Sure, Howard
Personally, I don't like Zone alarm partly because I don't feel it has quite the same advanced features of SPF, and that SPF is better laid out and more accessable, but my grievance is slightly more than that.
In certain respects, I feel that Zone alarm can be a little TOO robust on occasions, blocking things that you just don't want blocked. I've seen many people haveing all sorts of problems with file transfers etc of various kinds, and blocked traffic that for some reason they've been unable to unblock without turning the firewall off completely.
On the other hand, ZoneAlarm, IMHO isn't written as well as SPF, resulting in a larger footprint and CPU usage - though I appreciate that this is only my own experience. I have however seen ZoneAlarm crash one or two peoples computers, and I have to wonder whether or not ZA is easier to circumvent on grounds that it's better known and more people have possibly put more time into finding ways around it.
On a slightly different note, while I know that some of Symantecs Corporate products are acctually quite good, I wouldn't trust them within a mile of my own machine because their performance in the home user market leaves a lot to be desired really. I'd rather not run the risk of having their stuff embed itself into my machine.
By contrast, the worst I've ever seen of SPF is that the program got damaged once in a blue moon and had to be re-installed. Apart from that I've never personally known anybody to have a problem with it.
I appreciate that my experience and concerns may not reflect on that of everybody else though, but none the less, I stick by my earlier comments, but would be more than happy to be corrected on any of the above if anything I've said is wrong or questionable in anybody elses experience - I'm like that
