Router or hub for home PC's?

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Upfront

unread,
Oct 2, 2001, 6:50:01 PM10/2/01
to
I recently ordered a router to replace my hub. All to save the $10
additional charge TW imposes on having a second IP. Now, I believe
they will allow networking home pc's at a modest charge, along with
some other indeterminable extras.

Is there any advantage to having a router over a hub on a home network?


ßill

unread,
Oct 2, 2001, 8:14:43 PM10/2/01
to

"Upfront" <upf...@thelead.com> wrote in message
news:twru7.410638$TM5.64...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
: I recently ordered a router to replace my hub. All to save the $10
:
Yes, you can have one RR IP and set the router to act as a DHCP server and
have as many PCs as you want behind it. Also having the router in between
you and the net as a hardware firewall is a good 1st line of defense.

--
B

"Illegitmitatum Non Carborundum Est" - Never let the bastards grind you
down!


Upfront

unread,
Oct 2, 2001, 8:21:46 PM10/2/01
to
But (and I may not understand this) my hub does all this now without the
firewall feature. And if TW is discounting the 2nd IP, I wouldn't think
that there
is anymore savings by having my own router. As I understand it, TW has
raised
the monthly fee to include, whether you use a second computer or not, the
networking features for an additional $4.95 monthly, vice the $10 for the
second IP.


"ßill" <whi...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:TLsu7.593101$T97.80...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...

ßill

unread,
Oct 2, 2001, 8:45:24 PM10/2/01
to
On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 00:21:46 GMT, "Upfront" <upf...@thelead.com> you randomly
pushed keys and the results were as follows:

~But (and I may not understand this) my hub does all this now without the
~firewall feature. And if TW is discounting the 2nd IP, I wouldn't think
~that there
~is anymore savings by having my own router. As I understand it, TW has
~raised
~the monthly fee to include, whether you use a second computer or not, the
~networking features for an additional $4.95 monthly, vice the $10 for the
~second IP.

Here in Rochester the home network is " unsupported " by RR and don't offer
networking features at all. I've got three computers up and only one IP. No
extra charges. Each franchise does things differently.

Bill

Spam Buster

unread,
Oct 2, 2001, 9:09:08 PM10/2/01
to
Yes! Security! The $10 is per month, every month. The Linksys router is only
$80. That's a fast return on investment, AND you have the added security
against hackers.

SB

"Upfront" <upf...@thelead.com> wrote in message
news:twru7.410638$TM5.64...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...

someone

unread,
Oct 2, 2001, 9:46:38 PM10/2/01
to
Your hub doesn't do everything that router does minus the firewall. A hub is
basically a "dumb splitter" it takes something in one port, regenerates the
signal, and sends it out all the other ports. So every PC receives the data.
Your network card discards any packets sent to it that weren't addresses to
it, unless you run the network card in promiscuous mode. These soho
dsl/cable routers your thinking of have a NAT (network address translation)
router, and most of them have a switch built in instead of a hub. To the
average user a switch seems to just do the same thing as a hub, but instead
of sending the data to every computer attached to it, it just sends it out
of the port that the computer its addresses to is attached. This makes a
switch more secure then a hub, because it keeps someone from listening to
all the packets that pass though the network if they did put their network
card into promiscuous mode. However in a home environment that's probably
not much of an issue. The NAT router part of these routers is what allows
you to just use one address on your cablemodem, and translate it to all the
private IP addresses of the computers attached to the router. The NAT router
function of these routers also acts as a very basic firewall, in that it
blocks all incoming requests from getting to any of the PCs, however it wont
stop outgoing info. So if you got infected by some kind of trojan/backdoor,
then the router may not protect you.


"Upfront" <upf...@thelead.com> wrote in message

news:uSsu7.48036$0x.17...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...

Steve Barker

unread,
Oct 2, 2001, 11:24:17 PM10/2/01
to
We're allowed up to 4 ip's here in kc without extra charge. Still get the
router, you need it for the firewall. Plus with RR assigning the IP's, you
won't have a functional LAN. The machines will not necessarily end up on
the same subnet.

s


"Upfront" <upf...@thelead.com> wrote in message

news:uSsu7.48036$0x.17...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...

Larry Gamache

unread,
Oct 3, 2001, 12:34:48 AM10/3/01
to
On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 03:24:17 GMT, "Steve Barker" <nu...@bisness.com>
wrote:

>We're allowed up to 4 ip's here in kc without extra charge. Still get the
>router, you need it for the firewall.

There are other ways to put up a firewall. Also, a router firewall
only protects you from incoming. It does nothing to prevent a rogue
program on your machine from "calling home."

>Plus with RR assigning the IP's, you
>won't have a functional LAN. The machines will not necessarily end up on
>the same subnet.

Here in Albany, N.Y. we're allowed 3 IP's without extra charge. I have
two machines connected to the cable modem through Linksys 10/100 NIC's
and a Linksys 5 port switch. My LAN is fully functional and has worked
flawlessly since I set it up a couple of years ago.
--

Larry Gamache

ßill

unread,
Oct 3, 2001, 3:44:23 AM10/3/01
to
On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:09:08 GMT, "Spam Buster" <s_p_a_m...@hotmail.com>

you randomly pushed keys and the results were as follows:

~Yes! Security! The $10 is per month, every month. The Linksys router is only
~$80. That's a fast return on investment, AND you have the added security
~against hackers.
~
~SB

I still run ZoneAlarm Pro behind the router just to ensure nothing "phones home"
without my knowing it. NAT is good but not foolproof on it's own.

