2.4 vs 3.0

[Guest]

[Big Dawg]

I run Win2kpro.  Comodo Firewall was very highly rated by the "Firewall Challenge" run by Matousec. Since I have used ZA pro for years, I was disappointed in its ratings. My question is...is the version for Win2k (2.4) the same in the level of security as version 3.0? And would it perform as well as 3.0 in the "Firewall Challenge"?
Thanks for your help.
Big Dawg

[shin-ganda]

CFP3 is far better than CFP2 & CFP2 is no longer developed.
but since you're using win2k, there's not much choice left.
CFP 2.4 & Online Armor is the best for win2k 
consider to switch OS, it's 2008 buddy 

[LeoniAquila]

I agree with ganda, and I think that OA is the best choice (strictly from a security point of view) for W2K, whilst CFP 2.4 is the second best. Not sure how OA works, but if it has HIPS (which I believe?), then CFP 2.4 might be a firewall that is easier to handle for the average user.

LA

[Big Dawg]

Thanks for the info.
Shin-ganda, the only reason I still use Win2k Pro is because of my son who is a computer techie. He advised me to keep Win2k as long as possible since it is more stable and superior to XP and far superior to Vista. He suggest that my next move is to Windows 2003 when Microsoft and or my main programs no longer support Win2k.

[grey_ash]

the only reason I still use Win2k Pro is because of my son who is a computer techie. He advised me to keep Win2k as long as possible since it is more stable and superior to XP and far superior to Vista. He suggest that my next move is to Windows 2003 when Microsoft and or my main programs no longer support Win2k.

I thought Xp was more stable and secure than W2k, am I wrong?

[shin-ganda]

same here, i'm not a techie like your son, but i'm using XP SP2 media center edition with no problem 

[sded]

Most experts and users don't agree with your son, although it had a lot of followers in the early days of XP.  And Windows 2003 support seems very sporadic for clients.  Main problem though is obsolescence, which is what you are facing now with W2K/W2003-there isn't enough of a user base to make it economic for applications to continue support.  All of the firewalls should continue to work, but you will be missing out on the HIPS upgrades that support things like leakage prevention.  And newly discovered threats will not be treated.  And no, 2.4 won't perform as well in the firewall challenge as CFP3-Comodo made changes to CFP3 based on discoveries from the firewall challenge that will never be reflected in 2.4, plus started out with a much more sophisticated HIPS/antileak capability.  Many of the users of XP think it is the best OS ever (like W2K in the early days of XP when there were lots of XP problems) although Vista seems to be following the same increasing popularity pattern now.

[grey_ash]

Hope Vista doesn't b/c too popular too fast, coz I dont think my laptop will run it well and a new comp just for Vista isn't attractive. XP works just fine for me.

[sded]

I am happy with Vista, but on relatively new laptops that came with it.  I certainly can't think of a compelling reason for most people to upgrade to it from XP.  I would have continued with XP, but dead computers out of warranty are too expensive to fix.  If your computer will hack it, upgrading from W2K to XP seems like a good thing to do to add a little more life to it. 

[Tags:]