Windows XP firewall vs. Private Firewall

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by greyowl, Mar 10, 2012.

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

    greyowl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    Posts:
    85
    I am running XPsp3(32bit) on a laptop with AviraFree and MBAM Pro. I have a dialup internet connection so I am concerned about producing drag on the system and browsing. I have never used a firewall so I have some questions:

    Is a firewall essential?

    Is Private Firewall better than Windows XP Firewall? Why?

    Which is lighter on resources and internet drag?

    Is there a better free recommendations other than Windows FW or Private FW?

    Thank you for your help.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2012
  2. 1000db

    1000db Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Posts:
    718
    Location:
    Missouri
    Your built in firewall will be the lightest and should have no impact on your browsing speed. Private Firewall is a very good fw but has HIPS built in too; which would offer more security than the built in fw. Try them and see which one you like better. :thumb:
     
  3. Atul88

    Atul88 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Posts:
    259
    Location:
    India
    XP Firewall On : :thumbd:
    XP Firewall Off : :thumbd:
    Doesn't make much difference
    Private Firewall : :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :isay:
     
  4. ams963

    ams963 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Posts:
    5,965
    Location:
    Parallel Universe
    absolutely..........

    first of all xp fw only protects inbound connections .......then it's because of this........

    win xp fw.......

    not better or something like that .....but for alternatives you can try the famous comodo fw or the solid online armour fw.....

    welcome.......
     
  5. Brummelchen

    Brummelchen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Posts:
    1,732
    two background scanners are still a no-no :thumbd:
    and - MBAM cant protect against drive-by and avira is to weak in its browser protection.
    +1 any other is better than this crap
    for dialup i suggest a more sophisticated firewall

    in complete - is there a reason you doint use windows 7? eg. weak laptop?
     
  6. ams963

    ams963 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Posts:
    5,965
    Location:
    Parallel Universe
    really?....but I thought a background av with mbam pro on-access is a must-must........ no idea on how strong avira is but mbam protects against executable malware......also mbam is ought to supplement and complement av......so just because it does not protect against malware in one type of field does not mean one should give up mbam altogether......

    +1.........

    the xp may have come preinstalled with the laptop.....and as upgrading to win 7 cost some bucks....
     
  7. Atul88

    Atul88 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Posts:
    259
    Location:
    India
    +1:) :)
    I felt slowdown on my old Pentium 4 running MBAM with Avast 6
    And i didn't knew that Avira is weak in browser protection!!:'( :'(
     
  8. Brummelchen

    Brummelchen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Posts:
    1,732
    two on-access-scanners will colide earlier or later - in fact the access time raises for those files.

    if i forgot - wrote about avira free. browser protection with the free version
    is worked out by a strange toolbar which seems combinated with ASK!
    and the ask toolbar has disadvantages - and with a browser update
    in special firefox, sometimes it is not compatible and protection fails.

    thats reason i like those proxy engines like eset or avast.
    nevertheless i own a special build of avira v9 for on-demand - same
    usefull/useless as mbam installed afterwards on a target system.
    i guess that is caused by avast, not mbam. sorry i cant help or suggest a
    lighter solution except NOD v2 which is rather old.
    btw stay avast 7 till they eliminated the biggest bugs from the early finals.
    anyway v7 slows more down than v6.

    HTH
     
  9. greyowl

    greyowl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    Posts:
    85
    I don't use Windows 7 because I have an older laptop which would not have space or processing power to run it.

    Would you recommend Avast rather than Avira? Or, is there another free AV that is better than either?

    What firewall would you recommend given that I have an older laptop and dialup internet?

    Thanks everyone for the discussion.
     
  10. The Shadow

    The Shadow Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    Posts:
    814
    Location:
    USA
    Hi greyowl,

    As one who is also still running WinXP on an older laptop I understand where you are coming from....

    First of all WinXP's firewall is very weak and provides no outgoing protection. Privatefirewall is so much better, but you have to be willing to tolerate and respond to some 'Allow/Block' popups during the initial training period and once in a while thereafter (the same is true of Comodo and OA).

    Secondly, I suggest uninstalling Avira & MBAM and replacing them with Panda Cloud AV which is truly light as a feather (on resources) and has been protecting my XP laptop very well.

    Hope that helps...

    PS. If you ever find yourself in a position where you can afford to spend about $35 for a truly great protection app (for web-surfing) you might consider Shadow Defender (download the trial and check it out)!
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2012
  11. greyowl

    greyowl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    Posts:
    85
    Thanks so much for your suggestions.

    Note that I use dialup internet. Will Private FW slow my browsing more than Windows FW?

    Can I use Panda Cloud AV with only dialup internet?
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.