"That makes absolutely no sense at all. What is the noise floor like in your car? In mine, it's pretty damned high."
It's a german make with an high-quality stereo. Noise is just not noise. High-pitched noises tend to mask a lot more than low-pitched rumble. The noise in my car tends to be low-pitched and doesn't mask the frequencies that the music tends to reside in.
I've noticed the stereo imaging is the the first thing to go away as you go to mp3's. That's the first dead giveaway. The net effect is to (and pardon my nonsense talk here...) make the sound seem "flat". Some albums mask this more than others. But in particular, live albums suffer badly from this, as does anything that is recorded "naturally" in stereo such as a symphony orchestra, or a small jazz ensemble. As you drop the bit rate down under 192 and getting down to 128, flaws show up in saxophones, and worst case, "s" sounds like cymbals tends to start sounding like they came over the shortwave.
I find it distracting and odd and so I've found for me personally 192kbs is my minimum bit rate regardless of codec used.
And to be fair (and to prove I'm not nuts), once the bit rate goes over 224-256 kbps I can't tell the difference between a CD and the mp3 as long as it was encoded a decent codec (such as LAME or the Apple AAC encoder). But I don't find much of a difference between codecs, except that I find the Windows WMA encoder by far the worst. I find it unusable in most cases.
As to my headphones, I use the Koss PortaPro headphones which I've used for many years and while they're far from reference quality, they're significantly better than any earbud and have been fairly consistent in quality for 15+ years (Koss replaces them free when they break, which happens every 5 years or so).
"AAC at 128 kbps is at least equivalent in quality to MP3 at 192 kbps"
That'a pretty broad generalization and I suppose you can find individual cases to support this. But the sonic flaws in even 192 kbps compression in pretty much obvious when you plug your iPod into your car stereo, or when you burn it to a CD and listen to it in the living room.
My experience has been that listening to my iPod on headphones doesn't really reveal the flaws that seem obvious when I burn to a CD and listen in my car. You can tell right away that it's not an original CD.
I suppose this is like the days of when there was vinyl LP's and cassettes. Cassettes tended to cost $1 more than the LP, despite the fact that the cassettes sounded a lot worse than the LP. But people bought them because most people listened to them on boom boxes (remember those?) or in their cars, which tended to have poor stereos in those days, so people bought them for convenience -- sound familiar? And we would argue with people that it's just as easy to buy the LP, buy a chromium cassette (remember those?) and then record it to use in your car. It was the same price, but it gave you significantly greater fidelity. But in the end, people still bought cassettes.
But how many people still have a vinyl collection versus keeping their old collections of cassettes? The analogy to CD's and low-bitrate music is very close in my opinion.
"Many car manufacturers are moving towards what BMW has done for the last few model years with in-dash navigation systems: restricting input to when the car is in park"
And it's the dumbest idea ever. Half the utility is using the thing while moving.
Check out the Honda system to see how it's (mostly) done right. It has full voice input and output, and you can restrict it to how much it will talk (basically, minimum, average and a lot). You use it while you drive without taking your hands from the wheel, and it lets you do things like "find nearest Italian restaurant" and it actually shows it to you.
The GM and Ford systems on the other hand are mostly useless, primarily because they make you pull to the side of the road to use it. I think the problem is a matter of poor user interface, not that these things are inherently any more distracting than using a CD changer. If the automaker invests in a good user interface, then the other issues kind of go away.
I think you've got the germ of truth here, and yet I can't help think that while producers should have every right to DRM their files, I don't see why it's the FBI's job to make sure people don't crack it. The trouble with the scheme is that it effectively extends copyrights forever.
You say:
"People are not willing to accept the fact that some producers want their data to be really their data forever. "
But that's backwards. I'd say some people are not willing to accept that fact that they have no legal rights to hold onto their data forever. It's supposed to go into the public domain after a limited time.
Companies extending copyright this way is the moral equivalent of people just downloading stuff from P2P. Neither of them likes the rules, so they figure out a way around it.
"Is the real problem the law, homeland security or just the people in the position?"
It seems to me these officers had the feeling that they were the law; they were the police, DA, and judge all in one. This sounds like a fundamental orgazational issue, not just one or two bad apples.
I think they should be fired, not reassigned. They have demonstrated no ability to understand their job after presumably at least a year on the job. In most place if you have no idea what you're doing after a few months, you get fired. Why not these guys?
