Again you have come to this conclusion yourself, then ascribed it to me. I did not blame Gnutella (frankly I don't care what LimeWire runs on). I might guess Gnutella might be to blame, but I don't know this for a fact.

I can however observe that while acquisition and acqlite are not speed demons they do however finish more files than LW and seem to pick up unfinished files and continue them more often than LW does.

This was only the last time I repeated myself.

You have to care on which network Limewire runs, its VERY important when we are talking about speed.

I don´t know acqlite. Acpuisation is also running on Gnutella and is based on Limewire... as I explained you Gnutella is p2p you are never able to connect to the whole network only a small part of it. One part can be faster than an the other. Especially when you try to download rare files the results can be very different, also you can be out of luck... unless you didn´t test it for at least a few weeks with every client with the same files, you could not say which client is faster, after this you will see the average should be the same becasue they are running on the same network.

Morgwen

Not really, Morgwen.

But, the 'real world reality' supports your comments even more .

On planet Earth a so-called '256kbs' connection is going to result in a max of 27.6 - 27.3 kBs ...

And, that is with a 'tailwind' !!!

The biggest 'pump' in the world is NOT going to increase the 'flow' through a small pipe.

I only care what network i am on as far as the content it contains and, Guess what?, I am searching for the same material over and over and have been doing so for months.

I have only just discovered Poisoned & xNap in the last 2 weeks and already DLed vastly more than I have with LimeWire in the last few years.

acqlite is another LimeWire derived client. I have also used bitTorrent and Carracho extensively but they don't permit detailed searches.

Let's get down to what remains a constant. The hardware, network and OS. Poisoned performs substantially better than LimeWire for me and others but you don't want me to say so. even though Poisoned is a Gnutella client too.

Ursula you are speaking at a tangent again. LimeWire on its own, with no competing network client on my machine, only gets 2-5k max mostly less. And that in very occassional fits and starts, never sticking on a file to complete the DL in one go.

Poisoned completes its DLs in one go about 80% of the time, often peaking at max transfer speeds of 27-28k. The rest it picks up and finishes after one or 2 tries. I can only dream of LW managing a fraction of this.

Re: '256' = 27.3
 

No tangent.

Post directed to Morgwen.

Stated fact. Fact stated related to connection 'performance'.


You have, unless I missed it, not said whether or not you are able to use Poisoned accessing the Gnutella Network ONLY.

That may be of interest to others.
It may even constitute a legitimate comparison.

Many of us have been through all this stuff before with AudioGalaxy and, and, and and... Unless one truly undertsnads the nature of the NETWORK being used, it is not possible to compare clients.

'Blanket' statements are of little value.
All factors must be considered over an adequate evaluation period.

See the post here regarding 'finding' 149 so-called 'spyware' elements... All blamed on LimeWire when in fact the poster was using a garbage toy to 'find' the 'spyware'.

Foot-In-Mouth disease is rampant at times !

rubaiyat, the solar-flux levels being emitted from thine possibly bifurcated latex-solar-beef rectal orifice are diminishing.
:rolleyes:

I am not sure if you are now ironic. :confused:

But you are right its not 32kb it is 31,25kb:

8bit = 1byte
1024 bytes = 1kilobyte
1kb = 8192 bits
256000 bits/256kbits = 31,25kb

At least in my world...

Morgwen

ping !!!!!!!!


That is why I said, 'Real World'...

Yes on the mathematics...
No on the 'delivered reality'

OK, you big sexy 'silver dragon' ? :p

In both worlds, you forget the search traffic.

Morgwen

Note:

Acquisition and AcqLite are only GUI projects for the LimeWire core. Both authors neither work on Gnutella nor contribute to the LimeWire Open Source project. If Acquisition or AcqLite downloads faster it is only luck (or an illusion).

And AcqLite is an Acquisition clone!

The same is true for Poisoned which is only a User Interface for giFT. So if you see better downloads with Poisoned you should give your kudos to the giFT developers!

Morgwen, I sense that while you and I are enjoying chatting here, rubaiyat is furiously hammering out another reply...

He makes me think of yeast... You know, what you put in bread to make it 'rise'.

I am going to go bake some bread !!!!

BRB !

:D

Good point, also !!!! It only ADDS to the reduction of available bandwidth devoted to actual transfers.

And, rkapsi.... Tell it like it is, man !!!!
Thanks.;)

And now, bread...

BUT I AM WATCHING YOU, rubaiyat !!!

(Hey, Morgwen, understand now why I said, Constant Monitoring ???
Pity bachmann does not understand !)

Me? :confused:

I confirmed our rules and that I moved the post. After this rubaiyat continued the discussion... my fault was that I replied.

I need holidays. :)

I am out now. :p

Morgwen

No, Morgwen... rubaiyat makes me think of yeast... More time = More air.

:p

Post-Count Boogie !
 

Gee, rubaiyat, I keep forgetting to thank you...

As a moderator, the 'post-count' does not normally increase very much as the 'edits' within posts don't count.

You are doing marvels for my post-count... Thanks ! :rolleyes:

You weren't using LimeWire very much or you have to be very stupid. Maybe LimeWire's GUI is too complex for you.

Poisoned is a GUI for GiFT. GiFT has a Gnutella plugin. I have my doubts that it were performing so much better since I have been using GiFT for quite a while and it didn't blow my mind.
Since the 'felt' performance is not always an indicator for the actual performance I take the liberty of assuming that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

mfg

LimeWire version 3.9.1 Pro
Java version 1.4.1_01 from Apple Computer, Inc.
Mac OS X v. 10.2.8 on ppc
Free/total memory: 12940792/44482560

(btw Ursula, it's considered good form to run Virex to avoid sharing infected files as a coutesy to the Windows users)

As far as LW dl's are concerned--seems fine to me. I just searched for the names posted earlier, and within 5 minutes had plenty of downloads which I'm about to delete. The speeds look good.

just an update
 

added the average download speeds

Ah ha !

Looks like dear rubaiyat has a personal problem with HIS set up but prefers to blame LimeWire and Gnutella Network !

Well, we can all live in hope that he'll soon come to his senses and try to do something to clean up HIS system.

And, stief, that is very good news that you have already deleted those files you downloaded as an experiment only... Or, someone would need to delete your posts above. Excellent example of resposibility in not retaining and/or sharing copyrighted material !

Have you noted my bandwidth at all? You haven't said yours but obviously it is greater than mine.

Also note that Poisoned achieves max bandwidth without my having to fiddle with settings. A few ther posters have experienced the same.

"I'll bet", again now that you have "bet"... it is a fact.

Name one! Just because it is natural on your OS you presume the same for mine. I field stacks of the nasties most days. My Mac actually protects my PC.

Methinks not at all. Then me immediately presumes, then me immediately declares that a fact because me has not even asked. Me being like most of the posters here.

Yes Poisoned shares and shares at a far greater pace than it DLs. I am well aware of the etiguette. If you had bothered reading my original post in this thread you would have seen that.

Again bandwidth. I agree the experience of PC users vs Mac users is eminently different... with LimeWire. Poisoned seems to deliver as much as the bandwidth allows. Ipso Facto it is not the HW/OS and therefore it comes back to LW not working as well on my set-up as yours. What is different on mine? Well the OS, the bandwidth, my location and my ISP (tho I have tried several).

I am constantly accused of not detailing my set-up. Mostly I am not given the chance, since the argument constantly revolves around whether I can even speak, or my intelligence, or the like.

Those achieving the high transfer should state their OS, HW, location, physical network, whether they have a default installation, their settings, whether they have to fiddle with ports or strike special deals with their ISPs.

Then at last we may have something to compare. For those who have not been paying attention mine is:

Mac OS 10.3.2 or 10.2.8 on a Mac G4 400Mhz AGP with 1.25Gb RAM, I am downunder, I access my ISP via VDSL using PPPoE (10/100), default installation, Firewall is off, I have not fiddled with my ports, my ISP says it has nothing blocking Gnutella (whether this is true I can't say).

Peerless--I couldn't find the fairly recent post on slashdot that repeated the claim that there were "no, none, zip, nada" viruses written for OSX, 60-some for OS 9 and Linux each, but I did manage to find a repeat of the usual "Nyeah nyeah OSX has no viruses" kind of discussion on http://www.undergroundmac.com/forums...pic=2420&st=20 , where one poster claimed to have found a couple. That was interesting, since the only other one I'd heard about was at http://macbuyersguide.com/solutions/security/ ., contained in a 30.5 KB file called "DVD studio pro 2 [k].sit." I have tried to search for it several times on LimeWire with no 'luck'--maybe Poisoned can be more successful.

I agree with you about the leeching, and so does the developer (Julian Ashton) http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=330

btw Ursula, I was not doing anything illegal by downloading those music files for my own personal use, but it would have been an copyright infringement to share them. http://www.canfli.org/modules.php?op...es&id_cat=2#28

rubaiyat, go to http://magnetdb.ath.cx/viewtopic.php?t=16 and download my magnet (it's just a 2MB .jpg). Let me know what kind of speeds you get and maybe we can get some decent info on what the problem is.

2 other points:

I am not sharing apps, just documents so I am fulfilling my etiquette re viruses.

Poisoned has the ability to filter based on networks and in the preferences I can choose which networks to connect and search. They are all currently selected for searching and connecting. Why would I want to see less?

Interesting would be for anyone else who has OSX and gets good LimeWire transfers to:

1. Outline what they have done to achieve this, if anything

2. Compare with Poisoned on their set-up and feed back their relative performance.

Thanks Stief.

I don't like the "Nyah Nyah..." stupidity either but on the other hand I don't like PC users making out we have the problem too, when we don't! Gives them some false consolation I guess.

As you can see by my reference even the vendors of Anti-Virus s'ware concede that. Yes we can get M$ macro viruses, but there is a simple way to avoid those.

btw "Why aren't there as many programs for the Mac as the PC? A Because we don't count viruses" s:-)

I'll keep trying but on this attempt it said "Need more sources" and nothing DLed.

Whilst I was in LW I checked the ULs and they are going at a healthy and steady 5 files @ 1-2k ea (I am still running both Poisoned and acqlite).

OSX is bound to get viruses, and when they hit, we'll be so inexperienced and Peerless will help, so don't go bashing.

I'm trying the newest beta, and it looks like a magnet request triggers a NPE--took me forever to discard the bug reports. How many times did you click the magnet? I probably formatted the magnet incorrectly. Interesting that it showed as "Need more sources" at your end.

Just try a regular search for "MagBay.jpg"

This won't be fair --you're running too many connections--but will be a start.

Thanks Peerless--I didn't know of that link. It brings back lots of memories (mostly old OS 9), but I can't see any OSX ones there.

Thanks stief you have been fantastic.

First time I have been told anything, instead of just being blamed. Helps that you know what you are talking about.

I'll pursue what we have discussed further in Panther and see if it effects anything there.

well--you were rightly blamed when you raised all the hackles, and you were treated pretty well. There's no decent way to fairly compare clients yet, since there are so many variables. The whole p2p project is dynamic and changing, so last week's comparisons are probably going to be different next week.

Get to know the experts--they all know more than me, and many are open source coders who freely contribute their skills and help if you ask a decent question. See http://www.limewire.org/

Anyway--we all contibute what we can. How about you answer the next "X is better than Y" poster next weekend?

cheers. Thanks for helping me figure out that LW 3.6.8 was choking on the magnet.

Unfortunately my answer still won't be LimeWire. All we established was the latest release can DL faster. I am still in the position of most files barely trickling through. Your file ran fast but nothing much else has.

My consolation is that now it works a bit more like acqlite and at least finishes some files, I just have to be patient.



:cool:

When I review the thread, many people told you the possible reasons but you didn´t listen.

Morgwen

Let me see, were they the viruses, firewalls or some unspecified adjustments I should make to my network if I wasn't so stupid and could guess what they might be?

stief actually did help and I thank him for that.

'Speed' Comparisons
 

As mentioned before, I am sharing a fairly large number of 'small' files...
(I am also sharing some 'largish' files - 16MB-99MB - but no more than about 15 in that size range. Then about 90 files in the 2MB-15MB range.)
The balance of my approximately total 1,600 shared files are about 15% > 1MB... In other words, the great majority of my shared files are less than 1MB.

I am allowing 5 Upload Slots and a Max of 4 for Queueing. (The Max of 4 for Queueing is not constant - I frequently alter the setting in order to observe the impact on 'output' over a 3-4 day period... 'Jury' is still out !)
I use such 'small number settings' because they result in far higher overall performance. The one factor of p2p file sharing which is not to be ignored is that of 'exposure'... That means that the longer it takes to complete a file transfer the more likely it is that there will be some problem. In and Out as FAST as possible is the big key to success. Only way to achieve that with a given bandwidth is to do as little as possible as well as possible ! Hmmm ? Big 'pretty numbers' are a fallacy.

I mention all of the above in order to explain why it is that I am able to observe 'client performance' in a way that is not particularly 'normal' as far as the majority of people are concerned. I have an enormous 'turnover' per 24 hours with a very wide variety of clients Downloading from me.

With the proviso that there are always exceptions, in the comments I am about to make 'exceptions' mean 'rare occurences'. I am also going to refrain from mentioning ALL of the clients I observe.

In terms of 'speed' and successful 'completions' of file transfers there is little to choose between LimeWire, BearShare, Gtk-Gnutella, the LimeWire 'derivatives' and Gnucleus.
They are all fairly high-performers with rarely any problems.
The latest BearShare 4.4.0.5x series may have a slight 'edge' over the others... For now ! Mañana ??? Who knows ?

The variations in performance which I can observe are almost always due to 'operators' trying to do too much with too little. (I say that because, with enough years of experience with this loony hobby, it's not too difficult to 'read' what is going on at the 'other end'.)
;)

The only client which is very frequently a problem, in regards to 'speed' - or, occupying an Upload Slot for hours for a tiny file; failure to 'close' on completion; 'retry/wait states' on the order of 10-30 times more than other clients - is Shareaza. (Ditto for Downloads from Shareaza Users.)


Specifically, and on topic here, LimeWire functions well for the very great majority of users.

Shifting 850MB to 1.05GB Uploads per day of 263kB, 684kB, 1382kB, etc., etc. files makes it fairly easy to clearly see what's doing what !

Although I am not using LimeWire now, it is easy to state that


LimeWire works.

If there are 'settings' problems associated with LimeWire, than that is another issue.
But it is an 'issue' which applies to nearly all clients.

Re: 'Speed' Comparisons
 

Thanks for all the details s:-) ... And for finally mentioning your clients!!!! Now that didn't hurt, did it!

I take it you are using a far greater bandwidth than I have. That in itself has a substantial effect. As you say fast in, fast out is always best. That is self evident!

It makes it even more pertinent that I can do as well as I do with my narrow bandwidth.

I beg to differ on your above comment. Perhaps because you do not have a Mac, so you can not try Poisoned which took no setting up and just ran as expected.

stief thinks Poisoned may use port hopping to get its better results. I don't care how it does it, just that it does.

There was an issue with the last upgrade stuffing up existing daemons but I am able to run it here in my old Jaguar system perfectly well till a new version clears up the one in Panther. The upgrades come quick and fast so I'll let it mature a few more iterations before upgrading.

Re: Re: 'Speed' Comparisons
 

Not even a wee bit !

Because I did NOT mention what client I am using.
I only mentioned some of the clients being used by people who are Downloading files from me !
(Anyway, you KNOW which client I am using !) ;)Taken incorrectly...

Me is humpin' along here on ADSL 256/128 which, in the real world, works out at an average max of 27.3kBs Down and 13.8kBs UP for my rather common set-up. With the client I am using I am running with ALL Default Settings... Wisely, there has been much progress with this client and the user is allowed to alter very few of the important settings. I only bitch about 2 of the 'user determined' settings because there are limits imposed which relate more to those who are sharing large files at the 'expense' of those who are sharing mainly small files... It's not really that big of a deal though... I mean, what can you do with 'statistics freaks' ?
:p

Besides, they are doing what they do for the overall general well-being of the network. Sure beats fools with 2,000 Upload Queue slots as default or even allowable !
"I don't care how the oranges apple, just that they do."

Still need to compare like with like. :eek:

Found it!--that comment on slashdot about no viruses for OS X (search for "nada" to find the comment)

LOL--the thread discusses volunteer helpers, and has some pretty funny posts. e.g
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0...01&mode=thread

Let see who started the "unpolite" statements, this was your answer after etVoila tried to help:

And don´t forget you was the one who is the wannabe expert and know which client is faster...:rolleyes:

You shouldn´t wonder when the people blame you after such comments, an other lesson...

Morgwen

True I was intemperate, but I reacted to etVoila saying I was in a "parallel Universe" just because our experiences are different. Mine is not real, his is.

Geez thanks, now I am a wannabe expert! Where did I claim expertise? All I related was my experience.

My experience was, and still is, that LimeWire is slow and unreliable at getting files. After stief helped me all that has happened is it is less slow and unreliable.

You are free to come around to my place and observe its performance. I share this experience with other posters here. The reason why some people get better results has not been explained to me yet.

The way you react... doesn´t matter what we said you ignored it and told us your experience, instead of reading and understanding what we tried to explain you. And who said that he knows which client is faster? I used almost every client and tested much and I never would say which client is faster because I can´t, think about it...

Because sometimes it can´t be explained by "outsiders", there is no allround solution for fast downloads. We tried to explain you the possible reasons and its you who have to check if it helps or not.

Morgwen

Ace !!!

You're ON, mate !!!!!!

btw, How much is 1st-Class airfare to Australia ?
Are you sure you can afford it ?
Will you meet me at the plane ?
You got any of that non-Koala hospitality ?
Is my room en-suite ?
Let's see... It's 2004 now... When would I have to leave ?

Hey, it won't be all take and no give on my part !

You show me your parallel universe and I'll show you mine !!!

:p

btw2, What's for dinner ?

Great! Will you be wearing that s;-) bikini Ursula?

btw I like it dripping wet.

Latest News from the Parallel Universe

Have been running the version of LimeWire stief put me onto for over 2 days now with no other network clients running and only occassional browser connection.

In trials with stief it ran smoothly and DLed from 6kbs to occassionally 20kbs. With real world files (shall we note the original post in this thread?) I have succeeded in DLing 5 files of from 6Mb to 10Mb. They all only intermittently DL. One never goes past 99% but keeps reconnecting. I have a balance of about 30 files. Those that are forever on 0% I cancelled, the others never get past 61% (2) and the rest stick at 7-14%

There is a clear pattern of LW cycling through DL and waiting, then after a few cycles needing more sources. Whereas Poisoned tends to connect and finish the job and do so at a much faster speed. I have observed my ULs in both LW and P and they follow a similar pattern, although ULs run much faster and steadily in both clients.

To me it seems LW's idea of distributing the load is a bit now & a bit later. Much like a waiter with several tables to serve, giving everyone a spoonful of peas then half a potato etc. Instead of serving them in order and giving each table one course when it is their turn.

Others have reported much the same although not in such detail. They have also noted the dramatically different behaviour when switching to P. This morning I started P again to check if LW changed with a second client running. Nothing noticeable, since LW is hardly using the full bandwidth. P in this relatively short time has DLed 5 files over 22Mb and one of 128mb. Obviously different source material but it follows the same pattern I had when aiming at the smaller files I use LW for, only because LW has zero chance of getting anything bigger on my machine.

P does this without having the many multi-server files that I concentrate on in LW. As I have said repeatedly, it is not like there is a little difference, there is a major difference between the 2 clients.

Now Ursula, if you are deciding which way to get to my parallel universe, I can recommend one which would almost certainly get you here quickly, and one which never would if you are over 20mb.

Sorry about the triple post. My browser reported it couldn't connect, so I continued editing and went via preview.

And I explained to you my observations and did you try to understand them?

Ich versteht das Englisch ist nicht deine mutter Zung, ich der gleiche Problem werde haben ob es Deutsch war..

Perhaps that is why you so often miss what I am saying. Much as you accused the other poster of asking for serials when he said series.

Most of what you said asserted something that I was already doing, had tried or did not apply. The mere fact of saying something does not make it true or relevent and has been why we have gone round and round in circles.

I am no expert in Gnutella or any of the p2p protocols. I am a user who has tried every form of p2p, over the last 5 or so years, that runs on my platform. I tend to beat them to death for all they are worth. They are just tools to achieve my ends and that is how I look at them.

If they don't measure up I do not hesitate to say so. They all have their faults and their pluses.

Are these forums just fan clubs for particular software?

Re: Time To Get Heavy
 

In response to cosborn...
This is what the use of the word Serial was all about.

'Serial Troll' as a play on the words 'Serial Killer'...
'Serial' > meaning > 'repetitive'.
Nothing serious.

Now, back to the topic !

No problem...
In fact, without going into it all, that was more amusing than either of you intended !!! Ha Ha Ha ;)WHOA !!!

Hang on there a sec, big guy !!!

What's this ?
ANOTHER connection problem ? :o

Hmmm, this is interesting.
Or, is it ?
:confused:

Thanks for cleaning it up.


It happens occassionally.

You get perfect connection all the time?

Hey how about I move into your parallel universe?

[Note]
-I should never talk again about parallel universes in a forum.
[/End Note]

Getting back onto the original post.

I have just searched for João Gilberto in both LW & P.

Results:

Hits:
LW - approx 120 (is there anywhere it reports this?) many with multiple hosts, one has 20
P - 324 relatively few multiple hosts, max of 4

DL speeds:
LW - up to 6kB/s settling to max 3kB/s most less than 1kB/s or 0
P - up to 17.6kB/s settling to 6kB/s

DLs
LW - best so far still only has 85%
P - has finished 3 and working on others

Where do I do this. I looked and could see no option.

It would get me out of a lot of trouble when it is my turn to be the Serial Cretin s;-)

k, last time I post to that repetitive thread....
I searched for that artist got 179 results (LW ultrapeers stop sending searches when you get 160 results with 4 leafs connections).
Downloads are normal:
*Edited: It's gone now!*
Of course I've deleted the unfinished downloads after the screenshot. (and this screenshot will be gone tomorrow).

:rolleyes:

Thanks et voià

This confirms 2 things;

You have a MUCH greater bandwidth than I do, and...

There is something different in our s'ware/settings/networks

btw Ursula what do u read into et voià's multiple posting? In my non expert opinion the problem could perhaps be at the server end.

But then I don't just want to jump in and blame someone.