Features I need

[assorted]

Just 2 features I need that annoy me while using KazaaLite.

1) I'd like to share video files; but I don't like all of my queues being taken up by one or two files. It would be very nice if I could designate how many que slots to give different share folders. I realize this flies in the face of "ease of use" but I'm sure they could toss an "Advanced" tab somewhere.

With video files as popular as they are it would be nice to give them a consistent 2 free slots while leaving another 4 open for everything else.

2) Kazaa needs a fucking "drop below this transfer speed"... So does WinMX. I remember Morpheus I think had this feature? Or maybe it was Direct Connect... I know IRC scripts do but whatever; these 56k people set up multi source (or multiple) downloads and are taking up a slot by grabbing at .56k/s. It's a waste of my slots.

[TankGirl]

Originally posted by assorted
1) I'd like to share video files; but I don't like all of my queues being taken up by one or two files. It would be very nice if I could designate how many que slots to give different share folders. I realize this flies in the face of "ease of use" but I'm sure they could toss an "Advanced" tab somewhere.

With video files as popular as they are it would be nice to give them a consistent 2 free slots while leaving another 4 open for everything else.

This is a very good proposition. Now that multisourcing has made WinMX technically suitable for movie sharing a similar need has arisen there. Probably the simplest solution would be if you could run multiple instances of the client with their own separate shares and queue/bandwidth settings.

- tg

[thinker]

Hmmm...another smack at the no-bandwidth crowd, I see. Well, why don't we just entirely eliminate dial-up Internet access to make the broadbanders feel all warm and squishy since they won't have to worry about anything. Just when that dies down a little someone has to start it up again. I don't try multiple downloads (unless the filesizes are very small, like sound clips of about 30 seconds, or maybe pictures), and don't multisource since I don't even use WinMX 3.1, or any other apps that support it. Thanks, assorted - I really need a reminder that there are people out there who will amass large collections but only leave them open to a select few in practicality. Sure, technically you're entitled, even though it also makes you seem to be taking a very large piss. There's usually an instance sometime where someone will lose their high-speed for one reason or another - tech problems or other issues. I wonder how they'd like being on the outside. Ah well, just drop your p2p names and I'll keep tabs on whom not to download from. Cheers.

[Scyth]

It seems to me the best solution would be to abandon download queues and simply let as many people download as want to download. I'd much rather have a slow tranfer speed that be stuck a a queue, receiving nothing at all. Especially with multi-source downloads implemented, things should move in this direction.

[HAL9000]

I would like to have

Start upload if current total bandwidth use is less then limit.

[Mowzer]

Why the hell would a dial up user even have the odacity to hamper a boradband users file sharing experince? Dial up was never really meant for file sharing any way.

Its like walking to the store when you can easily drive.

A 56ker downloading a 700mb dvd rip. They should have thier f**king heads examined.

Stick to mp3s and web sites.

[Scyth]

Originally posted by Ethen
Why the hell would a dial up user even have the odacity to hamper a boradband users file sharing experince? Dial up was never really meant for file sharing any way.

Its like walking to the store when you can easily drive.

A 56ker downloading a 700mb dvd rip. They should have thier f**king heads examined.

Stick to mp3s and web sites.

I have never understood why modem users are considered to be a nuisance. A modem user could be downloading from me right now and it would make absolutely no difference to me. Why should I care? Why should anyone care?

[JackSpratts]

the one reason you might care is if you've set simultaneous upload limits. i have and mine is usually set to 5. if a 56ker takes a slot he can be on it for 5-6 hours getting one wheezingly slow file. whereas the same slot taken by dslers could yield dozens of completions which again go right back onto the network for others to share (theoretically). i set no bottom speed caps and, with my mix of slow and high bandwidth users uploading from me, I avg 100 uploads a day. if they were all 56kers the totals might be 95% less. it’s not an issue for me in general but it can’t be argued that the networks aren’t better off with faster users.

- js.

[Scyth]

It seems to me that the modem users aren't the problems, but rather the servents that implement a limit on the number of simulateneous. As I said in an early post, I don't see the point in such a limit and so I guess I don't consider it when think about modem users.

As for modem users not helping the network, I'd rather download a segment of a file at 3k/s from a modem user than not be able to download it at all.

[indiana_jones]

i have limited the number of uploads to 2 (my max uload is 6KByte/s) for the following reasons:

• of course i hope that the individual upload speed is higher, thus finishing a file quicker
• if individual upload is quicker, the file at the other user computer is available earlier for resharing
• i am not online 24/7, so I want users to finish the uploads before i cut the line
• i'm firewalled, so if for any reason my supernode changes and a connection drops, this user cannot reconnect to my computer.(i think it works this way)

some thaughts to think about.

one thing i wonder: the real cause, why some upload connection drop down to near zero, is it really because they download so many files in parallel or is there some additional unknown technical reason?

