Winmx 3.1 Available For Download

[bowlisha]

Logged into the old Winmx today and got a message Winmx 3.1 is available for download. Went to the home page and sure nuff it is.

Anyone download this yet? If so your comments would be appreciated.

T.I.A.

Bow

[pod]

Originally posted by bowlisha
Logged into the old Winmx today and got a message Winmx 3.1 is available for download. Went to the home page and sure nuff it is.

Anyone download this yet? If so your comments would be appreciated.

Works great, it's easy on the CPU (even as a primary node with 1000+ files), less than 10mb memory, lots of users now that it's final, and multisourcing works for the most part (though I'm getting quite a few File Mismatch errors towards the end on mp3s). Been running 3.1 and the betas for days at a time, and so far not a single crash. Queueing also seems to work much better than in 2.6. At least give it a try, it's pretty good.

[bowlisha]

Thanks Pod,

Do I need to uninstall the old Winmx version first or is it OK to leave it on along with the 3.1 version.

Bow

[napho]

Originally posted by bowlisha
Thanks Pod,

Do I need to uninstall the old Winmx version first or is it OK to leave it on along with the 3.1 version.

Bow

Greetings bowlisha. You can just install 3.1 over 2.6.
I uninstalled the beta which was in a different folder.

[bowlisha]

Thanks Napho,

Will do.

I think I'm in love! With this board!


Bow

[Dawn]

Welcome bowlisha

I hope you enjoy the forum. I know I sure do.

[JackSpratts]

hey bowlisha, welcome to nu! we're glad you found us too.

- js.

[fogelbise]

did anyone else notice they don't list multi-sourcing as a feature on their main page winmx.com? or am i missing something?

NEW! Version 3.1 Available Now!

What is WinMX?
WinMX is a FREE file-sharing program like no other. It allows you to simultaneously connect through the decentralized WinMX Peer Networking Protocol AND to many networks based on the OpenNap and Napster protocols. This means MORE USERS and MORE SEARCH RESULTS than other sharing programs. WinMX also supports ANY FILE TYPE, allowing you access to a diverse assortment of shared VIDEO and PICTURE files as well as the usual MP3 AUDIO files.

Features
High performance peer-to-peer protocol
Connect to multiple OpenNap networks simultaneously
Share and DOWNLOAD ANY FILE TYPE
Tracks and RESUMES broken transfers
Ability to throttle upload and download bandwidth
Upload and download bandwidth graphs
Per-user and over-all upload AND download queuing
Full chat capabilities including op commands
Multiple docking window interface great for hi-res and multi-monitor systems
Close program or shutdown computer (Win9x only) when transfers finish
Compatible with most LAN configurations
WinMX respects your privacy and doesn't contain spyware

Requirements
Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000
Internet Explorer 4.0 or above if running Win95/NT
Pentium 166 w/ 64MB ram or better recommended

[JackSpratts]

it might not be specified there but it's specified at the actual pgm level (except opennap) and my client reports doing it during d/l's already.

- js.

[TankGirl]

Originally posted by JackSpratts
it might not be specified there but it's specified at the actual pgm level (except opennap) and my client reports doing it during d/l's already.

- js.

Multisourcing on WPN also seems to work very well. I did some testing on popular songs with multiple sources available and was very pleased to see how multiple sources were utilized to provide great download speeds, quite untypical for the old WinMX.

Let's hope that the search visibility and peer connectivity will remain good with the increasing popularity of 3.1 (as this version will certainly get popular) so that multiple sources will also be available for the more rare material.

Now, with multisourcing implemented, the WinMX community would also benefit from a change in its adopted upload control policy. With single source downloads it made sense to limit the number of concurrent uploads strictly to provide a decent bandwidth to each uploader even at the cost of longer queues. In a multisourced environment thinner individual upload streams are quite acceptable as they will be nicely compensated with better source availability and less queuing for the downloaders.

- tg

ps. Welcome aboard bowlisha, enjoy your stay at Napsterites!

[Snarkridden]

Tg...

Talked about thinner download streams being acceptable now with multi-sourcing ... Thats all very well, but a non-sharing user will still screw the system, no matter how fat (or thin) the streams are...

that is what needs to be tackled on the future revisions a control and instant indication of the downloaders share , not precice figures but guidelines, maybe keys, as was discussed on the old Morpheus board way back last year.

