# mactorrent



## Jaimac (Nov 25, 2004)

hey what's the best torrent client?


----------



## quikkid (Oct 31, 2005)

I am currently using Tomato Torrent. Not full featured like Azureus, but it's the best I've found so far...


----------



## Applelover (Mar 6, 2005)

I use Azareus. But it's a huge memory hog.


----------



## AC_99 (Sep 29, 2005)

I'll second the tomato torrent. Simple and reliable.


----------



## macguy.nielsen (Sep 18, 2004)

I just use BitTorrent from www.bittorrent.com 

I find it to be a good, easy to use, program.


----------



## Tiranis (Jun 19, 2005)

I use Transmission (http://transmission.m0k.org/) - unless you need the advanced functions Azureus it's the best choice (if you're using the official bittorrent client, then you should switch right now).


----------



## Puccasaurus (Dec 28, 2003)

Another Transmission user here. It's quick and simple. If you don't care about creating torrent files, it's the best.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

I've been using Azureus for a while now.. only reason is that it has queue, resume, etc, unlike the original bittorrent client, which always crashed on me.

It's stable, but it is a huge resource/memory hog.. and it's java which sucks..

I'm gonna check out Transmission right now, thanks for the tip guys.

EDIT: wow, it works great! loads instantly, torrents connect quickly.. excellent!


----------



## jonmon (Feb 15, 2002)

oh man i've been using the official client forever now

going to switch to transmission


----------



## Jason H (Feb 1, 2004)

I use either transmission OR azerus.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Anyone have a particular site that they like to download from or through???


----------



## adb_ii (Jan 10, 2005)

wow thanks for the heads up on transmission!
way better than the official client and i'm no longer a power user, so azureus is a waste of resources...thanks again!


----------



## scootsandludes (Nov 28, 2003)

IronMac said:


> Anyone have a particular site that they like to download from or through???



I think discussing that would violate ehmac's user agreement 


vince


----------



## Guest (Dec 16, 2005)

I don't use any client since Rogers stomped my access. If I try to download a torrent it slows ALL of my internet access to a crawl. Even a legal torrent like a linux distro. *@#$&&$#


----------



## bmovie (Jan 18, 2003)

mguertin said:


> I don't use any client since Rogers stomped my access. If I try to download a torrent it slows ALL of my internet access to a crawl. Even a legal torrent like a linux distro. *@#$&&$#


how did they do that? did you get a notice? I have rogers as well and I haven't noticed any problems.


----------



## Guest (Dec 16, 2005)

No notices ... there's talk about this all over the place ( dslreports.com I think has some HUGE threads on it ). They are rolling it out area by area it seems. They are using some technology to stomp basically anything that is downloading one file from multiple sources from what I've read so far. They have also now completely mucked up any port scanning on their network in the name of "preventing issues". his is a huge problem for me as I scan several of my servers daily to make sure there are no problems, etc. Now all port scans come up with all kinds of false positives. It's super frustrating when my port scan comes back and tells me that I have all kinds of M$ services running on my Linux boxes, and/or that I have 3-4 known exploit ports running wide open. The first time this happened I ended up chasing down a bunch of ghosts and doing a lot of work for nothing.

When I complained of this to them nothing happened. The tech support had no idea what I was talking about (even Tier 2 support). UGGGG.


----------



## The Great Waka (Nov 26, 2002)

I'll check out Transmission. I run Azureus, but if there is something faster, I'll take it.

I've had problems with Rogers now too. Even though I'm running bitttorrent on different ports than the standard, I haven't gotten above a few K/s on them. This just started a few days ago. Arg.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

scootsandludes said:


> I think discussing that would violate ehmac's user agreement
> 
> 
> vince


I see...ok, thanks!


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

mguertin said:


> I don't use any client since Rogers stomped my access. If I try to download a torrent it slows ALL of my internet access to a crawl. Even a legal torrent like a linux distro. *@#$&&$#


One reason why I decided to go with Sympatico. I could be wrong but they don't seem to be stomping on BitTorrent...at least not yet.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

Ugh, careful with Transmission, it has a really annoying bug!!

