ProSecurity vs. Online-Armor

[MikeNash]

Originally Posted by Perman

Hi, folks: hi, Mike, many thanks for your prompt reply, I did not mean to disturb your breakfast or your favorable cup of tea. Your reply has cleared up all my puzzles. I will give your v.2 a good test, although I did not have any luck earlier this year. Have a nice day there.

Hi Perman,

When you say you did not have any luck - something didn't work right for you? If thats the case, please either PM me here (to avoid taking this thread O/T) or feel free to sign up at our forums.

Cheers

Mike

[Peter2150]

Originally Posted by Perman

Hi, folks: hi, pete, I have learned quite bit pc knowhow from you, you have earned all respects from me, and others too, i am sure. Therefore, there was no offending at all when I typed "royal uses", it simply means "satisfatory users", just like I am a "royal user" of DeepFreeze". What I refered as "offline"means when I use pc w/o internet connection, will OA still protect my box? Thanks again.

Ah, I thought it was a slip between royal and loyal. I know I am loyal, but royal, I have to give that some thought.

[Perman]

Originally Posted by Peter2150

Ah, I thought it was a slip between royal and loyal. I know I am loyal, but royal, I have to give that some thought.

Hi, folks: hi pete, you are right about my slip of finger; you know, keyboard typing is not my native skill at all. I am pleased that you still provide me your knowhow in spite of that slip.

[dallen]

Personally, I think that Pete is accurately characterized by both royal and loyal.

[Perman]

Hi, folks: After being a member of this remarkable forum,for little over one year, I am deeply convinced that there is a good number of so -called "security guru" on Wilders. They constantly provide needed assistance in timely and technical fashion. To them, loyal is a fact, and royal is a compliment. I am sure we will hear more input re this thread from these gurus.

[gevin]

Originally Posted by TECHWG

I loaded it up in vmware, but it refuses to install withought having an internet connection. So for my testing thats as far as it goes. I dont like the fact i cant use it if i am not connected to the internet.

As the name suggested, you don't need Online-Armor if you don't have an internet connection! that simple.

btw, now a day a lot of software need you do have an internet connection to activate their software, for security purpose or others...

[gevin]

after think twice, i am wrong. As Mike said, your box still protected even when you are offline (Of course you need activate OA online 1st). Sorry.

the OA v2 beta's firewall are very special in it own way, especially it do integrated into OA, give a very arounded protection on my test box. Don't know how to explain as i am just a lay(man or user), you must try it yourself to know it. Actually, i don't know much about OA's FW (as it always run at background), but funny it did protect me well without any nagging popup asking for answer. no regard i take the risk to uninstall my favorite ComodoFW just to test OA. It's 1 of my favorite now.

frankly, i did download the Free lighter version of ProSecurity once, but never have a chance to try it. Sad. Maybe next time.

Hey Mike, this is a very marketing tool, the Free version sure draw a big number of user to PS. Maybe OA can have this too, can consider, right?

[Peter2150]

Originally Posted by gevin

Hey Mike, this is a very marketing tool, the Free version sure draw a big number of user to PS. Maybe OA can have this too, can consider, right?

Hi Gevin

It would be interesting to see a candid poll of the number of people that download the free version and eventually buy the paid version. My hunch is not many. I have mixed feelings as to the value of it from the company point of view. Many companies that do this hope to make the money off of the enterprise market.

Pete

[MaB69]

Hi everybody,

I think this comparative is biaised because OA is more security suite oriented for everyone (especially with close coming v2) and PS is a raw HIPS ( knowlegable user).

I'm a OA user since 18 months and a beta tester of this product.I saw OA growing and the next steps will make OA covers all the protections (that i) needed (already web/mail filtering, program guard (execution, driver installation and keylogging) and some registry protection and soon kernel driver, firewall and more registry protection).

I have to be honest because last time i tried PS ( 3 or 4 months ) ago, it locks all my system so i didn't claim to be a regular user of PS.

One more thing to say, I like Mike for being human and trying to help and improve his products according to our wishes (us OA forum members).

Finally, Sorry to write with a so very bad english (i'm french) but i wished to give to all my point of view concerning this shield standing next my clock and protecting me.