A key for ZERO, a key for less than 10 , less than 100, less than 1000 afterthat it probable doesn't matter.

I would like to see 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 in brackets by a users nick

OK so some could share total junk, but to find someone sharing 5000 files marked with a 4, means they are unlikely to have all 5000 files as junk ...

Personally I'd be a "4" and I know two that would be a "5"
trouble is not many servers allow that many ??

Snark..

[twinspan]

They do something like that with Direct Connect don' t they?

And it took about a day before leeches figured out how to spoof the system. (various ways, including the easiest one of just sharing lots of files when logging on, then unsharing them all once connected.)

[TankGirl]

Originally posted by Snarkridden
Tg...

Snark..

Hi Snark,

yes, leeches are still a problem on WinMX, especially on WPN (OpenNap servers are much better in this respect). They are not a fatal problem as the network is well alive and kicking but they contribute to the long queues by stealing bandwidth from the sharing users. In a multisourced environment leeching means also less sources for movies and music and thereby lower download speeds for everybody. Some sort of leech control mechanism - or rather a mechanism to favour sharers - would therefore be very welcome to WinMX but it will not be easy to implement.

Leech control needs to be intelligent and reliable, otherwise it will easily harm the network instead of benefiting it. A simple blocking mechanism based on the number of shared files or the amount of shared material in megabytes is not good as it will make it difficult for the newcomers to enter the network and easy for the leeches to fool the system by sharing trash files with filenames that are guaranteed to produce no search hits. This kind of system would also totally mistreat the users that share generously from e.g. their workplaces but can't do the same from their homes or vice versa.

Here's my quick sketch for an intelligent leech control system:

A person that you download succesfully from is clearly not a leech from your point of view. The more you download from somebody the more your p2p program should classify this person as a sharer and favour him/her with good bandwitdh and fast queuing should he/she want to get something from you. This would be a good first step that would encourage sharing even if it does not yet take into account the wider social dynamics of a p2p network.

The next step would be to share your sharer/leech information with the peers you trust. For example, an unknown person (say B) might download a lot from you (A) but as you would not find anything interesting in B's library you would lack first-hand experience of his/her sharing. However, a trusted contact of yours (say C) might have downloaded plenty from B and could 'testify' to you that B is a true sharer. You can easily imagine more complex scenarios where none of your direct contacts would have experience of a particular user but some of their second hand contacts would. In such a trust network you would naturally put most weight to your own experience, then to your directly trusted contacts etc. The exchange of evaluation information could be handled fully automatically by your p2p client and even a modest version of the sketched system would be a strong leech control tool when applied to bandwidth allocation and queue management. Leeches and newbies would still be able to enter the network and the control system would allow them to download even at good speeds when there were no merited sharers competing for the bandwidth. But especially with the most popular downloads the leeches would know that their non-sharing would cost them longer wait times and thinner bandwidth. Similarly the newbies would be encouraged to start sharing as quickly as possible as this would only enhance their access to the network and its content.

However - and here come the bad news - WinMX lacks a critical element that makes it impossible to build any trust networks or peer evaluation mechanisms on it. This missing element is permanent and verifiable peer identities. On WPN (and OpenNap for that matter) you cannot really know that a person with a specific nick is the same one you talked with a day or an hour ago. Your client should be able to do this kind of identity verification for all your trusted contacts automatically and peer-to-peer without any possibility of supernode tampering even if a supernode would act as a message broker between you two. As this would require rather deep architectural changes in WinMX and is probably not too relevant to their business plans we may have to wait for the next generation p2p programs to see something like this implemented in the public filesharing networks. It is certainly possible and has already been done in e.g. Groove which - being an enterprise-oriented p2p application - would not work without reliable peer identification.

Basing the treatment of peers in a p2p network on their identity and sharing history would also solve the dilemma for people accessing the network from several places with different sharing facilities. Should your workplace firewall block uploads from your office computer you could still prove your identity and benefit from the sharing you have done from your home computer. The benefits and prospects of permanent and verifiable peer identities are by no means limited to leech control but as this was just a brief sketch I will address the other issues on another occasion.

- tg

[TankGirl]

Some further observations and comments....

First of all, 3.1 is still unstable. It tends to crash on my W2K after running some 8-16 hours, not due to leaking of resources but some other bug. So there will likely be a patched version coming sometime soon. The good news is that 3.1 seems to remember incomplete downloads well even in crash situations which should make life easier especially for movie downloaders.

