Limewire 2.8.5 in MacOS 10.2.3 = :(
 

I am running MacOS 10.2.3 with Limewire 2.8.5 (all the latest builds) on my Power Mac G4 500mhz with 384mb ram. I get the same lockups that everyone else is mentioning in this forum. It does not matter how many (or how few) peers I am connecting to, it does not matter how many files I am sharing, it does not matter how many programs I am running alongside limewire, it does not matter if I had just rebooted, IT JUST CRASHES!!! It starts slow, runs slow, and slows down the entire system, as if it were overloading the CPU. For example, it takes two minutes just for the Entourage splash screen to show up while Limewire is running. Limewire is the only program that has ever done this to me. It sucks. Period. I thought that by now the folks who made this program would have heard our cries by now, but alas, even with the latest build, they have done nothing to help us. I am now settling down with Aquisition, and am hereby tossing Limewire out the window. THANKS FOR NOTHING, LIMEWIRE!!!:( :mad:

Apple's Java implementation is extremely buggy. If you have problems with LimeWire run Acquisition from www.xlife.org instead. Acquisition is LimeWire with a native GUI for MacOSX running faster and a little more stable.

Additionally, do not use 2.8.5. Either use 2.8.6 (less buggy) or as trap jaw mentioned, just go with Acquisition until somebody steps up at limewire.
Acquisition runs very stable if you upgrqade your Java to version 1.4.1, which as of now is a preview release available through the Apple Developer Connection, which you can sign up for at no charge.

If you upgrade to Java 1.4.1 for MacOSX, even regular LimeWire should run stable.

With Java 1.3.1, I would get java core crashes, but the app itself would keep running. 1.4.1 eliminated those.
Will 1.4.1 eliminate the many unexpected LimeWire quits also?

Yes. LimeWire only shows this behaviour of unexpected quits on MacOSX using Java 1.3

"Yes. LimeWire only shows this behaviour of unexpected quits on MacOSX using Java 1.3"

Sorry trap_jaw, that is not accurate.

On a whim, I decided to try LimeWire Pro 2.8.6 again, based on your information. I left it running for about 3 hours, and when I returned to the desktop, it had unexpectedly quit, same as before installing Java 1.4.1.

I ran version 0.74 of Acquisition for the better part of a week with NO crashes. NONE!

I was hoping you would be correct, I really was, but Acquisition is far superior in performance. By the way, what has become of your fellow developers? First it was the holidays, now what? Busy preparing for Valentine's Day?

No Help
 

Sorry guys, but regardless of which version of Java I have running, I still get uber-crappy performance while Limewire is running, and I am still going to stick with Aquisition. Thanks anyways!

"Sorry guys, but regardless of which version of Java I have running, I still get uber-crappy performance while Limewire is running, and I am still going to stick with Aquisition. Thanks anyways!"


Yes, I think that is the popular opinion. And still, nothing from "the Team".

Dispelling rumors and myths
 

LimeWire will currently NOT run within the Java 1.4.1 preview environment on Mac OS X. Even if you've installed 1.4.1, LimeWire will run in the 1.3.1 environment.

With earlier versions of LimeWire and the 1.4.1 Java preview, LimeWire would begin loading in the 1.4.1 environment and fail. With current versions of either, 1.3.1 is used.

Changes in Apple's Java runtime library are at the root of the problem. LimeWire will need some changes if it is to run under 1.4.1 on Mac OS X and provide proper OS integration.

It _is_ possible to run LimeWire under the 1.4.1 preview on Mac OS X by modifying LimeWire slightly to disable all Mac-specific code. This yields a "metal"-themed LimeWire with no OS integration, and as of the current 1.4.1 preview (DP10), is actually _less_ stable than running LimeWire under 1.3.1.

Mark
@version@/10.2.4

ok so how do I un-install the 1.4.1 preview since that is the only reason I installed it? I don't need anything on my system that could potentially cause system instability... I get kernel panics now when loading Wolfenstein and when deleting empty folders and installation packages from the trash. That wasn't happening before.

Glad to see someone Dispelling rumors and myths
 

Is this what Acquisition does? I thought Acquisition is still primarily Limewire.

Aquisition is Gnutella, Limewire is Gnutella, but Aquisition is not Limewire. Different source code... the only similarity is protocol compatibility...

