HP Card Reader

Ron Hunter wrote:
[]
> It did, for sure. By the time I got a faster machine, I had
> discovered Outpost Firewall Pro, and have never looked back.
> It is, in my opinion, far superior to Norton and Zonealarm.

Thanks, Ron. I've not used OFP, so I can't comment. Many people do have
problems with Norton, so I normally recommend Zone Alarm.

David
 >> Stay informed about: HP Card Reader 

David J Taylor wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
> []
>> It did, for sure. By the time I got a faster machine, I had
>> discovered Outpost Firewall Pro, and have never looked back.
>> It is, in my opinion, far superior to Norton and Zonealarm.
>
> Thanks, Ron. I've not used OFP, so I can't comment. Many people do have
> problems with Norton, so I normally recommend Zone Alarm.
>
> David
>
>
Many people also have trouble with ZA. Just yesterday I read a
complaint from a cable modem user who complained that ZA was slowing his
downloads significantly. I am assuming he was using an older, slower,
machine, but why expend cpu cycles if another program can do the job
better, and with less system resources....?
 >> Stay informed about: HP Card Reader 

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 03:16:16 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

>> Thanks, Ron. I've not used OFP, so I can't comment. Many people do have
>> problems with Norton, so I normally recommend Zone Alarm.
>
> Many people also have trouble with ZA. Just yesterday I read a
> complaint from a cable modem user who complained that ZA was slowing his
> downloads significantly. I am assuming he was using an older, slower,
> machine, but why expend cpu cycles if another program can do the job
> better, and with less system resources....?

I've been using ZA for years and it's never slowed anything down.
In fact, I've been watching CPU performance for a couple of minutes
while transferring data from the internet at full speed, and it
hasn't yet gotten out of the 1% to 4% range.

Oh, did I forget to mention that the computer is using a modem
connected at 50.6 Kbps? But seriously folks . . . my recently
outgrown rather anemic computer (200Mhz PentiumPro, no MMX
extensions, 96MB memory) actually had a slightly higher internet
data transfer rate using a similar modem, and that was with a
resident and active AV program. I realize that broadband requires
more horsepower to allow ZA to keep up, but didn't you say that your
older computer also was slowed down? IIRC, its CPU was at least a
PIII running at greater than 300 Mhz. I'd have thought that it
would have had more than enough reserve capacity to allow ZA to keep
up even with broadband. Are you sure there wasn't something else in
addition to ZA that was responsible for the computer's reduced
throughput? My guess - a much more sluggish AV shield. Perhaps
Norton's?
 >> Stay informed about: HP Card Reader 

ASAAR wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 03:16:16 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>>> Thanks, Ron. I've not used OFP, so I can't comment. Many people do have
>>> problems with Norton, so I normally recommend Zone Alarm.
>> Many people also have trouble with ZA. Just yesterday I read a
>> complaint from a cable modem user who complained that ZA was slowing his
>> downloads significantly. I am assuming he was using an older, slower,
>> machine, but why expend cpu cycles if another program can do the job
>> better, and with less system resources....?
>
> I've been using ZA for years and it's never slowed anything down.
> In fact, I've been watching CPU performance for a couple of minutes
> while transferring data from the internet at full speed, and it
> hasn't yet gotten out of the 1% to 4% range.
>
> Oh, did I forget to mention that the computer is using a modem
> connected at 50.6 Kbps? But seriously folks . . . my recently
> outgrown rather anemic computer (200Mhz PentiumPro, no MMX
> extensions, 96MB memory) actually had a slightly higher internet
> data transfer rate using a similar modem, and that was with a
> resident and active AV program. I realize that broadband requires
> more horsepower to allow ZA to keep up, but didn't you say that your
> older computer also was slowed down? IIRC, its CPU was at least a
> PIII running at greater than 300 Mhz. I'd have thought that it
> would have had more than enough reserve capacity to allow ZA to keep
> up even with broadband. Are you sure there wasn't something else in
> addition to ZA that was responsible for the computer's reduced
> throughput? My guess - a much more sluggish AV shield. Perhaps
> Norton's?
>
I was running an AMD K6-2 266mhz processor on a cable (10mbps)
connection. Without ZA, it downloaded as fast as 800 Megabytes/second
(yes, really) With ZA, the download rate was only 400 megabytes/second.
Obviously, the computer was marginal for that usage, and the
overhead imposed by ZA was enough to slow the throughput.
Interestingly, using Outpost Firewall allowed full speed and still
provided better firewall protection, with more features, and better user
interface. Pretty much of a 'slam dunk'. I am sure my current system
of an AMD Athlon 64 3700+ and only 3mbps cable would not be noticeably
impacted by ZA, but having made the switch to something I consider
'better', I see no reason to go back.
 >> Stay informed about: HP Card Reader 

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 02:27:24 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter RemoveThis @charter.net>
wrote:

>I was running an AMD K6-2 266mhz processor on a cable (10mbps)
>connection. Without ZA, it downloaded as fast as 800 Megabytes/second
>(yes, really)

How?
10mbps is 1 megabyte/second (given overhead,this is about right) max.
800 megabytes is 800 times the nominal maximum throughput of your
cable.
Did you mean 800KBs?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 >> Stay informed about: HP Card Reader 

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 02:27:24 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter DeleteThis @charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>> I was running an AMD K6-2 266mhz processor on a cable (10mbps)
>> connection. Without ZA, it downloaded as fast as 800 Megabytes/second
>> (yes, really)
>
> How?
> 10mbps is 1 megabyte/second (given overhead,this is about right) max.
> 800 megabytes is 800 times the nominal maximum throughput of your
> cable.
> Did you mean 800KBs?

Yes, of course. I really need to get more sleep. Sigh.
Or maybe that is reason the old modem got so hot! Grin.
 >> Stay informed about: HP Card Reader