Remove the retarded features and replace with smart ones
 

I had mentioned this in another post somewhere on this site but I can't find it so I'll just mention it here.

I was talking about specifying the option where you right click on a file in your downloads window with no sources, click search and put an option where you do a search for this same file. If I'm searching for an mpg file. and it searched for the file name only, no extention, no file size or anything like that, I get zip files, exes, ect. In other words everything that has nothing to do with the file I'm looking for. I even seen something where you can search for the frame width or heighth? Just one or the other?!?! So I picked one and got the most bizarre results. Mostly 0.03kb files and type that I've never seen before and certainly nothing close to the 600mb so someone please tell me why does LW put useless features in limewire?

I was reading their user guide and it says, "Need More Sources: LimeWire attempted to make a connection, but failed to find sources for the file. It is unlikely that further attempts to download from this source will be successful. (TIP: Initiate a new search for the file. Any new sources found will automatically be added to the list of sources for that file.)" So why not add this to the right click menu, just search for the file name and type, this one being video not archive! Why not just make the searches smart, like Ares does? Here's a snapshot I took to show you what I mean.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1.../MISC/Ares.jpg
That network doesn't crash or have any problems because of actually specifying what you're looking for plus you don't see tons of garbage files either so why does LW have such a problem with implimenting smart search features (most other P2P do without problems, nor do you have to pay for it) that just make plain smart, common sense? :rolleyes:

Need More Sources: Perhaps LW could make like WinMX and auto search the file every 30 minutes or something instead of just sitting there when there could be available files. Why must LW users have to babysit their downloads? I'm sure someone can come up with an excuse, and that's all that they are. LW is just plain retarded.

I've had files that say awaiting sources, so I did a file search for that file and there were over 30 hosts with it and it started right away. I tried clicking resume prior to that and it had said, connection, then back to awaiting sources. :rolleyes: Again! Retarded lack of functionality and usefulness.

5 files are downloading, and one finishes, verifying files knocks the connection completely down and 2 files stop downloading and half of the hosts are lost on the rest of the files and some are back waiting on busy hosts. Another retarded feature. THe Limewire company just doesn't think much do they?

I don't quite get what you are talking about there was no file size search option in WinMx. When you did a search in WinMx you got the same kind of varied results you do with LimeWire. Yes the auto search feature did work a little better in WinMx than it does in LimeWire but not much, The auto search function works most of the time and if a file sits there to long waiting on sources it isn't that difficult to do a manual search.

From another post by Morb
Maybe you should do a little reading on configuring and using LimeWire and you might get better luck with completing downloads. Or you can just go back to WinMx the link below will take you to the patch for WinMx.

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/5724/Wi...+fix+available

http://www.slyck.com/winmx.php

I'll help you "get it" then.

In WinMX if you had a download that had no sources you could right click and have WinMX search for alternates where the only results you would find where the ones with the exact byte size match, plus file extention. When I have used this function I would never get any results that were not the file I was searching for. Limewire has hundreds, sometimes thousands of results and not one file that matches the file I'm looking for. This is why I deemed it "retarded searches" vs. "smart searches". I apologize if I had confused you.