>Aquisition is Gnutella, Limewire is Gnutella, but Aquisition is not Limewire. Different source code... the only similarity is protocol compatibility

You're wrong, Acquisition _is_ LimeWire. It uses the exact same source code for all core functionality. The only difference is the display.

" Acquisition _is_ LimeWire. It uses the exact same source code for all core functionality. The only difference is the display."

Absolutely incorrect.

LimeWire is a bug ridden, non supported application that crashes consistently.

Acquisition is a well written application that is as stable as OS X. Plus, the developer actually participates in discussions with his customers in an effort to create a product that incorporates user feedback in its evolution.

Dealing with the people at LimeWire is like dealing with Microsoft. If you have a problem, you are SOL and on your own.

Hey clueless--easy now. Dave writes that Acquisition is dependent on Limewire for the source code. There is a difference in the two, but I don't know the exact nature of those differences. Sam says the source code is the same, Dave wrote that "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. [np] Wait until LW 2.9/3.0 emerges in wide release before really worrying about it. The network is just not optimized right now for dynamic querying."

Yeah, there are differences, and yeah, they are frustrating for those of us who know time is running out on the freedom of p2p. As for why one or the other downloads--I'd only be guessing. All I've seen in the last few months is that no platform or client combination is reliable. Don't bash the coders on matters of fact. The business manager is posting on the Limewire message boards--maybe you should take it there?

Sorry--here's the link to the message board where Acquisition and Limewire are mentioned http://core.limewire.org/servlets/Su...t?listName=dev and http://www.sciforums.com/f72/s/showt...threadid=17431

the reason the search architecture for the Acquisition beta is different than the currently released LimeWire is because LimeWire has not yet released a stable version with the new architecture. it is still undergoing heavy revision in the development process. Dave just happened to download the code at a time he thought it was stable.

Dave even says it .. " Search performance is a core-side issue (LimeWire), so while I appreciate any effort to inform me, it's directed at the wrong person." So yeah -- the essential functions of Acquisition are _exactly_ the same as those of LimeWire.

Re: Glad to see someone Dispelling rumors and myths
 

The LimeWire project is split into two parts, core and gui. Acquisition embeds the LimeWire core. It may use a more up-to-date version of the core than is present in the currently released version of LimeWire, 2.8.6. I don't believe it takes advantage of the 1.4.1 preview JRE, but that wouldn't really be responsible for perceived performance differences.

The Acquisition front-end is native Cocoa, it does not use the LimeWire gui.

Mark
@version@/10.2.4

Thanks Sam, Mark and Clueless for the questions, answers and ideas.

Any more suggestions where to look for answers why p2p is worth the hassle of using and developing on OSX? Gathering and sharing "free stuff" is sure not simple, seems quite risky, and looks to require lots of patience.

Currently I look for answers here, on the Limewire mailing lists (thanks Sam), and the Acquisition posts on sciforums.com. I did run across a place where "flames on" . . .

BTW--The price of my Pro has been repaid with curiousity, novelty and anticipation (once I got over feeling suckered). The world of p2p on OSX is better than cable TV. I hope to hear that Limewire and Acquisition work out a fee sharing arrangement, where each gets a portion of a fee in proportion to their contributions in core/gui development and OSX customer support, and both Limewire and Acquisition work on a system of recognition for the volunteer coders.

It's not going to get any worse before it gets better.

Are you running 10.2.4? There are some behind-the-scenes changes that might make or break your decision to stick with it, even with 2.8.6.

Mark
@version@/10.2.4

Sorry for the triple post
 

web site not fully compatible with Safari?

Hi Mark. Sounds intriguing. Yes, 10.2.4 on an 700 iBook G3; cable modem connected to a two ethernet Mac IIci (running 7.6.1!) serving my home Lan of a G4 iMAc DVD, a 500 iBook, and assorted other museum computers.

Just heard of another good reference. Janus noted http://www.ists.dartmouth.edu/IRIA/k...p/p2p_full.htm as being worth the read--the legal section looked good.

BTW--is it bad form to delete unnecessary posts? I clicked the submit button twice (on IE) because the first submit reported a connection failure. The second click worked, but showed a double post. I then used the edit button to open up a delete option, and reedited the first to add this. Not Safari.

In developer/ coder speak, the two programs may be the same. But as a lay user who has purchased both programs, I can factually state that on my system, 10.2.4 w Java Preview 1.4.1, on a G4 400 with 1 gig of RAM, Acquisition by far out performs LimeWire in terms of stability.

