Norton is a good piece of software but you need to understand how it works to get the best out of it. As with any new program, you need to make sure you have enough resources to run it, that you are not running other AV/Firewalls at the same time.
 
When you set it up you need to run all your Inet software so that it can detect and configure all your network software.
For firewalls, its best to deny all to start off with and allow software afterwards.
 
I have found it does slighly slow down boot up times and internet access a bit - I have switched to Zone Alarm (at its newer than NIS 2002 I was using earlier).
 

PeterH,
 
Thanks for the reply. You say you're now using Zone Alarm. That's interesting because many a good word has been published about Zone Alarm Free Version, on the Net and elsewhere. I've even been looking at the Zone Alarm website myself just recently.
 
Any idea as to whether downloading Zone Alarm Free Version puts it straight into the system software, or does it put it on the Desktop as an .exe first of all?
 
AVG7 Free Version is also said to be a quite good antivirus program, though as far as I can gather it has no controls for cookies, Javascript or Active X. Any comment? And do you think AVG7 would run comfortably alongside Zone Alarm?
 
Referring to NIS, what did you mean by "When you set it up, you need to run .............network software"? (I'm not running a network; it's a standalone machine).

Most Symantec software is bloated. At least the retail versions are. The 2 firewall's that you mentioned are IMO better than Symantec's but I can't give you a list as to why. They just are. I'll look around and see if I can find a review comparing the products.

Since we are just expressing opinions, I will weigh in based upon my own limited experience about Norton's AV/Firewall.
 
It is a very sophisticated piece of software. And, it has an enormous user base. In fact, its virus definitions are used as the basis of other software products. Personally, I have found that 1) Norton's tries to do too much, 2) it tends to meld rather than separate the firewall and the anti-virus (and many other functions in its Swiss Army Knife approach) and 3) it tries to control rather than cooperate with other apps (as in the past by substituting .dll's for Microsoft's). If you understand its in's and out's - install it properly, and you have plenty of memory and resources, it will do what it was designed for. But, being an approach that tends to combine features, a breakdown in security in one component opens them all.
 
Like Peterh, I prefer to use a firewall different from the anti-virus. To his ZoneAlarm, I would add Sygate, Tiny and EZ (though it too wants you to use their AV).

 
I have used ZoneAlarm and it is fine firewall, it does not slow down (older) computers so much as Norton or F-Secure Internet Security.
 
Right now I am using avast! home edition and Sygate personal firewall, and have found those a fine pair.
 

You asked Peterh whether AVG will run fine with ZoneAlarm and you stated that AVG has no controls for cookies, javascripts, and Active X.
 
The name of the game is defense in depth. Don't ask any one piece of software to do it all. Most AV modules will not control cookies, javascripts or Active X. You can control these in brute fashion by going into your browser be it IE or Mozilla or Opera and toggling how you want them handled. Some firewalls will do this also for you but generally you will have to dig into them. EZFirewall is a good example. Specifically, AVG 7.0, the paid subscription version, will alert you to viruses and run Outlook Express through a proxy to scan incoming emails for viruses, worms, etc. But, back to the subject "defense in depth."
 
If you are on a cable/dsl line, the best "firewall" is to install a router between your modem and your computer. Then, install your software firewall. ZoneAlarm is an excellent firewall, but given the number of pings you can get off of cable/dsl network from infected servers you can be driven to distraction constantly acknowledging the "Alert." A router just drops these before it ever hits the software firewall.
 
Antivirus packages that are free are what they are - anti-virus. AVG, Anti-vir, and Avast have proven themselves to be as reliable as the pay version. But, they won't protect you from spyware or "spycookies".
 
You can use PestPatrol and the subscription version of Ad-aware to actively intercept spyware. Most people seem to be content to use the free version of Ad-aware, Spybot Search and Destroy, HiJack this, BHODemon, and the list goes on to dig out spyware passively.
 
While you can control cookies from your browser, Cookie Pal and Cookie Crusher provide a level of sophistication to allow you to see what cookie is being proferred and whether you want to allow some or all of them. Neither of these products is freeware. There are some sites that will not let you on unless you permit their cookies, these will help you better to know the kind of cookie a site wishes to place on your machine rather than the message "Such and such a site wishes to put a cookie on your machine Yes/No."
 
