Sygate or Kerio

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roy Colson
  • Start date Start date
R

Roy Colson

Running two machines Windows XP (Home) and Windows Me.

Looking for recommendations as to which firewall to use.

Thanks,

Roy
 
Roy said:
Running two machines Windows XP (Home) and Windows Me.

Looking for recommendations as to which firewall to use.
Click to expand...

Sygate because it 'feels' better. :-)

And, er, upgrade ME to anything else...
 
Running two machines Windows XP (Home) and Windows Me.

Looking for recommendations as to which firewall to use.

Thanks,

Roy
Click to expand...

First off, ME will do better with Kerio 2.15 in terms of
resources.
If resource is not a concern,
Sygate, more user friendly
Kerio 2.15, very configurable and powerful, less user
friendly.

I myself use Kerio and have the config file backuped from time
to time. Yet, whenever I need to set up a firewall for
someone else, I install Sygate for them as it is easier to
use.




--
RL
Unofficial Adaware Updater (+other goodies)
http://home.earthlink.net/~ringomei/page2.html
********************************
Pricelessware:
http://www.pricelessware.org,
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org,
 
Then it won't matter which firewall you use. In fact, it won't matter
if you use one or not. Which is the position you want to be in for max
security.
Click to expand...

To recommend that someone use no firewall at all is idiocy, no matter what
OS they are running. They are probably using IE AND OE. You just lost my
respect, Art.
 
And, er, upgrade ME to anything else...
Click to expand...

Please stop repeating urban legends. ME configured correctly is the best
Windows OS there is. If you can't configure it, then maybe you should be
runnong XP with a dedicated 24/7 line to Windows Update.
 
(e-mail address removed) wrote in

To recommend that someone use no firewall at all is idiocy, no matter what
OS they are running.
Click to expand...

No. Spreading untruths and marketing hype are idiocy.
They are probably using IE AND OE.
Click to expand...

That's not good but it's irrelevant to this particular issue.
You just lost my respect, Art.
Click to expand...

That's fine. Come back when you get a clue.

I've been running '98 and 'ME with DSL service (no LAN) for years
without a firewall. No problems whatsoever. And you should also
install all critical security partches for your OS.

Win 2K and XP are a different matter. Most users will need a firewall
since it's far more difficult to close all 64K ports without causing
problems.

The reason it's important to close all ports is that users too often
disable their firewall for one reason or another while on line. And
nowdays they take hits very soon after disabling their firewall.


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg
 
scroob said:
Please stop repeating urban legends.
Click to expand...

Er, experience actually
ME configured correctly is the best
Windows OS there is.
*gasp*

If you can't configure it, then maybe you should be
runnong XP with a dedicated 24/7 line to Windows Update.
Click to expand...

I dislike XP also, but at least it is stable which is more than can be
said for ME.
 
jo said:
scroob wrote:




Er, experience actually




I dislike XP also, but at least it is stable which is more than can be
said for ME.
Click to expand...
If ME is set up correctly, system restore is turned off, active desktop
is turned off, anything else new and improved is turned off, it actually
works as good as 98SE, or maybe slightly better. "Runs and hides"
 
ME configured correctly is the best Windows OS there is.
Click to expand...

Everyone on the planet recognizes that ME is based on the 9x kernel
and that simply is not and cannot be as stable as the 2000/XP kernels.
Your statement is simply wrong.
If you can't configure it, then maybe you should be
runnong XP with a dedicated 24/7 line to Windows Update.
Click to expand...

If you're going to configure your OS, might as well switch to Linux
and dump the Windows crap in the first place.

I had an example of Windows today. I downloaded (from a newsgroup
without looking carefully) a file that some idiot had named
<DPIC>.exe. Note the illegal filename characters.

ANY program that even ATTEMPTED to touch that file INSTANTLY crashed!
PowerDesk crashed, Opera crashed, Windows Explorer crashed, everything
crashed. Instantly - no waiting, no error messages, nothing. The DOS
command line interpreter didn't crash but couldn't see the file either
so I couldn't delete it from there. And this is on Windows 2000.

I had to boot into Linux to delete the damn thing.

You want to bomb somebody's Windows machine - there's your weapon
(although the OS itself didn't crash - God knows what Windows 98 - or
ME - would have done with it.)
 
No. Spreading untruths and marketing hype are idiocy.
Click to expand...

Like saying publicly that people shouldn't use a firewall? EVERYBODY should
use a firewall. Please post proof that they shouldn't.
That's not good but it's irrelevant to this particular issue.
Click to expand...

How is it irrelevant? OE and IE are the #1 and #2 tools that are used to
foment malware.
 
Everyone on the planet recognizes that ME is based on the 9x kernel
and that simply is not and cannot be as stable as the 2000/XP kernels.
Your statement is simply wrong.
Click to expand...

