Most downloads almost reach completion when LimeWire PRO pops up and says the file is corrupt. I ALWAYS choose to continue (i.e., answer "Yes") but the file I was downloading doesn't appear in my designated storage location on my hard drive. It is neither in the Incomplete folder or my preferred storage folder after normal successful downloads.

By the way, Pro version 2.4.4 for Mac OS X does not have this problem, although every time 2.4.4 starts it tells me I SHOULD upgrade to take advantage of some new feature...2.4.4 seems to work fine without that new feature. I've tested it! I've gone back by uninstalling 2.8.6 and reinstalling 2.4.4 and tried to download specific files which failed using Pro 2.8.6 for Mac OS X. Guess what...it work and the files all work fine, too.

I'm speaking of mostly of .MP3 files and .SIT files.

LimeWire PRO programmers: Test it yourself. I'm sure you too have discovered "corrupt files" using any of the latest Mac OS X versions.

What is going on here? I'm into my second paying subscription period (and potentially my last). What are you doing about this?

LimeWire 2.4.4 doesn't check for file corruption.

Yeah, I know it doesn't check for corrupt files...I guess I'm not a daily, regular user so it never concerned me when once or twice a month I tried to download a file. ALL 2.4.4 files I've ever downloaded, including very recent downloads, never behave in any manner that leads me to believe they were/are corrupt.

It would be nice if the latest Mac OS X version of LimeWire PRO allowed the user to CHOOSE whether to check for file corruption on download or not!download or not! Are you listening LimeWire?

If you're a Mac OS X user (10.2 or greater, I believe), switch to Acquistion. It's pure Mac OS X, uses the Limewire networks, IS FAST, and checks for corruption but never reports corruption (and suprisingly, all files work fine).

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND IT OVER LIMEWIRE PRO 2.8.6. Limewire just can't match it as a Java application on Mac OS X. This is my opinion.

Sigh. I use both. I'm on OSX. Both deserve support. Why bash either?

Dave, the developer of Acquisition, (in case you didn't know) pointed out that he leaves core issues to teams like Limewire:

"I've already mentioned that the search architecture has changed quite substantially and will perform questionably until the network environment is more optimized to support it. This is not an issue I have any control over. Search performance is a core-side issue (LimeWire), so while I appreciate any effort to inform me, it's directed at the wrong person." (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....threadid=17431)

"Core side" is the phrase you want to understand before you post inflammatory opinions. If you care to research your opinion, post back and I'll give you some more links.

It's nice these boards allow us to delete our posts/threads. Just use the edit button to open up a delete option. Much less embarrassing. Seriously though, what can we do to help both get better?

BTW--Apple released Java 1.4.1 for OSX today

As I said, "This is my opinion." If you choose to read it and take the advice, fine. Otherwise, ignore it. It's not a flame, it's an opinion. I've used LimeWire Pro for close to a year now on OS X and it has continued to become less and less stable and useable. There's no disputing this in my Mac environment. (BTW, I've been a Mac user for 10+ years so I'm pretty good at keeping a clean system running.)

I tried LimeWire Pro 2.8.6 immediately after restarting from the Java 1.4.1 install. No noticeable difference. First two searches stopped without finding any files (for popular music artists). The third search returned files, I started the download, got to the approximate 99% completion point, quickly copied the filed from the Incomplete folder on my disk), and experienced the usual "LimeWire has detected corruption..." I choose to keep the file; it promptly disappeared from my Incomplete folder (and didn't land in my Library folder). I launched the copied version using Amadeus II 3.5.4 and it played just fine. Of course, it was cut off at the end!

Hence, I HIGHLY recommend Acquisition, core issues aside, because it works...it gets the job done...just like LimeWire Pro 2.4.4 did/does (when I reload and run it after an uninstall of the 2.8.6 files).

Fair enough. Java 1.4.1 does look positive, and I'm looking forward to Acq adopting the new developments seen in LW 2.9.2 (alpha). Still, I've had more good results from LW today than I've seen in a long time (I especially like the promise of the magnets), so I'm regaining hope for p2p on OSX. The gnutella network has had some bad times the last few months (I started using LW when the slide in the "historical record" really dropped), so you've at least had memories of better times.

Stuke, is there a fairly reliable way to test the merits of both? I don't trust my impressions because the network variables seem to outweigh any client advantages. I'm starting to learn how to use the terminal: do you know if I can enter a line to record the performance of the p2p clients? If we could try downloading/uploading the same small set of files, maybe we could get a handle on some of the variables, including client performance. Looks like we have the same OS, and I can use my wife's 800 G4 FP iMac DVD. I'm on a 700 iBook, and there's a 500 iBook I might be able to enlist. Others might be able to chip in too.

Any merit, or is everything changing so quickly that this would be pointless?

Thanks for the reply.

I'm not sure the work is worth the payoff, to be quite frank about it. Like I stated, the reason Acquisition is so appealing to me right now is because it works, or works for me, when I do my very little p2p stuff. So, I'm not inclined to do the investigative work for LimeWire, or Acquisition for that matter. I know, beta testing has become a "norm" but I'm a dedicated shareware registerer...if it works (like LW Pro 2.4.4 did and Acq .74 does), I'll pay your compensation. If is doesn't, I'll wait for a while for your fix. If you don't fix it, I'll look elsewhere for a solution and a place to send my money. Software debugging is not my job and I'm not the world's best at monkeying around with the Terminal. I can run it for the few UNIX benefits I like but then I heed the warnings and stay out.

Thanks for the great discussion...I'll keep watching!

Yup--I know what you mean. I was almost burnt by the early Safari beta, and it seemed that software development, even Apple's, now gets us to pay to be their beta testers. Doesn't seem right, but I get tired of waiting. I don't mind in a good-faith community, but even the high-priced stuff expects us to troubleshoot on our own. Looks to me like the iLife, .Mac, and OSX developments are encouraging this: the new Java update talks about releasing a bunch of the code to the opensource community. Acq has a great community forum that works with Dave, so learning how to get productively involved seems to be the way for OSX users .

I've been spoiled by the quality and compatibility of the Mac software since System 6.0.7, but OSX seems to be developing with different premises. Learning to run Norton, turn off an extension or two or trashing a pref was pretty well all I needed to do. My DOS/Windows friends kept huge IT departments and techies well fed, and spent more time debugging and reinstalling and paying and paying and paying. Graphicconverter is the best example of hassle free software on Mac I've seen, but there aren't many like it. One look at the LINUX client posts told me to be thankful I'm on OSX, but also foreshadowed what troubleshooting OSX UNIX based software might mean.

You're right that debugging is not our job. I just sense we may have to learn or start funding Windows technocracies!