Microsoft still loves its Active X. If you have Microsoft products, you will have to allow Active X modules to be put on your computer if you wish to "live update" things like Office. Most other non-IE browsers like Opera or the Gecko bunch don't use Active X though you can, in the Gecko bunch import an Active X component snap-in, which can leave you as susceptible as IE.
 
The browser you use will be another choice. IE has the largest usage so the greatest number of exploits are aimed at it. As Firefox grows in popularity, it will become more susceptible. And, no matter how good a browser is, even Opera, it still has to work under the Microsoft operating system and use its inbuilt components, which are subject to attack.
 
Download managers are also sometimes risky. Some have spyware built into them. If you use them, see if they will work with your Anti-virus protection to scan the software as it is downloading. Remember though that a downloaded file may not be virus laden, but it can contain spyware.
 
Use a variety of pieces of software for the task for which they were designed. There is no "all in one" system that does everything. You can stonewall a computer pretty well, but you can't protect it from yourself if you are going to play with peer-to-peer downloading or risky adult-rated and gambling pages. Know the risk you are taking if you want to use your computer this way, however don't trust that you will go unscathed through these sites just because you have a lot of good software to protect you.

Good post. I was worrying about having to post a long post, but you beat me to it. So now I'm happy.

A big thankyou to you all for the great advice. BTW, I'm not a complete novice to firewalls and antivirus. I've some years of experience with using the Norton Internet Security combined package. It's just that the latest versions of Norton security products are so buggy, by all accounts - and they're expensive! Thus, I'm planning to start with a clean sheet and to perhaps use a freebie firewall and a freebie antivirus client instead.
 
I've just been studying AVG7 Free Version. Am I right in thinking that this is purely an antivirus program and that it has no element at all of firewalling?
 
Would it be okay for me to use Zone Alarm Free Version alongside AVG7? Apparently, if you use Zone Alarm Pro version alongside AVG7, you have to disable the firewalling in Zone Alarm Pro, for inbound and outbound e-mails, otherwise there's a conflict. I'm wondering whether you need to do the same for Zone Alarm Free Version. Anyone know?
 
One of the problem's I'll have when initially logging on to get the updates is that my machine is being constantly pinged by a remote scanner (Sokets de Trois). Around every 10 mins or so. The first updates will be many and will take a long time to download, as I'm on a 56K connection. Thus, my machine will be vulnerable during that phase. I can't see any way of protecting 100% against that.

Norton and McAfee have severely bloated applications in the domestic/retail environment. I have used McAfee AV for many years now and have been using the stock Windows firewall with XP SP2. I have just started testing Symantec Client Security 2.0.3 (the corporate version of the AV/Firewall package) and find that it is much faster and "lighter" than previous generations. I have it running in a virtual machine that I use as a test mule to see if applications try connecting to the Internet. If the retail version of their AV/Firewall app is about as good as Client Security 2.0.3, then I would recommend it. However, ZA is also nice, easy to use, and free.

I currently use the following software:
 
ZoneAlarm (Free version)
McAfee VirusScan 9.0.10
McAfee SpamKiller 6.0.15
SpyBot Search&Destroy
 
I have used XP Firewall but it doesn`t stop some spyware or viruses sending out mail or personal stuff so ZoneAlarm will stop that. Also, ZoneAlarm only uses 7MB of memory and hardly any cpu at all. VirusScan uses 12MB so its hardly a heavy load.
 
AVG is pretty popular with a lot of people and as its free, its
a good starting AV product to use.
 
 

There's one particular thing I'm worried about, with all firewalls of the type we're considering - a process that pops up initially called "Generic Process for Win32 Services". I've found that, under Win2K, if you enable that process to access the Internet, an "svchost.exe" error gets generated repeatedly thereafter and, subsequently, various viruses are let in.
 
I get the impression that all software firewalls, Zone Alarm Free Edition included, enable this process by default, although you can change it manually.
 
Every time I've enabled "Generic Process for Win32 Services" on my Win2K machine, I've got that hosting error message thereafter, every time I access the Internet (in the error message, Windows asks for the program to be immediately ended). I've always had to re-format, to get rid of it and, on at least one occasion, two viruses were let in by this process being enabled.
 
So, what's the default setting for this in Zone Alarm? If this is an error condition peculiar to Win2K, how do I correct it?