Gnutella Forums

Gnutella Forums (
-   New Feature Requests (
-   -   Queue control and specifying priority (

Morb December 12th, 2005 06:20 AM

Queue control and specifying priority
I'd like to see a little tweak in the queue control.

I easy can have over 100 files in my download window. Most are usually paused as a "wish list" and about 15 are active and 5 are set to download. Sometimes it's more than this. I just recently discovered the Priority feature in the column's list. And the queue up and down arrows. So I've been toying around with this. There's a file that's marked as #47 and I want it at #1. So instead of giving myself a case of carpel tunnel I would think it would be a bit more user friendly to have a drop down menu to just choose what number I want it as priority. Or just right click the file and have a queue menu and a menu pop out of the side of that with your number choice. Or perhaps an easy button that just bumps it to the top of the list. It just seems rediculous to be clicking that much.

It would also be nice to have a set priority on each of the files in your downloads window. Just highlight some and want them as firsts, the others as second and thirds to complete like Getright has. But that might be a little different as Limewire files are sometimes available as internet files are always available. This would be helpful when you start Limewire as all of your downloads seem to want to start connecting at startup. It could just start with the highest priority first and so on.

Bubba_Gump December 14th, 2005 01:04 PM

Users sharing more should get priority.
In that vain, I'd like to make a suggestion.

In order to encourage users to share, how about giving users that share more files priority over users that share little or nothing? Have LW automatically move high-sharers ahead of low-sharers in the queue.


Morb December 14th, 2005 02:41 PM

I'll agree and disagree with that. The number of files you share is kinda pointless cause I could be sharing 100,000 files in no time but not be of any real content anyone would recognize or want. Though it doesn't mean I should get priority because I'm sharing a lot. Plus not everyone has a 300GB hard drive.
Although I do feel there should be a bandwidth/slot monitor. For example, you're uploading 2 files at 2kb/s cause both of them only have dialup. Though I have cable so I can be uploading at 35kb/s so the next guy COULD be started if the program recognized that. Like MXMon did for WinMX. So that's 29kb/s wasted. As default I'd have 3 slots open and if the upload bandwidth didn't exceed a certain speed, it would allow another and another till a user specified amount of slots was reached allowing max usage of your upload capabilities. That would be useful!

Bubba_Gump December 14th, 2005 03:34 PM


Originally posted by Morb
Although I do feel there should be a bandwidth/slot monitor.
Not a bad idea. I often wish LW would give the guy waiting to download a 50K .jpg a slot rather than wait behind people downloading a 700M .avi at 2K/sec.

Grandpa December 14th, 2005 06:02 PM

You must have been a WinMx user

Morb December 14th, 2005 07:34 PM

WinMX was a good program though the only problem was it was too heavy on trading and not sharing. Always having to make deals got old. So that's partly why I like limewire but it has it's drawbacks too.

Grandpa December 14th, 2005 08:27 PM

WinMx is still a good program but LimeWire is a better program although I have only been on WinMx a couple of times since it got shut down. And I haven't been there lately between it an MX Monitor it did a good job of stooping leaches. And by the way Bubba_Gump it would allow a person requesting a small file to download it even if you were maxed out on your slots and had a 100 people in your Q and using maximum bandwidth to upload.

WinMx's major problem was a horrendous memory leak if you left it on for more than 10hrs it would consume huge amounts of CPU and memory thus killing the average computer. And yes it was a bit elitist but if you had allot of popular files you could get anything you wanted.

But I have found that with LimeWire I have no problem finding files I search for and I can download allot faster with LimeWire than I can with WinMx the best I ever did with WinMx was 150Kb/s with LimeWire I routinely DL at 500Kb/s and have seen up to 900Kb/s. LimeWire is by far the most efficient file share program I have ever used.

Morb December 15th, 2005 04:42 AM

I found the opposite to be true in regards to CPU usage. I could run WinMX for days without a problem AND use other CPU demanding programs if it wasn't running at all most of the time. With Limewire running everything is slowed down and sometimes halted and even connections lost (not just Limewire but other program internet connections as well). I have discovered that setting Zonealarm's firewall settings to Medium vs. High has solved the other program's connection problems yet LW's connection is yet self-destructive. Just to start sharing files (building the library) with LW my ram is eaten up like the cookie monster. WinMX didn't do this at all, it just zipped right through the process. I have found that as long as LW isn't doing anything excessive I can go into task manager and set the CPU Priority to the lowest setting. This gives my computer back it's ability to run other programs in a more fluid and consistant mannor. I also liked WinMX's behavior when a file was finished, it was just finished. It didn't freeze your computer verifying anything.:mad: I wish this feature could be turned off. I could certainly do that myself and yet have ever seen a need for this verifying need LW seems to have. It disconnects me from the network and cuts half of the hosts to my current downloads in half a lot of the time. PLUS! You could set WinMX to do intermittent searches for downloads in progress for more sources. Never had a "Need More Sources" conundrum. I've used Ares to before for its file size filter which was EXTREMELY useful! And that's an understatement. That was the reason I used it in the first place, lol. I wasn't looking for "full length feature films" that were 69kb, lmao! What is that, about 1 pixel per frame!?! lol Let's see, a 2 hour movie would have about 216,000 frames so hmmmm, nope, i don't think that would work! :rolleyes: It's a joke sometimes and LW does make me laugh at times when it comes to it's UNintelligent searches. Though I agree with grandpa in that LW is fast and a lot of searches do end up starting fairly quick. If it weren't for that feature I'd never use LW. Sometimes I wonder if LW would look for the problems and fix them instead of killing the feature they would have a better user-friendly product. Here ya go LW! I think you could use a set of these.

... signing off

PAULO December 14th, 2007 11:38 AM

Queue control and specifying priority
Well, approx 2 years has gone by since this thread was started with no changes... too bad.

It would be a lot easier on the LW users if the Priority Que arrow did not have to be clicked for each increment of change in priority.

Why not give us buttons that increment until you stop holding them down?

Then, how about keeping track of the priority changes made, instead of forcing the user to redo them all the next time they start LW again?

Making someone that has a large download que go through all that clicking, then to throw away their work, with an across the board priority reset back to original levels, makes no sense at all to me.

You have a que priority routine, how about making it work better? The way it is now is WAY too cumbersome, and has to be redone after each start up of LW, instead of being useful in maintaining priorities until you want to change them for some reason.

Please make it easier to make priority changes and stop clearing out the priority changes made during that session by the user at program end.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:26 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.

Copyright 2020 Gnutella Forums.
All Rights Reserved.