If you leave it overnight, with some torrents running, it'll freeze up on ya! Plus, when you reload it your torrents won't be there anymore, so don't delete those torrents files until the files are finished.....


----------



## adam1185 (Feb 16, 2005)

I use Acquisition since I've already paid for it. It just added bit torrent support.


----------



## poisonmonkey (Sep 20, 2004)

I use bits on Wheels.
The only real reason for using it is the nice graph that it creates as you d/l...


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... I don't use any client since Rogers stomped my access. If I try to download a torrent it slows ALL of my internet access to a crawl. Even a legal torrent like a linux distro. ..."

Rogers and Shaw Cable both use some form of traffic shaping. They might use the Ellacoya E30, the Cisco SCE 1000, or some similar device.

[From the Ellacoya product description]:
" ...
The embedded software associates traffic with a subscriber or subnet using one of five methods of subscriber identification. It retrieves the policies for the subscriber from the Service Logic Software™ and uses the policies to classify the subscriber's flows.
..."

The keyword is "policies" which basically means the rules that determine what is allowed and not allowed for traffic. Policies can be enforced based on a number of key signatures; these boxes use a combination of characteristics, including packet sniffing. A similar Cisco box claims to be able to identify more than 800 specific file type signatures.

The "subscriber's flows" means a throttle on your bandwidth.

In their defense, I just want to point out that whether it's Dialup, DSL or a T1 line, you have a dedicated amount of bandwidth you can use for uploads and downloads.

Cable does not work that way; you don't have a "straight pipe" to the internet. Without going into technical descriptions, let's just say that if you wanted to invent a kind of internet traffic designed to saturate a Cable System, you would build something that worked just like BitTorrent. It's a Cable system nightmare, and they just wish it would have never been invented, I'm sure.

It just eats up their available bandwidth, and since it's partly shared, it hurts what, for lack of a better term, we'll call "normal customers". They really have no choice, but I will leave it to you to guess why they don't say out loud "you guys should really be using DSL; our network doesn't do real-time or simultaneous upload/download very well, and we sometimes have problems with packets arriving out of order, and it gets worse the more upload bandwidth you need, and there's nothing we can do about it unless we tear up our whole "last mile" network. "

It's a problem for things like VoIP and Video Telephony as well. In a very real sense, these devices would have had to be built anyway since Cable has issues with this kind of traffic, chances are if they didn't it wouldn't work properly with their network topology, and they most definitely want that market.

Shaw Techs will tell you that other providers (read "the DSL competiton") have similar policies but they use a bit of "smoke and mirrors" with that. Every ISP will get antsy if you start hogging their backbone bandwidth but there are no fixed limits; they will insist you use the appropriate level of service at some point.

A server is a server, after all, but home use is is just that, and they're OK with a few Torrents. As an internet user you should know it's mostly because it doesn't affect their network the same way as it affects the Cable system.

If you need terrabytes of bandwidth that's another issue, but normal and even heavy <i>home use</i> is no problem at least technically speaking.


----------



## jbot (Oct 20, 2005)

poisonmonkey said:


> I use bits on Wheels.
> The only real reason for using it is the nice graph that it creates as you d/l...



I second Bits on Wheels... a simple program, with few bugs and nice 3D chart showing your peers.... Great piece of software - and its free, unlike acquisition and others....


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

gordguide.. I don't quite understand what you're saying.. whether it be cable or dsl, a person has a max. download/upload speed anyway, so what does it matter where that's coming from, or how many connections it takes to reach that speed? once that speed is achieved, it can no go further, no matter how many peers you're connected to... so maybe I'm misunderstanding your post..


----------



## imachungry (Sep 19, 2004)

adam1185 said:


> I use Acquisition since I've already paid for it. It just added bit torrent support.


Me two. Awesome program, especially as it syncs iTunes.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... gordguide.. I don't quite understand what you're saying.. whether it be cable or dsl, a person has a max. download/upload speed anyway, so what does it matter where that's coming from, or how many connections it takes to reach that speed? ..."

Cable networks and DSL networks are structured differently. It's true that, say, 1.5 mb/s is the same no matter what kind of network you have; and by itself it seems equivalent.