ß

outofline

unread,
Oct 3, 2001, 10:26:52 PM10/3/01
to
On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 07:44:23 GMT, ßill <whi...@rochester.rr.com>
wrote:

>I still run ZoneAlarm Pro behind the router just to ensure nothing "phones home"
>without my knowing it. NAT is good but not foolproof on it's own.
>


I run it behind my router to block phone homes as well...i think i
have had one alert since i have set up the router....

my config:

cable modem into Linksys Router (single port) out of router into hub
uplink (Linsys Network anywhere 5 port hub) / 3 PC's into hub (1 on 98
SE, 1 on Win2k, 1 on Red Hat 7.1)....this has worked terrificly for
me,,,

Spam Buster

unread,
Oct 4, 2001, 8:45:10 PM10/4/01
to
"outofline" <n...@home.com> wrote in message
news:in6nrt08a1d8e2etc...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 07:44:23 GMT, ßill <whi...@rochester.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I still run ZoneAlarm Pro behind the router just to ensure nothing
"phones home"
> >without my knowing it. NAT is good but not foolproof on it's own.
> >
> >ß
>
>
> I run it behind my router to block phone homes as well...i think i
> have had one alert since i have set up the router....
>

Linksys now offers specific support for ZoneAlarm Pro with their latest
firmware upgrade (and a special price for ZA Pro).

SB


Dr. Bob

unread,
Oct 5, 2001, 11:46:45 AM10/5/01
to
On Fri, 05 Oct 2001 00:45:10 GMT, "Spam Buster"
<s_p_a_m...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Linksys now offers specific support for ZoneAlarm Pro with their latest
>firmware upgrade (and a special price for ZA Pro).

Can you describe briefly what that support is, or alternately can you
provide a URL that does.


Dr. Bob

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the
people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
- Patrick Henry

ShadowDragon

unread,
Oct 5, 2001, 12:10:49 PM10/5/01
to
"Dr. Bob" <r...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3bbdd5bc...@news-server.houston.rr.com...

> On Fri, 05 Oct 2001 00:45:10 GMT, "Spam Buster"
> <s_p_a_m...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Linksys now offers specific support for ZoneAlarm Pro with their latest
> >firmware upgrade (and a special price for ZA Pro).
>
> Can you describe briefly what that support is, or alternately can you
> provide a URL that does.

From the Upgrade.pdf file included in the firmware download (along with tftp
and the actual firmware)..

It adds a "Security" Tab on the routers config site (192.168.1.1). It gives
you a button to push to download ZoneAlarm Pro and PC-Cillin. You download
the software and install it on every computer with the liscense key.

On the "Security" Tab, you put in the ZoneAlarm Pro liscense key, this is
apparently required by Zone Alarm Pro.

You can then check "Enforce ZoneAlarm Pro Security" and/or "Enforce
PC-Cillin Anti-Virus"

If these are checked any computer connecting to the router from the LAN side
will not have access to the internet unless it is running whatever you
checked.

You can also restrict it to certain LAN IP's for enforcement, so if you have
a *NIX box that can't run ZoneAlarm or PC-Cillin it doesn't get blocked by
the router.

http://www.linksys.com/download/firmware.asp

--
Webmaster - ShadoWeb Productions


Papa

unread,
Oct 6, 2001, 12:54:25 PM10/6/01
to
My system has a 2-computer LAN, and is only used for at-home personal
applications (no business use). I do not intend to add a third computer to
my system. My OS (on both computers) is Windows 98SE, and my host computer
uses ICS for the LAN. The two computers are tied together with a CAT 5
crossover cable plugged into NICs in each computer. My host computer has a
second NIC to connect to the outside world via a cable modem. Both computers
are in the same room. Both computers use IE6 and OE6.

I do not regard a more-protective method as necessary under my particular
circumstances. Thus I see absolutely no need for a router OR a hub. Lack of
security, you say? Well, in nearly 4 years of use security problems have
been zero. In regard to spam mail, a judicious application of the available
message rules, along with the use of a fake address while posting to
newsgroups, prevents it. I do not get spam mail - ever, and I don't use
filtering software.

"Upfront" <upf...@thelead.com> wrote in message
news:twru7.410638$TM5.64...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...

Chelm

unread,
Oct 6, 2001, 1:39:21 PM10/6/01
to
Dr. Bob wrote:
>
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2001 00:45:10 GMT, "Spam Buster"
> <s_p_a_m...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Linksys now offers specific support for ZoneAlarm Pro with their latest
> >firmware upgrade (and a special price for ZA Pro).
>
> Can you describe briefly what that support is, or alternately can you
> provide a URL that does.

http://www.linksys.com/press/press.asp?prid=53&cyear=2001

Dr. Bob

unread,
Oct 6, 2001, 1:53:51 PM10/6/01
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2001 13:39:21 -0400, Chelm <xe...@mail.com> wrote:

>> Can you describe briefly what that support is, or alternately can you
>> provide a URL that does.

>http://www.linksys.com/press/press.asp?prid=53&cyear=2001

Grassyass.

Here is something that is curious:

"The cost of a single user license of Zone Lab’s ZoneAlarm Pro is
priced at $39.95* for an annual license fee."

What's this "annual" license fee thing?

Don Voorhees

unread,
Oct 6, 2001, 8:09:00 PM10/6/01
to

"Dr. Bob" <r...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3bbf44fa...@news-server.houston.rr.com...

