Since upgrading to 2.8, I've found that downloads progress far slower than they used to, if they even progress at all. Search results are inconsistent and most downloads are likely to show "Requery sent, waiting for reply." Most downloads that do manage to begin won't complete. I haven't gotten more than 10kB/s on a single download. I used to peak at 300kB/s.

As always, uploads progress at a snail's pace - I can't upload much faster than 1kB/s. An adjacent Windows machine doesn't have this problem.

LimeWire is the only program running. Nothing's asking for more CPU than the machine can handle. The disks are quiet. There's a gigabyte of memory. The network is incredibly fast. Come on, guys, what's the problem?

Mark
2.8.4/10.2.3/800MHz iMac

I can confirm the problems Mark is having.
Until recently I used 2.7.13. I didn't have many problems with downloading (average 20 kB/s), but when someone started uploading the downloading speed dropped to 1 or 2 kB/s, while uploading took 3 or 4 kB/s

I was thinking that a new version would solve this problem. But both 2.8.4 and 2.8.5 caused more problems than I ever had before. Without changing anything in my preferences or connection speed the downloading never exceeds the 1 kB/s. Uploading seems to be impossible.

First, the uploader code has not really been changed between 2.7 and 2.8. It's almost impossible that you see a reduced performance with uploads.

Uploads are possible, but you will not see many if you are sharing files that are very common on gnutella or if you are sharing files nobody wants. - Besides, LimeWire removes uploads from the upload tab if they are completed or if they fail.

As far as downloads are concerned. They are might seem a little slower indeed. LimeWire has started downloading in 100K chunks from clients with http1.1 support. When downloading from clients with weak http1.1 implementations you will see a reduced download speed indeed. That should become better over time, when more people update.

Not reduced. I've been seeing the same terrible upload performance at least since the 2.6 series.

I am seeing many, many, many attempted uploads. The speed on any upload in progress never exceeds 1kB/s. The uploads all eventually fail on their own (or are cancelled by the downloader). And these exact files aren't available elsewhere, so the downloaders can't swarm from multiple sources.

Unless you uncheck the auto-clear checkbox, as I've done, and look at the "Uploads" column in the Library, as I've done.

As much as I'd like to pretend that there isn't a problem, things really have deteriorated. I'm not pointing my finger at 2.8 in particular, but something is definitely wrong with LimeWire on Mac OS X.

Mark
2.8.5/10.2.3/iMac 800MHz

One of the problems I've seen is that when people like funkymarcus or myself explain what we are experiencing, some senior member or support person tells us that it is practically impossible. No wonder it is taking so long for this product to become robust and stable when the people responsible are in denial, or just won't listen.

I've been using many different versions starting in OS 9 and continuing through 10.2.3 and version 2.8.5, and I can tell anyone other than a LimeWire employee what we already know, uploading right now is a big STINKO! I know how much bandwidth I have comitted to preferences, and I used to be able to add up the numbers, providing that people had decent connections to the internet, and it added up to about what I made available.
But not now!

So to my fellow 'know nothing' users, I just wanted you to know that I also feel your pain, and from personal experience, concur and empathize. Good luck, happy holidays.

funkymarcus and other unfortunate 2.8.5 users:

I just did a little testing, and here's what I see.

Although I am getting a lot of hits, the ones which indicate that version 2.8.5 is being used cannot upload from me. They connect, upload, and then disappear, as I have posted previously. ONLY older versions can complete a successful upload from me. I think that points to why most of you can't download anything either, judging from what I've seen. The bar graph never shows any data being transferred. Eventually, it looks as though they just give up and fall off.
I would guess that my successful downloads are from hosts using different versions as well.

Sooooo, our well intended friends at LimeWire gave us all lumps of coal before departing for the holidays. We are scr*wed, and this version S*CKS big time.

I'm going back into OS 9 now, so I can share some files with the lucky ones who did not upgrade. Of course, even 2.8.5 users may be able to retrieve files from my older version.

