• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Quirky

  1. Yes, you should turn it off. No, the tooltip is correct (although indeed somewhat confusing) because performance issues are most likely to come if you turn it on (= pagefile used, more disk activity, Windows becomes slower etc.). We want to use the RAM here, not the pagefile.

    Some confusion may arise because a user intuitively assumes that "performance issues" could be caused by the ~300MB needed by EAM so the user feels the option should be on (= less RAM used). It seems like extra, unnecessary RAM usage. But it is not.

    Most systems can spare 200-300MB of RAM nowadays and that option should only be enabled in critical situations, like not having enough RAM to even open and run programs, for example.

  2. Am I wrong in assuming that EAM initially decides on its own whether to enable that option or not? I seem to remember on a PC with limited memory that it was turned on by default.

    Tarnak, if you have enough memory you should let EAM use it and leave that option disabled - everything will work better this way.


    On 11/3/2018 at 7:09 AM, Tarnak said:

    ...but I was dismayed that it takes such an amount of memory resources


  3. Chiming in about the new UI:

    1. I use 125% DPI. The UI window (2018.8.1) needs to be much larger (almost full screen) in order to contain most of the information it did before the update. This also applies when using the "slim icon-only bar to keep it as compact as possible". I'm sorry but what I read  at the beginning here is simply not true - or does not apply at all on my system.

    2. The scrolling: it does not "make things more user-friendly", because: unless fully memorised, you don't really know where settings are. You have to keep scrolling to find them. I've mentioned it elsewhere, it's an "eyes" issue, not just personal preference and all this extra scrolling (on an almost full-screen UI no less) makes the whole thing very uncomfortable.

    Really sorry that I can't report anything positive about it. In the years I've been using EIS/EAM, I don't recall any "feature reversions" so I can only suggest this: please consider the use of themes/skins etc. so that we could have the previous, "steady" UI as an option.

  4. On 4/4/2018 at 8:34 AM, GT500 said:

    For those on Wilders who are wondering if the mysterious company that purchased Binisoft WFC happens to be Emsisoft, we already went down that road with Online Armor, and then after discontinuing it we developed and subsequently discontinued our own firewall technology. While it's impossible to predict the future, I expect that our interest in such technologies will remain minimal at least in the near future.

    But WFC is not a firewall -totally unrelated to Online Armor and even EIS- and it'd make an excellent in-built companion to EAM which actually promotes the Windows Firewall. Anyway, I guess it's too late for that. ^_^

  5. 44 minutes ago, Nikilet said:

    So what do I need to do with regard to this on my 32-bit desktop and my 64-bit laptop?

    Open regedit and check your registry: Computer\HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Piriform\Agomo

    If the Agomo entry is there then you are probably infected (your PC, that is). Just delete the Agomo key and install the latest CCleaner which will overwrite the infected .exe. A full PC scan can't hurt either. If Agomo is not there, you should be fine.


  6. It's not really a merge though, is it?

    EAW: improved, but without getting any of EIS's extra features, so a massive downgrade in Firewall control, not a merge

    EIS: discontinued

    EAW users should be happy, EIS users are essentially being told to either use other software (because "there weren't many of them EIS users anyway") or trust Microsoft's Windows Firewall and its feeble interface.

    The actual merge is between EAW and Microsoft Windows Firewall, not EAM and EIS.

  7. On 2/26/2017 at 6:44 AM, GT500 said:
    On 2/25/2017 at 11:32 PM, Maniak2000 said:

    2) Are application rules self-clean (meaning rule is deleted if the program doesn't exist anymore)?   If not, wouldn't large amount of "dead" rules  slow things down


    On 2/26/2017 at 6:44 AM, GT500 said:

    Yes. Rules are not kept for programs that do not exist.

    About rule self-cleaning, I'd like to ask if this is also valid for scanning/monitoring exclusions. For example, if I've added a folder/file exclusion that it's no longer there (the excluded file or folder), would the exclusion be auto-removed at some point?

  8. 2 hours ago, GT500 said:

    You can export/import firewall rules in the general settings (note these exports/imports are in our own formats, and we don't currently have support for importing lists of rules in other formats)


    Thanks GT500, but that includes application rules ("Application and global firewall rules"). From a quick look in the exported a2rules.ini file, the application and firewall rules are mixed so it's not easy to separate them. Perhaps copy/pasting firewall-only rules into a separate a2rules.ini file might work for importing them, I don't know.

  9. 3 hours ago, GT500 said:

    Note that you can add multiple IP addresses to the same rule, as long as they are separated by commas. The firewall rules should also support IP ranges, as long as you use common ways of expressing them.

    Thank you, commas and ranges work fine. Hope you can consider adding an option to export/import Firewall rules only, separate from the Application rules (unless there's a way?).

    Firewall rules should be easy to transfer to another PC but with the Application rules included in a2rules.ini, it doesn't seem like a good idea to try (32/64-bit systems/paths, different applications etc.)

  10. Thanks Ken1943, yes I know about the Surf Protection file import and mentioned it. The main question though is whether the Firewall is supposed to do this instead for better protection and if so, in what way.

    Also, other threads suggest that Surf Protection does not work globally and since AppContainer is not supported, I am guessing Windows 8 and especially Windows 10 are not fully covered by Surf Protection (not talking about Edge, but W10 as a whole). I'm not technical on this stuff, just asking.