"The Chinese don't have anything similar to the Guantanamo base, where alleged terrorists are held, without being given status as prisoners of war, without the right to a lawyer"
And you know this because the Chinese government is open enough that they don't practice censorship at the most basic level.
Oh wait, they do. That's what started the entire discussion. So allow me to reinterpret what you're saying:
"I want to make a point about the United States doing things that aren't right. So I'll make up stuff about how wonderful the totalitarian Chinese government is. But it's okay, because I'm making an important point. That makes it all right"
"Sounds like just one more reason not to buy CDs."
The fact that they don't want you to make a backup or copy it to your ipod doesn't mean it's illegal. I mean, I think it's wrong if everybody doesn't send me $20, but that's just my opinion.
No, CD's are still the best deal because you can purchase them for under $10, you can back them up, you can put them on any of your own portable music players without restriction, you get liner notes, and you get the best possible quality sound (that is available to the public).
What's not to like? The fact that you have to take 5 minutes to rip it to an mp3?
"I've met "normal" users that was taken in by IBM's OS/2 Warp 3 marketing blitz and free OS CD distribution, to no end of grief. That baby could be a bitch even if you knew what you where doing."
Fair enough. I'd completely forgotten about that. But on the other hand, the reason people were doing is was because IBM said to do with it. People today forget the magic that name had 20 years ago (heck, even 10 years ago) when it came to personal computers.
Today, it seems odd because IBM has been running away from the PC as fast as possible for the past 10 years, but 15-20 years ago a PC *was* an IBM computer.
"I can't remember ever hearing of a computer manufacturer upgrading their entire release of a product for free."
You can't be serious?
Go to Dell's web site. Make note of a particular model's spec's and price.
Go to Dell's web site 30-60 days later. Make note of a particular model's specs and price. You'll note the specs will increase slightly and the price will decrease slightly. Dell is hardly unique. This is the standard way of doing business for computer hardware makers. It's been that way since the first personal computers in the 70's.
"Of course, this will lead to normal users saying "Gollleee, now I can run OH ESS EKKS on my Walmart laptop by downloading it from the torrent thingeee." The next thing you know, they're cursing Apple's name as being a bunch of programmer hacks."
I'm not sure what a "normal" user is, but I've never met a "normal" user who would use anything other than the OS that came with the PC, and I've never heard of a "normal" user who downloads a DVD with an operating system on it.
Its the equivalent of saying "Well, if you replace the engine on your Geo Metro with a V8, it will go really fast". Yes, true, but it's so far beyond the skills of 99% of people that the people who do try are willing to deal with the fact that the combination doesn't really work that well.
So I don't believe Apple's Reputation (tm) is the primary concern here. I think it's a perception thing. If OS X is seen to run on a $300 PC, it's going to be hard for Apple to justify a $700 price premium, even if they're twice as good as the cheap PC.
"I would love some competition to iPods, bring those prices down. "
iTMS is not the reason iPods are popular. I'm guessing that there is a small subset of people (not well thought out in my opinion) who buy lots of music from iTMS and would never think about lower costs or no-DRM. We can speculate why, but it ultimately doesn't matter.
But the majority of people buy iPods because (a) they are popular (b) there is a huge technological "ecosystem" around iPods (c) they are popular.
If iTMS shut down today, it would have very little impact on iPods. So I differ with you in that even if iTMS was opened up to every player, it would only have a slight impact on iPod sales, and thus no impact on prices.
Now my guess is Apple doesn't want to have a competing music store, because despite their protestations of how iTMS doesn't make much money...I don't believe them.
I think this lawsuit is a shell brought about by RIAA members because they had hoped to control digital distribution and all of the sudden Apple is their distribution network. So they're hiding behind other companies using the "monopoly" lawsuit.
I have no particular like for any of the companies involved, but I don't see that this suit has any merit at all. It won't help the consumer in any way, an I see it ultimately playing into the RIAA member's hands, which is a bad thing.
I bought an Amiga 1000 with 2 floppies and 512K of RAM. It was about $1600. This was not considered high-end, even when the Amiga was released.
Today, I can get a Dell for about $600 with more functionality.
386 era machines were about $5000 486 era machines were about $2500
An Apple II was about $2000 when equipped with a floppy.
A high-end macintosh was about $9000 ( Mac IIfx in 1990, reference http://www.lowendmac.com/ii/iifx.shtml) Today, I don't think you can spend more than $3K on a mac, even if you put your mind to it.
Look at intel based laptop prices...they've fallen from about $2500-5000 10 years ago to about $1000 today.
