Gnutella Forums

Gnutella Forums (https://www.gnutellaforums.com/)
-   General Mac OSX Support (https://www.gnutellaforums.com/general-mac-osx-support/)
-   -   Limewire on OS X using 2.0 doesn't work (https://www.gnutellaforums.com/general-mac-osx-support/6567-limewire-os-x-using-2-0-doesnt-work.html)

Unregistered December 26th, 2001 06:33 AM

the hits are gone
 
The hits are gone man, they're gone and they ain't comin' back. I don't know why you say this is more efficent if it doesn't do what I want it to do.
For cripes sake, I used to get file sizes in Terabytes, and now they're in megabytes...
I can stay on my t3 for hours, and do a search on something like britney spears, and only find a handful. With britney I could care less, but man....the hits are gone, and the files have said goodbye!

Unregistered December 26th, 2001 06:37 PM

New Version
 
Hi, I'm all for new and improved, but this seems to be 200 steps backwards, unless I'm missing something. Please advise.

Davidw December 27th, 2001 02:51 PM

Classic vers. also same problem!
 
I have tested vers. 1.7c for MacOs, up against vers. 2.02 for MacOs and MacOs-X. I tested them one at a time. The MacOs versions ran in classic mode. I also tried to boot directly into OS 9 and got the same results.

I am pretty sure that there is a problem since I get many more hits for my searches in vers. 1.7c compared to vers. 2.02 for Mac OS and Mac OS-X. Isn't that what it's all about: getting results for searches??!!!

That the statistics also show many terabytes and around a thousand hosts in vers. 1.7c compared to only a couple of hosts and maybe a 100 mb of data seems to relate to the very few hits made in the new versions.

What ever the technology: I dream of millions of hits for my searches!!!

Best regards, David

jhgsdsd December 29th, 2001 06:39 PM

ultrapeer results
 
while i didnt get as many results for searches. The results i did get were much faster and more reliable than previous versions of limewire. Maybe the ultrapeer protocol weeds out bad connections. Just a thought,

MattyGND December 29th, 2001 07:55 PM

2.0 works great - !!!!!
 
I was at first upset that it said I was only connected to 3 hosts, but after trying to search, i realized that they are 3 peered hosts. Not only can
I search, but I get more hits than with any other previous version of Lime wire. I get thousands of hits. Downloading is more efficient and even seems a little bit faster. Give it a try.

thatk December 30th, 2001 06:57 AM

With such a positive response I had to go try it again. Unfortunately...

LimeWire 2.0: 96 files, 406Mb
LimeWire 1.8: 182419 files, 4841755Mb

I tried the same searches in each app, at the same time. I got usable results from most searches in 1.8, but only one search showed *any* results in 2.0. (Bizarrely enough, it counted slightly more found items in that set than were apparently available in total according to the Stats window.)

I know things are ever changing, so comparing search results can be misleading. But this was such a black-and-white difference...

Perhaps you were running in Mac OS 9? I have no idea where the problem lies, but maybe it is an OS-level problem rather than an app-level one? (Yes, I am clutching at straws. :-)

Keith
MacUser magazine technical editor
http://www.macuser.co.uk/

elvisjnr December 30th, 2001 08:17 AM

Please give me a way out of ultra peer
 
In desparation I even tried to download a B.Spears track knowing that you guys hard drives are full of them. I got nothing. U.Peer is a sweet Idea but presently it just chews and renders this software, which does amazing stuff normally, redundant.

G4 400
500 mb ram
dsl


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.

Copyright © 2020 Gnutella Forums.
All Rights Reserved.