I just upgraded to PRO, but have noticed no difference in download speed. I have 56k dial-up and it is just as slow.

From what I read here, the difference is very slight: Pro will get you BETTER sources, meaning that you'll have better chances of completing the download which in turn makes the download "faster", "faster" NOT refering to actual download speed.
I guess you could say that it doesn't make the downloads faster but rather (if you use is right) reduces your chances of getting an Awaiting sources status (reduces, not eliminates).
If you want truly faster downloads in terms of actual speed (kbps) then it's up to you to get a better connection.

__________________
iMac G4 OSX 10.3.9
RAM 256MB
LW 4.10.5 Basic
ADSL anything from 3 to 8Mbps/around 1024kbps

"Raise your can of Beer on high
And seal your fate forever
Our best years have passed us by
The Golden Age Of Leather"
-Blue Öyster Cult-

I have DSL and have the same problem. I stay on line for days and don't complete downloads, while all uploads are consistently completed. Starting to suspect Pro is Spyware.

Well sure, if you just leave LW open and don't check up on it then don't expect your dlds to be done quickly.
As someone said in a post before (I think it was ursula), LW likes to be "baybissited", meaning that whenever you get Awaiting Sources, it doesn't mean that LW is automatically searching for sources.
Now, don't take this the wrong way and start bombing the network with continuous searches over the same file 'cause that results in the slowing down of the network.
Just run a search and then, after some time repeat the search. (doing the search over and over but in rapid succession will only get you the same sources wich didn't permit you to finish your download anyway so wait before repeating them

__________________
iMac G4 OSX 10.3.9
RAM 256MB
LW 4.10.5 Basic
ADSL anything from 3 to 8Mbps/around 1024kbps

"Raise your can of Beer on high
And seal your fate forever
Our best years have passed us by
The Golden Age Of Leather"
-Blue Öyster Cult-

The most practical step that can be taken to improve so-called 'speed' is to do less.

Few people ever mention the configurations in effect re: the number of assigned 'slots' for Download, Upload, Upload Queue and 'hosts'.

With a 56k Dial-Up connection you should be limited to 1 Download and 1 Upload and NO Upload Queueing. There is also almost no sense in being connected to more than 2 or 3 'hosts'.
You should also disable 'Allow Others To Browse' your shared folders.

If you have a particularly important file that you are D/Ling, you should cease Uploading.

ALL of the things mentioned above 'consume' your available bandwidth.
Bandwidth refers to 'a capacity to conduct' information.
Just imagine a pipe... Small inner diameter will only permit so much 'flow rate'...

No matter what publicity may surround one client or another in terms of claims for 'speed' and multi-source transfers, and no matter what foolish default settings result from these claims, the user must still take the responsibility for reducing connection slots. This benefits the entire community.

For those with greater capacity, i.e. 'bigger bandwidth', these comments still apply.
A 256/128 ADSL connection, in today's reality (as far as others and their pitiful speeds due to wrong configurations), a maximum of 4 Upload slots and 4 Upload Queue slots seems to be optimum.
Downloads are another matter as you can easily get away with 8 slots with the typical upload speeds of today... But, (And this is a very crude best possible result) it is a simple matter to divide @27kBs by 8... That is about the same as you could best expect from a 56k Dial-Up per slot !!! No matter what the 'nifty numbers' show, you cannot exceed your bandwith (capacity).

A very good rule is to set everything to the minimums and slowly, over many days of observation, increase slots - ONE at a time.

If you have a truly 'broad-band' connection, and you wish to share any modestly large number of files, you should NOT allow yourself to be an Ultrapeer.

Transfers that are completed in the shortest period of time use far fewer resources of the network.

__________________
Fusion for REAL!--CDex 1.51--Wackyuses--Bitzi - Check Files Before Download !--.mp3 File Name Change Problems? Try Rename-It!--Alternate PORTS--Avast- Anti-Virus--WindowWasher--IrfanView--PC Pitstop - Test your PC !--Mac OSX Troubleshooting--GO .ape ! - For 'Lossless' Audio Compression--Port :6346 - Test If It Is 'Blocked'--Cole2k Codecs--OldVersion - Newer isn't always better !
Nod32 - Free Virus Scan: Use ESET's Online Antivirus Scanner

Tomorrow's forecast:
Sunni in places, Shi'ite in others...

This statement makes absolutely no sense.

'Spyware' is something quite distinct and very rare.
'Adware', or dataminers, are planted on your machines practically every time you do anything on the internet.

You will benefit yourself if you make an effort to actually study what these 'nasty' named things actually are and what they actually do.

To try to make the point a little stronger with another 'pipe' analogy...

If you do take the $tep$ to increase your bandwidth/transfer capacity, than WHY immediately configure your transfers to 'consume' or exceed your new expen$ive connection ?

or...

If you buy a 'bigger pipe' and then proceed to fill to capacity that new big pipe by stuffing it full of many small pipes, WHAT do you or any others gain ?

Unless you have some passion for sharing and D/Ling the maximum number of files possible at any one time (A numbers freak !!!), it makes far more sense to use your greater capacity to increase the 'rate of transfer' per file and enhance the 'headroom' that all systems require to operate 'efficiently'. Running anything at the MAX is a certain way to decrease performance.

If you have a 'small pipe', do as little as possible as quickly as possible.

As you manage to get bigger and bigger 'pipes', increase your 'slots load' by perhaps ¼ for every doubling of overall capacity (Or, by a ½, maximum).
Do not just think that, because you have more bandwidth, you can automatically increase slot allotments. That type of thinking has resulted in a very great overall slow-down of the Gnutella Network.

Perhaps it is better to think in terms of one important factor as a goal...
Completion speed in time...

The less 'time' required to complete a transfer the fewer possibilities that the transfer will fail... And, the less resources required of the entire network.
And, you move on to the next thing you want !

Hi, I have cable modem and I upgraded to PRO but I don't see any change in the download speed, why? Thanks

What that last above line from Peerless means is that you would be running something such as

5 Files being downloaded by you with perhaps 10 different sources per file.
NOT 50 files at once as he clearly states.

Again... Do the simple math...
5 Files Downloaded from a total of 50 different sources with an average of 10 sources per file...

Assume that the minimum that should be accepted is to at least achieve a 56k Dial-Up 'standard' per source...
@ 3kBs for a nice round number...

That's a 'crude' answer of 150kBs...
Crude because it does not include all of the traffic taking place which is not directly related to basic 'file data'...

Now... Just remember that what is common in many clients today is a default setup for a 256/128 ADSL user of 8-12 Download slots with 12-16 sources per file...

Hands up everyone who has that kind of actual bandwidth !!!

Add the bandwidth required for Uploads, search returns, 'Browse' returns, others search 'hits' on you...

Net result in past two years with Gnutella Network ?
The majority of file transfers are now slower than with basic 56k / 56k...
Progress ?

Less = More