Back in December, when you put out probably the worst piece of doodoo in the form of 2.8.5, somebody in your firm decided it would be a good time to leave for the holidays, and many of us are still waiting for answers to our support emails. Not that they would help, based upon the answers we receive here in the forum.

On the other hand, Dave seems to be able to code a decent program and actively participate in the forum for his program. And his app works, without the need for 'chunky loading', which you seem to favor.

Today I decided to try using LW 2.8.6 Pro once again, and found that it now sticks on the splash screen at "Loading User Interface". Trashing the prefs didn't fix it. Reinstalling didn't fix it.
Uninstalling did fix it, and that's where it will stay until such time that you might deliver something worthy of a paid application.

My Acquisition 0.74 has been happily chugging along all day long, as it always does.

I don't know if coder and business office is one and the same, but if so, then I think you have earned a little honest bashing, if that's what you wish to call it.

Put out a decent product once again, and I will be humbly happy to sing your praises..

That's the whole point of why I started his thread. It has gone full circle, without resolution, and hey what the heck, I tried Limewire again after Apple released 10.2.4.... it still sucks, and I still won't use it. Yay Aquisition!

Please--what do you have that allows Acquisition to work for you? It's been as bad for me as Limewire. Do you have direct connections? Better home network setups?
I've been faithfully reading the Acquisition posts, and see liitle hope for my troubles uploading. How are your uploads? Others in my home say Aquisition works when reverted to .72 for downloads, but didn't know about uploads.

I have a PowerMac G4 500 with 300+meg's of ram, and OS X 10.2.4, and a stock 25gig HD.... nothing really special, except that it is an Apple Macintosh computer, which is special enough :-)

Stief, if what you are saying is that you can't seem to hold on to a peer for as long as it would take to complete a download, that's their fault for not wanting to stay online for as long as you. Nothing to do with the OS, nothing to do with Gnutella, so you might want to increase the number of peers that you connect to, and choose to download files with more than one peer sharing that file at one time.

Yeah, uptime helps downloads, but I'm interested in uploads. Thanks though. I wonder if I can commandeer the family iMac G4 and see if it's a G3 problem.

BTW--the new Acquisition is just out, and has also reached a fee-sharing arrangement with Limewire. Yay! I hope this means we don't have to worry about one not cooperating with the other. (Here's the ref if you haven't seen it http://www.sciforums.com/f72/s/showt...threadid=17735).

Are you on a direct connection?

Also, I don't know enough to judge the risk on OSX of turning the firewall off. Could this be why you and Clueless find Acquisition so much better?

I am Dave, Acquisition's developer.

All protocol handling in Acquisition uses the LimeWire source code. But anything you see on the screen (the user interface) is new code written in Cocoa/Objective-C specifically for Mac OS X. It's been this way since Acquisition 0.6 was released last July.

Actually no, the "new" Acquisition is not out. We're in very small scale beta release, mostly waiting for the next stable and general release of LimeWire. At present, version 0.74 is the stable release. And no, there is no "fee-sharing" agreement either.

Dave--thanks for the info, and clarifications.
When you said "I reached an agreement a while back with Greg Bildson at LimeWire that will see Acquisition's interface code return to the public domain as of version 0.76" I misunderstood _agreement_, and also forgot that you'd explained about an odd numbering system of beta releases. My apologies. My wife warns me--think more, submit less. :confused:

I guess _dependent_ on protocol is close enough to "essentially Limewire," but do you think the interface differences are enough to explain why Clueless, Sleepless and others see a significant difference in performance? If not, any tips on where to look until the next releases would be appreciated.

Re the financial aspects, I wrote earlier in this thread that "I hope to hear that Limewire and Acquisition work out a fee sharing arrangement, where each gets a portion of a fee in proportion to their contributions in core/gui development and OSX customer support, and both Limewire and Acquisition work on a system of recognition for the volunteer coders."

Is this too unrealistic or out of place, or is it already handled by the Pro donation/Acquisition registration fees? However it's handled, it seems important to know Acquisition and Limewire are cooperating.

Any new pointers or hope on sharing solutions for OSX?

Cheers--and thanks to all who are working on p2p.

Yes, I have the firewall off, and as you suggest, .074 seems to get more uploads.
I am only testing 0.752 as of today, so I need to watch it more to better evaluate upload trends.

