alright i got spyware protection in th eform of microsofts antispyware program and adaware for good measeure im thinking about getting panda for antivirus, and even though they include a firewall id rather have a dedicated one, i was thinking about outpost :outpost but waht do you guys think abou it and other ones even if its included like panada

thx

Maybe I am old fashioned. I like to use both Ad Aware and Spybot S&D and find them good complement to one another. On machines I leave in the hands of family members I also install JavaCool's SpywareBlaster and SpywareGuard, but they cost money.

Panda is an excellent tool, at least as an on-line anti-virus checker. http://antivirus-rating-2005.info/ had a summary of some AV info a month ago. NOD by Eset is one with positive word of mouth. Kaspersky has a rep. as "heavy", though likely not as heavy as Symantec and McAfee.

I did not suspect Trend Micro would be so bad, but have noticed that the on-line "Housecall" version leaves update files in unremoved temporary folders. I'm glad I use both it and Panda's online check.

If I had a fast machine, I might go with F-Secure for an installed AV, but with my 1800mhz Dell I'd choose NOD. Notice the scores on "worm reaction time". Interesting.

That AVG I disabled because I hated it after installing it - based on forum flak - scores 3, the absolute worst of all. Jeez. Now I'll uninstall it completely.

I am still happy with Zone Alarm as the firewall on the machines I admin for. I've seen people complain about it, and my own machine is still running 3.whatever. But other machines I admin run the current ZA with no problem that I see.

The only other firewall I'd consider based on what info I currently have is Kerio. TinyPersonal had positive word of mouth but is apparently no longer supported or popular.

Only my 2 cents, of course.

well thats what i asked for..... but does anybody know anything about outpost it was recommened to me by a friend

I have heard bad things about outpost technical support ... it's virually non existent ... I would trust panda far more then outpost.

Personally wouldn't base decision on tech support. I troubleshoot using support forum, documentation and don't rely on paid tech support to be honest. I am a fan of ZA pro, but recently decided to try outpost Pro. Not as feature-rich, but does have smaller memory fingerprint.

I do miss Pass-lock, email monitor and more advanced privacy protection found in ZA pro.
OutPost does have basic ad blocker. Anyway, I am quite pleased with it so far.

Well, normally I would say the same thing, since I have never used tech support for any program ... ever (yeah I am 'that' good at solving my own problems, not really ... ).

Anyway ... I mentioned tech support for another reason ... so long ago when I myself was deciding upon a good firewall (I now use McAfee Firewall Plus, it's pretty good, but buggy sometimes, or at least the central app is buggy) I stumbled upon this and similar posts in many places all converging on the topic of tech support and the problems it causes:

Posted by httpd.confused at http://fileforum.betanews.com/review/1009876979/1/view

"I like the look and feature set of Outpost very much, but I will not pay for a product like this when it has lousy support. Don't take my word for it--send two email messages: One to Agnitum, and one to the author of Look 'n' Stop. See which one gets answered first, and which one... doesn't get answered at all (or receives a useless blow-off reply).

Now, I know most kids think they are too 133t to need support, but "support" doesn't just mean "help using the product". It can also mean "getting a longstanding bug fixed". How many months did it take to get the serious bugs of 2.1 fixed? I stopped counting after about seven.

And by the way, Look 'n' Stop beats Outpost in leak tests: http://www.firewallleaktester.com/tests.htm "

So ... yeah ... but if as Mischcabob says, the program works fine ... then you don't really need tech support that badly. Also, I cant really say that any firewall I have ever tried failed in doing its job properly, all of them worked ... some more some less ... so as long as you have a firewall ... pretty much any firewall (one from a major company Panda and Outpost are major companies) you should be fine. Besides, hackers are not as interested in obtaining information directly from your computer (like adware), but rather stealing your passwords and credit card numbers that you type into "secure" sites, oh and using keyloggers (which firewalls usually cant detect), and if you have anti-virus software then viruses shouldn't be a problem ... so firewalls aren't too useful unless you are running a business or have critical information on your computer (credit card numbers, etc.) Ok ... I should stop typing now

TexMex, BTW, NIce to see U back. Must been on vacation or something?

Point taken about lackluster tech support, but that seems common in most software companies outsourcing to call centers nowadays. User reviews are always biased and uneducated so I tend to only trust professionals and critics of renowned computer mags.

The firewall leak test you mentioned is somewhat dated (October 2004) so doesn't hold a lot of validity.

A more detailed thorough review can be found here:
http://www.personal-firewall-software-revi...ptenreviews.com
*ZA Pro and Out Post Pro were rated the best.

Yeah I was on vacation, (to Italy, Austria, and southern Germany, Austria was the best of the three if you want my opinion)

Nice firewall link, I've been looking for something that compares them ... all my links are kind of old ... so thanks for the link. Hmmm ... so Zone Alarm seems to be rated best .... but Outpost has the most features. Too bad Panda isn't on there so we can compare directly ... but here is a link to a review of Panda firewall maybe it will help: (it's by zdnet so it should be pretty reliable)

http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/software/utilit...10002442,00.htm

Comparing the reviews it looks like Outpost is better than Panda after all ...