Typically, brand name PC's sell for about $600-800 today including LCD monitor. There simply was no equivalent to this just a few years ago at any price.
Sorry, I just don't see where personal computer price have done anything but fall.
UMD movies for PSP? Those should be $8 apiece. If they were, Sony would create an actual reason to buy a PSP player. So they price the player at $250 and the movies at $20-25 and after a burst of enthusiasm, I think the UMD format is headed for the crapper.
Sony blew it big time with UMD movies, and they'll blow it again with BluRay movies.
My point is that Sony will claim production costs of BluRay is higher justifying their cost when in fact the production costs are in line with a CD. They're getting higher prices because, well, they think they can.
"What cost $23.45 in 1997 would cost $27.64 in 2005."
Sure, but isn't the trend for hi-tech stuff to go down? Computers, mp3 plahyers, satellite radios are going down in price.
This reminds me of when CD's were introduced. LP's were $8 and CD's were $16. They told us "Unfortunately, there are only 3 plants in the world that can make these disks. As soon as more production comes on line, these will be cheaper than LP's because they're cheaper to make".
I guess they were lying.
But on the plus side, Sony would never lie to do anything underhanded; their reputation is at stake. I'm sure the prices will go down later when more production is on-line.
"So Verizon has deliberately underpriced their service, and now they're looking to subsidize themselves by declaring that everybody else using the Internet owes them money."
That's a lot of B.S. Verizon isn't that stupid; they understand their utilization and what people use.
No, they're simply looking for more revenue streams. And if they can make a couple billion more by threating Google, Yahoo, and Amazon, then why not threaten?
"Simply put, hearing loss is a function of volume over time... for very loud sounds the time is very short before damage occurs. For very soft sounds the time is extremely long, so long that most people will suffer damage from loud sounds before they realize they've lost hearing do to the soft sound."
No it's not. That's like saying I can cook a turkey for 6 hours at 350 degrees or 12 hours at 175 degrees or 24 hours at 88 degrees and all of these will yield the same result.
Try it and see if it works that way. Take pictures of the results. They should be amusing.
A hardware firewall goes without saying. But I use a software firewall to control programs that seem to like to chat to some distant server without permission. I think its essential.
As to "just not clicking" on stuff, I think Windows has shown that you can be infected without clicking; the WMF fiasco is just the latest in a long list of exploits that can be invoked by just visiting a web page.
The trouble with Zonealarm is that it's hard to configure to do stuff they don't want you to do.
For example, if you want one machine to connect to another via your wifi connection to share a hotel hotspot, zonealarm is very hard to use primarily because it isn't an expected option, so you can't just say to it "Allow IP address xyz to connect to me on port abc".
Plus, in the past, I found zonealarm was slowing down my ethernet connections significantly. Maybe they fixed that. I don't think it's the worst firewall, but it's far from the best. Sygate's is good (if you can still track it down), Kerio is good, even though they killed off their free version in reaction to Sygate's demise. I'm sure there are others, but Zonealarm may be a fine all-in-one product, but its a pretty mediocre firewall.
Norton stuff seems to be king of the "We'll change your computer all around just for our software and it will run slower" manufacturers.
Over the years, I've developed best-of-breed for myself. You probably have others you like:
1) Firewall - Sygate. Doesn't try to do too much which is good because its small, fast, and it's easy to reconfigure to do pretty much anything. Oh, it's free, too. I can see why Symantec bought it and killed it.
2) Anti-Virus - AVG is the only virus protection I've used that doesn't bog down the computer. And it's cheaper than Symantec too. I think the only reason it doesn't get rated higher by magazines is they like suites that throw in the kitchen sink. I like small utilities that work well.
3) Anti-spyware - Webroot Spysweeper. It has worked consistently well for 2-3 years now.
Slashdot Mirror
"That makes absolutely no sense at all. What is the noise floor like in your car? In mine, it's pretty damned high."
It's a german make with an high-quality stereo. Noise is just not noise. High-pitched noises tend to mask a lot more than low-pitched rumble. The noise in my car tends to be low-pitched and doesn't mask the frequencies that the music tends to reside in.
I've noticed the stereo imaging is the the first thing to go away as you go to mp3's. That's the first dead giveaway. The net effect is to (and pardon my nonsense talk here...) make the sound seem "flat". Some albums mask this more than others. But in particular, live albums suffer badly from this, as does anything that is recorded "naturally" in stereo such as a symphony orchestra, or a small jazz ensemble. As you drop the bit rate down under 192 and getting down to 128, flaws show up in saxophones, and worst case, "s" sounds like cymbals tends to start sounding like they came over the shortwave.
