Why I'm looking for a new firewall!

Why do software developer insist on turning their products into bloatware???

Once I found a simple basic firewall that did what I wanted with only a few minor problems. It was called Comodo. I installed it on all my machines and recommended it to all my friends.

But now after several upgrades it has become a “do-it-all” program that is rapidly becoming, to me, more trouble than it’s worth. The anti-malware features seem very good…if they were available as a standalone. I don’t want them integrated in a firewall…I’ve been using standalone anti-malware products for years successfully. I don’t need a “submit files to Comodo for analysis” feature that crashes my firewall. I don’t need a firewall that constantly discovers “new” networks when I have only power cycled my router.

All I really need and want is a firewall that lets me know when a new program tries to “phone home” and gives me basic access control rules. This used to be Comodo, but not anymore. Now it’s bloatware, and I have to find something new…

Maybe you don’t need them, but I do and I find them useful … ( now you say something, someone answers) and we have a flame.

Now what I suggest for you is to read the forums and especially Mr.Melih’s posts :slight_smile:

I don’t know what you are talking about …
because server2003 doesn’t support the new Comodo3 so I still have a good basic non-bloated
firewall that behaves just as you would like : Comodo v2.4 (:CLP)
I even recommend it to friends, very good firewall, hehe

No flame…I think the new features are useful, but by combining them all into 1 package the utility of Comodo has been destroyed for me…I am forced to use features I don’t feel I need.

Forced to use ? Which ones ? :slight_smile:

damascus, I understand what you mean. CFP has grown, and it’s very advanced. But since you’ve had firewalls for quite a while I’m sure you can handle its features. Independent of that, one may think that it’s bloated because it has a lot of features - on the other hand, the two most important things are still around: 1) Excellent protection (better than ever), and 2) really light on the system! So it’s actual impact on the system is very, very little - if you’ve given CFP the chance to learn your rules. Once it has learned its rules, I think not many firewalls with HIPS require only 10 MB of RAM.


10 ? Most of the time it uses 4-6 MB ;D

Also when you count both cfp.exe and cmdagent.exe? :o Not here!


According to Task manager - cfp.exe - 3.752 K cmdagent 1.484 K

Maybe I have to much ram ;D
cfp - 6,696K cmdagent 7,716K

I have 4 gb. That’s more than enought for a time being. My Vista uses only 420 - 450 with CFP and CMF :smiley:

That was XP with 3 gb
On my desktop Vista 1 gb (To little really :frowning: )
cfp 3,116K cmdagent 644K

Maybe CFP is optimized better fo Vista :THNK

That thought occurred to me, I’m on XP and I’m really never below 9-10 MB. I’m still pleased since Task Manager says “Commit Charge 175M / 2753M”, not so much.

Anyway, this topic brings up an interesting question. What is bloatware? Exactly what in CFP makes some people, including the thread-starter, think it’s bloatware?


As I commented in another thread, “because of the business model that supports CFP’s development, the desires and needs of its users is inevitably relegated to second place in Comodo’s list of priorities”.
Even if CFP v3 uses less memory, offers more protection, can remember its settings, etc., for some reason its most ardent supporters simply cannot understand why, for example, some people just want a firewall. No HIPS, No extra malware scan, no special warranty, JUST A FIREWALL.
They seem to just assume that if someone likes something that is free, if you give them more, they will like it more.

Simplicity, it seems, cannot be a selling point. :THNK

My IPS offers a free ZoneAlarm Internet Security 3-PC license package to all it’s members. This software, to me is BLOAT-WARE. Not because it tries to be so much… but because it it makes my system crawl when it’s active. Norton has their craptastic suite, and I am sure we could go on and on about the various vendors…

Now even though my definition of bloat-ware differs from damascus’s, I however find one very good point in his post. A crash in Defense+ shouldn’t bring down the firewall too!!

Prior to Defense+, I used SpywareTerminator. Love the software, but they crippled the real-time monitor in the x64 version making it a non-choice for me any longer.

damascus, I understand your desire to have layered applications… if one goes down, at least the others are still fighting the good fight… and you can have that with CFP 3 if you want… just turn off Defense+ and keep Comodo as your firewall. The scan for new networks is an option you can turn off, so no need to to be turned off by that.

If I “turn off” Defense+, will all of its associated menu options disappear, or will I be condemned to an interface which is now essentially cluttered since it will be littered with features I will never use? 88)
I keep reading this argument, “just turn off defense+”; once again it is painfully obvious that some concerns of CFP’s users are simply just being ignored!! :frowning:

Maybe my definition of a cluttered interface is just different than yours, but as long as you don’t hit the “Defense+” button at the top of the window, you never have to look at any of the options for configuring its settings. That seems reasonable enough to me. But if that isn’t the case for you, I’m not sure how to fix your problem.

if you just want a firewall, then why are you not installing just the firewall during installation? There is an option to only install firewall if thats what you want and this is what our users wanted from us and it is what we delivered!


If one decides they don’t want Defense+ to run is it best to set the Firewall Mode to Custom Policy?

Just out of curiosity…