XP firewall vs Norton

A few months ago I installed XP (Home version) on my HP pavilion 9800. I tried installing my Norton Personal Firewall 2003, but it was rejected. Apparently the XP firewall cannot coexist with an outsider.

How can I disable the XP firewall to make way for the Norton?

 

Re: Norton 2003 and XP. Not a good combo.

Dump Norton ( Anti-Virus and Firewall ) and go with ( I use ) AVG and Kerio.

Just as good protection and FAR LESS arguement from XP.

And far less windows version specific as Norton is.

In either case turn off XP one way ( incoming only ) Firewall.

And I must add. THis reply comes from a LLLOOONNNGGGG time supprter of Symantec.

BillyBob

 

BillyBob - I also am a longtim fan of Norton, and I admit I went for the Norton firewall despite having read some negative comments. Frankly, I have had some difficulties with it - notices that keep appearing even when I click to turn them off, for example.

What is AVG and what is Kerio? AVG sounds vaguely familiar, but I haven't heard of Kerio.

Pete C - thanks. I assume that whatever firewall I install I'll have to disable the XP, so I'm grateful for the instructions.

 

AVG is a free Anti-Virus program.

Kerio is a Free ( two way ) Firewall.

Both are free for Home use.

Both sites are easy to find by just using AVG or Kerio as the search words.

And yes to turning off the XP firewall.

BillyBob

 

Alright, let me come to poor Mr. Norton's defence . I run Norton Internet Security 2003 (as well as Systemworks 2003) on my XP pro computer and the devil hasn't jumped out and carried me away yet!! The Norton firewall does a very good job keeping my computer from prying eyes. I'll admit that stuff Symantec released back in 2001 wasn't worth much, they sure shot themselves in the foot with that one. I've got a desk drawer full of other PC utilities (as well as antivirus programs) that I've tried, and I always wind up putting the Norton stuff back on my computer.

and to Queuedecoton... you will want to disable WinXP's firewall no matter which other firewall you decide to install.

just my two cents

B

 

I don't think its XP's firewall that caused Norton's not to install (that's the inference I'm getting from Queuedecoton). There is something else wrong.

I'm also one of those people that have from the beginning run XP's firewall - to be precise about it, it's a Port Blocker more than a firewall - with two brands of firewalls, Zone Alarm and Sygate. Both w/o any problems of any sort.

I'm beginning to wonder if the people that are so adamant about XP's firewall causing headaches to bad feet have actually tried it running a top tier commercial firewall alongside of it.

Regards - Charles

 

The part that was here did not belong here.

charlesvar

As to XP Firewall it is only a one way. And I myself I do not need two Firewalls as I have a Router. And with it ( XP Firewall ) shut down it is just one less thing running.

Mr. B

It was just the opposite for me. 2001 & 2002 were good. 2003 and in XP were not so good. PLus ALL of them used WAY TO much disk space and resources to do the same job as AVG & Kerio.

PLUS with Norton there can be a Norton Version vs Windows Version problems.

BillyBob

 

Hi BB,

"As to XP Firewall it is only a one way. And I myself I do not need two Firewalls as I have a Router "

We've had this discussion in another thread awhile back if you remember. In it, you yourself pointed out that a router is a one way firewall, so you are running two firewalls. In that tread I made the point that whether I was running ZAP or Sygate, they had a lot less to handle because of ICF. How much "noisier" would Kerio be if you didn't have the router?

The point about having one more thing running, sure, and one weighs the pros and cons of that.


Mr B

Norton, As software, if installed properly, just as good, if not better than most.

There are a number of issues which IMO override that:

The resources Norton uses.

Symantec as a CO. is one of the least helpful with problems.

Heaven help you if you try to uninstall any Norton product; it's a horror show getting rid of the suites especially. If you have not done so, go to the Symantec site and see how many "uninstall" tools they have for their various products. After their use, I can still find their **** in the System. This is for other people that didn't know better.


Regards - Charles

 

First off what is ICF ?

