Re: Which free Zone Alarm (4 or 5) uses less power?
From: Steven L Umbach (n9rou_at_n0-spam-for-me-comcast.net)
Date: 01/01/05
- Next message: Steven L Umbach: "Re: Save me from my stupidity"
- Previous message: Karl Levinson, mvp: "Re: Securing webserver, allow some users external, all users internal"
- In reply to:(deleted message) Jane P: "Which free Zone Alarm (4 or 5) uses less power?"
- Next in thread: Woody: "Re: Which free Zone Alarm (4 or 5) uses less power?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 17:42:29 GMT
I have used the free version of Sygate with no problem on XP computers. If
you are having all those problems it might be time to do a fresh install and
start over. The free version of Zone Alarm is fine, easier for most users,
but not near as powerful as Sygate for logging. I don't believe any is a
drag on the system and you can use Task Manager to get a basic idea about
that.
Having said that I much prefer using a NAT router/firewall device if using
cable/dsl. Then you don't run into problems with the operating system. Of
course you can supplement a hardware device with a host firewall if you have
the need to protect yourself from other computers on your lan or need to
control which applications can access the internet [lockdown other users].
Personally I find the built in ICF firewall in XP to be very good for what
it does. It is easy to configure, built in, has logging, and seems to be
failry robust. It does not of course manage outbound traffic but I don't
need it for that. If you can trust your self to do "safe browsing" and are
good upbout keeping current with critical updates, using hard to guess
passwords, and use a virus scan program that is kep up to date and scans all
emails you may well find that the XP ICF firewall is all you need. I don't
need my host firewall to be an "malware indicator". --- Steve
"Jane P" <no_thanks@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1104583648.5d1071c8bc61812fe349cefbe0362f51@teranews...
> Which version of free Zone Alarm should I go for if I am concerned
> about losing too much PC power to running the firewall?
>
> I don't expect to need any Zone Alarm feature (mail checking, etc)
> except the main firewall feature.
>
> I hope someone here can advise. Thank you.
>
> jane
>
> ---------------
>
> Here are some background details ....
>
> I have used only ever used FREE firewalls. I used to use Zone Alarm
> when it was version 2 and 3 but I found it sucked up too much power
> on my rather basic PC (700 MHz with 768 MB).
>
> Back then I replaced Zone Alarm with Kerio 2.1.5 but over time I
> found Kerio's reporting to be a bit too basic so I went over to the
> free version of Sygate. I like Sygate.
>
> Somehow Sygate has got all tangled up in my XP Pro's registry and
> System Internal's RegMon shows Sygate is probably slowing down other
> processes on the PC, notably Win Explorer.
>
> In order to sort this out, I removed Sygate and I enable XP's own
> rudimentary firewall.
>
> I might have installed Free Agnitum Outpost or Free Kerio 5 but they
> have had some unenthusiastic reviews.
>
> So I am now thinking of installing the free version of Zone Alarm 4
> or 5 but I am concerned about making my PC too slow. I will image
> the whole system as a backup before I do this.
>
> As I said earlier, I don't expect to need any Zone Alarm feature
> (mail checking, etc) except the main firewall feature.
>
> Which version of Zone Alarm (version 4 or 5) should I go for if I am
> concerned about losing too much PC power to running the firewall?
>
> ==========================================
- Next message: Steven L Umbach: "Re: Save me from my stupidity"
- Previous message: Karl Levinson, mvp: "Re: Securing webserver, allow some users external, all users internal"
- In reply to:(deleted message) Jane P: "Which free Zone Alarm (4 or 5) uses less power?"
- Next in thread: Woody: "Re: Which free Zone Alarm (4 or 5) uses less power?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