>
> Here is something that is curious:
>
> "The cost of a single user license of Zone Lab's ZoneAlarm Pro is
> priced at $39.95* for an annual license fee."
>
> What's this "annual" license fee thing?
>
>
> Dr. Bob
>

The "annual license" refers to the one year of free updates included in
the price. ZAP will continue to work fine after the first year, you just
won't be eligible for updates.

http://www.zonelabs.com/downloads/EULAZAPRO.txt

Don

Dr. Bob

unread,
Oct 6, 2001, 8:32:42 PM10/6/01
to
On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 00:09:00 GMT, "Don Voorhees" <don...@12078.net>
wrote:

>The "annual license" refers to the one year of free updates included in
>the price. ZAP will continue to work fine after the first year, you just
>won't be eligible for updates.

Another bloody Microshaft.

They sell you crap and then make you pay for the fixes.

Don Voorhees

unread,
Oct 6, 2001, 9:34:37 PM10/6/01
to

"Dr. Bob" <r...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3bbfa28b....@news-server.houston.rr.com...

> On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 00:09:00 GMT, "Don Voorhees" <don...@12078.net>
> wrote:
>
> >The "annual license" refers to the one year of free updates included
in
> >the price. ZAP will continue to work fine after the first year, you
just
> >won't be eligible for updates.
>
> Another bloody Microshaft.
>
> They sell you crap and then make you pay for the fixes.
>
>
> Dr. Bob
>

Let me see now, you wrote earlier in this thread, "The Linksys plus Zone
Alarm are
the absolute minimum for people on the Internet today.", but now ZAP is
"crap" because they don't give you free upgrades forever. Maybe you
should stick to the free version of ZA that those annual license fees
help support.

Don


Dr. Bob

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 11:05:03 AM10/7/01
to
On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 01:34:37 GMT, "Don Voorhees" <don...@12078.net>
wrote:

>Let me see now, you wrote earlier in this thread, "The Linksys plus Zone


>Alarm are the absolute minimum for people on the Internet today.",

Yes, I did say that.

>but now ZAP is
>"crap" because they don't give you free upgrades forever.

Yes, I did say that.

>Maybe you
>should stick to the free version of ZA that those annual license fees
>help support.

The free version of ZA is charged off to marketing. If not that, then
they would have to pay for more advertising. Also they get a free army
of users to test it. Too bad it is against company policy to take
advantage of that resource.

I have said before that I would pay for ZAP when they get the bugs out
- if ever. Since 2.6.231 has been behaving pretty decently, I was just
about to make that decision. But now that I find out that it is only
an annual license, I have changed my mind.

The only justification for charging more money is if they provide
significantly more functionality, and then the extra cost should be
less than the original cost - call it an "upgrade fee", which even
Microshaft gives its users.

I do not pay for bug fixes, which is all these new releases have been.

Don Voorhees

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 3:11:24 PM10/7/01
to

"Dr. Bob" <r...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3bc06c61....@news-server.houston.rr.com...

> On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 01:34:37 GMT, "Don Voorhees" <don...@12078.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Let me see now, you wrote earlier in this thread, "The Linksys plus
Zone
> >Alarm are the absolute minimum for people on the Internet today.",
>
> Yes, I did say that.
>
> >but now ZAP is
> >"crap" because they don't give you free upgrades forever.
>
> Yes, I did say that.
>
> >Maybe you
> >should stick to the free version of ZA that those annual license fees
> >help support.
>
> The free version of ZA is charged off to marketing. If not that, then
> they would have to pay for more advertising. Also they get a free army
> of users to test it. Too bad it is against company policy to take
> advantage of that resource.
>

Who do you think pays for the marketing budget? There wouldn't be a free
version if there were no paid products to support it. Are you saying
it's against your company's policy to use free software? That seems
pretty shortsighted. My company provides me with ZAPro for my home
systems, but we also offer a CD with ZAFee, AVG, and several parental
control programs to any employee that wants it for home use.

> I have said before that I would pay for ZAP when they get the bugs out
> - if ever. Since 2.6.231 has been behaving pretty decently, I was just
> about to make that decision. But now that I find out that it is only
> an annual license, I have changed my mind.
>
> The only justification for charging more money is if they provide
> significantly more functionality, and then the extra cost should be
> less than the original cost - call it an "upgrade fee", which even
> Microshaft gives its users.
>
> I do not pay for bug fixes, which is all these new releases have been.
>
> Dr. Bob
>

I just took a quick look at the version history for ZAPro, and it looks
like an easy dozen or so new features or feature enhancements have been
added since the first release in August of 2000. If you're going to hold
out for 100% bug free software, I'm surprised you're able to use your pc
at all. I haven't seen anything that perfect from the time I started
writing machine code for an Altair.

Don

Dr. Bob

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 5:23:50 PM10/7/01
to
On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 19:11:24 GMT, "Don Voorhees" <don...@12078.net>
wrote:

>Who do you think pays for the marketing budget? There wouldn't be a free


>version if there were no paid products to support it.

I realize that. But my point is that the free version is provided for
marketing purposes and if Zone Labs were really smart, for testing
purposes too.

>Are you saying
>it's against your company's policy to use free software?

I never said any such thing. How you got that from what I said is
beyond me.

>I just took a quick look at the version history for ZAPro, and it looks
>like an easy dozen or so new features or feature enhancements have been
>added since the first release in August of 2000.

That justifies its cost now. If it is a substantially new product in a
year then they are justified to price in an *upgrade* fee, not an
entire repurchase for existing customers.

>If you're going to hold
>out for 100% bug free software,

I never said that. Anyone who uses Windows knows that.

My point was that it is not justified to charge for revisions that are
essentially bug fixes.

I was one of the first to buy InterMute, now known as AdSubtract. All
updates were at no cost to customers. Then a couple years later they
came out with a major new version with many real features, not just
cosmetics. They offered an update at greatly reduced price to existing
customers. I bought the update. They also have a reduced-functionality
version that is completely free. I used it initially until I was
convinced it was sufficiently bug free to warrant paying for the Pro
version.