I do not think the Router is actually referred to as a Firewall ( could be though ) it just plain blocks all incoming attempts. But if it is or is not I still do not need TWO SOFTWARE firewalls. ( guess I was not clear on that part. )

The Router handles incoming. And I control the outgoing. And also help to block what might get past the Router.

Another thing about. MY Road Runner IP address IS NOT my machine IP if the Router is doing its job.

As to NIS it was VERY NOISEY before I Got the Router. It was constantly bring up theincoming attempt message to the tune of 20-30 per minute sometimes.

Also the Router is multi-purpose for me. It keeps the Internet and the LAN separated. It also allow me to have three machine online at the same time with only one connection.

OH MAN !! You are SSSOOOO right. That is another reason that I have for not installing it in the first place.

I uninstalled Norton 2002 ( or tried to ) from a machine yesterday. I wound up just deleting the folder(s) and living with the error messages at boot up till I could get the Reg cleaned up.

Norton, As software, if installed properly, just as good, if not better than most.

To that I personaly disagree. There are many closer to standalone products that are just as good. AVG and Kerrio are two of them. With FAR LESS system loading.

I just got AVG & Kerio onto ( and NAV/NIS off of ) a 98SE machine yesterday. The machine is buy far more stable and responsive due to the decrease in resource usage. And considerable less disk space usage.

One thing about Norton. It uses a TREMENDOUS amount of SHARED files between its own apps. And if just one shared file gets messed up it can mess up the whole thing.

And Cost verses preformance Norton is no better than the two free versions I have. And even if AVG and Kerio started charging, I will still go with them. If for no more than the very close to ( if not fully ) standalone part.

There are a number of issues which IMO override that:
The resources Norton uses.

To that I FULLY agree.

1-- Machine setup. And other software on same.
2--Personal Preference.
3--Resource usage for sure. I gained 3-4 resources in 98 SE after dumping Norton ( NAV & NIS ) but keeping the Utilities. ( None of whch loaded at bootup anyway. )

BillyBob

 

One thing I forgot in my previous reply.

Something like Kerio or NIS also works on the LAN where the built in XP may not. I can not even begin to say whether it will or will not as it has been disabled almost right from day one.

BillyBob

 

Hi

Has anyone ever used Sygate firewall ?

I am changing my PC ( have NIS on my laptop !!! ) BUT will have a new desktop PC & considering what to install as AV & Firewall.

Sygate is free but I can purchase the Pro version for extra control. Now that the Norton debate is open I hope it's OK to ask about yet another Firewall I know it doesn't include AV.

I have never used XP's own as I would much prefer a standalone one. I know I have considered changing previously but have not yet broken from Norton Now that I have read through this at the time when a new PC is going to be ready soon it has brought me back to the Norton Sygate is compatible with XP.

 

BillyBob,

Sorry for the lapse into MS speak. ICF: Internet Connection Firewall.



MiniB,

Not sure what you're asking. I currently use Sygate free v5.1. on XP. Runs w/o a hitch.

As I've pointed out in this thread, I have XP's firewall running as well. One other program is running: Proxomitron, which is web filtering software and controls cookies, pop ups/unders, java super cookies, banner ads, and etc.

Not sure if the pro version of Sygate does any cookie/pops control and ads the way ZA pro does.

And you might consider Kerio as well. Read great things about it, although have no personal experience with it. I'm sure BillyBob will chime in on Kerio and second that

Regards - Charles

 

I've used Sygate's firewall. It's not quite as user friendly as ZA but it works just fine.

I've seen a lot of problems with both XP and 98 using newer versions of ZA and ZAP. Mostly the problems were due to ZA/ZAP trying to do more than just be a good firewall...the cookie and popup control stuff usually the culprits. I've never had a problem with ZP v. 2.6 which confines itself to doing what it does well...be a firewall.

The Sygate version I tried didn't have any cookie/popup stuff that I was aware of. I didn't look for any, though, because I prefer to use software specifically designed for those jobs.

 

charlesvar

That I will be very gald to do.

I have switched all 3 machine over from Norton to AVG Anti-Virus and Kerio Firewall.

Said machine have variuous versions of Windows from 98 FE up to and including XP.