Let me give you some concrete examples. I recently had Shaw come around and offer the usual cross-grade to free cable and free hispeed for 3 months, since we were DSL customers. Naturally, we took them up on it. ** So, for a day or so, I had both connections active, and tried a few tests just for fun.

There is a java application you can download from Shaw to test your connection for troubleshooting purposes. What it does is interact with the firmware on your CableModem and Shaw's backbone server; connecting you directly via modem and cable to "downtown" and Shaw's computers (it also waits until the line is open, and then dedicates bandwidth to you only for the duration of the test, a few seconds). It also records information about your computer and the test results, and saves them to the main computer as well. Since it's for line-quality testing only, it never connects to the internet (the internet is on the other side of Shaw's computers).

With that application running, close to 5 megabits per second is no problem (I get 4.8 mb/s down and 640 kb/s up) with Cable.

Now, try any of the usual "speed test" sites, and you will never come close to 5 mb /s. What's different? When you try test sites, you must <i>go through the internet as well as</i> your cable connection. Under these conditions, Cable and DSL get similar speeds on average. Where they differ is consistency; with cable it's anywhere from 480 to 2.8 mb/s, with DSL it's essentially 1400 mb/s every time (my results; yours may vary). When I had the premium DSL ($10 more per month) I could do the same thing, except I would get 4.5 mb/s every time. ***

I even ran Shaw's java app via DSL, which means it goes via DSL modem, across telephone lines, to the DSL backbone, across the internet, to Shaw's backbone. Even though the java app will crash (when it tries to get data from the Cablemodem, which doesn't exist, to send to the Shaw computer) you can get the speed test results before that happens. 1380 up and 360 down, every time, completely repeatable all day long. Which is roughly what the "speed test" sites give me with DSL.

DSL is dedicated "space" and you can always get that speed, if other servers on the internet are willing to cooperate (sometimes they are the slow part) you are good to go, right up to the maximum.

Cable is shared space, and not only that, it's maximum speed is not possible to achieve except while running an application that locks others out for a moment. For the most part, it's not a big problem, but keep in mind that if every Shaw (or Rogers, or whomever) customer wants to upload a request for a page at the same time, it has to slow down considerably. If you ever used IE for Mac with a Cablemodem and watched the download rates you can easily see the speeds vary at certain times; during noon hour for example they slow right down, and speed up again at 1:00.

Cable has room for users, but takes advantage of the fact that it's essentially impossible for everyone to be asking for the same upload or download bandwidth at the exact same time. If that happens, it can't deliver anywhere near the theoretical maximum.

BItTorrent is the application that dramatically reveals the shortcoming. It's not like "regular" internet use, where people ask for bandwidth serially rather than simultaneously. Worse, it's designed to give priority to other BitTorrent users that are closer to you over those further away (in internet terms). Shaw users on BitTorrent eat all the available bandwidth, and a lot of it is eaten by connecting to other Shaw users nearby; it self-saturates the available "space" and leaves no "room" for "regular" internet use. The whole network slows down.

Were you to do the same thing with DSL users, it's not important because each DSL line can and will give you access to all available bandwidth ((there's overhead issues, but typically you can have about 80% or more of the theoretical maximum) as you demand. The space is reserved at all times for your use only, and it's available when you demand it at all times.

BitTorrent is essentially Cable's worst nightmare, because it reveals the weakness in the way they structured their network back when this kind of thing was not anticipated.

** I've had cable 3 times, but prefer DSL for it's consistency. In fact I was one of the first cablemodem customers in North America, back in 1996. It's fast, but the inconsistency drives me crazy; it can be fast one moment and glacial the next.
We called SaskTel and told them what we were doing and it was no problem for them; they said to just leave everything as it is and call us back when you're done your free trial.
*** I quit the higher speed not because it wasn't faster (it was) but because it was too fast for most sites and most servers; you just never used up all that room because the sites themselves were slower than you. 1.5 is roughly as fast as you need, since most sites and servers don't go faster beyond a certain point, pages won't really load faster just because you have a faster connection. If you do file transfers between two fast computers you see it, but most people don't do much of that. I say save your money unless you know you need it.


----------



## coreLlama (Aug 5, 2005)

wow, that's an awesome explination, Thanks


----------



## stevieb (Dec 10, 2004)

So basically, if you have cable, you can't use Bittorent at all now?