If InterMute had tries to hit me up for a complete repurchase of the
very product I had already paid for, instead of charging me only for
the incremental benefits I got with the new version, I would not have
paid for it.

This is not international finance - it is just common sense and fair
play. There is no need for hysterical comments about 100% bug-free
software.

Don Voorhees

unread,
Oct 7, 2001, 10:09:48 PM10/7/01
to

"Dr. Bob" <r...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3bc0c5a9....@news-server.houston.rr.com...

> On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 19:11:24 GMT, "Don Voorhees" <don...@12078.net>
> wrote:
>
> snipped - point made <

> >Are you saying
> >it's against your company's policy to use free software?
>
> I never said any such thing. How you got that from what I said is
> beyond me.

In re-reading your post, I apparently misunderstood your meaning of
"against company policy".

> >I just took a quick look at the version history for ZAPro, and it
looks
> >like an easy dozen or so new features or feature enhancements have
been
> >added since the first release in August of 2000.
>
> That justifies its cost now. If it is a substantially new product in a
> year then they are justified to price in an *upgrade* fee, not an
> entire repurchase for existing customers.

You don't like to do much research, do you Bob. A quick look at
http://www.zonelabs.com/download/index.html would have shown you that
the renewal price for a single user/1 year of upgrades and online
support, is $19.95, about half the full version price.

> >If you're going to hold
> >out for 100% bug free software,
>
> I never said that. Anyone who uses Windows knows that.
>
> My point was that it is not justified to charge for revisions that are
> essentially bug fixes.

"I do not pay for bug fixes, which is all these new releases have been."
would seem to imply that you won't pay for the product until it is bug
free. Since you would not be required to pay for just the bug fixes, I
don't see your problem with buying the program. Maybe you could justify
the annual twenty bucks as insurance.

> snippage <


>
> If InterMute had tries to hit me up for a complete repurchase of the
> very product I had already paid for, instead of charging me only for
> the incremental benefits I got with the new version, I would not have
> paid for it.
>
> This is not international finance - it is just common sense and fair
> play. There is no need for hysterical comments about 100% bug-free
> software.
>
> Dr. Bob
>

As I said above, do a few minutes of research. You're ranting about a
situation that doesn't even exist in this case.

Don


Larry Gamache

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 1:17:37 AM10/8/01
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 02:09:48 GMT, "Don Voorhees" <don...@12078.net>
wrote:

>


>"Dr. Bob" <r...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message

<snip>


>> This is not international finance - it is just common sense and fair
>> play. There is no need for hysterical comments about 100% bug-free
>> software.
>>
>> Dr. Bob
>>
>
>As I said above, do a few minutes of research. You're ranting about a
>situation that doesn't even exist in this case.
>
>Don
>

Good points, Don. Bob gets all wound up in "discussions" about
subjects that don't amount to a hill of beans. Mostly he just trolls
for someone to get into a pointless argument with, probably just to
liven up his dull existence. You'll probably make the "moron" list
pretty soon too. :-)
--

Larry Gamache

Dr. Bob

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 10:53:54 AM10/8/01
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 02:09:48 GMT, "Don Voorhees" <don...@12078.net>
wrote:

>You're ranting

So are you, because Zone Labs has a long way to go before they get me
or anyone with common sense to pay for their bug-ridden product.

Dr. Bob

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 10:54:33 AM10/8/01
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 05:17:37 GMT, Larry Gamache <be...@beta.com> wrote:

>Good points, Don. Bob gets all wound up in "discussions" about
>subjects that don't amount to a hill of beans. Mostly he just trolls
>for someone to get into a pointless argument with, probably just to
>liven up his dull existence. You'll probably make the "moron" list
>pretty soon too. :-)

You are the only qualified moron on here.

Don Voorhees

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 11:12:44 AM10/8/01
to

"Larry Gamache" <be...@beta.com> wrote in message
news:r9d2stsc8693lrgbv...@4ax.com...

Well, if Bob feels the need to sink to that level again, so be it. It'll be
his loss, not mine.

Don


Don Voorhees

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 12:41:39 PM10/8/01
to

"Dr. Bob" <r...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3bc1bdb...@news-server.houston.rr.com...

> On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 02:09:48 GMT, "Don Voorhees" <don...@12078.net>
> wrote:
>
> >You're ranting
>
> So are you, because Zone Labs has a long way to go before they get me
> or anyone with common sense to pay for their bug-ridden product.
>
>
> Dr. Bob
>

You're a strange piece of work, Bob. First you recommend ZA as part of "the
absolute minimum for people on the Internet today". But now it's so
bug-ridden that "anyone with common sense" wouldn't pay for the full
featured pro version. Apparently you place companies such as EDS, Visa,
Cisco, and many others, in the "no common sense" category, along with most
of the major tech publications that have tested ZA. But then I don't totally
rely on their words or actions either. My own tests of ZA, on both my
corporate and home networks, have found it to be a very reliable and stable
product. Nearly all of the problems I've run into with ZA, and that's not
many, have been caused by my own configuration errors. A couple of others
have come from conflicts with left over junk from previously uninstalled
apps. If most of the other commercial and free products I've used functioned
as well as ZA, my job would be a lot easier. And that does include numerous
*nix products as well. I would be interested in knowing just what bugs you
have found in your apparently extensive testing of ZA. You do have something
factual to back up your claims, don't you?

Don


Dr. Bob

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 1:30:19 PM10/8/01
to
On Mon, 8 Oct 2001 12:41:39 -0400, "Don Voorhees" <don...@12078.net>
wrote:

>You do have something


>factual to back up your claims, don't you?

Yep, I sure do.

