Author Topic: What's wrong with XP's built-in firewall? (Read 56,540 times)

kimmchii · « **Reply #25 on:** October 06, 2006, 10:07 PM »

Quote from: f0dder on October 06, 2006, 09:40 PM

Again, the question is: why?

why blocking? because those sites like doubleclick are rubbish, and blocking rubbish will result in faster speed (fewer connections) and better stability for the browser.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #26 on:** October 06, 2006, 10:15 PM »

I tried using the MVPS Hosts file for a few weeks and found I had so many broken sites I restored my original HOSTS file (which only has a couple of entries I made manually). Like so many things I did not notice problems at the start and by the time I was being bugged I had forgotten about the HOSTS file. I only rememebered when I got an update email. As soon as I removed the HOSTS file my internet experience was so much easier.

Crap Cleaner does a really good job and there is no reason why you could schedule an automatic daily cleanup to keep things ticking cleanly.

Mizraim · « **Reply #27 on:** October 06, 2006, 10:29 PM »

Is there a way (if so please include a walkthrough) to schedual a daily defragger?

Eóin · « **Reply #28 on:** October 06, 2006, 10:58 PM »

Mizraim, I think you are moving a bit off topic here but there really should be no need to defrag on a daily basis

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #29 on:** October 06, 2006, 11:09 PM »

You can schedule the built in window defragger (but it isn't obvious and I can't remember off hand how to do it). There is an MS article on this here

A simpler solution is to get a copy of PerfectDisc (which I prefer to Disk Keeper having used both) and run it in screensaver mode or use it's built in scheduler. It also has the advantage that you can do boot time defragmentation which allows pagefile and system files to be defragmented and moved into optimum position on the partition.

NigelH · « **Reply #30 on:** October 06, 2006, 11:13 PM »

I've been using Ashampoo firewall for a few weeks on my test machine.
http://www.ashampoo.com/frontend/products/php/product.php?session_langid=2&idstring=0050
It seems to be very lightweight and has really been trouble free. I've yet to do some leak tests though.
Seems like a reasonalble beginner's alternative to XP's firewall.
Prior to this, I was using the last released version of ZoneAlarm Pro Version 5 - but it is a resource hog.

Btw, 5/5 stars for Perfect Disk!!

JavaJones · « **Reply #31 on:** October 06, 2006, 11:23 PM »

kimmchii, are there any benchmarks of web browsing showing the speed difference? This is the first potentially compelling reason I've heard. It's actually something I've been told before but have never seen proof of. Most ad-blocking components I've seen really don't seem to speed things up much, at least in loading. Once the page loads if you block Flash ads in particular it can make things a bit faster, but you can do that quite easily on non-Flash (UI) sites just by turning off Flash (any decent browser can do this).

- Oshyan

f0dder · « **Reply #32 on:** October 06, 2006, 11:40 PM »

There's a big speed difference if you use something like AdBlock(*) for firefox... but just blocking cookies? I don't think so.

(*): on a 512/128 line: FOR SURE. On 4096/512: yeah, but not that much.

JavaJones · « **Reply #33 on:** October 06, 2006, 11:43 PM »

I'm on 6000/768, so maybe I just don't notice these subtleties.

- Oshyan

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #34 on:** October 06, 2006, 11:49 PM »

Actually one of the things I am finding a bit frustrating with Outpost is that AdMuncher has dozens of connections open with MSN Messenger and Firefox - it isn't surprising that my system is slow at times !

kimmchii · « **Reply #35 on:** October 07, 2006, 01:59 AM »

JavaJones, yes i did some tests with a proxomitron filter that time pageloads, host file definitely improves surfing speed.

JavaJones · « **Reply #36 on:** October 07, 2006, 02:12 AM »

Can we get some numbers?

- Oshyan

kimmchii · « **Reply #37 on:** October 07, 2006, 02:57 AM »

ahh, i didnt keep them, here is the timer filter if you like to try it yourself:

Code

[Patterns] 
Name = "New Load Timer v2.0 Part Ib (Slime)" 
Active = TRUE 
URL = "$TYPE(htm)" 
Limit = 7 
Match = "<start>" 
Replace = "<script>\r\n" 
"var pxst = new Date();\r\n" 
"function endT() {\r\n" 
"var pxet = new Date();\r\n" 
"document.title=(' Load Time: '+(pxet.getTime()-pxst.getTime())/1000+' second(s)');\r\n" 
"}\r\n" 
"</script>\r\n" 
"$STOP()"

Name = "New Load Timer v2.0 Part II" 
Active = TRUE 
URL = "$TYPE(htm)" 
Limit = 5 
Match = "<end>" 
Replace = "<script>\r\n" 
"window.onload=endT;\r\n" 
"</script>\r\n" 
"$STOP()"

dk70 · « **Reply #38 on:** October 07, 2006, 04:40 AM »

Blocking cookies do not speed up browsing. Reason is to avoid tracking cookies and/or to keep things neat. To disable generally then enable what you want is the only way for a much used browser. Or you end up having to pick the good from the bad ones among 100s of cookies. Could be seen as a service, targeting ads according to your clicking about on a shop site. Depends on how you define personal information/privacy.

