Hi Mastertech,
But why would Microsoft change the built in firewall solution for Vista, if there was no need for it. It is a bit contradictory to what you say, because the avarage user will have a Microsoft firewall solution that works two ways there, and if I go Vista I will welcome that.
polonus
“Just because you’re paranoid…it doesn’t mean their not out to get you”!
I simply can not afford the time to waste on having to deal with some intelligent fool with a chip on his / her shoulder who decides that for fun or gain they want to access my computer; I’d rather be preventative in the first place Mastertec.
Sorry if this approach frustrates you. 
#1 there is no proof that it will be two-way only “vague references”
#2 If they do add it, it will most likely be very automated and extremely easy to use. Something current third party firewalls are not for the average user. Zonealarm comes close.
But that is not the point, they did not include it with XP because it is rarely necessary for the average user.
I simply can not afford the time to waste on having to deal with some intelligent fool with a chip on his / her shoulder who decides that for fun or gain they want to access my computer; I'd rather be preventative in the first place Mastertec.Which you do with the XP SP2 Firewall!! No one can access your computer if you block INBOUND access!! This the problem, people promote third party firewalls as if outbound protection and inbound protection are the same thing. There is nothing wrong with the XP SP2 firewall it will block all malicious inbound attacks.
Yes third party firewalls block outbound access (after you are infected with something) but no “Hacker” will gain any more access to your system from the outside using the XP SP2 Firewall or any other one.
A true old saying goes … “An ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure.”
In this case, a good 2-way firewall equals a more secure computer.
No, I did not say most secure; just more secure … more secure than without the security that is available for free. Although, we want our computers & personal info to be the most secure they can be.
Outbound protection requires time consuming management ...What time? Setting up most free firewalls (ZA Free, in particular) takes at most 5 mins and after that, I have never had to loose time with it unless I wanted to do so.
One does not have to be paranoid to want security on the internet.
After all, that’s why we are here on this forum. 
Time allowing program access or ports. If you set outbound protection to automatic, you might as well not have it at all. Also most people are easily fooled by outbound spyware programs with cleaver names. I have clients with ZoneAlarm, and it was useless for outbound access, they simply allowed everything.
Hi Mastertech,
But why a hacker, the avarage user will never see those. When was the last time that your system was compromised by a hacker, then the only thing left to do if you were backdoored and what have you, is getting your system back up in a non-compromised state. No most avarage users are victims of unsollicited and sneaky drive-by installations taken aboard by the biggest hole, the person behind the keyboard, and if that has landed or is downloaded and wants to phone home
Windows XP SP2 firewall cant help you. If you lived in an ideal world this would not be so, alas we do not live in it,
polonus
Giving Mastertech one week ‘banana’ for constant flamebaiting. ;D
I think he’s been warned before.
Steve D :
I am in the group that likes a software firewall on a
computer; you should also consider one that works well
with Avast on a machine. I use the FREE, but currently
"unsupported" former Sygate ( now abandoned by
Symantec who bought them out ) Free available at :
www.spychecker.com/program/sygatefw.html
There are LOTS of choices at :
www.spychecker.com/software/firewall.html
Hi Mastertech,
If outbound protection isn’t important, then why is MS adding it to the Win Firewall in Vista?
Outbound protection must have some validity otherwise, why bother?
Nice post, Spiritsongs … with that firewall list, Steve should be able to decide for himself which firewall is best for him.
Another vote for ZA free 
I must agree that outbound connection is a needful thing! Just let me say that one of my friends bought a computer with built in windows and a couple of dialers!!
Since he is unexpirienced user he told me:
I was trying to establish a connection to surf a little but I can’t say that I’ve dialed these numbers:
example: +0087687 877444
example: +5464332132 333
I rest my case!!
P.S. Go, Go, for Zone Alarm, the Mecca of easy to use and protect you firewalls
Hi Steve,
It looks like you’ve already decided to install a third party, two-way firewall. I applaud your wisdom. There are several good ones, some easier to set up and some harder but offering tighter security. My choice has been Zone Alarm Free; I find it adequate for my needs and easier than most to set up. You might make a different choice but by all means do choose.
There are those on these boards whose goal is to confuse; who’s primary form of communication is argument. They will remain perpetually unconvinced because agreement is not in them.
Just go with your good judgment.
Linux
Thought that was an OS? ???
There’s a large variety to choose for though
http://www2.lut.fi/~junousia/hymiot/think/serlokki6ld.gif
An experiment you can try the next time you load an OEM version of any Windows OS on a clean computer. Before you go online install SpybotS&D and AdAware from a CD or USB stick and run them. You will be surprised to find several pieces of spyware already on the machine ready to call out before you even go online. This is why you need something more than the Windows firewall. Only use the Windows firewall until you can install a third party application. I have used ZA and Sygate with excellent results. If you are behind a router it will make the work of the firewall much easier, but a software firewall is still needed.
http://www.yolinux.com/TUTORIALS/LinuxTutorialIptablesNetworkGateway.html
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,11192146~mode=flat
Just a couple of examples. The best firewall to have is one through a linux box. The Linux OS has the capabilities built in and is superior to out-of-the-box Windows firewalls. Some people use a old PC just for a linux box firewall at home with something as simple as a bootable CD or even a floppy diskette.
BTW, as a stand alone Linux OS installed on a single PC you really don’t need a third party firewall, anti-spyware, or anti-virus software. If you were to install something like SuSe, Mandriva, or Fedora Linux on your machine you would be bored to death because there is nothing to check as far as security goes. The only thing you can scan for would be rogue Window based virus, trojans, and so forth that are harmless to Linux. About the only way you would get one of these files on a Linux machine is in your email inbox. And there it would lie, dumb as a bag of hammers, with no place to go and nothing to do.
I use Smoothwall on an older computer to act as my firewall.
Other options include IPCop and ClarkConnect.
I am so confident in it that I only use Windows XP SP2’s firewall on my machines. Although I really like NetVeda’s Safety.Net firewall.
Agreed.
Most distros these days have inbound firewalls enabled by default, or at least have the option of turning it on.
Just wanted to say a big thank you to all who contributed to my “firewall” thread… I will check out the options, make a short list and try a few before making a final decision. It is great to find a forum where a real exchange of views is made and people are willing to help out- thanks again all!