That would be as easy as knowing who to pitch Fords, or wheat bread to. How would this be even remotely practical for him to do? You pitch your product to everyone and let them make up their own minds.
You are forgetting a simple truth... most people have a security suite that they've settled down to over the years, but everyone is always looking for something more efficient and comprehensive. I wasn't trying any new security software when I ran across DefenseWall. But I snatched it up and registered it, having recognized it as something that could take me to a higher level. The addition of the firewall feature just takes that product to an even higher level. I run my Windows XP firewall just because it is there. But I can tell you that the new DW will be a welcome software companion to my Smoothwall.
Is that such a bad thing? If it had no overhead or load on the system, what possible usefulness could it offer? If my XP system was Ram starved, the first services I would turn off would be disk indexing and system restore. But as these are beneficial applications, the overhead, compared to other services, is worth it to me. DW is like that... there is a little bit of lag in the browser starting up and connecting, but that is a function of the measure of protection that is worth it to me. If I went to another PRG I would feel less protected. BTW: I'm not experiencing the high CPU usage that some here have reported.
I may be speaking out of turn here, but I suspect that Ilya's original plan was , and is, to produce a security program which involves virtually no weaknesses, gaps, or anything else exploitable. DefenseWall is written the correct way from the ground up. You get what you pay for- and sometimes, as in the case of DW, you don't have to pay a lot - for what you get.
Okay now let's see if I've got this quoting feature as figured out as I think I do...