Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

FW Drain on Resources - Fact or Fiction ?


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 yabbadoo

yabbadoo

  • Banned
  • 510 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:05:34 PM

Posted 20 April 2012 - 01:24 PM

Just a point that may interest some users.

For a long time I have used ZA Free FW, until for some reason it started to give trouble logging events.
My loading from start-up and general responses have been poor, but I have put up with them. I often got the reply that I have too many add-ons and auxiliary programs and that is why my loading is slow. I understand the theory, but never believed it was causing my slow responses.

Queries to the ZA Forum were a waste of time, it was always my fault or my crappy old PC that did not suit their beloved software.

I finally dumped ZA and installed PrivateFirewall. Amazingly, the loading from start is now infinitely better and subsequent responses no problem. The situation is so consistent that it cannot be imagination.

My conclusion ? ZA must impose a much heavier demand on PC resources than PrivateFirewall does.
The difference in performance is so staggering that it is hard to believe, but I am now thoroughly pleased.

Has anybody any comments on the apparent vast improvement made by this change of FW ?

Edited by yabbadoo, 20 April 2012 - 01:28 PM.


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 cryptodan

cryptodan

    Bleepin Madman


  • Members
  • 21,868 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Catonsville, Md
  • Local time:04:34 PM

Posted 20 April 2012 - 02:40 PM

It is not fiction, it is rather fact. Also what OS are you using? If you are using Windows Vista or 7, then I recommend just using the Windows Firewall.

#3 yabbadoo

yabbadoo
  • Topic Starter

  • Banned
  • 510 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:05:34 PM

Posted 21 April 2012 - 10:36 AM

It is not fiction, it is rather fact. Also what OS are you using? If you are using Windows Vista or 7, then I recommend just using the Windows Firewall.

Thanks for the reply. I use Windows XP Home, SP3 - a system that the ZA Moderators glibly call crap and not suitable for their precious software.

Why do you say it is fact ? I would love a technical explanation.

It must be, because the response improvement on my PC is remarkable. I cannot believe it. I have gone from a snail to a Cheetah just by changing my FW.

All I can say without any doubts is that ZA must consume a hell of a lot of resources and PrivateFirewall needs infinitely less.

Honest Cryptoto, apart from being delighted, I cannot believe that ZA after all these years has been acting like a brake on my system.

PS - On a quick look at the web, it does seem that many other users are saying that ZA is very heavy on resources. Glad I dumped it.

#4 cryptodan

cryptodan

    Bleepin Madman


  • Members
  • 21,868 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Catonsville, Md
  • Local time:04:34 PM

Posted 21 April 2012 - 12:29 PM

It used to be a good and highly recommended program till they became bloated, and extremely difficult to remove from your system like McAfee and Symantec have become.

#5 yabbadoo

yabbadoo
  • Topic Starter

  • Banned
  • 510 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:05:34 PM

Posted 22 April 2012 - 06:48 AM

It used to be a good and highly recommended program till they became bloated, and extremely difficult to remove from your system like McAfee and Symantec have become.


Hey Crypto,

You are certainly not a "madman" and I like your comments.

I am convinced that ZA is a drag on resources and there are better FW`s to use. I have one - PrivateFirewall.

I got infested with McAfee when some bum program had it as default and i missed unchecking it. No problem, I got rid of every trace of this crap by manual means or simply witchcraft. I would not touch McAfee with a barge pole.

Edited by yabbadoo, 22 April 2012 - 06:48 AM.


#6 quietman7

quietman7

    Bleepin' Janitor


  • Global Moderator
  • 51,108 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA
  • Local time:12:34 PM

Posted 22 April 2012 - 10:39 AM

Yes some firewalls are bloated with extra features that can consume resources and slow performance.

You may want to Choosing a Firewall. I have been using the Windows firewall on my XP machines for years without issues.
.
.
Windows Insider MVP 2017-2018
Microsoft MVP Reconnect 2016
Microsoft MVP Consumer Security 2007-2015 kO7xOZh.gif
Member of UNITE, Unified Network of Instructors and Trusted Eliminators

If I have been helpful & you'd like to consider a donation, click 38WxTfO.gif

#7 yabbadoo

yabbadoo
  • Topic Starter

  • Banned
  • 510 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:05:34 PM

Posted 28 April 2012 - 12:05 PM

Yes some firewalls are bloated with extra features that can consume resources and slow performance.

You may want to Choosing a Firewall. I have been using the Windows firewall on my XP machines for years without issues.

Since I dumped ZA, everything is very much quicker - I cannot believe it. Seems such a simple elementary thing.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users