The new bandwidth slider really makes a difference in allowing me to browse via Safari at a speed that is usable. With Acquisition bandwidth set at full ala .074, Safari took a long time while 'connecting to', but since the bandwidth control, it is way better for me, set at 50%.
So far I have only seen a maximum of 2 uploads at a time using 0.752, while .074 was frequently at 6.

I'm on a cable connect that is very fast.

For my money, while LimeWire keeps telling us to
'just wait until _____, then it'll really be good'
(you can fill in the blank with your favorite), while Acquisition is pretty darn good right now.

And if you post a legitimate problem to the Acq board, you can expect an honest answer, instead of the denial and mumbo jumbo from the LimeWire team that usually tries to blame the problem on the user and/or Apple.

Thanks Clueless! I'm envious you get a clean connect and don't have to share the cable with kids playing online games, or risk their even more unprotected browsing! (I seem to get all the fixing, which is why I stick with Macs. Gad, I don't have enough life left to learn more solutions for control-alt-delete).

Re support, I agree with your comments about Dave and the Acq forums. It's much more efficient to speak with a smaller group that shares a common OS. I don't know how Dave finds the time to write in all the places he does.
Still, support here is far superior though often more varied than what I've seen elsewhere. A two-month-old-$1500 digital camera gets me professional Sony support who repeatedly tell me the drivers are built into OSX, the editing software only runs in Classic (no matter what I asked), to carry the CD with me if I want to download to Windows computers, and only updates pre-10.2 are supported. It sure felt that me, Apple, and my OS were to blame. Yeah, it's easy to feel like the minority in the Intel world. At least we can speak English, and people here are mostly willing to help.

So--back to routers and firewalls again. I've learned they are a fundamental problem in p2p, but Limewire/Acquisition and the opensourcers might turn up new possibilities before someone shuts it down. Thanks again.

I don't bother with firewalls, because I am frequently also hosting ftp sessions with friends and co-workers. They cant download from me or upload to me if the firewall is on, so it stays off. I'm not sure why it is, but I get less uplads on Limewire than I do with Aquisition, as well. Maybe the code was ever so slightly altered to handle network traffic more efficiently? I dunno.

Stief:

re support, unfortunately there is no shortage of bad examples in the data and electronics world, so I try and go out of my way to praise and recommend the good ones to others. Those are the companies I will gladly endorse and repurchase from. As for the others, only if I have to and there are no alternatives. My experience is that Sony is one of the worst, along with 'you know who'.
I also bought a Sony digital camera. Last one in stock, missing a manual and a FireWire cable. Called Sony to ask if they would replace them for me, $43 for the manual, $30 for the cable. Thanks, I'll download a pdf manual, and get a card reader.
I resent feeling like I am bothering someone to get their product to work.

BTW, no router either for me, just an ethernet hub and two ip's. More costly in the long run, but it works.

Yup! That really sums up support issues for me--might even be a better idea for a T-shirt. Sorry to hear about the camera. That really hurts.

As for firewalls and routers, thanks for the reminder. My ISP allows 2 free static IP's, but we have 4 users, so maybe sharing two will halve the problem. Security is a different problem when gov and industry would love to easily check our internet activity. Secure FTP must be successful and OSX looks compatible, but I couldn't see paying for Interarchy's last upgrade since I never really used the last couple of upgrades I paid for. Any pointers here Sleepless?
Gotta run.

you have to be careful with internet connection sharing. some ISP's won't allow it, because of bandwidth concerns. in my area, that hasn't been a problem, as I have called both Sympatico HSE and my cable provider, and neither of them have any issues with two to five computers being on the same line. If you do try to connect several computers through one line, and your ISP doesn't like it, they may a)cut off your bandwidth or b)charge extra.

Good point, sleepless.

My ISP actually told me that I should buy my own modem and router in order to save money. That's way more honesty than I am accustomed to.

I have great service with them, so I don't want to do anything to p*ss them off.

The 700MHz G3 is sufficient. LimeWire works just as well (or, when not working, not well) for me on the 700MHz G3 as on the 800MHz G4 and the 400MHz G3.

Nah, I just didn't realize that option was available here.

Mark
@version@/10.2.4

You can be uploading or downloading with no active peers.

One thing that I find helps is to set the maximum number of Gnutella connections in the Connections tab. (If you don't have a Connections tab, do View:Connections.) Upon starting LimeWire, wait until the connections reach a fairly stable state, with only active connections shown, no "Connecting..." attempts. Then, select the number of connections from the text box, retype the same number in its place, and wait for a stable state again.

