Star Download versus Fresh Downloader

[howard schwartz]

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?

 

[jpt]

(e-mail address removed) (howard schwartz) wrote in

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?

I'm on dial-up and Star significantly increases the speed of my downloads.
I haven't run any scientific tests, but subjectively, it is a lot faster.
I have a slow dial-up, and the speed improvements are dramatic. I use the
default settings.

 

[BasketCase]

(e-mail address removed) (howard schwartz) wrote in


I'm on dial-up and Star significantly increases the speed of my downloads.
I haven't run any scientific tests, but subjectively, it is a lot faster.
I have a slow dial-up, and the speed improvements are dramatic. I use the
default settings.

I too am on dial-up and noticed no speed difference to my downloads. Just
liked the advantage of resuming broken downloads.

 

[Mel]

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?

I would typically expect a small reduction in the overall time taken when using
a multi-thread downloader, with two or three connections you can get a more
consistent, continuous flow of data.

The primary reason I use a downloader is for a reliable option to resume, the
speed gains aren't that significant.

Downloading a file using 2 - 4 different servers often tended to produce a more
noticeable boost in performance (this was using an adware app before I found dlexpert),
it also had the advantage that if some of the mirrors you chose were slow, or it
took a long time to make a connection because they were busy, your download
speed wouldn't suffer.

Since my current downloader doesn't provide an option to split a download
between servers I often download 2 or 3 files from different sites at the
same time, each with a single thread.

 

[mike ring]

A good one keeps a record of what you've already downloaded and where it
came from.

Netants does that, *and* it's fun, with the little ants with wheelbarrows,
the coloured balls, the adenoidal "job done" announcement.


Call me childish......

mike r

 

[BillR]

(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

mike r

A few of the many possibilities to consider.

What is your pipe like? (Dialup? Broadband?)
What is your system? (CPU, bus speed, other load, disk speed, LAN)
How many connections does download site allow? From one requester?
Concurrent load? External load limited?
What is routing on the net? Congestion?

If you haven't seen it, look at the "Download Managers" in PC Magazine
(US) comparison cited in a couple of threads -- and the caveat.

BillR

 

[Jim Scott]

mike ring wrote on Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:17:23 GMT

Netants does that, *and* it's fun, with the little ants
with wheelbarrows, the coloured balls, the adenoidal "job
done" announcement.


Call me childish......

mike r

Isn't it spyware?

 

[Patrick D.]

Isn't it spyware?

Adware at the least.

 

[mike ring]

Adware at the least.

Spybot says it's not, I haven'tused adaware for a bit, since I heard spybot
was better - If there's any ads I can't see them.

mike r

 

[Jim Scott]

mike ring wrote on Sat, 30 Aug 2003 09:08:30 GMT

Spybot says it's not, I haven'tused adaware for a bit,
since I heard spybot was better - If there's any ads I
can't see them.

mike r

See here http://www.tom-cat.com/

 

[Jim Scott]

mike ring wrote on Sat, 30 Aug 2003 09:53:23 GMT

Helpful site, but a search did not get any hits on netants.

Not only does spybot say it's clean, but it never shows on
zonealarm as trying to phone home; perhaps it's too sneaky
for that.

How about if instead of all the nudges and hints you tell
me exactly what it does that's wrong, I lost patience with
all that tap me nose rumour mongering when I was doing
National Service in the Fifties

mike r

When I put it in Tom-Cat ten minutes ago I got one reference,
which when I clicked on gave me Radiate/Aureate.
We are both talking about Netants here?

 

[Mel]

Helpful site, but a search did not get any hits on netants.

Not only does spybot say it's clean, but it never shows on zonealarm as
trying to phone home; perhaps it's too sneaky for that.

How about if instead of all the nudges and hints you tell me exactly what
it does that's wrong, I lost patience with all that tap me nose rumour
mongering when I was doing National Service in the Fifties

mike r

According to tom-cat "netants" contains aureate,
but it doesn't have any details of infected versions
and I'm not sure if aureate are still in business.
(spybot includes aureate detection as does ad-aware)

http://www.tom-cat.com/cgi-bin/spyb...etants&bool=and&view_records=Submit&nh=1&mh=1

according to http://www.netants.com/en/index.html

"NetAnts is AD-sponsored, and FREE to the public."

