools is free for home users. It's in beta but it is backed and developed by a multi-million dollar company that so far has produced a pretty impressive AV for the Mac that is light on system resources and runs quietly in the background.

There is just no way one can justify spending $44.95 for this, especially since it uses the FREE ClamX engine!  
(Version 0.9)

IGREG  The interface looks nothing like ClamXAv. ClamXAV has been standing still a long time and lacks certain basic requirements. One essential is the ability to clean or remove threats, it only identifies them. Even in identification it is sorely lacking, particularly in isolating threats in Mail. Any competition in free or shareware antivirus is sorely needed. The commercial apps are WAY over-priced, they need some healthy and SERIOUS competition. Hopefully, this new app will provide such competition. I do not know if this one does as well or better than ClamXAV.  
(Version 0.9)