I saw a post where it looked like they were running both. They were having problems though! (:WIN)
On occasion, with a tricky install etc, I’ll disable CFP, turn off Wifi. If I could keep WFW on, I wouldn’t need to turn off Wifi.
Seems like a conflict to me. :SMLR
No, it is not recommended to run 2 realtime protection programs of the same kind together. So no 2 Firewalls, no 2 realtime Anti Virus, no 2 realtime Anti Spyware and no 2 HIPS together 
Greetz, Red.
Windows firewall seems to run fine with CFP3, at least under Vista. Of course having it out in front to moderate your Comodo Policies makes the results hard to interpret and can cause some interference/conflict with your CFP rules, but in a sense not that much different from having a NAT router out there if you are just doing internet wifi.
Oh OK… I’m behind my own router now, so i feel pretty safe with that and CFP but what about when I’m on public Wifi, would enabling WFW help?
I would enable it if I disabled CFP, but leave it off the rest of the time. Should give better WAN protection than a NAT router and protect you against the public router. I ran Vista with just the Windows Firewall on public WiFi (including in Mexico) with no real concerns. If you are careful about what you download (especially if you use P2P, Warez, Usenet Binary, …) use a good Virus checker, and don’t get viruses/trojans/etc. the Windows firewall is a fine tool for incoming connection management, just doesn’t do outbound at all in XP. There is a strong body of knowledgeable security people who think SW firewalls beyond that supplied by Windows are a waste for knowledgeable users. Comodo is fun to play with and gets rid of a lot of “nuisance” connections, but I wouldn’t pay for a replacement to the Vista Windows firewall.
[quote author=Rednose link=topic=17807.msg121562#msg121562 date=1199134559]
No, it is not recommended to run 2 realtime protection programs of the same kind together. So no 2 Firewalls, no 2 realtime Anti Virus, no 2 realtime Anti Spyware and no 2 HIPS together
That is the conventional wisdom on computer security, you get just one bite of the apple with software firewalls or risk conflicts. And in terms of software firewalls for win XP, as far as I am concerned, the SP2
firewall is better than nothing and thats the only good thing to be said for it.
But ever since I installed SP2, the SP2 firewall has been a ■■■■ pain in the ■■■■ because it has an annoying habit of turning itself back on and I have to rock it back to sleep with a real rock. And as I installed CPF3, I made very sure the SP2 firewall was off before and after install.
To make a long story short, I just happened to check the firewall status later and found both CPF3 and the SP2 firewall happened to both be on with no evident conflicts during the unknown time they were both on. Some how I very much doubt I was better protected by both than I was by CPF3 alone. I did not waste any time in again turning the SP2 firewall off, but at least I learned two things.
It may not be a fatal mistake, but memo to self, keep checking to make sure the SP2 firewall is still off.
If someone wants to run 2 firewalls, 3 anti virus, 4 anti spyware or 5 HIPS, go ahead But that person does not know what he is doing :-\ Telling people that there is no conflict is one thing, but you should tell people what is realy needed
Greetz, Red.
Allow myself to quote – myself:
Important - Please read before posting:
Even if you manage to get the 2 to run together what’s the point other than wasting resources :-*.
We seem to have lost track of the question 
"On occasion, with a tricky install etc, I’ll disable CFP, turn off Wifi. If I could keep WFW on, I wouldn’t need to turn off Wifi. " So if he disables CFP, he wants to temporarily turn on WFW. Not run the two together, which CFP3 does until you remember to check and turn off WFW. Seems like a good idea to me, especially with “windows firewall is the only exception”. I have certainly done it while trying to uncrash early CFP3s.