All three said machines are far more responsive ( faster ) with less hangups and resource usage. And much less Disk space usage. Norton was even causing problems in XP. Yes, I did have 2003 version.

Unlike Norton AVG and Kerio do not seem to be as Windows version specific.

And it appears to be just as good protection.

But as I have mentioned before. Regardless of which AV program is being used it is still a very good idea to run and online scan also.

But AGAIN. My router takes a lot of load off of the Firewall.

Anthing that appears in the Kerio log file is something that I have either allowed or denied access to. And if I do so choose I can change those settings.

Alias I seem to have very good control.

BillyBob

 

Just my two cents. I use NIS 2003 and System Utilities (mainly for Win Dr. and Speed Disk) on a XP Pro system, and have for quite a while. As long as Norton is the FIRST thing I install after XP, I have not had any problems. I don't even put it on the OS partition, and it works fine. I have it set to report everything, and I manually configure each program's access to the Internet. (Why does Word need to call home anyway??) I don't know any other software on the market today that can "boss" XP like Symantec has managed, and I trust Norton's protection. If I need to disable Norton, my modem is OFF. As far as being a resource hog, nah, not really. NIS 2003 is idiot proof, runs in the background quietly and doesn't slow anything down. I had 02, and it worked fine, too. And, yes, disabling XP's firewall is one of the first things I do. I have no idea if it works, either, and I don't care. It's an M$ feature, and therefore, I don't trust it to keep M$ out of my computer. Just my opinion, that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.
Cheers from Ohio,
Johanna

 

I am enjoying all the opinions in this post ~ Thank you.

The one thing I was concerned about is that if I did change from NIS to Sygate pro would having to add the popup / ad blockers just add as much to the resources as having NIS

I can see the opinion that perhaps a standalone of these add ons is better as they are specifically for the task. I certainly would not want to see all the ads etc which Norton definitely does block for me now.

I looked at Zone alram but the recent reports of the loophole made me re-think this one.

I have trusted Symantec from day one of having my PC but it's just all the adverse reports about the software no matter what forum I look at really concerned me therefore when I get my new desktop PC I want to have my mind made up as to which firewall & AV is the best. It's going to have the power to run applications etc I guess that as Symantec no longer have the monopoly with this type of program that it has caused me to re-think my situation. It's just a matter of breaking from the only security I have known.

Many thanks for all the opinions in this post.

miniB ( still deciding )

 

Hello Johanna,

"And, yes, disabling XP's firewall is one of the first things I do. I have no idea if it works, either, and I don't care. It's an M$ feature, and therefore, I don't trust it to keep M$ out of my computer. "

This will be of interest to you http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit029.html#mspath

Perhaps this is the reason ICF blocks in only.

Regards - Charles

 

I took a peek at the site the charlesvar pointed to.

All I have to say is " do not put all the blame on Microsoft "

A good amount of the reason for MS having so much control leads right to John Q. Public which MS is taking FULL advantace of.

If we did not buy it they would not make it.

We have helped to put MS where they are. Mostly by giving in to MS SCARE tactics. To which J. Q. Public gives in.

And the only one that will Stop ( or even have a chance at ) MS from gaining complete control is John Q. Public. If we were to start saying " enough is enough " I think you would see MS change there ways VERY quickly.

I myself have wondered MANY, MANY times." Why in hell did I buy Windows XP Pro ?" It does absolutely NOTHING any more or better for me than 98SE. Other than eat up 2 or three times as much disk space that is.

I can move a couple of plugs about 1" and unless I paid real close attention I would not know the difference. Other than the Desktop and the startup sound they are very near identical.

HHMMMM !! MY brain just kicked in.

Maybe I should just stay out of these posts today anyway. I started a PC last night and got the dreaded meassage " INVALID SYSTEM DISK " So I am in a rather bad mood.

GGGRRRRRR !!! !@#$%^&*(). But I have changed the HD and got a basic 98 running again.

The OLD 850meg HD went bad. But it was just being used as a TV anyway. So no real harm done. Just a pain getting it back in order.

Y'all have a nice day. And will try to do the same..

BilllyBob ( alias the GROUCH this AM )