Regards,

MaB69

[gevin]

Originally Posted by Peter2150

Hi Gevin

It would be interesting to see a candid poll of the number of people that download the free version and eventually buy the paid version. My hunch is not many. I have mixed feelings as to the value of it from the company point of view. Many companies that do this hope to make the money off of the enterprise market.

Pete

It's depend on how you view/do it. take example, SuperAntispyware free is a superb piece of AS. for some they use is as on-demand scanner, but for some after recognize the quality of it, they willing to pay fro the full version with realtime scanner and other plus feature. SSM is another doing well on this. Enterprise market is a good money no doubt, but do not under estimate consumer/home user buying power. IMHO, more exposure/quality assurance to the community/public is OA's 1st priority. i love Mike's approach on product development & user comment(good PR ).

[Clweb]

I used both and for the moemnt I stay with ProSecurity.
OA is a bit too hungry in resources: CPU time and memory. It's a nice product, but a security product must be as light as possible even if today many PC have more than 1 GByte of RAM. So I will take a look from time to time to the evolution of OA beta, but take an eye on the resources used.
The average user may be happy with a nice GUI, but a discrete application is more important. A security application must be forgotten when working.

[ReGen]

I’ve just had the pleasure of giving the current beta version of OA the once over and I was mightily impressed.
I was quite dubious about how well the Firewall could be integrated within OA, and exactly what control I would have over it.
But Mike and his team have done an excellent job.

Anyone who was on the borderline previously with V1 of OA should definitely give it another go when V2 comes out (or take up the current beta offer). After using V2, it really does seem to make sense, having OA looking after Internet access along side program access.

Even on my very underpowered Dell laptop there was negligible slow down, and that was running the OA firewall alongside NIS2007.

[beetlejuice69]

I`ve been using OA since it first came out. Beta testing from the get go. OA/VS/FW are all I`ve been using since the FW pasted it`s first stealth test at Gibson`s. It`s low on the system, no conflicts with any of my programs and keeps me protected...and hey, it`s not even finished yet. I had an idea that this was going to be a winner from the start, so far I`ve not been disappointed.

Oh and a comparison between PS and OA is well...fill in the blanks.

[Peter2150]

Well to be fair, I downloaded the latest trial version of ProSecurity. It had some nice stuff, fairly nice GUI. It looked very much like SSM with all it's benefits and drawbacks. I honestly didn't see anything I could knock, if I was so inclined.

ProSecurity, like SSM allows you to control if you scratch your ear, which ear, and with which hand. I've just gotten to the point where for me, I just realized I don't need all that. I've tended toward the virtualization approach, using FDISR, and VMware. That way I get a degree of protection, along with other functionality. Security software really has no other functionality.

That said, I am currently running KAV,SuperAntiSpyware,Prevx1 and Online Armor with Firewall. Prevx1 and OA do overlap, which doesn't bother me, as it gives me two chances, that I've never needed.

Ultimately, I may cut back more. 1st to go would probably be a choice between KAV, and SAS. One thing though which I guess goes back to the point of this thread, and that is of the list of 4 there is only one that is untouchable, in that it stays period. That is Online Armor.

Pete

[Hyperion]

I like the idea of OA from what i read.If it's light in resources it will become very interesting product.

Originally Posted by Peter2150

ProSecurity, like SSM allows you to control if you scratch your ear, which ear, and with which hand. I've just gotten to the point where for me, I just realized I don't need all that. I've tended toward the virtualization approach, using FDISR, and VMware. That way I get a degree of protection, along with other functionality. Security software really has no other functionality.

Dont forget, in the GUI you can disable protections you dont want, leaving only the protection you require.

[Perman]

Hi, folks: Just a thought; if OA v.2 comes w/ solid FW,effective AV, I may just strip down, retaining only DeepFreeze. Perhaps this is way to go in the future; the less the better.

[Peter2150]

Originally Posted by TECHWG

Dont forget, in the GUI you can disable protections you dont want, leaving only the protection you require.

