Which free Zone Alarm (4 or 5) uses less power?

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?

==========================================

Jane P

"Jane P" <> wrote in message
news:1104583648.5d1071c8bc61812fe349cefbe0362f51@t eranews...
> 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

You don't say anything about why you think you need a firewall and what you
want it to do.
Are you using XP SP2 with all Windows updates?
My advice would be to turn on the built in firewall in XP SP2 if it isn't on
already. I might then want to get some information about whether any
Internet communication can take place which I want to block. So I'd run some
of these
http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22security+scan%22 to see how I look to the
outside world. I might also want to know something about outgoing
connections so I'd use netstat or
http://www.google.com/search?&q=tcpview
and perhaps also ipconfig /displaydns to see what has been contacted.
I'd then be in a better position to decide whether additional firewall
software is going to be of benefit or is simply going to increase the
complexity of the system while providing no real benefit.

You should block unwanted incoming connection requests with an external box
not with a software firewall. There are many good reasons for this.
Reinstalling XP without an external firewall is risky because it's likely to
get a worm infection before you have a chance to get the updates.
An external firewall cannot easily be compromised by other software on your
PC.

Something like this is suitable
http://www.linksys.com/products/prod...id=23&prid=433
It is simple to configure (in many cases just plug it in and it works).
It also makes it easy to get additional PC online.
In some cases a broadband modem may need to be power cycled or set up to
recognise a different MAC address.
If you are happy to pay more and learn how to configure it yourself then get
something better.

A good self updating anti-virus solution is essential, far more essential
than firewall software. You may also need an anti-adware/spyware solution if
you are using Internet Explorer.

Jason

>
> ---------------
>
> 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?
>
> ==========================================

Jason Edwards

The choice also depends on what it is that you do
on the machine. For example, I had a full license
of the Pro version of these on one of my client XPs
from 4.0 onward, but found I had to uninstall it when
the changes of 5.0 came along as it interferred with
use of the machine as web development client with
local IIS.

--
Roger Abell
Microsoft MVP (Windows Security)
MCSE (W2k3,W2k,Nt4) MCDBA
"Jane P" <> wrote in message
news:1104583648.5d1071c8bc61812fe349cefbe0362f51@t eranews...
> 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?
>
> ==========================================

Roger Abell

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" <> wrote in message
news:1104583648.5d1071c8bc61812fe349cefbe0362f51@t eranews...
> 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?
>
> ==========================================

Steven L Umbach

Any firewall will use up resources depending on how much traffic it has to
process from the internet. You don't say if you are on broadband or dial-up.
If broadband get a router/firewall. It will block most of the traffic before
it gets to your PC. Install one of the free firewalls to monitor any
outgoing traffic. Also install AdAware or SpyBot or both and clean up the
tracking cookies as they eat up processor cycles. Also use a cookie blocking
program to prevent them being installed. ZAPro has the option of blocking
the cookies, ads, and mobile code. It works for me on my desktop and on my
750 meg laptop..


"Jane P" <> wrote in message
news:1104583648.5d1071c8bc61812fe349cefbe0362f51@t eranews...
> 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?
>
> ==========================================

Woody

"Jane P" <> wrote in message
news:1104583648.5d1071c8bc61812fe349cefbe0362f51@t eranews...
> 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?
>

i have read that zonealarm 4 is probably better, seen as how isreali's took
over the company that produce ZA and later releases may allow isreali mossad
nerds looking at your info etc etc

i read it on this NG i think.... besides that i am running ZA 4.5 and it is
fine i have ran 5 but can see no real difference between speed and CPU
utlization. I have used sygate in the past but i do prefer ZoneAlarm it has
an east to use GUI and a few neat features.

Go for 4.5 it is older but that doesn't mean its obselete, 5.xx well its as
good as 4.5 and is probably a bit better, but i prefer to have piece of mind
which i do with 4.5


HTH

chris

Christo

Christo wrote:
> "Jane P" <> wrote in message
> news:1104583648.5d1071c8bc61812fe349cefbe0362f51@t eranews...
>
>>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?
>>
>
>
> i have read that zonealarm 4 is probably better, seen as how isreali's took
> over the company that produce ZA and later releases may allow isreali mossad
> nerds looking at your info etc etc
>
> i read it on this NG i think.... besides that i am running ZA 4.5 and it is
> fine i have ran 5 but can see no real difference between speed and CPU
> utlization. I have used sygate in the past but i do prefer ZoneAlarm it has
> an east to use GUI and a few neat features.
>
> Go for 4.5 it is older but that doesn't mean its obselete, 5.xx well its as
> good as 4.5 and is probably a bit better, but i prefer to have piece of mind
> which i do with 4.5
>
>
> HTH
>
> chris
>
>
Hi !

On my windows box, i use zone alarm 4.x. Zone Alarm 4.x isn't obsolete
if you setup it correctly. If you need firewall setting tutorials or
more info about "free" firewall mail-me. I'm not sure, but i think
open-source firewalls exist for windows. I will search about that, i
write you back..

See ya !

Penguin_X

Christo said ...
> i have read that zonealarm 4 is probably better, seen as how isreali's took
> over the company that produce ZA and later releases may allow isreali mossad
> nerds looking at your info etc etc
>
oh dear, statements like that make me laugh out loud! We'll hear next
how those nasty Zionists are plotting to take over the world ... no ...
they already have done
--
Sam

Sam

On 01 Jan 2005, Jason Edwards wrote:

> Something like this is suitable
> http://www.linksys.com/products/prod...id=23&prid=433
> It is simple to configure (in many cases just plug it in and it
> works). It also makes it easy to get additional PC online.
> In some cases a broadband modem may need to be power cycled or
> set up to recognise a different MAC address.

Jason, that looks like a bargain. The best I found was £44 (inc Vat
but not delivery) from Simply.



> If you are happy to pay more and learn how to configure it
> yourself then get something better.

What would the next model up from a Linksys BEFSX41 be? I use NTL
cable but might go over to ADSL some time.

I'm a novice but I am prepared, as you suggest, to make the effort to
configure the Firewall/Router device

Of course, I won't become a data comms expert no matter how much time
I devote but I can do what an intelligent (?) amateur might attempt.

Jane P

"Jane P" <> wrote in message
news:95DA9D2782C2871F3M4@130.133.1.4...
> On 01 Jan 2005, Jason Edwards wrote:
>
> > Something like this is suitable
> > http://www.linksys.com/products/prod...id=23&prid=433
> > It is simple to configure (in many cases just plug it in and it
> > works). It also makes it easy to get additional PC online.
> > In some cases a broadband modem may need to be power cycled or
> > set up to recognise a different MAC address.
>
> Jason, that looks like a bargain. The best I found was £44 (inc Vat
> but not delivery) from Simply.
>
>
>
> > If you are happy to pay more and learn how to configure it
> > yourself then get something better.
>
> What would the next model up from a Linksys BEFSX41 be?

It depends on what you want it to do that the Linksys doesn't do.
If learning is your goal then consider making your own firewall
http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22linux+firewall
If you want something easy to configure then start with the linksys and
consider moving to something better when you have a better picture of what
you want it to do.

Jason


> I use NTL
> cable but might go over to ADSL some time.
>
> I'm a novice but I am prepared, as you suggest, to make the effort to
> configure the Firewall/Router device
>
> Of course, I won't become a data comms expert no matter how much time
> I devote but I can do what an intelligent (?) amateur might attempt.

Jason Edwards