I find it distracting and odd and so I've found for me personally 192kbs is my minimum bit rate regardless of codec used.
And to be fair (and to prove I'm not nuts), once the bit rate goes over 224-256 kbps I can't tell the difference between a CD and the mp3 as long as it was encoded a decent codec (such as LAME or the Apple AAC encoder). But I don't find much of a difference between codecs, except that I find the Windows WMA encoder by far the worst. I find it unusable in most cases.
As to my headphones, I use the Koss PortaPro headphones which I've used for many years and while they're far from reference quality, they're significantly better than any earbud and have been fairly consistent in quality for 15+ years (Koss replaces them free when they break, which happens every 5 years or so).
"AAC at 128 kbps is at least equivalent in quality to MP3 at 192 kbps"
That'a pretty broad generalization and I suppose you can find individual cases to support this. But the sonic flaws in even 192 kbps compression in pretty much obvious when you plug your iPod into your car stereo, or when you burn it to a CD and listen to it in the living room.
My experience has been that listening to my iPod on headphones doesn't really reveal the flaws that seem obvious when I burn to a CD and listen in my car. You can tell right away that it's not an original CD.
I suppose this is like the days of when there was vinyl LP's and cassettes. Cassettes tended to cost $1 more than the LP, despite the fact that the cassettes sounded a lot worse than the LP. But people bought them because most people listened to them on boom boxes (remember those?) or in their cars, which tended to have poor stereos in those days, so people bought them for convenience -- sound familiar? And we would argue with people that it's just as easy to buy the LP, buy a chromium cassette (remember those?) and then record it to use in your car. It was the same price, but it gave you significantly greater fidelity. But in the end, people still bought cassettes.
But how many people still have a vinyl collection versus keeping their old collections of cassettes? The analogy to CD's and low-bitrate music is very close in my opinion.
"Many car manufacturers are moving towards what BMW has done for the last few model years with in-dash navigation systems: restricting input to when the car is in park"
And it's the dumbest idea ever. Half the utility is using the thing while moving.
Check out the Honda system to see how it's (mostly) done right. It has full voice input and output, and you can restrict it to how much it will talk (basically, minimum, average and a lot). You use it while you drive without taking your hands from the wheel, and it lets you do things like "find nearest Italian restaurant" and it actually shows it to you.
The GM and Ford systems on the other hand are mostly useless, primarily because they make you pull to the side of the road to use it. I think the problem is a matter of poor user interface, not that these things are inherently any more distracting than using a CD changer. If the automaker invests in a good user interface, then the other issues kind of go away.
I think you've got the germ of truth here, and yet I can't help think that while producers should have every right to DRM their files, I don't see why it's the FBI's job to make sure people don't crack it. The trouble with the scheme is that it effectively extends copyrights forever.
You say:
"People are not willing to accept the fact that some producers want their data to be really their data forever. "
But that's backwards. I'd say some people are not willing to accept that fact that they have no legal rights to hold onto their data forever. It's supposed to go into the public domain after a limited time.
Companies extending copyright this way is the moral equivalent of people just downloading stuff from P2P. Neither of them likes the rules, so they figure out a way around it.
"Is the real problem the law, homeland security or just the people in the position?"
It seems to me these officers had the feeling that they were the law; they were the police, DA, and judge all in one. This sounds like a fundamental orgazational issue, not just one or two bad apples.
I think they should be fired, not reassigned. They have demonstrated no ability to understand their job after presumably at least a year on the job. In most place if you have no idea what you're doing after a few months, you get fired. Why not these guys?
"The Chinese don't have anything similar to the Guantanamo base, where alleged terrorists are held, without being given status as prisoners of war, without the right to a lawyer"
And you know this because the Chinese government is open enough that they don't practice censorship at the most basic level.
Oh wait, they do. That's what started the entire discussion. So allow me to reinterpret what you're saying:
"I want to make a point about the United States doing things that aren't right. So I'll make up stuff about how wonderful the totalitarian Chinese government is. But it's okay, because I'm making an important point. That makes it all right"
Buy a legit copy for $6.50
/ ref=dp_olp_2/002-0716359-5497615?_encoding=UTF8
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B000002H97
Oops, it's used. Well, I tried to help them.
"Sounds like just one more reason not to buy CDs."