From day one ZA would not load properly under NT4. It was a known bug
because ZL wrote it up as such and solicited information from users -
which they ignored.

I went to Win2K and that particular problem went away for a while but
a new one arose, namely random lockups. Then when I went to ZA 2.1.44
the lockups were every hour. I did not realize it was ZA until somone
pointed it out on these forums. I went back one version and the
lockups were back to being intermittent.

Eventually several people on these forums started reporting lockups
with Win2K, so I knew I was not alone. Someone discovered that if you
delete the datafiles in C:\WINNT\Internet Logs and start over the
lockups would diminish. Sure enough that worked but what a hokey way
to have to deal with software.

Then 2.6.231 came along and as I said earlier, it appears to be a lot
more stable than any previous version, at least on Win2K. I am sure
that as soon as I say that it will start locking up all the time. :-)

As I also said earlier, I was about to buy ZAP based on the
presumption that they finally found the problems and fixed them. But I
do not like the idea of having to pay for later bug fixes, even if it
is only half price. So rather than get burned, as I have in the past
in similar situations, I decided to hold off buying ZAP until see some
reason to do so.

I wish Zone Labs the best commercial success. I like the GUI, and in
terms of supporting a client base, it is very easy to install and
implement. But I am tired of the constant bitching from people about
bugs that should have been fixed a year ago.

And now I am expected to recommend a product that is going to cost a
client half price again in a year for God-only-knows-what. If ZL
believes they are justified in charging for a legitimate major
upgrade, then let them show people what it is so people can make up
their own mind as to the value. In the meantime, ZL should continue to
provide free bug fixes for the version people paid for.

I do not believe that anything I have just said is at all unusual in
the software business. But because I am being attacked by several
people for articulating it, and because other people who agree with me
are not coming to my defense, it gives the appearance to the casual
lurker that it is I who is out of line.

I know how the software business works, both for better and for worse,
and I believe ZL would be best advised to drop that "annual license"
crap and offer free bug fixes for the life of a particular product. If
and when they truly have an upgraded product to sell, then let them
offer it independently of the license for the current product and
phase the old product out over time.

Am I the only one who thinks this way - or are there others out there
who agree basically with me? If so, then let's hear from you, because
I am getting tired of defending what is plain common sense.

someone

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 2:49:52 PM10/8/01
to
Im with you

"Dr. Bob" <r...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message

news:3bc1db66...@news-server.houston.rr.com...

Proteus

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 4:25:15 PM10/8/01
to
I assume from your argument of paying for legitimate upgrades, that you
never pay for auto insurance either? I've never noticed an "upgrade" on
that, has anyone else in this forum ever seen and upgrade to their auto
insurance???

"Dr. Bob" <r...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message

news:3bc1db66...@news-server.houston.rr.com...

someone

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 8:12:49 PM10/8/01
to
I think a better anology is auto recalls. Generally you dont have to pay for
repairs on defective parts that are part of a recall. Software should be the
same way. If its broken (bugs), then a repair (fix) should be provided for
free. You should only have to pay for major versions. However many companies
(MS) dont work this way. win95, win98, win98se, and winme were all version
4.something of the OS, but they were sold as new versions.


"Proteus" <YOaf...@unknown.rr.com> wrote in message
news:LYnw7.87220$ME2.13...@typhoon.kc.rr.com...

Don Voorhees

unread,
Oct 8, 2001, 11:31:32 PM10/8/01
to
Thank you! Finally, something of substance.

Comments inline....

"Dr. Bob" <r...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message

news:3bc1db66...@news-server.houston.rr.com...


> On Mon, 8 Oct 2001 12:41:39 -0400, "Don Voorhees" <don...@12078.net>
> wrote:
>
> >You do have something
> >factual to back up your claims, don't you?
>
> Yep, I sure do.
>
> From day one ZA would not load properly under NT4. It was a known bug
> because ZL wrote it up as such and solicited information from users -
> which they ignored.

If they wrote it up and solicited user input, I wouldn't say it was
being ignored. The ZA support people that regularly post in another
group have reported that this anomoly is actively being worked on. You
are somewhat mis-stating the NT4 problem though, since the True Vector
service, the actual firewall, generally does load properly, with only
the GUI hanging in some configurations. I've had pretty good luck in
getting around the problem by simply moving the GUI startup from "all
users" to the user login startup. I've also used a simple scripted time
delay to start the GUI. It's not a big problem, just an irritation that
takes a little of that "common sense" that you seem to feel none of us
have.

> I went to Win2K and that particular problem went away for a while but
> a new one arose, namely random lockups. Then when I went to ZA 2.1.44
> the lockups were every hour. I did not realize it was ZA until somone
> pointed it out on these forums. I went back one version and the
> lockups were back to being intermittent.
>
> Eventually several people on these forums started reporting lockups
> with Win2K, so I knew I was not alone. Someone discovered that if you
> delete the datafiles in C:\WINNT\Internet Logs and start over the
> lockups would diminish. Sure enough that worked but what a hokey way
> to have to deal with software.

If someone "discovered" the datafile fix, they did it the hard way. It's
been on ZA's support page for quite awhile. I will agree that ZA's
uninstall and upgrade utilities could use some improvement. As could
many, if not most, other applications, starting with M$ OS's. I think
most of us that do this stuff for a living learned long ago that a clean
install is always preferable, whenever practicle.

> Then 2.6.231 came along and as I said earlier, it appears to be a lot
> more stable than any previous version, at least on Win2K. I am sure
> that as soon as I say that it will start locking up all the time. :-)
>
> As I also said earlier, I was about to buy ZAP based on the
> presumption that they finally found the problems and fixed them. But I
> do not like the idea of having to pay for later bug fixes, even if it
> is only half price. So rather than get burned, as I have in the past
> in similar situations, I decided to hold off buying ZAP until see some
> reason to do so.

