http://www3.limewire.com/download/

Went back to 1.8c...connected on the first try to 500+ hosts.

Will the folks who purchased Pro be informed by e-mail when these connection issues are cleared up?

Whaha.. 500?? I'm @Home Cable... usually 2000-3000 !

Anyway... this ultrapeery thingy aint working for me either...

This really yanks my crank too....just got Limewire, connected to one host, wont find any search results....so far this is pathetic.

Same prob that you all are reporting ... Mac 10.1.2 ... one Ultrapeer (can't seem to disable it) ... now I'm seeing tens of megabytes of data versus terabytes on previous versions of Limewire. I started a thread a few days ago over in the Limewire Mac OSX forum ... no response there either. The problem is also being discussed in various platform fora all around the web. A very bad rep is rapidly building for what heretofore has been an excellent product.

Regarding USD 6,-: Why didn't you people test the free version of Limewire2 before giving away money? I am happily testing Limewire2 for free (with ads) on Mac OS X.

Regarding Ultrapeer: I usually about 5 Ultrapeer hosts. My search result are about the same as with Limewire 1.x (ymmv). Maybe we need to wait a little until there are more Ultrapeer hosts. Version 2 must spread first.

Zappy -
Many of the posters here are generally happy LW users. Or we were until 2 came out of the gates like a lame horse.
The reason I was willing to 'sign-up' to give my money away is because the track record WAS good. The six dollars was less about the the new, improved version than it was a vote of satisfaction with the overall product. I expect that the Limeys will get their horse up and running again. Perhaps the app will be faster and stronger than before.
Your point about promulgating version 2 is well taken - and it is a sound reason to allow 2.x to run on at least one of my machines, albeit with lowered expectations.
However, I am more concerned about the lack of response from the Limeys. Where are they with info about the app? Many users would like to know what the problem or perceived problem is.
Further - there seems to be feeling of loss about features. The Limeys have not kept up with their documentation. Perhaps like other development processes- the technical writing and communication aspect about the product was sacrificed or never made part of the entire process.

So make that six dollars and 2 cents invested.

maphead

Ultrapeer is incompatible with Gnutella!
All user who only use a ultrapeer-connection lock out other clients!

I just bought (thank god it was only $6) Limewire 2.

I heard about "swarming"and thought wellfinally they have worked out the bugs!!

I did the same thing with 1.7 "upgrading" to the new and improved 1.8,what a mess 1.8 was the worst version of Limewire you have ever made!! ............ UNTIL NOW


Because now you have introduced "ultrabeeper" now this is the worst Limwire ever!

No more multiple connections, are you out of your mind?

No more looking at the bottom of the screen to see how many connections are up and running,why , why , why take that best feature away.

I love Limewire when it works, you guys want to rock the world with Limwire and you do this stupid stuff!!!

Limewire 1.7 was the best, thank god I found a copy of it .

Do you guys read your forum postings, I am not alone!!

Please tell us you are listening and not like so many companies just go in your own direction without listening to your loyal users. Please let us know your "feel our pain" and corrections and adjustments are on its way.

I have thrown away Limewire 1.8 and returned to limewire 1.7, NOW you have forced me to throw away my $6 and Limewire 2.0 and I will be using 1.7 again. Why are you going backwords on this potentially awesome product.

My son has friends who have PC's ( I have a Mac) and some of the other file sharing software they are using I hear is blown away fast and secure steady connections.

Please help us!!

The idea of Ultrapeering seems to be a good one. Unfortunately they implemented it badly.
I think they could fix it rather easily however. Currently if someone is an ultrapeer it seems like there is no requirement for the ultrapeers outgoing connections. It should not allow any clients/leafs to connect until it has a minimum number of stable outgoing connections. This is what would really determine how many results you get back from a search. If you connect to a ultrapeer that has one connected outgoing connection and 1 other leaf on it, you'll probably get almost nothing back from your searches. If, however, you connect to an ultrapeer with 15 stable outgoing connections to other ultrapeers you'll probably get better results than you would have ever gotten before. I believe at this point a majority of the ultrapeers are not connected well enough to be used. This is just theory though since the statistics you see are now meaningless and reflect only older clients. If the statistics were working and valid this could be verified.
In the mean time they should allow us to connect to multiple ultrapeers as clients. Or do what Xolox did and periodically re-search your searches adding new results to your list. This way if you connect to a badly connected ultrapeer your results will get better as it's connections get better.

Check this thread....

http://www.gnutellaforums.com/showt...p?threadid=6292

It seems alota people don't quite get the idea yet.