I am still pleased with how the multisourced downloads work. The implementation seems to be as good as that of FastTrack's and makes 3.1 an attractive software for both music and movie sharing. Some tips:

If you have several alternatives for a download, pick a rip with a good number of available copies to have better chances for multisourcing.

When a transfer has started, right-click it in the Transfers window and apply Auto-Complete. This will add also the queuable sources to your source pool; some of them will start later on and speed up your download.

From the same right-click popup menu you find the excellent Retry/Find Sources function. Apply it as often as you bother. The situation in the network keeps changing all the time and with a bit of luck you may catch a fresh, unqueued fast source to boost your download speed.

It's a pity there is no option to search for new sources automatically e.g. every half an hour - that together with the auto-complete feature would make movie downloads very easy.

- tg

[twinspan]

On a slightly less serious note, here's another point-of-view on WinMX
WARNING: this link takes you into the rude realm of RomperSpace!!!

[JohnDoe345]

TG that was a great post you did on leech control issues. You've pointed out the biggest problem with current leech control....the user doesn't really have much control. So far it seems more like an all or nothing kind of approach. P2p programs like eDonkey and Direct Connect use the forced sharing approach which works for some but it does alienate some honest users. Like your example about someone sharing a lot at home but is banned from sharing at work. Or on the opposite of the issue, networks like FastTrack and WinMx that don't really have much of an anti-leeching system seem to invite even honest users to leech. Like the old saying goes...locks keep honest people honest...or something like that.

The next step would be to share your sharer/leech information with the peers you trust

I really like your concept of this trust or peer rating for leech control. I don't believe the current technology can properly distinguish between a real sharer or a leech sharing fake files. There really should be some way for users to have a direct connection to the leech control process but not too much that they can tamper with the system so that it will work for them without having to share in the sense that we know it.

Leeches and newbies would still be able to enter the network and the control system would allow them to download even at good speeds when there were no merited sharers competing for the bandwidth. But especially with the most popular downloads the leeches would know that their non-sharing would cost them longer wait times and thinner bandwidth. Similarly the newbies would be encouraged to start sharing as quickly as possible as this would only enhance their access to the network and its content.

Definitely agree. There should be an incentive to share. A complete block out of non sharers like in some programs only alienates non-sharers and does not properly give them reasons to change. In worst case scenerio it only encourages them to hack a system so that they don't have to share. If you corner a scared animal with no way out then it forces the animal to take drastic measures. It also shouldn't punish users who have done their part in sharing but can't share while they are at work or something to that degree, but it needs to be able to distinguish those people from users that just lie about it. Like you said TG a more intelligent and reliable system is needed.

Well, it is a nice dream TG and one that I hope can soon be used by most of the p2p programs. It can be pretty disconcerting to know that a small p2p program like Direct Connect can have more shared files then a much larger program like Grokster/Kazaa. That just shows the benefits of everyone...well mostly everyone sharing. Although, there just needs to be a more reasonable form of leech control that will be accepted by the masses but be effective enough to give us almost similar results.

I think the first step in all of this is to harness that brain power of yours TG and distribute it to the developers of p2p programs. Only then will we ever make any progress on things that matter most I wonder what the world would be like if TG were in control....I don't know if we should be overjoyed or scared at the seer wisdom you have over us....humans seem to be easily corrupted

[TankGirl]

Hi John, and thanks for your nice feedback.

Originally posted by JohnDoe345
I don't believe the current technology can properly distinguish between a real sharer or a leech sharing fake files.

Precisely. You can share thousands of files on WinMX but throttle your upload bandwidth so that you give out less than a slow dial-up. Or you can set your max uploads to 1 and start all your uploads manually on trading basis. There are so many ways to fool a system that is based on apparent willingness to share. The only reliable measure for sharing is one measuring sharing that has actually happened.

Originally posted by JohnDoe345
There should be an incentive to share. A complete block out of non sharers like in some programs only alienates non-sharers and does not properly give them reasons to change.

