Suite or individual apps?

I was wondering if a suite would be just as good as multible apps put together to create a suite with, and which would be lighter on resources?

 

This thread could "start a war" . It is about how you like it .
I myself prefer suits or less applications (1-2) . In this forum I have seen people who use 10-20 security application which is extremely in my opinion.

 

windows 7's firewall is much improved, so in that regard i don't think a 2-way firewall is *as* necessary. if i had to pick between 2 products or a suite, i prefer a suite due to the higher level of integration between components engineered to function together. test things out, see what fits your idea of "light on resources".

 

That's exactly what I think..

 

-I prefer Individual Applications.
The Firewall in many Internet Security Suites is not that strong (According to Matousec's Results).

-On the other hand, running separate Applications results in conflict among them (Slowdowns, BSOD etc.)
You need to try many Different Applications to discover which ones can be successfully combined.

You can not have everything in life...

 

A good suite (KIS, ZAX, AVIRA, etc) much easier, less conflicts, better integration, overall good protection.

 

Suite too.

 

The fact is that although I prefer suite I have some layered protection component too like Winpatrol, Spyware Blaster, Malware Defender.

 

2 Different products
Firewall with HIPS and sandbox if is possible and an AV

 

A suite (Norton) is my preference, however, 99% of them cost money.

You can get enough protection from a small list of free products.

My suggestion: Windows Firewall + Sandboxie (free/paid) + free anti-virus + Hitman Pro (on-demand) + other anti-malware (on-demand).

Matousec tests are more HIPS tests than firewall tests.

 

I believe that the multi-layering defense concept involves itself that the layers must use different programs ( not many !! ) by different producers, not a suite. For exemple: HIPS/FW by X and av by Y, or av/fw by X and HIPS by Y....plus sandboxing or virtualising...

 

Hasn’t this debate been exhaustively explored in many other threads?

 

I prefer suites, since the components are integrated and usually easier to configure than invidual applications (which might sometimes conflict with eachother). Also I think a good suite is usually lighter than the invidual applications when their resource usage is combined.

 

Although I am running both ways on my two comouters, I prefer suites for the reasons others have stated. I do layer as I do not think any AV alone is as good as in combination with MBAM.

Except for Kaspersky the firewalls shown in the Matousec tests indicate that the suites have very weak firewalls. I realize Matousec tested HIPS, but I would assume that HIPS would add a higher level of security.

Regards,
Jerry

 

Very weak (debatable) or lack of HIPS maybe, but not necessarily very weak firewalls.

Not happy with any suite currently on the market so I vote individual apps.

 

I prefer individual apps. over a suite.

 

There is no right or wrong in this case and it is a preference as suggested already. And as such I prefer individual apps but will equally run a suite

 

"I" prefer individual apps

 

I prefer individual apps. Suites seem to be bloated or one of the componants are weak.

 

Individual apps for me.

 

I know, but modern Firewalls include HIPS.
-Haven't we gone beyond the Classic-Firewall Era?

 

Thankfully not all modern firewalls have a HIPS "feature".
Being safe online is obviously important to all of us, but I personally would probably use an alternate OS before using a classic HIPS again.

 

I prefer individual programs. As Windows 7 Firewall is an improvement, I just don't require a suite.

 

individual.

 

-Which ones are you referring to?