Yup. Maybe everyone who has trouble with the software gives up and abandons it before they are elevated to the status of "senior member."

I'll pose this question: is there anyone running LimeWire on OS X that can justifiably and honestly state that it performs acceptably?

Hey, developers, do you guys even use the OS X version? Fire up 2.8.5 on 10.2.3 some time (but not necessarily right now - enjoy your holiday for the time being if that's what you've got planned). Do you find it usable?

Let me reiterate the problem. I am not complaining strictly about things that are caused by differences in 2.8's use of HTTP. LimeWire has been deteriorating for a long time. I am saying that I have three computers running Mac OS X right next to a computer running Windows. Two Macs are new, the other is three years old, and the Windows machine is even older. They share the same LAN and same Internet connection, run current software, and all have LimeWire 2.8.5. One of them performs acceptably. The other three do not. Guess which is which?

I'm willing to do what I can to fix the problem. Are you?

Mark
2.8.5/10.2.3/iMac 800MHz

I'm almost done ranting for the day, since it's really not a fun Xmas time activity, but here's the conclusion:

I booted back into OS 9, and discovered that I had a free version of LW 2.4.3 installed. When I launched it, I got a warning splash screen telling me that I MUST upgrade to version 2.8.x or I would not be able to connect to the network. The dialog box offered to take to to download a new version.
Being a law abiding citizen who believes in 'truth in advertising', my first reaction was to say okay. Then, I remembered, these people are well meaning, but they don't always tell the truth, intentionally or not.
So I defiantly said NO!!!

I allowed 2.4.3 the dinosaur to continue launching, checked the connections tab and found that I had several connections. I then did a search, and obtained results, and proceeded to download a file. Then, I went to monitor, and within 5 minutes, 2 uploads began, and are currently uploading at a respectable clip.

So, even though their intentions may be good, sometimes they say and program things that don't work as advertised. I mean, why would you try and force somebody to download something that doesn't work properly, and overwrite an older version that does what it's supposed to do?

I expect some expert to come along and tell me now how it's impossible that I'm doing what I see before my decent eyeballs. I hope these folks use their well deserved time off to rest their brains and return recharged and ready to fix this cruddy new version.

>So, even though their intentions may be good, sometimes they say and program things that don't work as advertised. I mean, why would you try and force somebody to download something that doesn't work properly, and overwrite an older version that does what it's supposed to do?

as the limewire.com webpage advertises, the newer versions support something called 'gwebcache'. this is a new (and much improved) way of initially finding other gnutella clients that will allow you to connect. limewire used to host what's called a 'pong cache' -- a server that would keep track of other hosts on the network and let new connections know where to connect to.

but, in an effort to reduce any form of centralization, allowing gnutella to truly be a dynamic distrubted network, gwebcache's were introduced. as far as i know, limewire is removing its pong cache, because it identifies them as a central bootstrap to the network, and is a high target for possible attacks.

if old clients had a good collection of other hosts in their 'gnutella.net' file, then their old clients should continue to work.

but, in the interest of making messages short & understandable, it is much better to say that old clients must upgrade. the other message could be, "you can check this file, and if you're positive that X number of clients are still able to be connected to, then you're good to go. everyone else must upgrade."

also, whether or not people believe it, there are significant improvements in the more recent versions -- especially in terms of overall network health. but yes, there are bugs that need to be fixed. and they will be.

Fair enough.
Maybe you could suggest a 'known issues' paragraph on the download page when they issue a release with bugs, so we can make a more intelligent choice as to whether we want to deal with the peculiarities pertinent to that version. Documentation has always seemed to lean towards the minimalist view. And right now we're dealing with a stinky poo version that I think many people could have done without.

I could deal with less connections if they were quality ones. Instead, they just say you MUST upgrade, even on their homepage. That's just not true.
But,Thank you for clarifiying the issue.!!!!!