The fact that they don't want you to make a backup or copy it to your ipod doesn't mean it's illegal. I mean, I think it's wrong if everybody doesn't send me $20, but that's just my opinion.
No, CD's are still the best deal because you can purchase them for under $10, you can back them up, you can put them on any of your own portable music players without restriction, you get liner notes, and you get the best possible quality sound (that is available to the public).
What's not to like? The fact that you have to take 5 minutes to rip it to an mp3?
"I've met "normal" users that was taken in by IBM's OS/2 Warp 3 marketing blitz and free OS CD distribution, to no end of grief. That baby could be a bitch even if you knew what you where doing."
Fair enough. I'd completely forgotten about that. But on the other hand, the reason people were doing is was because IBM said to do with it. People today forget the magic that name had 20 years ago (heck, even 10 years ago) when it came to personal computers.
Today, it seems odd because IBM has been running away from the PC as fast as possible for the past 10 years, but 15-20 years ago a PC *was* an IBM computer.
"I can't remember ever hearing of a computer manufacturer upgrading their entire release of a product for free."
You can't be serious?
Go to Dell's web site. Make note of a particular model's spec's and price.
Go to Dell's web site 30-60 days later. Make note of a particular model's specs and price. You'll note the specs will increase slightly and the price will decrease slightly. Dell is hardly unique. This is the standard way of doing business for computer hardware makers. It's been that way since the first personal computers in the 70's.
"Can I plug it into a 30" dual-DVI flatpanel?"
I think for the Acer, the answer is yes. In terms of features, my impression is that it beats the mac on features and price.
"The new MacBooks [...] offer as much or more bang for the buck as anything in the Windows world"
4 568&UserCtxParam=0&GroupCtxParam=0&dctx1=25&Countr yISOCtxParam=US&LanguageISOCtxParam=en&crc=1074370 188
s pa sp?a=168245,168244,168264,163762,167102&pt=2&sid=1 565
These are probably made in the same factory as Macbooks:
http://us.acer.com/acerpanam/page4.do?dau22.oid=1
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1907007,00.a
http://www.pcmag.com/compare_products/0,1943,,00.
Intel Duo
2Ghz processor
120GB HD
256M graphics memory (Radeon)
DVD+/-R - DL
battery life 3:47
List price: $2500
Street price: $2400
Hopefully, the Macbook has a 4 hour battery life.
"Of course, this will lead to normal users saying "Gollleee, now I can run OH ESS EKKS on my Walmart laptop by downloading it from the torrent thingeee." The next thing you know, they're cursing Apple's name as being a bunch of programmer hacks."
I'm not sure what a "normal" user is, but I've never met a "normal" user who would use anything other than the OS that came with the PC, and I've never heard of a "normal" user who downloads a DVD with an operating system on it.
Its the equivalent of saying "Well, if you replace the engine on your Geo Metro with a V8, it will go really fast". Yes, true, but it's so far beyond the skills of 99% of people that the people who do try are willing to deal with the fact that the combination doesn't really work that well.
So I don't believe Apple's Reputation (tm) is the primary concern here. I think it's a perception thing. If OS X is seen to run on a $300 PC, it's going to be hard for Apple to justify a $700 price premium, even if they're twice as good as the cheap PC.
"I would love some competition to iPods, bring those prices down. "
iTMS is not the reason iPods are popular. I'm guessing that there is a small subset of people (not well thought out in my opinion) who buy lots of music from iTMS and would never think about lower costs or no-DRM. We can speculate why, but it ultimately doesn't matter.
But the majority of people buy iPods because (a) they are popular (b) there is a huge technological "ecosystem" around iPods (c) they are popular.
If iTMS shut down today, it would have very little impact on iPods. So I differ with you in that even if iTMS was opened up to every player, it would only have a slight impact on iPod sales, and thus no impact on prices.
Now my guess is Apple doesn't want to have a competing music store, because despite their protestations of how iTMS doesn't make much money...I don't believe them.
I think this lawsuit is a shell brought about by RIAA members because they had hoped to control digital distribution and all of the sudden Apple is their distribution network. So they're hiding behind other companies using the "monopoly" lawsuit.
I have no particular like for any of the companies involved, but I don't see that this suit has any merit at all. It won't help the consumer in any way, an I see it ultimately playing into the RIAA member's hands, which is a bad thing.
"You surely don't think that they casually make decisions like this."
I think it's more like this:
"If we stall out the volume guys, we save $X million a month. We ran the numbers last week"
"Let me think. Yes. Okay do it"
Trust me, it was that quick and that simple.