Obviously, if you have no need for the added functionality and security,
then there is no need to upgrade. On the otherhand, if you let a few
minor bugs that do have workarounds, prevent you from having a safer
system, that's your loss. Perhaps if you looked at the annual fee as
paying for the functional additions in the upgrades, and online support,
with the bug fixes thrown in free, you'd feel better about it.

> I wish Zone Labs the best commercial success. I like the GUI, and in
> terms of supporting a client base, it is very easy to install and
> implement. But I am tired of the constant bitching from people about
> bugs that should have been fixed a year ago.
>
> And now I am expected to recommend a product that is going to cost a
> client half price again in a year for God-only-knows-what. If ZL
> believes they are justified in charging for a legitimate major
> upgrade, then let them show people what it is so people can make up
> their own mind as to the value. In the meantime, ZL should continue to
> provide free bug fixes for the version people paid for.
>
> I do not believe that anything I have just said is at all unusual in
> the software business. But because I am being attacked by several
> people for articulating it, and because other people who agree with me
> are not coming to my defense, it gives the appearance to the casual
> lurker that it is I who is out of line.

It isn't what you articulated, Bob, so much as the way you sometimes
articulate it, that seems to bring out the worst in us at times. Earlier
in this thread I posted a simple response and a link, to your request
for info regarding ZA's annual fee. Your response was "Another bloody
Microshaft. They sell you crap and then make you pay for the fixes.",
which if nothing else, was certainly an over-reaction to the situation.
As you should well know, annual fees are pretty common in the rapidly
changing security software industry. Annual support fees are also common
practice for many applications, along with "pay per incident" phone
support. Of course we would all prefer everything was free, but is that
realistic?

> I know how the software business works, both for better and for worse,
> and I believe ZL would be best advised to drop that "annual license"
> crap and offer free bug fixes for the life of a particular product. If
> and when they truly have an upgraded product to sell, then let them
> offer it independently of the license for the current product and
> phase the old product out over time.

If I understand your thinking, then it would be fine with you if ZA held
off adding any functional enhancements or new features for a year from
the purchase date, and only supplied free bug fixes in the incremental
updates. At the end of the year, they could drop "ZAPro", and release
"ZAPro Plus" at full price, and you would be happy to pay it. Did I miss
something here?

> Am I the only one who thinks this way - or are there others out there
> who agree basically with me? If so, then let's hear from you, because
> I am getting tired of defending what is plain common sense.
>
>
> Dr. Bob

Your concept of "common sense" only works in this scenario if you
totally disregard the new features, enhancements, and support that the
annual fee includes, and focus only on bug fixes. Personally, I think
five cents per day is a pretty cheap price for the security, support,
and new features that ZAPro provides for my systems.

Don


Larry Gamache

unread,
Oct 9, 2001, 12:19:16 AM10/9/01
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 14:54:33 GMT, r...@houston.rr.com (Dr. Bob) wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Oct 2001 05:17:37 GMT, Larry Gamache <be...@beta.com> wrote:
>
>>Good points, Don. Bob gets all wound up in "discussions" about
>>subjects that don't amount to a hill of beans. Mostly he just trolls
>>for someone to get into a pointless argument with, probably just to
>>liven up his dull existence. You'll probably make the "moron" list
>>pretty soon too. :-)
>
>You are the only qualified moron on here.
>
>
>Dr. Bob

Har, Har, Har, you're funny, bob.
--

Larry Gamache

Dr. Bob

unread,
Oct 9, 2001, 9:17:19 AM10/9/01
to
On Tue, 09 Oct 2001 03:31:32 GMT, "Don Voorhees" <don...@12078.net>
wrote:

>If someone "discovered" the datafile fix, they did it the hard way. It's


>been on ZA's support page for quite awhile.

I know the history of that particular fix. It was first pointed out in
one of these forums. The ZL lurker, Rebecca, claimed that such a
procedure was not necessary.

Then when others, including me, confirmed the efficacy, she must have
finally reported it, because only then did it show up on the ZL fix
list.

IOW, it was the users right here on these forums that alerted everyone
to the fix, including ZL.

>Obviously, if you have no need for the added functionality and security,
>then there is no need to upgrade. On the otherhand, if you let a few
>minor bugs that do have workarounds, prevent you from having a safer
>system, that's your loss.

Where did I ever say that? I am still using free ZA.

>Perhaps if you looked at the annual fee as
>paying for the functional additions in the upgrades, and online support,
>with the bug fixes thrown in free, you'd feel better about it.

Perhaps if ZL would adhere to industry practice, MS notwithstanding, I
would have paid for ZAP by now.

>If I understand your thinking, then it would be fine with you if ZA held
>off adding any functional enhancements or new features for a year from
>the purchase date, and only supplied free bug fixes in the incremental
>updates. At the end of the year, they could drop "ZAPro", and release
>"ZAPro Plus" at full price, and you would be happy to pay it. Did I miss
>something here?

Yep, you sure did. I am willing to pay for any reasonable upgrade for
1/2 price. But I expect that to be an option. I do not expect being
required to have to pay anything that I do not want. I paid for the
first version and I expect it to be supported free.


>Your concept of "common sense" only works in this scenario if you
>totally disregard the new features, enhancements, and support that the
>annual fee includes, and focus only on bug fixes. Personally, I think
>five cents per day is a pretty cheap price for the security, support,
>and new features that ZAPro provides for my systems.

The problem with that thinking is that it is not industry standard, MS
notwithstanding.