----------



## moonsocket (Apr 1, 2002)

stevieb said:


> So basically, if you have cable, you can't use Bittorent at all now?


You can but its painfully slow. Although today when I checked what I was downloading it was up to 150kbps. Just before I came to work though it had dropped to 3bytes/s so there ya go.
Here at work(DSL) I get over 100kbps all the time.


----------



## depmode101 (Sep 4, 2002)

ive just switched over to bits on wheels - its nice - 3d swarm is cool to watch - also a great way to explain to people new to torrent p2p to understand the process.

im on rogers and havent realized any slowdown in my torrent download speed on a side note


----------



## TrevX (May 10, 2005)

I'm on Eastlink (Cable) here in Sydney, Nova Scotia and use BitTorrent all the time. I usually get very reasonable download rates, but I find it depends most on what I am downloading. The more seeders, the higher my speeds. If I am using a torrent with a lot of seeders, I always get a fast download regardless. My idea of fast is greater than 50K/sec sustained, because with anything on the Internet you rely on the connection of others, but with BitTorrent this is especially true because they can control it somewhat (built-in throttling and such). Ocassionally I will download a torrent and get well over 100K/sec sustained for the duration of the download. Again, in my experience, its always been the number of seeders that determined my download speeds. I was using the official Bittorrent client, but switched to Transmission and my speeds went higher. The first time I used Bittorrent I was downloading at over 300k/sec, and at the time Eastlink had us at 5Mbps, now they've upgraded everyone to 10Mbps. As always, YMMV.

Trev


----------



## stevieb (Dec 10, 2004)

moonsocket said:


> You can but its painfully slow. Although today when I checked what I was downloading it was up to 150kbps. Just before I came to work though it had dropped to 3bytes/s so there ya go.
> Here at work(DSL) I get over 100kbps all the time.


Yah, I'm the opposite - at work on Rogers painfully slow speeds (and we're on the 8mb/s corporate) and at home on Bell I get well over 100kb/s per torrent.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... So basically, if you have cable, you can't use Bittorent at all now? ..."

You can use it with Cable; they don't prohibit anything and except for a few glitches (the Rogers/iTunes thing, where connections were dropped, which was due to a bug or configuration error in the machines they use to check for what kind of file is moving across the network) it works.

If you just use it occasionally, it's probably not worth worrying about. Keep in mind that with Cable, everything we say about BitTorrent can also be said for all Peer-to-Peer applications. So, occasional or heavy refers to any and all P2P use you're in the habit of running.

If you are a heavy BT user, you are going to see issues with Cable, sooner or later. They really have no choice. After a certain point, they will cut your internet connection for a period of time.

I understand Shaw and Rogers have a public policy that is also in your Terms Of Service that has a limit of 40 Giga-something per month (bits or bytes? I'm not sure which) but claim that they let you get away with 55 Giga-whatevers before they cut you off. The one caveat with the limits is it counts every single bit across your connection, P2P or just reading ehMac included. So, it has the potential of affecting you with "normal" traffic if you move lots of data any way at all. It's hard to think of specifics, but perhaps video conferencing is a good example of something that might move the counter pretty fast.

If that happens, you have no internet until they reset the counter, which happens at least every month. I believe Shaw cuts you off for 1 week and then resets the counter to zero, but these things can change and probably vary from provider to provider.

Also, whether you're casual or heavy user, because of the whole BT/Cable thing, you might find things slow down quite a bit, since they do look for and throttle BT traffic.


----------



## The Great Waka (Nov 26, 2002)

Those on Rogers, switch to port 1720. They aren't throttling that right now, as that was the Yahoo voice communication or something port. I don't know how long it will work, but I'm back to where I should be speedwise.


----------



## Labonza (Jan 11, 2005)

It looks like Rogers is introducing the speed cap or "throttling" on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis, or hub by hub. Up here in Ottawa, I noticed something fishy about 6 weeks ago...people 20 miles away were still running P2P flat out til a week or so ago.

