Jobber of the Week Posted August 25, 2004 Report Posted August 25, 2004 Zome Alarm sucks. The Windows firewall is not only more user friendly, but doesn't drag your system resources down into the gutter like Zone does. Zone also is ultra sensative, alerting you and asking you if you want every little service or system app to go online, while the Windows firewall seems to be pre-built to allow the system tools that should be going online to go online. For instance, you don't have to instruct the SP2 firewall that IE is an okay program to run unrestricted. I use Mozilla, so I can't comment on the pop-up blocker, but since so many people continue to use IE, I imagine the pop-up makers are working on every conceivable way to work around it and it'll probably be useless in six months. Since it took so long for IE to get an official blocker in the first place, I imagine fixes to these workarounds won't come out nearly fast enough, and third party products and competing browsers will still be the chief method of blocking.
MrRant Posted August 25, 2004 Report Posted August 25, 2004 Um... ZA asks about shit because that is what OUTBOUND FILTERING DOES. The XP firewall doesn't filter outbound connections.
Slayer Posted August 25, 2004 Report Posted August 25, 2004 Windows Security is an oxymoron I thought people realized this by now
Jobber of the Week Posted August 25, 2004 Report Posted August 25, 2004 I'm pretty sure it does because I've had to put programs in the exception zone to get them to work right. Instant messangers and the like. My point was that the XP firewall is already setup so that system processes and stuff work fine. Where as with ZoneAlarm, you'll be asked "DO YOU WANT TO ALLOW WINSRV32 (or whatever) TO GO ONLINE?" and it sounds suspicious, so you push no, then later Google and find it's a perfectly normal function of Windows. Basically, ZoneAlarm is too much security, especially for average users and especially at the cost of that much system performance. People who want to really fine tune a software firewall should still go with Kerio, but for your average Zone user I'd reccomend the Windows firewall, since it doesn't send in the marines when it spies a dozen false alarms, and it hasn't been expanded with non-firewall shit like flunky browser ad blockers.
Slayer Posted August 25, 2004 Report Posted August 25, 2004 Basically, ZoneAlarm is too much security, especially for average users and especially at the cost of that much system performance. Time to upgrade your P2 then
Jobber of the Week Posted August 25, 2004 Report Posted August 25, 2004 Time to upgrade your P2 then Have you ever ran Kerio and compared their startup time with ZoneAlarm? My father has a P4 1.8Ghz with 512MB of Ram, and recently uninstalled ZoneAlarm for SP2. His startup wait has gone down significantly. ZoneAlarm is a piece of shit program. Software firewall solutions typically are, but Zone just happens to be worse than some of it's alternatives.
Slayer Posted August 25, 2004 Report Posted August 25, 2004 I have those same specs as your dad (though I have AMD instead of P4) and my comp runs fine with ZA
Jobber of the Week Posted August 25, 2004 Report Posted August 25, 2004 Have you run without it lately to compare? I challenge you to run Kerio (which is free in the truest sense of the word) or SP2 firewall for a few days and get back to me. Basically, ZA isn't too piggy when it starts running, but it's startup time is awful. You have to wait a while after seeing the desktop and the icons to wait for the ZA icon in the icon tray, and then you can go online. Both my parents' machines loaded up faster without ZA, from the old P2-era machine (Mom) to the specs I listed above (Dad.) My main problem is that I tend to double click on Internet Explorer as soon as it appears on the desktop. It's practically a reflex after using Windows all these years, and you can't get any sites or anything until you've waited for the icon to show up. I'm not sure if this is universal, but on Dad's IE is dead for good and you have to restart, try again, and be patient this time. This may also be related to the fact that he's using a wireless network with it's own drivers and tray icons.
redbaron29 Posted August 25, 2004 Report Posted August 25, 2004 While I personally dont run a software based firewall, I have heard some pretty bad things pertaining to Zone Alarm, but it is free. As for as Norton goes, I have noticed that over the course of the past six months it has gotten very sloppy when it comes to its real time protection. My suggestion would to go with an alternative such as trend micro ( which has a free scanner on it's web site) and no matter what you go with make sure you also get a spyware detector like spybot, or ad-aware, both are extremely cheap (spybot free, Ad-aware has free and pay version)
Slayer Posted August 25, 2004 Report Posted August 25, 2004 Have you run without it lately to compare? I challenge you to run Kerio (which is free in the truest sense of the word) or SP2 firewall for a few days and get back to me. Why? My comp runs perfectly fine as it is
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now