Star Download versus Fresh Downloader

  • Thread starter Thread starter howard schwartz
  • Start date Start date
I tried both Fresh and Star downloader. In both cases I did not subjectively
notice a faster download, by the technique of doing simultaneous downloads of
parts of a file, using different threads. On star downloader the overall speed
of transfer reported usually is the same as what I would get with the browser's
(netscape) ordinary download box.

I like Start downloader's listing of previously downloaded files, and do not
remember if Fresh does this too.

Has anyone tested whether the downloaders really do transfer files faster and
an ordinary browser download, in general?
Click to expand...

DAP ( mentioned in context why no free one implemented it ? ) had an
interesting feature, when I was using it.

It searched by some ftpsearch mirrors with demanded file
and downloaded each file part from different server.

IT WORKED WELL and for sure could increase download speed.

SD claims to use some built-in mirror list too,
but just for select the fastest one
( Personally not sure if it works - I did not ever
realize it choose other than original one. )
 
(e-mail address removed) (howard schwartz) wrote in

I'll be interested in an answer to this question, because I've found
exactly the same thing.

I've tried a number of downloaders, including those two, and always
reverted to Netants, purely because it's quirky and I like it.

The only advantage I can see from a download manager is resuming broken
downloads, I've seen no speed advantage over IE's one
Click to expand...

If you are making 100% throughput on single stream, nothing can
improve it!.

I've often seen multi-thread downloaders where the threads simply go
in a sequnce... I'd be more convinced by multi-server splitting, than
by multithreading the same server.

You sometimes win - if the throughput is poor, extra threads may
improve it - tweaking RWIN higher may also help if a link is subject
to packet delay but capable of better speed - and it's possible that
extra threads may also compensate.

Of course, if everyone tries to be a server glutton by using
multithreading, the only thing you can do is join them!
That is probably the main issue, on an overloaded server, more threads
equals a bigger share of the throughput - though many will limit you.

NB. you can only multithread a resumable server - often the time you
most want to, you can't!
 
Well. I can live with that, strangely I'd never noticed the ad, guess I
find the ants wheelbarrows and balls too fascinating.
Click to expand...

FWIW, I just downloaded NetAnts, and am quite pleased with it. It's a knock
off of FlasGet, and works just as well. The ads seem to be inactive now, and
the last update for NetAnts is pretty old. Perhaps it's abandoned ware, and
may soon be rareware. I'm certainly going to save the installer.

Spybot detected a minor spyware thingie, but I zapped it. Not even sure if
it was associated with NetAnts.

Bob
 
BoB said:
'Some' non-free DLers will select the fastest site from dozens of
alternatives that 'may' be available, and could make a big difference to
the DL speed. With multi-threads, sometimes one will quit or slowdown
temporarily, while the other thread(s) maintain their speed. This could
also speed-up the overall DL time. For the most part however, the resume
function is all that is important on a dialup connection.

An expansion on part of BillR's comments.

BoB
Click to expand...

And like the comments of several others, a more informative answer.

BillR
 
Back
Top