Adblock Plus do not speed things up, efficient filter does

Some are useless, others (your own) should have high hitrate. On pages with many ads you will see faster load. Also relevant for fast connections because slow ad-servers can be a problem. Less will always be faster but result depends entirely on which site. Where it matters I doubt you need numbers, will be noticable. Adblock must of course be set to reject download not just hide ads.

The new Adblock lets anyone make long and complicated lists since it optimize entries interally so no more need for geeky generic regular expressions. Used to be a requirement since long list meant slower output. http://adblockplus.org/en/ The old version, may be still the most used, is definitely slower. New is practially transparent to Firefox.

wr975 · « **Reply #39 on:** October 07, 2006, 09:35 AM »

Quote from: Carol Haynes on October 06, 2006, 11:49 PM

Actually one of the things I am finding a bit frustrating with Outpost is that AdMuncher has dozens of connections open with MSN Messenger and Firefox - it isn't surprising that my system is slow at times !

IMO the connections would be there without AdMuncher, so it can't be the cause of a slow system. If your system gets slow, try restarting Firefox.

lanux128 · « **Reply #40 on:** October 11, 2006, 01:41 AM »

i see that the topic has strayed a bit.

but anyway, i had just managed one week with Windows Firewall and so far have no major problems. maybe i will continue if it holds up. tks everyone for the info and assurance.

lanux128 · « **Reply #41 on:** May 13, 2007, 04:43 PM »

how can i add a range of ports in Windows Firewall? i need to do this for torrent downloads and there is no option to add more than one port at a time..

[attach=#]

app103 · « **Reply #42 on:** May 13, 2007, 05:01 PM »

Quote from: lanux128 on May 13, 2007, 04:43 PM

how can i add a range of ports in Windows Firewall? i need to do this for torrent downloads and there is no option to add more than one port at a time..

Rather than adding a range of ports, add the torrent application by clicking the 'add program' button instead. Then everything will work fine.

app103 · « **Reply #43 on:** May 13, 2007, 05:26 PM »

Quote from: kimmchii on October 07, 2006, 01:59 AM

JavaJones, yes i did some tests with a proxomitron filter that time pageloads, host file definitely improves surfing speed.

For all the broadband people with newer pc's, this really isn't as noticeable as it is to someone with say...a 33.6k dialup connection and a slower pc.

I can tell you from experience that a huge hosts file doesn't speed up page loading.

Why?

Your pc has to scan through that whole file with every connection your pc makes to see if the domain is listed in there, first. This takes extra time.

The more domains you have to connect to for ads on a page, the more it has to scan that hosts file, the longer it takes to fail to load the ads. (But it even makes loading pages without ads take longer since you still have to go through that hosts file first)

The more entries you have in the host file, the longer it takes to scan that file.

So the hosts file option can backfire and not give you speed and actually slow you down.

If you don't believe me, try it with an 18,000+ line hosts file on a 233mhz machine on 33.6k dialup and compare speeds with & without. You won't even need a stopwatch. That's how noticeable it is.

lanux128 · « **Reply #44 on:** May 14, 2007, 01:14 AM »

aye, uTorrent looks much better in that department but i'm a bit afraid to try it following the recent buy-over from BitTorrent. i prefer an independent client like BitComet..

app103 · « **Reply #45 on:** May 14, 2007, 03:25 AM »

Quote from: lanux128 on May 14, 2007, 01:14 AM

aye, uTorrent looks much better in that department but i'm a bit afraid to try it following the recent buy-over from BitTorrent. i prefer an independent client like BitComet..

That just happens to be the first application in the list, alphabetically. I didn't intentionally highlight that to imply that you should use uTorrent. I actually prefer Azureus and only installed uTorrent when Azureus started crashing, recently. (I fixed prob and went back to Azureus)

Adding any program would work the same way. Just click that button and add it. It doesn't have to be uTorrent that you add. It can be any BT client.

lanux128 · « **Reply #46 on:** May 14, 2007, 03:31 AM »

ok, i understand now..

thanks for the help, app..