I’ve been using Comodo Firewall (the free one, I had no idea you also had a Pro version ???) for more than a year now, and I was very frustrated lately due to the total lack of upgrades and updates.
Now I understand! You are focused on your newer version, version 3, and you don’t care much about old-school people who are still using Win2K, right?
I guess what I’m asking is: Is version 2.4 still one of the best, or should people like me get another firewall (that still treats 2000 and XP the same)?
There are only two versions; 2.4 and 3.0. They are both “pro” and they are both free. The only thing you can actually purchase is a special warranty, but you need v. 3.0 for that.
As far as I know: version 3.0 introduces a new platform which will be common for other Comodo products too, in order to improve integration. This requires Windows XP or later. For W2K users, 2.4 is still a great firewall - really one of the best. I believe there is only one firewall for W2K that might be better: Online Armor.
It looks like firewalls that actively support W2K are heading toward end of life. OA has discussed on their forum (http://support.tallemu.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=3603, for example) that they can’t justify further support-only 3% of users. And I haven’t seen updates for CFP2.4 either, and similar economics would argue strongly against W2K support in version 3. Looks like the choices for W2K users are to use CFP2.4 as is, use OA pretty much as is, or find another firewall that isn’t phasing out W2K support as quickly. But adding the new Microsoft security structures for Vista seems to be a major undertaking and to also cause a lot of breakage and retesting with W2K according to the various discussions. Justifying W2K compatility sounds like a hard sell. Just a non-security-expert opinion, though-but I would be upgrading W2K to XP if I still had it around.
I understand, guys, thank you very much for making it clear.
(I guess you can mark this thread as “solved”, if you wish.)
This is probably just a shot in the dark, but here goes. Seeing as how you recommended Online Armor, LeoniAquila, but that firewall is also thinking about discontinuing Win2K support, do you have a suggestion that might suit me better? (Sorry for asking this on a Comodo site, but asking help from an expert is worth a shot.) Cheers!
You can always grab a copy of today’s version, which is even as safe as CFP 3.0. It’s better than CFP 2.4. I would start out with that and then see what happens with OA (well to be honest I would probably use CFP 2.4, to stay a part of this community ;)). If they discontinue W2K support you can always keep the latest W2K supported version of OA. Eventually, even this combination may not be really secure - then maybe you should consider a newer OS like XP or Vista. But this won’t happen tomorrow, you have plenty of time.
I’m going to respond to Blas first:
Well, there are many reasons why I wish to keep Windows 2000, one of which would be nostalgia, but perhaps the strongest reason is that I would have to pay about as much for a new RAM expansion as I paid for the whole computer a few years ago.
Shin-ganda and LeoniAquila:
I went to the Online Armor website and I didn’t like the comparison between the free and the paid versions. So, I am sticking with Comodo. I see the Online Armor free version is big on the HIPS feature, but lacks many other features which the premium version has.
You’re surely not saying that their free version is better than the CFP 2.4, are you, LeoniAquila?
If I’m willing to spring for a paid firewall, I’ll definitely consider OA, thanks for making it clear, Shin-ganda.
Cheers, everybody!
P.S. Oh, I forgot something. I assume Comodo Firewall Pro is lighter on resources than Online Armor Firewall, free or full, right?
