BitTorrent vs Direct Download, page 1

slash ProDanceCulture on November 29th, 2005 / post 671

right now there're two ways to get music, and there're fans of either of these, most of them stick to only one of them. and i can say, that many direct dl lovers are quite against the BitTorrent structure and protocols, saying 'give me ooold-goood way to get my music - direct link'. so far direct links haven't been very good for me. one of the reasons is explorer can't stop-and-go on downloads, resuming them from the beginning. second is the speed, which haven't been very good with free webspace links, giving 5-25kbps. and for BitTorrent just take this website as an example. with more than 1400k users and 100 users active at all times, speeds have been no less than 70-200kbps for me and for anyone w/properly configured client/firewall. and they can be resumed and stopped at any time you like. and we have way more music here, than direct links can give..

so here's my personal answer to direct downloads - I DON't WANt tHEM! do you?

(user gone) on November 30th, 2005 / post 678

edit

Direct Download, be it HTTP, FTP or even DC++ type P2P have always been very poor for me. Poor speeds or mostly unable to connect. I have very little praise for public torrent sites where registration isn't required again due to poor speeds and the thousands of leechers.

It's sites like this which make the protocol work best due to the high level of seeders. Sites like this also tend not to be frouned upon due to the nature of it's content. Keep up the good work, and remember to just keep it live :o)