Duis mollis, est non commodo luctus, nisi erat porttitor ligula, eget lacinia odio sem nec elit. Sed posuere consectetur est at lobortis. Vestibulum id ligula porta felis euismod semper. Donec ullamcorper nulla non metus auctor fringilla. Aenean lacinia bibendum nulla sed consectetur. Cras justo odio, dapibus ac facilisis in, egestas eget quam. Cras mattis consectetur purus sit amet fermentum. Morbi leo risus, porta ac consectetur ac, vestibulum at eros. Sed posuere consectetur est at lobortis. Etiam porta sem malesuada magna mollis euismod. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Duis mollis, est non commodo luctus, nisi erat porttitor ligula, eget lacinia odio sem nec elit. Cras justo odio, dapibus ac facilisis in, egestas eget quam. Aenean eu leo quam. Pellentesque ornare sem lacinia quam venenatis vestibulum. Curabitur blandit tempus porttitor. Sed posuere consectetur est at lobortis.
You can always exclude files from being scanned (it's within options), but I would have some bigger questions. The first is why do you want to skip scanning these files? If you are ever infected with a file infector, you will be opening a vulnerability. Also, is there a reason why you're still on 2003?
Ah cool, a Symantec peep. 
Hello, Erik, and thanks for your time.
Never gave much thought to being infected with a file infector; you just made me think twice about this. The reason is this: speed. I have two large .dat files that belong to sw by a company called Spectrasonics. The first is 3.1 GB, and the second is 3.9 GB. GB - not MB. Scanning my HD before the sw was installed took approx. 40 minutes. After the install, I have done three scans, and each scan takes almost two hours. The reason I know it's these files is because NAV just sits (not hangs) on these two files for a long, long time. So, I thought about skipping these when i run a scan. .dat files are subject to being infected with a file infector?
The reason I am still on '03 is resource related. I bought the '07 version, and found that it used alot more RAM and a little more CPU than '03. I called tech support, and asked if the '03 version would still be able to harness all of the current and new updates, and the answer was yes. Normally, I wouldn't care about the extra resources, but this computer is my DAW, and I tend to push it hard on a regular basis with large audio files and alot of plug-ins. Many times I need every last bit of resource I can muster, and the '07 version was potentially taking some of that a way - even if only a little.
Thanks again!
Cheers.
Allthough not as common as other threats, any file infector can infect any type of file. The 2008 product uses less resources than any previous version. As far as protection updates, the technology has advanced and you do receive a better level of protection in the newer versions. Try 2008 and let me know if you see the same type of performance hit. There may be contributing factors for the apparent resource problems.
Hey,
Just to follow up Erik’s recomendation to try out NAV 2008, you can get the trialware versions here.
Cheers!
Ok, I would like to install the NAV 2008 trialware. But - do I need to uninstall 03 first? i assume not, but what happens when I go to uninstall 08? I know there are registry entries left over after an uninstall, are there any potential problems of leaving 03, installing 08, and then uninstalling 08?
2008 will require you to uninstall 2003 through add/remove programs. As for if you uninstall 2008, that version does a much better job of cleaning up items in the uninstall. If you have any doubts after performing the uninstall you can allways run SymNRT: