What would be your 2nd choice

Here's a link:

http://forums.comodo.com/leak_testingattacksvulnerability_research/hacked-t25540.0.html

It could just be the user's configuration, though. I'm trying Comodo now and it seems good.

 

I don't love or hate any firewall. I do have Comodo with Defense+ on my Vista laptop, and contrary to what I often read about it in the past, it is very light, its HIPS module works very well as an anti-executable and more. It's a keeper for me (IMO Comodo should charge for it, people have no respect for free applications).

My second choice is Look'n'Stop which I have been running on my XP machine for 3 years, very basic, very light as expected, also a keeper.

I always wanted to try Online Armour, but unfortunately there is no Vista version yet. My next machine will probably have it.

Albinoni's 90 % estimate about Comodo's popularity should be adjusted to 24% according to the ongoing firewall poll among Wilders' members, still leading compared to the rest.

 

Honestly it's difficult for me to understand the diatribe about what is or not is allowed to post in this thread. Anyway, hoping to be right, I say the mine: I like a router firewall and Outpost as software firewall.

 

Exactly the same holds for me.
1) Hardwall Firewall and 2) Outpost Firewall Pro 2009.

 

1. Hardware Firewall
2. PC Tools Firewall Plus

 

For me it's all about resource efficiency and tweakability. With that in mind and some historical baggage to carry along, it's Look'n'Stop. Not very good in outbound filtering, because that's not what it tries to do. However, it is extremely light on resources and won't kill your network bandwidth, like almost everything else out there.

 

I'm just using the Vista firewall and a router. If someone ever makes another firewall with all the capabilities of the old Tiny Personal Firewall I will give it a try.

Michael

 

Interesting I have never had a problem with ZA killing my 14Mbit connection has good outbound filtering. as for inbound well pretty much all firewalls do that the same. if you want something EXTREMELY Light on resources try windows firewall Outbound filtering sucks but inbound is decent.

 

Fajo,

it's not so much about Internet, but Ethernet throughput. I think matousec's test give for (some) FWs an idea of how much they can affect TCP/UDP perf.

I haven't tried ZA8 myself. Can't comment.

What I have tried are some 'other' FWs that were cpu/memory/eth-throughput hogs comparatively.

I don't like that, although I appreciated the extra layer of protection.

So, for me it's a trade-off , the balance of which I'm constantly experimenting with.

BTW, I'm running a 3.6GHz C2D with 4GB of RAM w/ fast disks and tweaked system and quite little background garbage, but somehow I still manage to find issues with apps that clearly degrade performance with my usage patterns and apps.

Back to topic: My second choice now is Jetico v2, but only tentatively. It'll be late September before I start full testing on that.

 

I don't trust matousec's opinions at all. they always seem to lean one direction or another but this is just IMO.

as for System usage this computer has been running 27 Days and ZA has used 10.2 min of CPU cycles and Utorrent has been going constalty for those 27 days.. In fact Utorrent had more CPU Usage then ZA

With Gigabit Network thou out the house. I have yet to see any slowdown from ZA or caused by ZA but again this is IMO.

As you are I also see performance drop and pretty much don't expect anything that is slowing down the zippyness of my computer. or anyone of the 5 computers in the house ZA so far is the only one I have tried that don't slow down the connection I tried comodo I want to freaking hit my self in the head with the a bat with the 9+ million pop up's. Outpost was awesome but did not fit my tastes, Online Armor did not get along with my Games. also I felt like it slowed down my File transfers. the list goes on and on for some reason I always come back to ZA.