Why ? or rather how can a 3rd party firewall slow down XP ?Anusha said:XP's inbuilt firewall for certain.![]()
Is there any studies that proves one or the other ?
Why ? or rather how can a 3rd party firewall slow down XP ?Anusha said:XP's inbuilt firewall for certain.![]()
3rd party firewalls are too bulky (also because they offer more features, which you may or may not use) so they will use somewhat higher PC resources. Don't know about studies, just common sense.The_Ace said:Why ? or rather how can a 3rd party firewall slow down XP ?
Is there any studies that proves one or the other ?
The resources requirement of firewall software shouldnt slow the whole OS. That was my point. And ZA never slowed down the W2K/XP boxes I tried it with.Anusha said:3rd party firewalls are too bulky (also because they offer more features, which you may or may not use) so they will use somewhat higher PC resources. Don't know about studies, just common sense.
Umm.. When XP's inbuit firewall is enabled and configured it worked almost the same as zone alarm and as both did a certain amount of packet filtering, that slowed the network. Cant say ZA slowed it more than XP's own firewall.Anusha said:Anyway, I have used Zone Alarm, and it slowed down the network speed (i.e. internet) significantly. But this is the previous version. Dunno if they have fixed those issues.
It can slow down the OS if you are running low of RAM ne? Such as 256MB installed RAM etc. Anyway, it's not noticeable on most systems nowadays.The_Ace said:The resources requirement of firewall software shouldnt slow the whole OS. That was my point. And ZA never slowed down the W2K/XP boxes I tried it with.
Umm.. When XP's inbuit firewall is enabled and configured it worked almost the same as zone alarm and as both did a certain amount of packet filtering, that slowed the network. Cant say ZA slowed it more than XP's own firewall.
That's my experience with XP & ZA.
this is gr8.But oil is cost.using water is good but the short cicuitin is da prob.