I hear some parts of T.O. are going full speed, and a few blocks away ( on another hub), P2P is down to 5K/sec or lower. In addition to the software mentioned earlier in this thread, it looks like Rogers is now using the P-Cube box. They have to hook up one of these to control each hub, so I've heard, so the effect is different all over the country.

Gordguide's excellent explanation of the differences between how DSL and Cable work was quite reassuring, as I'm going to quit Rogers and go DSL and was wondering if the same issues would start there soon.

And part of it is down to Rogers really pushing VOIP hard.They want the thing to work properly, and it uses the same cable as...everything else.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... In addition to the software mentioned earlier in this thread, it looks like Rogers is now using the P-Cube box. ..."

Yes, Rogers has said publicly they use the P-Cube (from Cisco). The devices are not state-of-the-art by any means; an ISP could probably build their own as well. They all do more-or-less the same thing, so assuming you're not in the market for one yourself I don't think it's too important exactly which solution your ISP uses. There might be some specific workarounds that work on one hardware specifically, but a fix is just a software update away.

Certainly they're not very challenging to make; the software has been around forever and all we had to wait for was CPUs to be fast enough to check most, if not all, packets without slowing down the whole network too much (whatever the ISP feels is acceptable).


----------



## rampart519 (Sep 27, 2003)

Can anyone provide a link to get 'transmission'?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

rampart519 said:


> Can anyone provide a link to get 'transmission'?



http://transmission.m0k.org/


----------



## live4ever (Jun 23, 2003)

I've been getting some sweet speeds on Tranny under Tiger lately (this is on TbayTel DSL).


----------



## Timothy J (Jun 4, 2003)

Bell Sympatico high speed DSL for me for last 6 years and I consistantly get speeds of 180 kps using Azeurus client on OS X. I like all the extra features Azeurus offers and I don't run it on any older slower macs so I don't see it slowing down my computers.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

AC_99 said:


> I'll second the tomato torrent. Simple and reliable.


Anyone else find that a process called Python may start up and hog memory? It's currently taking 180 megs out of a total of 640.  

Tomato seems a nice client...but if it's responsible for Python then I am going to yank it.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... Anyone else find that a process called Python may start up and hog memory? It's currently taking 180 megs out of a total of 640. 

Tomato seems a nice client...but if it's responsible for Python then I am going to yank it. ..."

Python is a programming language. Tomato Torrent should not be causing it to launch.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

gordguide said:


> " ... Anyone else find that a process called Python may start up and hog memory? It's currently taking 180 megs out of a total of 640.
> 
> Tomato seems a nice client...but if it's responsible for Python then I am going to yank it. ..."
> 
> Python is a programming language. Tomato Torrent should not be causing it to launch.


Well, the Python process is now taking up 40% of CPU and 303 MB of memory!!!!!!! Can anyone tell me what is going on?

There is another Python process but it's only taking up 6 megs so far.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

IronMac - The program that is using the python process shouldn't be using that much memory or CPU. Quit Tomato Torrent and start it back up.

gordguide - FWIW, Tomato Torrent is mostly a Cocoa interface to the offical BitTorrent application which is created in Python.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Chealion said:


> IronMac - The program that is using the python process shouldn't be using that much memory or CPU. Quit Tomato Torrent and start it back up.


How can I tell which program is using the Python process? There are two Python processes running at the moment. Both are running 2 threads but one is at a monstrous 303 megs right now with another 300+ megs in VM.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

If you quit Tomato Torrent it should also quit the python process that it spawned. If quitting TT doesn't work, you can in Activity Viewer tell the computer to quit (not force quit) the python process and it should close itself cleanly. Whichever program was using it (not too many apps use python) will either respawn it or pop up with an error saying something has happened, so I'd suggest saving everything first.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Chealion said:


> If you quit Tomato Torrent it should also quit the python process that it spawned. If quitting TT doesn't work, you can in Activity Viewer tell the computer to quit (not force quit) the python process and it should close itself cleanly. Whichever program was using it (not too many apps use python) will either respawn it or pop up with an error saying something has happened, so I'd suggest saving everything first.


Thanks Chealion for the advice...I shut down TT and both Python processes shut down too. Guess I will have to try out Transmission or Bit on Wheels.


