ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Nope :P  Anyone who uploads a 30GB file directly is a complete dumbass (assuming they successfully upload it).

yeah but that's due to the fact that you can't upload a 30gb file via direct download. anyway, imho direct download and especially HTTP downloads were meant for very small files such as images, small software or web pages.

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Actually direct downloads are probably more reliable than torrents.

yeah, right. I've never had a torrent fail unless it was something unimportant and it wasn't seeded (which is basicly the only reason for a torrent to fail, no seeds, and can be predicted beforehand), and there are usually alternatives available. direct downloads however fail much more often (at least here they do), then again im using Firefox or IE (sometimes FF won't even get the download off mediafire) so i can't resume anything... but torrents never fail as far as I know, they just stop downloading because there are no sources. and that doenst happen often.

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:No, speed is quite constant since you're downloading off a server. Torrent speeds vary a lot, however.

I meant that the speed from server to server varies a lot and can vary depending on the time of day/number of leechers off the server. however, the more ppl there are downloading a torrent the faster it goes, exactly the opposite. also, most torrents have enough upload throughput to max out most people's line, whereas direct download speeds can be limited by the server to ensure other ppl get some bandwidth as well

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Not much of an issue.  Usually, right-click » download all does the trick. You can say that torrents, you have to download a .torrent file, then open up your torrent client, etc etc.

if I want 200 episodes of Sailor Moon, I need to right-click, download, 200 times (at least, because in my case you also have to point it to where you want to store it. but that can be automated). then, i have to check which downloads failed, and redownload them.

With torrents, I just 1. look for a torrent, 2. Run as from the server (opens torrent program automatically). basicly that's it, but I usually 3. Point the torrent tool to where I want it saved, 4. Set the priority for the first 50 eps to high and the priority for the last 50 eps to low, or chose to skip certain files entirely

2-4 clicks or 200-300 clicks? hmm. not much of an issue?

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Meh, I don't find archiving the least bit annoying...  In fact, it probably encourages smaller files (eg ISOs should always be archived).

apart from the cases where the files actually get smaller (because in those cases the torrents are usually archived as well), when you have to unarchive a file it takes up more than double the space, so if your harddisk tends to fill up quickly that can be a huge pain because u'll need to find temporary unpacking-space somewhere. it also costs time if the compression is high and the file is large or there are a lot of small files inside. also, sometimes it needs a password and you have to go look it up again and sometimes you can't find it at all. with torrents, the password is usually found in the description and if it is not there will be comments stating that its a bad torrent and you wouldnt download it in the first place.

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:That's kinda right and wrong.  If a torrent has no seeds or leechers, then it's dead...

yeah, but it doesn't happen that often, and usually if it happens there are better torrents for the same thing around. theres very very little cases where something is SO impopular that there are no seeds at all anywhere.

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Not necessarily true either.  You can get private trackers, which do require membership just as much as some direct downloads do.
However, there's typically more content available on torrent.

those do exist, but they are usually to provide better download speeds than usual. however with direct downloads, the popular sites such as megaupload actually limit the download speeds, and require payment for normal speeds. by the way most private trackers are free anyways, and no1 ever uses the paid ones. this is due to the fact that people actually upload data themselves instead of one big server having to do it, so such costs don't exist with torrents.

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:My take is that I typically find direct downloading _much_ faster than torrents (unless the server is _very_ poo poo, which isn't usually the case).

well, i don't. also, with a direct download, you depend on one server which may be very far away from you (like half a globe), but with torrents there are often many servers which are located all over the place.

also, torrents are less easily logged
and torrent uploads never fail (badly. a packet may get lost but that's neglectible)