What's going to happen is I am going to look into alternatives, many
of which are far more powerful than ZA.

Understand that I am expressing this because I have to recommend
solutions to clients and then I have to live with the consequences. I
do not need them bitching at me in a year because they are forced
either to get rid of what they paid for or have to pony up for an
ungrade which is no more than another bug fix, it any. They may even
have to pay just to keep their current license active on the last
version.

C'mon, the rest of you - we need more input on this issue. Zone Labs
is lurking here and we need to tell them to drop this disastrous
policy before it pisses off their market base. I was one of the
pioneers with ZA and I have recommended it to several clients.
Therefore I am a supporter and if I get pissed off at them, you can
imagine what the new user is going to feel like.

BTW, when MS tried this S/W rental crap, their user base went
ballistic.

Don Voorhees

unread,
Oct 9, 2001, 1:41:15 PM10/9/01
to

"Dr. Bob" <r...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3bc2f5ff...@news-server.houston.rr.com...

> On Tue, 09 Oct 2001 03:31:32 GMT, "Don Voorhees" <don...@12078.net>
> wrote:
>
> >If someone "discovered" the datafile fix, they did it the hard way. It's
> >been on ZA's support page for quite awhile.
>
> I know the history of that particular fix. It was first pointed out in
> one of these forums. The ZL lurker, Rebecca, claimed that such a
> procedure was not necessary.
>
> Then when others, including me, confirmed the efficacy, she must have
> finally reported it, because only then did it show up on the ZL fix
> list.
>
> IOW, it was the users right here on these forums that alerted everyone
> to the fix, including ZL.

Are these the same users that you claimed ZL was ignoring?

> >Obviously, if you have no need for the added functionality and security,
> >then there is no need to upgrade. On the otherhand, if you let a few
> >minor bugs that do have workarounds, prevent you from having a safer
> >system, that's your loss.
>
> Where did I ever say that? I am still using free ZA.

You said you wanted to upgrade to ZAPro, but haven't due to the annual
support fee/bugs issue. It would seem that you are denying yourself the
added functionality and security based on your assumption that these
relatively minor issues won't be fixed within the first year of your
purchase.

>
> >Perhaps if you looked at the annual fee as
> >paying for the functional additions in the upgrades, and online support,
> >with the bug fixes thrown in free, you'd feel better about it.
>
> Perhaps if ZL would adhere to industry practice, MS notwithstanding, I
> would have paid for ZAP by now.

I assume you don't use Norton AV then, with it's annual subscription fees.
As far as "industry practice", about 30 pct. of my IT budget is for annual
licenses, support fees, and update contracts. It may not be "industry
practice" at the lower home user levels, but it is very common for
industrial strength applications.

> >If I understand your thinking, then it would be fine with you if ZA held
> >off adding any functional enhancements or new features for a year from
> >the purchase date, and only supplied free bug fixes in the incremental
> >updates. At the end of the year, they could drop "ZAPro", and release
> >"ZAPro Plus" at full price, and you would be happy to pay it. Did I miss
> >something here?
>
> Yep, you sure did. I am willing to pay for any reasonable upgrade for
> 1/2 price. But I expect that to be an option. I do not expect being
> required to have to pay anything that I do not want. I paid for the
> first version and I expect it to be supported free.

ZA does not "require" you to pay anything beyond the original purchase
price. The product will continue to function just fine.

> >Your concept of "common sense" only works in this scenario if you
> >totally disregard the new features, enhancements, and support that the
> >annual fee includes, and focus only on bug fixes. Personally, I think
> >five cents per day is a pretty cheap price for the security, support,
> >and new features that ZAPro provides for my systems.
>
> The problem with that thinking is that it is not industry standard, MS
> notwithstanding.

See above re: "industry practice".

> What's going to happen is I am going to look into alternatives, many
> of which are far more powerful than ZA.

Are you actually telling me that ZA is the only soft firewall you have
looked at so far? My apologies to you, I was under the impression you were a
professional in the business.

> Understand that I am expressing this because I have to recommend
> solutions to clients and then I have to live with the consequences. I
> do not need them bitching at me in a year because they are forced
> either to get rid of what they paid for or have to pony up for an
> ungrade which is no more than another bug fix, it any. They may even
> have to pay just to keep their current license active on the last
> version.

I take it you only deal with low end users and/or very small businesses, if
they bitch about a 20 dollar annual fee. In the real business/industrial
world, multi-thousand dollar annual support fees are not uncommon at all.
Products like Lilly Software's Visual Manufacturing ERP package, and the
like, come readily to mind.

> C'mon, the rest of you - we need more input on this issue. Zone Labs
> is lurking here and we need to tell them to drop this disastrous
> policy before it pisses off their market base. I was one of the
> pioneers with ZA and I have recommended it to several clients.
> Therefore I am a supporter and if I get pissed off at them, you can
> imagine what the new user is going to feel like.

I doubt if you'll find many ZL people lurking in a Road Runner specific
newsgroup, unless they also happen to be RR subscribers. They are much more
vocal, and readily found, in the security groups.

> BTW, when MS tried this S/W rental crap, their user base went
> ballistic.

If you're referring to the new annual site license upgrade and support fees,
the biggest complaint was the short notice that didn't allow for budgetary
reviews and inclusion. M$ did back off a little by delaying the deadline for
compliance until the end of Feb. 2002. They have not dropped the plan and
don't appear to be inclined to do so.

>
> Dr. Bob

This side thread has gotten decidedly off topic, and I am not inclined to
pursue it further. You have not changed my position, nor I yours. Let's move
on.....