Hi TechWG

Yes I saw that, sort of the same as in SSM. I just found the security stuff was becoming an end unto itself, and I was spending all kinds of time tweaking this and that, and as Mrk pointed out have I actually every caught anything, and the answer is no.

This is the reason I love OA. Simple, and as it progresses it will improve and ad protections but still stay simple. Like the firewall. You can go to advanced and tweak to your hearts content, in standard it just does it's job and requires no tweaking.

Pete

[lodore]

thats why i dumped ssm because it gave way to many Popups.
PDM in kaspersky gives quite alot of popups as well.
I might get online armor once Spysweeper subscription runs out.
i like online armor due to the fact it gives alot of protection, its quite light and it doesnt give many popups.
lodore

[kr4ey]

Originally Posted by Peter2150

Well to be fair, I downloaded the latest trial version of ProSecurity. It had some nice stuff, fairly nice GUI. It looked very much like SSM with all it's benefits and drawbacks. I honestly didn't see anything I could knock, if I was so inclined.

ProSecurity, like SSM allows you to control if you scratch your ear, which ear, and with which hand. I've just gotten to the point where for me, I just realized I don't need all that. I've tended toward the virtualization approach, using FDISR, and VMware. That way I get a degree of protection, along with other functionality. Security software really has no other functionality.

That said, I am currently running KAV,SuperAntiSpyware,Prevx1 and Online Armor with Firewall. Prevx1 and OA do overlap, which doesn't bother me, as it gives me two chances, that I've never needed.

Ultimately, I may cut back more. 1st to go would probably be a choice between KAV, and SAS. One thing though which I guess goes back to the point of this thread, and that is of the list of 4 there is only one that is untouchable, in that it stays period. That is Online Armor.

Pete

I have been using ProSecurity for a few months. ProSecurity's GUI is nothing like SSM. PS has an easier layout, SSM takes longer to figure out where everything is.

BTW- KAV will also overlap with Prevx1 and OA if you you have Proactive Defense enabled.

Rick

[gevin]

True, true, KAV with Proactive Defense on indeed overlap with OA. that why on my beta test box, i will switch on/off some feature on each software to test them. Sursprisingly KAV & OA are good partner, work along well. I can't resist the superb virus detect from KAV(File, email, web protection), on the other hand OA is much more user friendly then Kespersky Proactive defense. so i won't drop either.

Final words, like a lot of you point out, security ware should be "quietly" work hard in background, should that i can enjoy my work or surfing or gaming. because of the OS we have, spend so much time to tweak and fix to maximum speed & stability. the left over little time, i would rather enjoy then answering popup questions, fixing new security rules for every changing treats. Let the expert security ware developer do their work, earn their $/living. we, layman/user, pay/download the ware, and appreciate/enjoy their work. Of course, when free, test some beta if you want to dirty your hand.

[lodore]

i agree Gevin thats why i want to get online armor so i can stop using proactive defense since it gives to many popups.
kaspersky best av but the proactive defense needs work and need to give me less popups!
OA plus kav6.0 or kis6.0 perfect partners.
might have to buy it myself.
lodore

[Peter2150]

On the KAV 6.0, I totally agree. I have everything on Proactive Defense turned off except the office products stuff. The rest of it drove me nuts.


I also agree that the SSM and PS GUi's are not at all alike, but functionally the programs are more simliar to each other than say OA. That was the only point I was making.

Pete

[Atomas31]

Originally Posted by Peter2150

On the KAV 6.0, I totally agree. I have everything on Proactive Defense turned off except the office products stuff. The rest of it drove me nuts.


I also agree that the SSM and PS GUi's are not at all alike, but functionally the programs are more simliar to each other than say OA. That was the only point I was making.

Pete

Hi Pete,

If the functionnallity of PS and OA are not similar, does that mean they can be good complementarity?

Atomas31

[MikeNash]

Originally Posted by Atomas31

Hi Pete,

If the functionnallity of PS and OA are not similar, does that mean they can be good complementarity?

Atomas31

For now, yes, they could be since PS offers more "detailed" protection than OA in the execution protection area. I know some of the beta test team run/have run PS.

TechWG pointed out that unneeded PS features could be deactivated.

Cheers

Mike