This means
WAR!!!!
No I see where your coming from.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You argued that a firewall would improve the performance of your internet. Perhaps Dosfreak, you used the wrong word. 'Experience’ maybe, but not performance. Nothing that filters the incoming and outgoing packets that are sent to your computer can improve the performance of the Internet, or rather your use of the internet. By arguing this, you are being ridiculous. Are you seriously claiming that a persons ping time is lowered with the use of a Firewall? Come on Dos, that is incorrect. I do totally agree with your mentioning of popups however.</font>
Okay, about long-term performance? All of those banners. Dozens of types of picture formats and flash files being cached to your HD? They takes up ALOT of space and alot of files. Those space & Files do slow down your HD. The fact that my Temporary Internet Files reside in my profile (Windows 2000) by default doesn't please me any. I say by default. As a tweaker I can move this. Most people do not. I never stated that ping time was affected at all. I was simply talking about performance. Any type of performance. Those banner's, animations, take up RAM memory,disk memory, & processor time. Thereby reducing my ability to what I love to do best. Surf the internet for information and download the latest of whatever I can get.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">"Your comments about port security was spot on also but, by admitting that in most win9x systems, file and printer sharing was enabled by default then you are agreeing with me when I say the default security of windows 2000 is better then in windows 9x"</font>
Yes, That's why I'd rather I'd have home users using NT than 9x. The average homer user doesn't need 9x especially now with Windows 2000 but Windows 2000 is still VERY unprotected.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And a person who plays games online will most likely play them often and having to constantly disable real time virus scanning is annoying. And, partially defeats the purpose.</font>
Well yes, but your solution doesn't even use Virus Scanning! 8) Personally if it was my system at home. I'd would have a firewall box. On my Personal system I would manually scan whatever files I downloaded that needed scanned. For a home user I really doen't see why ISP's do not do a more effective job of virus scanning. If they did their job right there would be no need whatsoever for the home user to have a virus scanner at all! Just stick a super-powerful AV server after the firewall to scan ALL incoming traffic and a secondary AV server to scan all outgoing. Tada. No more need for home virus scanners. uh oh wait. There's always someone who will make up a new virus or who will distribute it internaly so you'll still need a virus scanner on each computer. oh well. Still Incoming/Outgoing at the firewall would solve 95% of all internet virus problems
Right now at home I have no internet access because I live in the UK and they do not offer DSL/Cable in my area. I have been using modems since 1990 and after 1998 (I had a 33.6 then). I vowed to myself that I would not have a modem for home use until I could get DSL/Cable. My work interner access has kept me sane throught that time.

At work I have a NAV gateway that scans incoming email. Currently outbound traffic is not scanned which I do not like and I would like to look into implementing further. My work computer has NAV 7.51 which is on constantly and is updated by both SMS and my NAV server.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Another thing, any so-called dos freak would understand that merely disabling a virus programs background checking does not remove the program from remaining resident. The fact that it is most likely enabled at startup means that it decreases system performance.[QUOTE]
well, yes but disable real-time file scanning does reduce the slowdown and the only slowdown incurred by keeping it in memory is the usage of memory which hopefully the user would have. The user could kill the task which in NT would more than likely give all of the memory back without rebooting. Unfortunately 9x users would have to reboot.
[quote]Dosfreak, it just seems that your definition of performance is different to mine.</font>
Not really. We are just talking about different kinds of performance. I think you were talking about the subject of your topic which was firewall's and I was rambling on about how it affected the user. heh.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I am aware that there is a lot of unknown, or unrecognised activity around my ports. But it has to take a malicious user, with some level of knowledge to be able to actually hack, or tamper with my pc. And your comments about people not knowing if their pc were hacked was a little weak. I think most people in this forum would know their computer well enough to realise if there were any damage done. And if their weren't, then it's not really a problem is there.</font>
Okay, I will admit...It does take at least a little bit of computer knowledge...
ping -t 131.56.136.73

Now here is my question for you.
How would the average user on this forum be able to tell why their connection is extremely slow to the point of even being disconnected if the above simple command {that comes with any 9x & NT os and is one of the very basics of networking} was being done to them?
"Your defence about an attack being likely was also, perhaps a little exaggerated. Are you saying that statistically, someone gaining entrance to your computer to perform malicious acts, On a personal system mind you, is a real probability? Don't get confused with a possibility. I just find that hard to believe."
Depends on your status. Here's an example:
Joe Blow-Buys Compaq at Best Buys. Compaq rep sets him up. He finally logs in at home on 56k to check email at Aol,yahoo & hotmail. Been doing it awhile so it takes him 15mins. Clicks on one of those Spams every Aoler get's and logs onto malicious site. Site logs Ip, does reverse DNS, does a port probe and can probably push out a remote agent that connects to host site. Agent monitors keytraps and sends info to remote site.
Now above example happens veeeeeeeeerrryyy rarely but could very easily happen. I'd say probability of that happening is so low...well I don't have any numbers and no Compaq owners/Aolers that I can remember have complained so they must be happy with their current situation.

Here's another:
APK-Programmer-Spammer of ARS!

(Just kidding APK!)- Provides lots of helpful info that unfortunately some people cannot take. People try their best to get APK banned, Spammed, and whatever else to mess him up. But APK is a veteran of the net so he knows what he's doing. He has firewalls running. He knows his ports. He knows his NT. Nothing will ever get past him and if it does well he'll know where to go and he'll know how to get it fixed. Unfortunately Joe Blow will never know until he Gets a GPF,disconnect, or his computer blows up in his face.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I could argue many more points Dosfreak, but I will leave that to another post. I think I can safely say, that undoubtedly, your ideal system would be a lot more protected then mine, but I can guarantee, my ideal system would run a lot faster then yours. And to finish, the word 'tweak' is so broad. You tweak for security, I tweak for speed. That was, and is my argument Dosfreak.</font>
Nah, let's continue this thread. I forsee it growing very big in size. I haven't been on the net lately due to my network switching over to ATM so I've been very busy at work and I need a thread to type in! So don't quite this thread dangit!
/begin boast
Oh and you wanna argue speed huh? Post your benchmarks buddy. That's why I have a Dual P3-1000@1125 with 512M of RAM!
/end boast
[This message has been edited by DosFreak (edited 06 April 2001).]