this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2024
662 points (99.3% liked)

196

17032 readers
677 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
662
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by sag@lemm.ee to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FirstMajesticComet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 2 months ago (19 children)

I never used LimeWire I'm not old enough for that, what is it that people remember so fondly about it anyway? Was there something that made it special or is it just another torrent client?

[–] zagaberoo@lemmy.sdf.org 29 points 2 months ago (7 children)

FWIW Limewire was not a torrent client, at least not for a long time.

The Napster era of P2P file sharing used centralized servers for indexing and querying the content available: it was a much simpler system than torrents, but much less robust.

So your torrent search site and your torrent client were essentially bundled together within a desktop app. Again simpler: you could just tell someone what program to download and they were off to the races. Great for word of mouth when the web was still underdeveloped.

What came up when you searched was essentially whatever was in the shared folders of whoever happened to be online at the time. So it was even more of a wild west with essentially no moderation.

Overall worse than torrents in almost every way, but it was a fun weird time to be online. I personally went from Napster to KaZaA to Limewire before ultimately moving on to torrents.

[–] FirstMajesticComet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Oh so it wasn't really torrenting, just similar.

[–] zagaberoo@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 months ago

Exactly. Torrenting is just so much more powerful that it's become synonymous with file sharing as a whole.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)