[petriburg]

well said, scyth. IMO some of our peers are being a little hard on modem users. A point which may not be generally realised is that in some areas on this planet, there is just no alternative to
modem, except possibly satellite (which, I'm given to understand, is a troublesome alternative at best, let alone expensive). A friend of mine has been trying for months to get cable or adsl, but none of the ISPs can offer these services, and this in a quite sizeable (but not capital) city. I guess patience is a worthy virtue!

[JohnDoe345]

I don't have a personal problem with modem users. Although, no one can disagree with me in saying that the p2p networks would be faster if everyone had broadband, but this isn't the case for many reasons. I respect those reasons and choices or no choices to stay with 56k. This being the case I try to work and adapt to the variety of connections speeds found on p2p programs.

When a I have a rare file that I'm trying to spread throughout the network, I do try to give it first only to sharing broadband users in an attempt to try and get more sources available for everyone. It would take days to spread a file if I have a 56k user trys to download from me. To you give you an example, in one day I can upload a movie to 10 broadband users which theoretically will create 10 new sources to download from in just one day. When I get a 56k user trying to download from me, we are talking about days to provide a new source to the network.

So Scyth that's why I choose to limit my upload slots to just 2. If I split my uploads any more then that they become 56k speeds which causes that slow distribution problem. So what I do is try to work around this issue. If I'm one of the few users sharing a popular file I set my upload to 1 and give it out as quickly as I can to all sharing broadband users. Basically, I try to saturate the network with new sources so that everyone can benefit. Once the network has a decent amount of sources then I have no problems with 56k users downloading from me.

If I have a rare but unpopular file then I'll just let anyone who wants it to take it because they might be the only other person willing to share the file.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that like the real world the p2p community is made up of a variety of different users. But instead of different ethnic races and social classes we have differences in connection speeds. And like the real world we all need to work and adapt to these differences in order to mantain peace because I don't see this changing any time soon. I'm not saying that I have the answers or what I have described above is the best solution but there needs to be a movement in thinking of the p2p network as more of a whole rather then a group of individuals.

What assorted has brought up does have merit to it in that it is an attempt to make the network more efficient, which helps everyone....56k, broadband, and I hate to say it also leeches. What I would like to see happening is to be able to dedicate 1 upload slot for 56k users and 1 for broadband users and then adjust things from there. The problem is that since these p2p programs are basically free there isn't a huge desire for the companies to fix or come up with solutions to our problems, which in turn causes a lot of blame being placed on our fellow users. Just look at the leech issue. It's a huge debate in almost every p2p program you go to and yet there has been very little effort by p2p program makers in coming up with a fair solution.

Maybe I'm dreaming but I'm hoping that there will be a huge switch over and developement in open sourced programs....it maybe our only hope for fair and reasonable solutions.

[labourinvein]

Hey JS how long you been a congressman?

Quote... but it can’t be argued that the networks aren’t better off with faster users.

Ohhhhh double negatives all round

I found the best scheme is 4 uploads MAX with no more than 2 per user, that nicely shares resources on my capped (128k) cable.

To adjust, the rates throttle down the wideband conections and giver higher priority to the 56k uploaders to get a nice 4kbytes per user balance .

Guss..

[goldie]

Originally posted by assorted
Just 2 features I need that annoy me while using KazaaLite.

2) Kazaa needs a fucking "drop below this transfer speed"... So does WinMX. I remember Morpheus I think had this feature? Or maybe it was Direct Connect... I know IRC scripts do but whatever; these 56k people set up multi source (or multiple) downloads and are taking up a slot by grabbing at .56k/s. It's a waste of my slots.

Well, you broadband elitists will never have to worry about this 56ker attempting to grab a movie off the net.

Net movies = waste-of-time in my book but that's JMHO. I prefer to watch my dvd's on my BIG screen and spend the lousy $$ for the "real deal" instead of going through the aggravation of dling these bloated movie files and THAT goes for whether I have this simple modem or "graduate" to broadband.

OTH I can totally understand why you elitists feel the way you do
. I'd love to have the ability to cut a file off when a connection goes <1.00 k/s because someone has 15-20 dl's coming in all at the same time or is sharing absolutely nothing or is on a lousy 56k and multisourcing modem but I really doubt if this "option" will become a reality anytime soon.

Humph and Pffft!

editted

[JackSpratts]

wise guy.

- js.

[goldie]

Originally posted by JackSpratts
wise guy.

- js.

We all luv ya JS - and even the (undecided)

[Dawn]

Originally posted by goldenrod


We all luv ya JS -

Yep, we do

[twinspan]

Originally posted by goldenrod
I prefer to watch my dvd's on my BIG screen and spend the lousy $$ for the "real deal"

The "real deal"! You've got 35mm celluloid prints and you didn't tell us!

So when can I come round?

[goldie]

Originally posted by twinspan
The "real deal"! You've got 35mm celluloid prints and you didn't tell us!

So when can I come round?

I said $$ not$$$$$$$

But you can come over anytime

[JackSpratts]

- js.