I downloaded the latest version to see what it was like. I had tried the program a year ago and uninstalled it because it was slow. I did a search on a song and received four hits and attempted to download and it would not connect. I closed the program and started XoloX and did the same search and received 30 hits, one of which had 60 sources and another one 20. I started the download and my ADSL modem hit 1.4 Megs downloading and I had the song in less than 20 seconds. I like Gnucleus but it appears to still need more work. I did read the posts and added the additional nodes. I will wait to see if the next version improves the performance before I decide to keep it or not.

I am sure you get few results because you don't use Gnucleus properly...like a lot of xolox user didn't understand anything to the network . One button "Connect/disconnect" , that is far enough for their brain .
So let use more neurons now . Go to the " Preferences" panel and on connect tab , change settings (according to your bandwith and the number of answer you wish) : for example "keep at least 5 and a max of 7 connections "(1) and "Drop nodes with less than 200 nodes "(2) .You can increase these settings if you want more results...Wait few seconds and when you are connected to a lot of hosts(1) with a lot of friends (2) (look a the advanced tab of connections , run your search . And now ....what do you think about xolox ?

Thank you for the help and information, however I have more than ample amount of working neurons and would not have run the test without tweaking the program. Run the test yourself and see what the results are. I timed each portion of the test to ensure impartiality. Although the test would not make it into the Scientific Journals it was fair. There is nothing wrong with the program accept its performance is not the best. XoloX has it quirks but I am willing to live with them because the program is fast at least on my system. That is all.

You said it woudln't make it to the scientific journals, fine, no-one expects that.

But fair, no, not what you described.

Do the same trial ten times at varying times of the day over about a week, and after varying amounts of 'settling down', and I will let you call it 'fair', even though not scientific. Also make sure you search for very rare files as well as common files before you make an across-the-board judgement like this.

Some clients the search results come more slowly at first, but build up extremely well over 5 or 10 minutes .. maybe gnucleus is one of those (I don't use it).

Some people have alleged that Xoloxs searching method hurts other clients and if everyone searched as hard as xolox does, that the network would be less efficient.

I don't necessarily agree, but it may be a case of 'horses for courses' - one client is better for one specific thing than another client.

Nos

I concede the point that I should have run more tests and varied the time factor. Perhaps it may very well have produced different results and made the test more equitable.