Getting rid of NIS ?

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by Michoko, Feb 18, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Michoko

    Michoko Guest

    Hi everybody :)

    Until now I've been using NIS 2004 as my personal firewall. I like the way it handles application rules simply. But I'm reading everywhere that NIS is heavy on resources and even eats bandwitdh.

    I have no references to compare with other firewalls, so I don't know if I should change to another program. I just tried the evaluation copy of Look'n'Stop, but it requires too much tuning for me (I prefer application-based firewall than rules-based ones).

    So my question is: is NIS such a monster I really should change (especially since I do online gaming)? If it's the case, and after reading numerous posts on this forum, my choice may vary between Sygate Pro and ZA Pro. But I still don't know which one is the most optimized.

    I know all this is highly subjective, but I'd like to have your opinion. Thank you very much ! :)

  2. se7engreen

    se7engreen Registered Member

    Feb 6, 2004
    I suggest evaluating Outpost v2 Pro. No fine tuning required and you would be hard pressed to find any firewall as feature rich and light on resources at the same time. Very easy learning curve on this firewall compared to most.
    If you already looked at this one and decided it's not for you, Sygate is very good and ZA is very easy. If you're looking for a little less bloat, Sygate would be better than ZA. If it's simplicity you want, I'd say ZA.
    Hope this helps.
  3. CrazyM

    CrazyM Firewall Expert

    Feb 9, 2002
    BC, Canada
    Hi Michoko

    How does it perform on your system? If you like it and notice no ill effects do you need to switch? Systems vary widly as do peoples experiences with different software.

    As suggested above, if you feel it is affecting performance on your system you may want to consider a change.

    NIS is a rules based firewall. Automatic program control (on by default) just makes them for you, unless it encounters a program for which it has no preconfigured rules, in which case you would be prompted to create one. For those that want to fine tune their rule set, you can certainly do that with NIS.

    According to some it is a monster, to others it works great and they are quite happy with it.

    It is a highly subjective question and usually boils down to what works best on your system and for you. If you took the time to check out LnS, you might want to give your other contenders a go, both have trial versions. (just remember to only have one firewall installed and running on your system at a time)

    Both Sygate Pro and ZA Pro are fine firewalls as is Outpost mentioned by se7engreen.


  4. Michoko

    Michoko Guest

    Thank you guys for your replys ;)

    In fact, I was wondering if there was a factual proof that NIS was eating more bandwidth than its competitors (like a benchmark or something). I must admit that if it's only based on "human" impressions, I may just keep NIS.

    I will try ZA (I already tried Outpost before NIS, and it was REALLY slowing down my system, especially when several applications where accessing the same partition, like Emule + BNR2). The new Outpost version may have corrected this problem though...

    Anyways, thank you for your help ! :)

  5. Trojan scientist

    Trojan scientist Registered Member

    Feb 16, 2004
    the new Outpost Pro V2.1 has even better auto configuration of your initial program setup for internet connections than ever

    on setup i had auto rules preconfigured for 20 programs in just a few seconds , it is of course optional and i put most programs into the blocked list anyway, but at least they have rules that i can edit instead of starting all from scratch if i ever need to. :D
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.