Are you sure?
I bought an Amiga 1000 with 2 floppies and 512K of RAM. It was about $1600. This was not considered high-end, even when the Amiga was released.
Today, I can get a Dell for about $600 with more functionality.
386 era machines were about $5000
486 era machines were about $2500
An Apple II was about $2000 when equipped with a floppy.
A high-end macintosh was about $9000 ( Mac IIfx in 1990, reference http://www.lowendmac.com/ii/iifx.shtml) Today, I don't think you can spend more than $3K on a mac, even if you put your mind to it.
Look at intel based laptop prices...they've fallen from about $2500-5000 10 years ago to about $1000 today.
Typically, brand name PC's sell for about $600-800 today including LCD monitor. There simply was no equivalent to this just a few years ago at any price.
Sorry, I just don't see where personal computer price have done anything but fall.
Computers and mp3 players have both dropped in price and increased in functionality.
UMD movies for PSP? Those should be $8 apiece. If they were, Sony would create an actual reason to buy a PSP player. So they price the player at $250 and the movies at $20-25 and after a burst of enthusiasm, I think the UMD format is headed for the crapper.
Sony blew it big time with UMD movies, and they'll blow it again with BluRay movies.
My point is that Sony will claim production costs of BluRay is higher justifying their cost when in fact the production costs are in line with a CD. They're getting higher prices because, well, they think they can.
"What cost $23.45 in 1997 would cost $27.64 in 2005."
Sure, but isn't the trend for hi-tech stuff to go down? Computers, mp3 plahyers, satellite radios are going down in price.
This reminds me of when CD's were introduced. LP's were $8 and CD's were $16. They told us "Unfortunately, there are only 3 plants in the world that can make these disks. As soon as more production comes on line, these will be cheaper than LP's because they're cheaper to make".
I guess they were lying.
But on the plus side, Sony would never lie to do anything underhanded; their reputation is at stake. I'm sure the prices will go down later when more production is on-line.
"So Verizon has deliberately underpriced their service, and now they're looking to subsidize themselves by declaring that everybody else using the Internet owes them money."
That's a lot of B.S. Verizon isn't that stupid; they understand their utilization and what people use.
No, they're simply looking for more revenue streams. And if they can make a couple billion more by threating Google, Yahoo, and Amazon, then why not threaten?
"Simply put, hearing loss is a function of volume over time... for very loud sounds the time is very short before damage occurs. For very soft sounds the time is extremely long, so long that most people will suffer damage from loud sounds before they realize they've lost hearing do to the soft sound."
No it's not. That's like saying I can cook a turkey for 6 hours at 350 degrees or 12 hours at 175 degrees or 24 hours at 88 degrees and all of these will yield the same result.
Try it and see if it works that way. Take pictures of the results. They should be amusing.
A hardware firewall goes without saying. But I use a software firewall to control programs that seem to like to chat to some distant server without permission. I think its essential.
As to "just not clicking" on stuff, I think Windows has shown that you can be infected without clicking; the WMF fiasco is just the latest in a long list of exploits that can be invoked by just visiting a web page.
The trouble with Zonealarm is that it's hard to configure to do stuff they don't want you to do.
For example, if you want one machine to connect to another via your wifi connection to share a hotel hotspot, zonealarm is very hard to use primarily because it isn't an expected option, so you can't just say to it "Allow IP address xyz to connect to me on port abc".
Plus, in the past, I found zonealarm was slowing down my ethernet connections significantly. Maybe they fixed that. I don't think it's the worst firewall, but it's far from the best. Sygate's is good (if you can still track it down), Kerio is good, even though they killed off their free version in reaction to Sygate's demise. I'm sure there are others, but Zonealarm may be a fine all-in-one product, but its a pretty mediocre firewall.
Norton stuff seems to be king of the "We'll change your computer all around just for our software and it will run slower" manufacturers.
Over the years, I've developed best-of-breed for myself. You probably have others you like:
1) Firewall - Sygate. Doesn't try to do too much which is good because its small, fast, and it's easy to reconfigure to do pretty much anything. Oh, it's free, too. I can see why Symantec bought it and killed it.
2) Anti-Virus - AVG is the only virus protection I've used that doesn't bog down the computer. And it's cheaper than Symantec too. I think the only reason it doesn't get rated higher by magazines is they like suites that throw in the kitchen sink. I like small utilities that work well.
3) Anti-spyware - Webroot Spysweeper. It has worked consistently well for 2-3 years now.