zigzagpt
join:2004-01-06
Pt Land
|  ZA 6.0.667.000
Awhile ago and right after installing ZA 6.0.631 was forced to reinstall my OS because of so many troubles and errors. General problems already discussed in this forum... Went back to version 4.5.594.000.
Now that a few weeks have passed since the release of version 6.0.667.000... wonder your expert opinion about the use and behavior of the newest ZA version. I mean, does it worth moving to the above mentioned version?? Would appreciate you could explain the good reasons why... or why not. |
|
MarkAW
Barry White or lil bratt
Premium
join:2001-08-27
Canada
 ·Bell Sympatico
 ·Cogeco Cable
| First off i am using ZoneAlarm free version 6.0.667.000 on a XP Pro Sp2 and i haven't had any problems what so ever in the 5 years i have been using ZA.In my humble opinion yes it would be wise to move up to the next version, why well the improvements better stability etc.But i am no expert i am only saying what i have experienced, so i leave it up to you to decide.I wish you luck.
--
Go Leafs Go! |
|
owlyn
Premium,MVM
join:2004-06-05
Newtown, PA
clubs:
| reply to zigzagpt
said by zigzagpt  :Awhile ago and right after installing ZA 6.0.631 was forced to reinstall my OS because of so many troubles and errors. General problems already discussed in this forum... Went back to version 4.5.594.000. Now that a few weeks have passed since the release of version 6.0.667.000... wonder your expert opinion about the use and behavior of the newest ZA version. I mean, does it worth moving to the above mentioned version?? Would appreciate you could explain the good reasons why... or why not. I've been using 667 with no problems, though I don't see any advantages over the older versions. Windows ME. |
|
zigzagpt
join:2004-01-06
Pt Land
| reply to zigzagpt
Yeah, forgot to mention to you guys that I'm using XP Pro Sp2 as well. Are there any specific configurations with this newest version different than 4.5.594?? Don't wanna mess up my connections again... Wish more opinions could come up. The more the better. Mainly for the ones who are in doubts like myself. Thanks in advance. |
|
John2g
Qui Tacet Consentit
Premium
join:2001-08-10
England
| I would still stay with 4.5.594, which is the version I am using. It is a very stable version: the new versions are mainly bloat, as far as I can see.
--
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. |
|
mark5019
join:2002-03-30
Atlanta, GA |  reply to zigzagpt
im useing the newest free version on xp home sp2 and no problems never had any |
|
Hall
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
·EarthLink
·AT&T Midwest
·Earthlink Cable Mo..
| reply to John2g
You guys should be careful advocating using such an "old" version of ZA...  The fact that they work well is beside the point, of course. Some people here think you must run the latest version or be doomed for disaster. |
|
TK421
Premium
join:2004-12-19
Canada
| reply to zigzagpt
No problems whatsoever with ZAP on Win XP-SP2. 
IMO the best protection is usually had with the current version. I would not recommend using an older, obsolete, version unless running on a very old machine. Even v6.0.667.000 is performing smoothly on a P3-800 w/128 RAM. |
|
Hall
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
·EarthLink
·AT&T Midwest
·Earthlink Cable Mo..
| A firewall's basic task is to control incoming and outgoing connections. It's pretty simple... What new *abilities* does newer versions of ZA, or any firewall for that matter, introduce ?? I'm guessing most things in newer versions are *features*, or what some call "bloat", not underlying core functionality. |
|
zigzagpt
join:2004-01-06
Pt Land | reply to zigzagpt
Programs and connections allowances appear to be different in ZA 667. Is that a fact?? Any link for one to get to know better the most crucial configurations??
|
|
zigzagpt
join:2004-01-06
Pt Land | reply to zigzagpt
Excuse Hall didn't read your topic before. So, what are those polemic features, by the way?? |
|
TK421
Premium
join:2004-12-19
Canada
1 edit | reply to Hall
Some might argue adding *features* is what caused most problematic issues with ZA, although not all changes are detrimental or simply bloat. If there was a perfect firewall it would never need to be updated. Newer versions do fix compatibility problems, system stability, and security vulnerabilities.
ZoneAlarm Pro Release History
[edit to add link] |
|
zigzagpt
join:2004-01-06
Pt Land | reply to zigzagpt
Should a clean install be the safer procedure?? |
|
TK421
Premium
join:2004-12-19
Canada
| Clean install is now the method suggested by ZoneLabs. As for polemic features, I don't think there are any with the free version (i.e. no privacy controls, advanced program control, anti-spyware, etc..). The OS Firewall can also be disabled if there is some reason you want to... |
|
Mem
join:2002-01-03
USA | I don't think the OS firewall is a free version feature either... |
|
zigzagpt
join:2004-01-06
Pt Land | reply to zigzagpt
The OS firewall is already disabled. Actually, was thinking of the pro version... |
|
TK421
Premium
join:2004-12-19
Canada
| With ZAP I prefer to avoid all privacy controls and let Windows Security Center watch my anti-virus. ZAP's cookie-blocking, javascript control, and ad-blocking has caused me a few problems in the past -- there are better programs to handle that stuff. Everything else seems fine with default settings.
ZAP is good at configuring program access on its own with "SmartDefense Adviser" set Auto. I don't see a lot of prompts anymore. |
|
zigzagpt
join:2004-01-06
Pt Land | reply to zigzagpt
Here is a new feature that don't have in version 4.5... "SmartDefense Adviser". If I set it to auto does it mean I myself can´t choose the progs Internet access?? |
|
sclement
SClement
Premium
join:2002-06-23
Spanish Fort, AL | Note that NAV 2006 is incompatible with ZAS |
|
Mem
join:2002-01-03
USA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to zigzagpt
You can change the intial auto settings to any way you like. At that point, the config for that program is changed from auto to custom and the SDA will not change it.
In your shoes I would be a little concerned that you may have some other conflict since your intial 6.x install went badly. Make sure you image/backup your drive prior to trying another install. |
|