When I try out downloaders I use a packet sniffer and firewall
(eg sygate, since the free version of ZA can't do this)
to monitor what IP address it connects too etc, to make sure
they are ok.

But I don't even bother unless I can find a privacy statement on the
programs website.

 

[Jim Scott]

Mel wrote on Sat, 30 Aug 2003 10:43:42 GMT

message


According to tom-cat "netants" contains aureate,
but it doesn't have any details of infected versions
and I'm not sure if aureate are still in business.
(spybot includes aureate detection as does ad-aware)

http://www.tom-cat.com/cgi-bin/spybase/spybase.cgi?db=spybas
e&uid=default&sb=4&so=ascend&view_records=1&status=---&offen
der=---&name=&keyword=netants&bool=and&view_records=Submit&n
h=1&mh=1

according to http://www.netants.com/en/index.html

"NetAnts is AD-sponsored, and FREE to the public."

When I try out downloaders I use a packet sniffer and
firewall (eg sygate, since the free version of ZA can't do
this) to monitor what IP address it connects too etc, to
make sure they are ok.

But I don't even bother unless I can find a privacy
statement on the programs website.

OK.
You don't happen to know whether it works with Mozilla-
Firebird?
Nothing else seems to.

 

[Onno]

You don't happen to know whether it works with Mozilla-
Firebird?
Nothing else seems to.

Stardownloader works well with Phoenix on W98se and W2K, so it should work
with Firebird too.

 

[BoB]

mike ring wrote on Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:17:23 GMT


Isn't it spyware?

An excerpt from IC5 for NetAnts v1.24 indicates it was then.
__________________________
Keys added: 74
--------------
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\AppEvents\Schemes\Apps\NetAnts
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Aureate
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\NetAnts\OEM
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.!!!
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID\{57E91B40-F40A-11d1-B792-444553540000}

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\Radiate
Advertising

Values added: 87
___________________________

BoB

 

[Mel]

Mel wrote on Sat, 30 Aug 2003 10:43:42 GMT

OK.
You don't happen to know whether it works with Mozilla-
Firebird?
Nothing else seems to.

Sorry I wasn't clear, but since the netants site said
it was ad-sponsored, and there are many completely
free downloaders about its not one of the downloaders
I've used and tested.

In fact a closer look at their website positively confirms
the current version of netants contains radiate
see -

http://www.netants.com/en/ad.html

I also finally found their privacy statement, I missed it earlier
http://www.netants.com/en/privacy.html

with a dead link to radiate which makes me wonder
how up to date and accurate this page is.

I've seen some dispute if radiate is spyware or just mild adware,
either way I prefer to avoid it.

Strange if the earlier poster is right and spybot doesn't detect it?

 

[Bob Adkins]

Netants does that, *and* it's fun, with the little ants with wheelbarrows,
the coloured balls, the adenoidal "job done" announcement.

I tried NetAnts, and liked it. However, IIRC the version I tried was eaten
up with spyware and spam traps.

Bob

 

[mike ring]

When I put it in Tom-Cat ten minutes ago I got one reference,
which when I clicked on gave me Radiate/Aureate.
We are both talking about Netants here?

Yes, I've tried again, with and without capital and plural -

no joy

mike r

 

[mike ring]

http://www.netants.com/en/ad.html

I also finally found their privacy statement, I missed it earlier
http://www.netants.com/en/privacy.html

with a dead link to radiate which makes me wonder
how up to date and accurate this page is.

Strange if the earlier poster is right and spybot doesn't detect it?

Well. I can live with that, strangely I'd never noticed the ad, guess I
find the ants wheelbarrows and balls too fascinating.

I still get no hits on the tomcat site, but thank you for finding the pages
that clarified it

mike r

 

[BoB]

I too am on dial-up and noticed no speed difference to my downloads. Just
liked the advantage of resuming broken downloads.

'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