When LimeWire starts, it won't open the maximum number of connections that you have told it to keep. By selecting and reentering the number, you force LimeWire to attempt to open the maximum number of connections.

Mark
@version@/10.2.4

OS 9.1
 

Major bummer, I am running 2.8.6. It runs great for a time, but if you click on the finder or desktop, the program unexpectedly quits with a type 2 error.
10 out of 10 times. I'd love to be able to have just limewire running but it's not really realistic. Any ideas of what could be causing the crashes? system conflict? bad programming?
I'm not going to pay for this program if the free version doesn't work.
feel free to email

&^%@^#! Ok, stick a fork in me, I'm done.
 

After looking up aquisition, I was duely impressed.
Only problem is, the entire world is not on OS X.
I am still running 9.1, and am looking for something that actually works.
Since the good folks at lime wire tell me that i need to buy limewire to get help on it becasue it doesn't work worth a crap, I've decided that I'm going to bag it all together.
Can anyone give me any other options?

Hi digory. Julie Z has some good ideas on troubleshooting Os 9, especially on memory allocation. Will this link on the Type 2 error help you get started? http://www.gnutellaforums.com/showth...hreadid=18592? If not, search for posts by her and you may get more. I've found lots of support in the forums but had none from Pro. Buy Pro to support p2p development, and you won't feel suckered if your problem isn't easily solved.

And Mark--sorry for not replying earlier. Saved me some time on the G3/G4 longshot. The Connections trick has worked in the past, but does require a lot of babysitting, and seemed more like a cheat than a workaround. BTW, I wanted to follow up when you said "It's not going to get any worse before it gets better." Any more leads on that?

And thanks again to Clueless (download @300! with Acquisition? Wow--best I ever saw on either was an guy uploading at 125! on Limewire) and Sleepless for the router/NAT pointers. My ISP is great (accesscomm.ca), and is fine with the setup. I suspect cable ISP's sell a lot of high-speed because of the demand for p2p.

Cheers all.

Thank Steif, her idea worked like a charm

want Acquisition, don't have Jag
 

Any gnutella clients out there as reliable as Acquisition that are supported on 10.1.5? I don't have any immediate plans to get Jaguar and am tired of waiting for LW to issue something worthwhile.

Thanks.

stief:

"And thanks again to Clueless (download @300! with Acquisition? Wow--best I ever saw on either was an guy uploading at 125! on Limewire) and Sleepless for the router/NAT pointers. My ISP is great (accesscomm.ca), and is fine with the setup. I suspect cable ISP's sell a lot of high-speed because of the demand for p2p. "

I think I mislead you unintentionally. I meant to say that I download files with Safari at 300 to 350 KB/sec while Acquisition is running.

About the best download speeds for Acquisition files I have had is in the 45 to 50 KB/sec.


With LimeWire and Acquisition before using bandwidth control, that 300 number would drop to about 15 to 20KB.
So the latest versions of Acquisition have really helped improve things for me.

Understood. I just figured you had one of those great connections I keep hearing about.

hey Digory, read all the posts in this thread and you will find that the poor stability of Limewire has been attributed to the GUI interface with Java. If I had my way, I would have Limewire completely ditch it's dependance on Java, and go for a native carbon/cocoa interface. Then we could all live in peace.

Or, if OS X is too much of a challenge for them coupled with "Apple's poor implementation of Java", then just stop putting out bad software.
They could continue to do the things they do well, and leave the rest to others.

Simple solution
 

So far, all I've had with LW in OS X (10.1.5) is that it just stops on the Loading user interface screen. I've tried restarting, uninstalling, and just about everything else I can humbly think about, nothing seems to work.
The best soution so far is real easy : I'm running LW in Classic !!!
Might sound really lo-tech, but it works just great :D
Hope this helps.

You are aware that if they stopped coding for the mac, It would be harder for aqcuisition to continue. Aqcuisition uses LimeWire's code for everything but the GUI. Without the limewire code, Aqc is nothing but a bunch of buttons that do absolutely nothing.

I'm sure Dave could still get it to work, but he'd have to edit a lot more code.

This 'bad software' is exactly what makes up the guts of Aqcuisition, so if anything is bad, it is LimeWire's version of the GUI. The core must be just fine.