Printable View
Just tried to get Bt (the Shadow version) up and running without success :(
It's giving me a NSIS error message.
Ive managed to get the normal Bt to work ok but found it too slow and was
recomended this one instead.
Any ideas what the prob is guys.
Ta.
speeds on all the bittorrent clients are the same
no, there not
shadows uses the least resources, and azureus(sp) is the fastest for downloading, but uses the most resources, it a java based client
did you save it the run or open it?
and you did get the 32bit install?
http://home.elp.rr.com/tur/download.html
hope that helps
no m8 your wrong as the speeds are always the same i tryed m all and found that
nova torrent uses less recources then the shadows one
well I haven't tried nova, but doesn't it promote leeching?
remember something abut that one, just can't put my finger on it
maybe it had a cease after 100% or something?
Nova is not a leeching client. It allows you to set upload at 1KB/s but it does not work. Even with it set at 1 it still uploads at 10 plus and 0=unlimited. so no it does not promote leeching. It simply allowes you to choke your upload a bit so you can actually browse the net while seeding, therby making it possible to seed more.
I hate how this client got a bad wrap because it allows you to control your bandwidth.
yeah but most clients let you cap your upload speed
I'm not giving it a bad rap, just stating what I herd
and nothing wrong with controling your bandwith, the cvs & shadows can, as with software netlimiter ect..
exactly my point if ppl want to cap there upload there's always a way :(
Well I am not really sure what we are arguing about here, I mean we are making the same point. For some resaon when nova came out, everyone was saying it is a leeching tool. Where anyone who wants to limit there bandwidth can, with the above suggestion and basically every new client.Quote:
Originally posted by bluedevil@11 September 2003 - 08:28
exactly my point if ppl want to cap there upload there's always a way :(
I was just defending my cleint from the things that people hear about it, that is all.
Does anyone else use Shareaza as their BT client...
i use azureus and before that i had the experimental oneQuote:
Originally posted by REALITY@11 September 2003 - 07:36
Does anyone else use Shareaza as their BT client...
I did for a while, but it really did not resume d'lds very well. After closing it I mean. I also get much better speeds with a normal client. Aswell seeding is a factor with shareazaQuote:
Originally posted by REALITY@11 September 2003 - 08:36
Does anyone else use Shareaza as their BT client...
I did for a while, but it really did not resume d'lds very well. After closing it I mean. I also get much better speeds with a normal client. Aswell seeding is a factor with shareaza [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by toddiscool+11 September 2003 - 08:41--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (toddiscool @ 11 September 2003 - 08:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-REALITY@11 September 2003 - 08:36
Does anyone else use Shareaza as their BT client...
I had the same issues in earlier versions, as a matter of fact I never saw ul and thought it was in the backround or perhaps was just leeching. Apperently it may have been leeching since the new client shows at least 3 ul for every dl I am running. In the newer version it appears my speeds are as good as any other BT client and resume is actually simpler, just open Shareaza and it resumes the file. The GUI is also much nicer than any other BT client especially when having mutiple dl running.
Talk about hijacking my thread!Quote:
Originally posted by muchspl2@11 September 2003 - 04:04
no, there not
shadows uses the least resources, and azureus(sp) is the fastest for downloading, but uses the most resources, it a java based client
did you save it the run or open it?
and you did get the 32bit install?
http://home.elp.rr.com/tur/download.html
hope that helps
Anyway never mind, back to my prob i saved it and then tried to open it
but it's then i get the error.
Ive just d/loded the Cvs version, installed ok but my speed is not getting above 2MB's :huh:
Surely that cant be right?
TRY SHAREAZA
TRY SHAREAZA
TRY SHAREAZA
TRY SHAREAZA
What you trying to say REALITY?Quote:
Originally posted by REALITY@11 September 2003 - 10:20
TRY SHAREAZA
TRY SHAREAZA
TRY SHAREAZA
TRY SHAREAZA
Try SHAREAZA Perhaps :D
Ok i will.
Yes I really like it...Quote:
Originally posted by bronco@11 September 2003 - 12:33
What you trying to say REALITY?
Try SHAREAZA Perhaps :D
Ok i will.
First of all all the clients give the same speeds some are better than others though for differant reasons.
I have used them all, every version at one time or another.
In my experience Nova is slower for sheer overall download speed ,but easy on ram.
Personally I use 321 I dont need anything fancy ,just want my downloads done at top speed.
Some use more ram than others but is all the same when you are downloading at top speeds.
But thats mainly attributed to high bandwidth rates ,I can get upwards of 1000kb/s.
Shareaza sucks do not waste you time with this unless you are un resourceful and lazy.
For starters try bitemonsoon.com ,Supr universal ,or even the private Bt tracker FastTracker.
But to be truly resourceful one cannot rely on one type of peer to peer software,master each type one at a time.
Heres some of the greats ,but it depends on what you download most.
Newsgroups ,Bittorent ,Irc.
it sux
Ok, i was going to try Shareaza ( and thats before Adster and nahan hammered it :lol: but i came accross the Azureus version, tried it out and WOW :o it kicks ass!
Speeds are way up and are even faster than good old kazza, something i thought
wouldnt happen.
Id highly recommend this version as it's fast (for me) and really nice to look at :D
nahan, i know you said all clients give the same speeds but this is somehow going
very quick indeed, im impressed :)
its easy to anwser, he was wrong
alot depends on bittorrent, seed, peers ect
but he said all the clients were the same, I disagree, some are better with faster computers & some better with slower cpu's
just got to find the one the works for you
If you know what your doing they all can achieve your maximum download rate.
You are correct in saying it depends on seeders and downloaders ,but thats just obvious.Anyone who knows anything about bittorrent could of told you that.
muchspl2 you wrote;
"but he said all the clients were the same, I disagree, some are better with faster computers & some better with slower cpu's."
A load on a cpu is nothing more than what the ram is loading at.
They work directly in conjunction.
Some use more ram than others but is all the same when you are downloading at top speeds.
No client in the world will let you download faster than your service provider allows,so its all the same.