That is so. I remember well my own first Napster experiences. I had no shared files to begin with (gush I hardly knew what an mp3 file is! ) and like so many others I was just giving a try to this new exciting software that promised to deliver digital music for free. Should I have faced a hostile environment where my leeching would have been strictly rejected I might not be here today writing so enthusiasticly about p2p. But I encountered sharing and friendliness instead and my own willingness to share grew naturally from my gratitude to all these nice people that were giving me good music with no strings attached. This is how the network should receive newcomers to become succesful. Things should work smoothly enough even for those starting from square one to motivate them to stay and gradually to contribute to the network. And the sharing incentives should start working from that basic level onwards, providing access to better bandwidths and even more content.

Originally posted by JohnDoe345
I wonder what the world would be like...

John. I think I'll leave the world for others to control and settle for just being the mistress of the Forum Dungeon.... thanks anyway!

- tg

[twinspan]

whatever happened to MojoNation? that had sharer 'karma' or points when it was still going, didn't it? (dunno myself, never got to use it and the mojonation.net website seems to be just place-holding for a new app now.)

[Snarkridden]

[quote]Originally posted by TankGirl
[b]

yes, leeches are still a problem on WinMX, especially on WPN (OpenNap servers are much better in this respect). They are not a fatal problem as the network is well alive and kicking but they contribute to the long queues by stealing bandwidth from the sharing users.

Leech control needs to be intelligent and reliable, otherwise it will easily harm the network instead of benefiting .

Totally agree with that hypothesis Tg, your quick sketch was indeed not quick, in fact it, with your second thoughts was quite some read....?

Thanks for your thoughts on the subject, I needed to save it away so my slowing thought processes can digest it in full off line.

I would like more info if you are able on the crashes you experienced with WinMx 3.1, noted that you are not using Win98 SE so perhaps it does not relate to me, I must say that since installing the 3.1 full version, I have had NON of the occasional crashes I got with the Beta versions.

Even the bug in sorting the search lists seems to be cured, though why it took them so long to sort it I cannot imagine, even in the last beta version it was still there.

Makes you wonder if they deliberately put in little bugs in beta's to test the testers? or to make sure everyone WILL upgrade in the end, who knows?

So far 3.1 seems very stable,Ok it still fights with windows for memory and eventually after a few hours, slows to a crawl without the use of a memory watcher. (MW4.1 MatrixSoftware)

Then of course there is the non functioning PLAY command when you try to play files on the up/download screens, you need to use OPEN to acheive this.

Despite all the reports of bandwidh control not working, I find it does, but its effect is not obvious unless your are trying to control a number of high speed uploaders from taking all the resources away from 56k users, the uploader needs to be able to upload at 2-3k or better, before you can apply a boost to them, and a percentage cut to the faster uploader, its no use trying to boost an uploader that barely reaches 1k, that situation dropping the higher speed uploader down to 10% does not good at all, for every downgrade of speed, you need an upgrade to balance your upload maximum settings I other words if the total upload bandwidth is NOT being utilised, the faster ones will still grab more.

(I think) I added that because the action is somewhat unpredictable, but it does function, though not instantly after setting, as the buffered frames need to be sent first.

End of waffle.... Snark..

[JohnDoe345]

Originally posted by TankGirl

I remember well my own first Napster experiences. I had no shared files to begin with (gush I hardly knew what an mp3 file is! ) and like so many others I was just giving a try to this new exciting software that promised to deliver digital music for free. Should I have faced a hostile environment where my leeching would have been strictly rejected I might not be here today writing so enthusiasticly about p2p. But I encountered sharing and friendliness instead and my own willingness to share grew naturally from my gratitude to all these nice people that were giving me good music with no strings attached.

I had pretty much the same experience during my Napster days. The whole technology and idea was new to me and I also barely knew what an mp3 was too. As I learned more about this new technology I realized that the performance of the entire network greatly depends on the consumers also giving back to the network. The more that is given back the more there is to consume. P2p programs have a unique situation where the consumers are also the providers all rolled into one and there's a direct and strong relationship between the two.

I soon realized that p2p programs are more like a community rather then a commercialized product that most consumers are normally use to. If the community goes under we only have ourselves to blame because we are pretty much running the show. Of course, there are outside forces that play a role but we the users have the most direct impact on how the network performs and how much better or worse it can be. The network is only as good as the people that run it.

Originally posted by TankGirl

I think I'll leave the world for others to control and settle for just being the mistress of the Forum Dungeon.... thanks anyway!

Aaahhhh, and I was so looking forward to world peace among other things