Originally Posted by Meow9000
I have been looking around the net and people seem to find windows firewall to be effective enough, though myself i find it over complicated and badly thought out, but does it do enough?
I have used Kaspersky, Comodo and currently using Outpost firewall but i notice that with the on access scanners and active kernel protection etc... it tends to slow my system down, not alot but enough to notice program lag and the boot up time taking much longer than normal.
So my question is and i would like a debate of a sorts, is windows firewall effective to stop most threats, or would a proven 3rd party firewall be more efficent?
Kinda depends on what you want to to do or want to have to do with a firewall.
Firewalls like Outpost take hell load of time to setup depending on what your wanting to do with it. Like without post you have shit load of control over a application as you could allow it to do one thing but not another. And theirs all the other controls to it like blocking add or flash referrers cookies and a load of other to boot.
The Vista\Win7 of Outpost sucks as well as the version 4.0 was much much better also better lay out.
Only other one i been thinking of trying out for Vista is Tiny
There is also Trend Micro Internet Security 2009 might be worth checking out too.
Every time i try a new one i end up coming back to Outpost as it offers so much over the others and it's great in getting rid of ads in pages and stuff.
Maybe turn off kernel protection :P.. Funny that i have just formated win7 and installed Vista i'll give it another check and see what they done to it now. As i cannot remember any slow downs like your saying.. Maybe a defrag might help just a thought.
I liked one called TINY Firewall but seems like it went down only reason i picked that over outpost was that outpost you could tweak it easier over time and as you learn how to use it..