Limewire on OS X using 2.0 doesn't work
 

I can't get it to connect to many servers, after having it up for about 5 min I only have 3 hosts connected with a total of 80 megs.... very bad, any idea how to fix this?
Email me at ZACINCCEO@aol.com
-Zac

in da boat
 

right there with ya...I have like two connections on a T1 line after ten minutes....
I try to add servers, but nothing happens...
I actually miss the old version crashing, at least it connected first, right?

This is the way it's supposed to work. With the new network structure (with UltraPeers) you do not need to open nearly as many connections to get just as good search results. In fact, you cannot open more than one connection when you become a client peer, meaning that an UltraPeer is acting as a sort of "proxy" for you on the network, shielding you from message traffic, and saving all of your bandwidth for uploads and downloads.

Give it a little time. It's a far more efficient way for the network to run, and I guaruantee that you'll like it better over the long term.

Yes but it is VERY slow
I am on a DSL and I have 2 hosts and 70 files after 10 min!!!!

-Zac

I don't know what you mean by getting the same search results. I have a win2k machine with 1.8c and a Mac OSX machine with the 2.x client. They are right next to each other and on the same network connection. I do the same exact search on them. The win2k machine gets at least 20-100 hits. The OSX machine gets 0, sometimes 1. This isn't just for one type of search, I have done a few hundred searches already since 2.x came out to test it out. Since I can't get mac software from my OS X box, I have been downloading it from my win2k machine and then ftping it to my OS X machine. Talk about efficient....sure.....

I feel your pain
 

2.0 isn't giving nearly as many hits as 1.8. Even within 2.0 search results seem inconsistent. I've had this happen: Do a search. Get a hit (You won't get more than a few with Version 2). Do the same search again. The original result doesn't show up. Yet you can go back to the first search and download the file. So the file is still available, but it's not showing up consistently when you search for it.

Not working the way it is "supposed" to...
 

I agree. The ultrapeer implementation for OSX is not working correctly. I understand the potential benefits of this system, but it is not implemented well in this release. Ultrapeer seems to completely inhibit search results...I get NONE! What's worse, I am not able to "save" my preference selection asking that ultrapeer not be used.

I agree to, the searches repport only a fragment of the hits I got with 1.7

Just thought I'd add my voice to this. I have tried LimeWire 2.0 a number of times (the 'paid for' version, as $6 was so reasonable) but I don't think I ever managed to get more than a few dozen megabytes of searchable stuff even if I left it alone for an hour.
By way of contrast, if I quit 2.0 and launch LimeWire 1.8c I get thousands of Mb in very short order, and often reach terabytes after a minute or two.

I applaud you guys for pushing the development forward, but it does seem that there's an issue here. In case it helps, here are some config details:

OS: Mac OS X 10.1.1
h/w: G3
connection: basic ADSL, dynamic IP address

Are Limewire developers aware of this problem?

All responses from them confirm that only one ultrapeer connection is supposed to show up, but that is not the problem.

Using 2.0.2 (?) on OS X, Limewire usually has access to only 65-128 MB of files. If I'm lucky, 2000MB!
Running 1.7c at the same time yields 28TB of files.

Something is wrong.

Thanks for listening.

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!

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.

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

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,

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.

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/

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