And was also not vulnerable to the latest worms that wrecked tens, maybe
hundreds of thousands of machines and networks. I felt very stable and
secure as I watched 70% of the computing world come crashing down, along
with all the feeble "help" cries from the know nothing NT kernel users who
couldn't even understand what happened.

How is the 9x kernel not as stable as the NT kernel?
And just who is "everybody on the planet?"
 
======================================================================
* Reply by Jack D. Russell, Sr. <[email protected]>
* Newsgroup: alt.comp.freeware
* Reply to: All; "JoeA" <[email protected]>
* Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 08:04:59 -0500 GMT
* Subj: Re: Sygate or Kerio
======================================================================
J>If ME is set up correctly, system restore is turned off, active
J>desktop is turned off, anything else new and improved is turned
J>off, it actually works as good as 98SE, or maybe slightly better.
J>"Runs and hides"

IMHO..If one will take the time to follow the instructions given at http://www.mdgx.com/98-5.htm#KRM9S and make the hybrid Win98/ME, the rewards are better than either OS alone. I ran like this for a long time before installing XP Pro and it really worked good. Not as good as XP but better than either of the other alternatives alone. YMMV.
 
And was also not vulnerable to the latest worms that wrecked tens, maybe
hundreds of thousands of machines and networks. I felt very stable and
secure as I watched 70% of the computing world come crashing down, along
with all the feeble "help" cries from the know nothing NT kernel users who
couldn't even understand what happened.
Click to expand...

Yes, for the most part current exploits are coded for later versions
of Windows that listen on various ports which 98 doesn't do. By the
same logic, however, you'd be better off running DOS which doesn't
listen on ANY ports unless there is an application program running.
How is the 9x kernel not as stable as the NT kernel?
Click to expand...

Well, read this from Microsoft themselves here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/professional/evaluation/business/overview/reliable/default.asp

Highest Reliability in Production Environments

NSTL collected uptime data in the real-world environment of several
customer sites and concluded that the average system uptime between
failures of Windows 2000 Professional is 13 times more than that of
Windows 98 and three times more than that of Windows NT Workstation
4.0.

Lab-Based Study Confirms Highest Reliability

Based on a comparative stress test, ZD Labs concluded that the
reliability of Windows 2000 Professional far exceeds that of Windows
98 and Windows NT Workstation 4.0.

Users Report Highest Reliability

An independent user survey conducted by Sunbelt Software concluded
that Windows 2000 Professional is:
Three times more reliable than Windows 95 and Windows 98
Two times more reliable than Window NT Workstation

And here's a quote from ZDNet's review:

Enhanced Reliability:

"Windows XP. . . is a much stabler [sic] operating system than Windows
98 or Me could ever hope to be. . . The Kernel is based on advanced
technology developed for Windows NT (and enhanced for Windows 2000)
rather than on good old DOS, or the so-called Windows 9x Kernel. This
fact alone gives the . . . operating system much greater stability.
For example, the depletion of a small chunk of memory known as the
system resource pool can seriously crash Windows 98 or Me. Since the
size of the system resource pool is hard coded into the operating
system Kernel, it can never change, no matter how much RAM you have in
your Windows 98 or Me system. In contrast, the NT Kernel-- . .
..doesn't have any sort of limitation on the system resource pool. This
equates to better performance and increased stability.

Wizard Bottom Line: You can be sure that the same issues that bring
Windows 98 or Me to its knees ten times a day will merely be a thorn
to Windows XP. . ."

Source:
http://www.zdnet.com.au/reviews/software/os/story/0,2000023564,20223370-3,00.htm
And just who is "everybody on the planet?"
Click to expand...

Everybody who has used Windows 2000 and XP as well as 98 and ME.
 
Please stop repeating urban legends. ME configured correctly is the
best Windows OS there is. If you can't configure it, then maybe you
should be runnong XP with a dedicated 24/7 line to Windows Update.
Click to expand...

This is rather Off Topic, but that statement that ME is better than XP
is absurd. I develop programs in several languages. In Windows 98 SE
or ME, when you have a crash, all other programs and the OS are likely
to come down with what you are developing (or grading a students
inadequate program attempt.) XP and 2000 have infinitely better memory
management (an exaggeration, I know) that allows controlled termination
of the badly behaving program almost always leaving all else and the OS
running. Wake up to the year 2004 and a stable windows OS!


--
Dennis Roark

(e-mail address removed)
Starting Points:
http://sio.midco.net/denro/www
 
If you are catching it on a good day... if not it is the worst ever OS.
Certainly the worst MS one.

Biggest issue is that it has been known to install drivers for the same
device twice: one a NT5 (Win2k) style set and the other the 9x set. Then
flip between which it uses apparently randomnly at boot... and occasionally
not at boot. This is NOT stable and not a good idea. ;¬)

John
 
Back
Top