I already purchased ZAX, but I've still been reading over the reviews of this program, and
I'm confused why the FF component of ZAX isn't
ZAX an obvious advantage in test results.
Theoretically, the FF component of ZAX
provide extra security
that other mainstream security packages simply can't offer (at least not yet) since they
have an equivalent to the ZAX FF feature.
Not one of the reviews I've read, however, indicates
any significant difference between the actual protection of ZAX vs one of the other
The reviews still tend to give ZAX very positive results and say that FF offers another level of protection
that can be effective, but in the end they don't rate the actual ZAX security any better than other suites.
In other words, in the tests they use to evaluate security software, the effectiveness of threat prevention appears to be very similar between these suites.
Given my understanding of FF, this doesn't make sense to me.
Other suites don't
have the FF features, so how can they possibly offer a similar level of protection?
Are the review sites simply not testing the threats that FF would be uniquely capable of stopping -- the threats that would get past a normal "firewall" like ZA or Norton, but not past FF?
Thanks for any feedback or thoughts on this,
Operating System:Windows XP Pro
Product Name:ZoneAlarm Extreme Security