----------



## cymbeline13 (Feb 9, 2008)

*?*

Transmissions screwed up my macbook leopard. its not compatable with the new version i find.


----------



## cymbeline13 (Feb 9, 2008)

anyway, do you think that tomato torrent works with leopard macbooks?


----------



## cymbeline13 (Feb 9, 2008)

Tiranis said:


> I use Transmission (Transmission) - unless you need the advanced functions Azureus it's the best choice (if you're using the official bittorrent client, then you should switch right now).


transmissions screwed up my leopard macbook and azureus takes forever to download stuff. What would work for leopard?


----------



## Low-gun (Nov 22, 2007)

Puccasaurus said:


> Another Transmission user here. It's quick and simple. If you don't care about creating torrent files, it's the best.


Now, by that, do you mean it doesn't allow you to create torrent files? or is it that it doesn't do it well? The latest version(s) allow you to create torrent files. There's a section in the Transmission Help on it: 

*Can I create my own torrents?

Yes, you can share a file or folder by dragging it into Transmission. Alternatively, click 'Create' in the toolbar, and choose your file.

When the dialogue box appears, enter your tracker address, comments and private status.

You can change the torrent filename, as well as where it will be saved to by clicking 'Change'.

Once you are done, click 'Create'. Transmission will automatically optimize the torrent file for what you are sharing.*

Just thought I'd clarify.


----------



## Low-gun (Nov 22, 2007)

cymbeline13 said:


> transmissions screwed up my leopard macbook and azureus takes forever to download stuff. What would work for leopard?


I'm running Leopard on my iMac and haven't had any real problems with Transmission. If you need an alternative though, the latest version of Tomato Torrent is Leopard supported 

Tomato Torrent


----------



## wooglin (Mar 26, 2005)

Low-gun said:


> I'm running Leopard on my iMac and haven't had any real problems with Transmission. If you need an alternative though, the latest version of Tomato Torrent is Leopard supported
> 
> Tomato Torrent


I gave up on Torrents a few months ago due to crashing clients and Rogers traffic shaping. Decided to download the most recent Transmission client today (already have Leopard) and HOLY CRAP! I'm seeing speeds 10x faster than before. CPU is barely breaking 10%, it's stable and I don't know if it's transmission or Rogers... but speeds are great!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

cymbeline13 said:


> ...and azureus takes forever to download stuff.


Do you have too much firewalling? Are you trying to download anything that actually has Seeders? Azureus does take up some CPU, since it is a JavaScript, but download speeds are entirely fine, as long as you have Seeders and no firewall to interfere with the packets. I have also found that the Vuze interface is inadequate, and I stick to the Classic interface so that I can instantly see what is happening.

I wish they had a compiled version of Azureus, which would use much less CPU. Next to old BitTorrent, I haven't found torrent software that will run in real (that is, pre Tiger) OSX...


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

I use transmission too. I had Tomato for a while but Transmission is better I find.


----------



## StageDive (Feb 8, 2008)

I also used Tomato for a while, but I switched to Transmission, and now my torrents seem to double in speed.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

I have a macbook (and a mbp) with leo. running with transmission. Had it with Tomato until november and it ran fine then too.


----------



## Glipt (Aug 7, 2003)

wooglin. Same with me too. Rogers seems to have unleashed me. I'm seeing DL speeds up to 1100 now and uplaods @ full (up to 130 steady). Again, not sure if it is Rogers or the newer Transmission.


----------



## mpuk (May 24, 2005)

What the hell??!!?? 

This post was started in 2005...

I imagine Jaimac has found a worthy client by now, if not; God help him/her.


----------



## messed_kid (Jun 13, 2007)

cymbeline13 said:


> Transmissions screwed up my macbook leopard. its not compatable with the new version i find.


Necro ITT!

What do you mean Transmission screwed up your macbook leopard?

When I first got my macbook I tried every torrent client suggested ITT, and Transmission has been my favourite ever since (almost 2 years ago).

I have since then upgraded to leopard, and transmission has not let me down since. Yours might be an isolated incident. More info would be appreciated.


----------



## cymbeline13 (Feb 9, 2008)

well it slowed down my computer and never downloaded. i got it working just fine after i deleted it.


----------

