it works great and doesn't take up many resources. it's easy to use and integrated with windows (so say when you enable filesharing, it opens the correct ports). plus, it's on while windows is loading.
it doesn't have out-bound protection, but I don't think that's neccessary if you're stay current on updates, get some AV software, and are smart about what you download and open. if you're one of those people that clicks on every attachment they see and every box that IE pops-up, then you might want to consider something like sygate -- otherwise, SP2's firewall is fine.
It's good for those without a third party firewall but it is pretty useless for the power user. If you really want protection, spend the money for Norton Internet Security. You get their firewall and anti-virus in one package. The best security will be from the combined use of a 3rd party firewall, anti-virus and a router with a firewall hard wired into it. And trust me, this much security won't affect your computer use. It just takes a little tweaking to get it to where you want it. You will also want to download and run Ad-Aware frequently to make sure no "bad" programs are installed without your consent.
After using various thirdparty firewalls for about 5 years and never having a single outbound attempt that was not valid, I dumped them and use the Windows firewall now . . Very low overhead and is on from boot . . which is nice if you have an alwasy on Broadband connection.
But I agree with Nemisis . . those with clickhappy fingers may well be better served with one of the third party ones . . Neither McAfee or NIS would not be my choice . . much too much of a resource hog . . Zone Alarm seems to serve most well and it is free.
The verdict is that the Microsoft firewall works fine for most users, which sounds like my category.
Correct.
It's good for those without a third party firewall but it is pretty useless for the power user. If you really want protection, spend the money for Norton Internet Security.
That is complete nonsense, of course. Actual
power users do not need any of that nonsense; they know how to configure and use a modern operating system correctly, and are aware of the protection that the O/S itself can offer.
However, as others have said before, if you do not trust your computer skills and knowledge, you may be well served with some additional (paid) help. In no case, however, will a third-party firewall give you any significant security benefits.
I say, I do find this to be rather a cryptic comment: That is complete nonsense, of course. Actual
power users do not need any of that nonsense; they know how to configure and use a modern operating system correctly, and are aware of the protection that the O/S itself can offer.
Can you give me this in different wording? Can you expand on: Actual
power users do not need any of that nonsense; they know how to configure and use a modern operating system correctly, and are aware of the protection that the O/S itself can offer. What is "that nonsense"? The Microsoft Firewall? And, what is the "protection that the O/S itself can offer"? The Microsoft Firewall?
My reason for posting this question is that I don't want to spend money for a third party program if the one that comes with the system is good enough. I have been using ZoneAlarm for a few years and have no complaints against it. But, why spend the money for Zone if Microsoft can protect me? I am uncertain as to the meaning of a "power user". I cruise the Internet, mainly for news, do some shopping, and use it as an information source. I pick up Spyware which I get rid of with the Spy Sweeper program. As far as I am concerned, I am just a dull regular, and definitely not in the "power" category.
So, for me, I should be able to ditch ZoneAlarm and take up Microsoft Firewall, and save a few bucks? Give it to me without an overload of data, is it a yes or a no?
a) The statement that XP's built-in firewall is not sufficient for "power users".
b) The statement that "power users" should (must?) plunk down a chunk of money to get the security they need.
Hope this clears things up.
And, what is the "protection that the O/S itself can offer"?
Windows XP has a sophisticated security model, which can be used to protect the user very effectively, both from outside threats, and from him/herself. In order to enjoy that protection, at the simplest level anyway, all you have to do is make sure that you log in as a Limited User, not as an Administrator, for your day-to-day work and web browsing. Only use an Adminsitrator account when you have to, for installing software and for system maintenance (defragmentation and such).
So, for me, I should be able to ditch ZoneAlarm and take up Microsoft Firewall, and save a few bucks? Give it to me without an overload of data, is it a yes or a no?
That's a simple "yes". In the vast majority of cases, third-party firewalls are a waste of money (if you paid for them), and, at the very least, a waste of computer resources. They tend to do far more damage through various sorts of conflicts and incompatibilities than they could ever help.
NemesisDB
2 Intern
•
7.9K Posts
0
March 15th, 2005 17:00
it works great and doesn't take up many resources. it's easy to use and integrated with windows (so say when you enable filesharing, it opens the correct ports). plus, it's on while windows is loading.
it doesn't have out-bound protection, but I don't think that's neccessary if you're stay current on updates, get some AV software, and are smart about what you download and open. if you're one of those people that clicks on every attachment they see and every box that IE pops-up, then you might want to consider something like sygate -- otherwise, SP2's firewall is fine.
Techmoscopic
77 Posts
0
March 15th, 2005 21:00
jedi1026
87 Posts
0
March 16th, 2005 16:00
It's good for those without a third party firewall but it is pretty useless for the power user. If you really want protection, spend the money for Norton Internet Security. You get their firewall and anti-virus in one package. The best security will be from the combined use of a 3rd party firewall, anti-virus and a router with a firewall hard wired into it. And trust me, this much security won't affect your computer use. It just takes a little tweaking to get it to where you want it. You will also want to download and run Ad-Aware frequently to make sure no "bad" programs are installed without your consent.
simpswr
2 Intern
•
3.2K Posts
0
March 16th, 2005 23:00
rhwrightjr
54 Posts
0
March 21st, 2005 14:00
Dietmar
224 Posts
0
March 21st, 2005 16:00
Correct.
It's good for those without a third party firewall but it is pretty useless for the power user. If you really want protection, spend the money for Norton Internet Security.
That is complete nonsense, of course. Actual power users do not need any of that nonsense; they know how to configure and use a modern operating system correctly, and are aware of the protection that the O/S itself can offer.
However, as others have said before, if you do not trust your computer skills and knowledge, you may be well served with some additional (paid) help. In no case, however, will a third-party firewall give you any significant security benefits.
rhwrightjr
54 Posts
0
March 22nd, 2005 00:00
Dietmar
224 Posts
0
March 22nd, 2005 00:00
rhwrightjr
54 Posts
0
March 22nd, 2005 01:00