Don


Dr. Bob

unread,
Oct 9, 2001, 6:05:01 PM10/9/01
to
On Tue, 9 Oct 2001 13:41:15 -0400, "Don Voorhees" <don...@12078.net>
wrote:

>> IOW, it was the users right here on these forums that alerted everyone


>> to the fix, including ZL.

>Are these the same users that you claimed ZL was ignoring?

As a matter of fact the first person to recommend this particular fix
for a specific problem that was widely known to be a problem drew a
comment from the woman from Zone Labs who used to lurk around the
forums. Her comment was that it was unnecessary to do that because she
could not think of any reason why it would help anything.

But I was not referring to just that incident. I used to send bug
reports in and never got any acknowledgement, not even a robot reply.

>You said you wanted to upgrade to ZAPro, but haven't due to the annual
>support fee/bugs issue.

I never said that. I said I was considering buying ZAP for the first
time, but decided not to when I learned that I would have to pay for
it again - albeit 50% - in a year.

>It would seem that you are denying yourself the
>added functionality and security based on your assumption that these
>relatively minor issues won't be fixed within the first year of your
>purchase.

Based on past history I have ample reason to believe just that.

But you are leaving out a crucial point. Let's say I buy ZAP today and
in 11 months there is a bug that will purportedly be fixed with the
next revision, due out the next day. So I get that revision to fix the
bug, which it does, and then it's past one year's time and I find
another bug. Now I expect that bug to be fixed but the only way I can
get the next revision that fixes the bug is to pay for an "upgrade"
which is not an upgrade at all but a bug fix.

>I assume you don't use Norton AV then, with it's annual subscription fees.

You just guessed exactly why I did not even consider NAV. I use McAfee
with free lifetime support.

>As far as "industry practice", about 30 pct. of my IT budget is for annual
>licenses, support fees, and update contracts. It may not be "industry
>practice" at the lower home user levels, but it is very common for
>industrial strength applications.

I too have worked in commercial settings and am fully aware of Oracle
licensing and all that stuff. But as you point out, I am now taking
the position of an individual - call me a typical SOHO user. I am not
industrial and neither are the people I recommend computer solutions
to.

>ZA does not "require" you to pay anything beyond the original purchase
>price. The product will continue to function just fine.

If I believed that we would not be having this conversation. But the
history of ZA is nothing but continual bug fixes, much like all the
software houses.

It is very rare that a software product will "continue to function
just fine".

>> The problem with that thinking is that it is not industry standard, MS
>> notwithstanding.

>See above re: "industry practice".

I meant software vendor industry standard, not commercial end user
industry standard. If ZL wants to do what some vendors do and have a
personal version and a commercial version, then fine - as long as they
support the personal version for free.

>Are you actually telling me that ZA is the only soft firewall you have
>looked at so far?

You love to put words in people's mouths, don't you. Some day it's
gonna bite you on the ass.

I never said that I have not looked at other solutions. I just said
that I would only recommend ZA on the basis of those available.

>My apologies to you, I was under the impression you were a
>professional in the business.

LOL. Just what the world needs - another "professional". I can see it
now: "SOHO Network Professional", just like "Microsoft Network
Professional". That has to be one of the funniest things I have heard
in a long time.

Anyway, whoever said I was in this as a business? There is no money in
"SOHO Networking". Those who have tried to make a buck always fail in
short order - a year or two. The people I recommend to are clients of
a different kind.

>This side thread has gotten decidedly off topic, and I am not inclined to
>pursue it further. You have not changed my position, nor I yours.

That's because you have completely misconsrtued what I have said to
provide you with an opportunity to beat your chest in public.

Doctor Who

unread,
Oct 9, 2001, 10:21:07 PM10/9/01
to
NAV has free lifetime support...just as you uninstall and then reinstall
every year!! :)

"ßill" <whi...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:lbv6stsb99j83rrps...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2001 22:05:01 GMT, r...@houston.rr.com (Dr. Bob) punched
the
> keyboard and the pieces fell like so:
>
> ~You just guessed exactly why I did not even consider NAV. I use McAfee
> ~with free lifetime support.
>
> From the McAffee page;
>
> If your McAfee product directed you to this web page automatically or
while
> selecting UPDATE from within the product, there is a product update/patch
for
> your McAfee product in the list below that will provide you with the
latest
> McAfee product update and product fixes. Select your product and the
> corresponding patch/update and download it to your PC for the most
up-to-date
> McAfee technology. Product UPDATEs are free for a year after installation
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ß
>
> "Illegitmitatum Non Carborundum Est" - Never let the bastards grind you
down!


Wolf

unread,
Oct 10, 2001, 9:15:27 PM10/10/01
to
he said what he said, and since we know differently...


Dr. Bob

unread,
Oct 11, 2001, 12:38:06 PM10/11/01
to
On Tue, 09 Oct 2001 22:42:59 GMT, ßill <whi...@rochester.rr.com>
wrote:

>Product UPDATEs are free for a year after installation
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

They enforce that only thru the Console. If you know the direct URL
you can get free updates and upgrades.

McAfee has always had that capability.

Dr. Bob

unread,
Oct 11, 2001, 12:40:52 PM10/11/01
to
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 02:21:07 GMT, "Doctor Who"
<WhatEhverSpamMan!@#$%^&*()(_+~`:":@removethispart_sflesch.com> wrote:

>NAV has free lifetime support...just as you uninstall and then reinstall
>every year!! :)

There was an article on the Ziff-Davis Anchor Desk this morning about
ZA 3.0 coming out. The writer of that article claims that ZAP is now
free from update fees, but he was vague in specifying how you got
around them.

Perhaps some of you who know so much about ZAP can find out what is
happening with ZA 3.0 and if indeed the upgrade fees are being
dropped.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages