Acquisition Runs Much Better For Me
 

LimeWire has given me some fairly decent performance for a while now and I appreciate those who have developed it.

Nonetheless, I now fully believe that each version of LimeWire has become slower and more buggy than the last when running on the various versions of OS X I've been using, now 10.2.3. I've got a cable connection and a G4 500mhz with 512 mb ram.

The latest version slows my entire system to a crawl and then freezes completely. I can't even force quit or switch to another app.

I've started using Acquisition and it already runs significantly faster and with less difficulty at version .72 than any version of LimeWire has. The interface is also a familiar match with Apple's latest apps.

So for those looking for an alternative Gnutella client: http://www.acquisitionx.com/

My experience exactly
 

A number of us have been saying the same thing.

What I don't understand is why the LimeWire team is doing something about the situation, or, at the very least, why they don't come into this forum and explain what's going on.

Janet

Thanks for the Acquisition tip. However, they seem to require Jag at the minimum (I have 10.1.5)...any alternatives?

And where do you suppose all the LW moderators are hiding? An explanation of LW's broad failures on X would be really helpful.

</preaching to choir>

Thanks.

MY SENTIMENTS EXACTLY!
 

Acquisition rocks! Limewire Pro 2.4.4 rocked, then it became 2.8.6 and it (pardon me) sucks!

The funny thing is, Acquisition uses LimeWire technology (see the About Acquisition stuff) and it is much more reliable, stable, and dependable (none of this file corruption after 99% download with no trace of the file on the file system even after saying "keep").

Goes to show you the power of Objective-C versus Java on the Mac OS X/UNIX system, IMHO

OSX is not UNIX.

"OSX is not UNIX."


And . . . . . your point is . . . . . . . ?

OSX is not UNIX. Is that sentence too complicated for you?

No, not complicated at all. But as OS X is based upon the Unix kernel, I do not understand what you are trying to get across.

There is no such thing as a UNIX kernel. UNIX is just a certificate from the opengroup ( www.opengroup.org ). Even Microsoft could have Windows become a certified UNIx if they wanted.

MacOSX is based upon BSD which is based upon AT&T's original unix operating system but IIRC they had to remove all of the original code from BSD because of licensing issues. So:

MacOSX is not UNIX.

Thanks for the clarification. These types of details may not be obvious to the average OS X user who tries to have a basic knowledge of the OS. Particularly when Apple puts statements such as the one below on their page for OS X:






Referred to by its code name, Jaguar, Mac OS X v10.2 is a different breed of operating system. Jaguar combines the rock-solid reliability of UNIX with the ease of use of Macintosh. This version of Mac OS X is as innovative as the computers that run it. And whether you?re a Mac user who?s upgrading, a Windows user who?s looking at switching to the Mac or a UNIX user who loves the idea of using key applications like Microsoft Office on top of a state-of-the art BSD UNIX implementation, this is the OS for you.