View Poll Results: Which of the problems described do you have?

1. You may not vote on this poll
  • Speed

    0 0%
  • CPU overhead

    0 0%
  • Corruption

    1 100.00%
  • None

    0 0%
  • Would you buy this again?

    0 0%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Why still 100% CPU & corrupt downloads?

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default Why still 100% CPU & corrupt downloads?

    I see that the current version hasn't changed since I installed it in 10/11, create date of 8/10. There doesn't appear to be a newer version, so I am assuming the behavior was never 'fixed'; that's why I'm asking 'why'?

    I usually will download a zip file using SSL, 10 connections although my main provider limits to 8. The speed is no different than using the browser's download, but instead of minimal CPU overhead of the browser, DS will take all available CPU, slowing down other processes until finished. Also, I've used alternate SSL ports, so there's no ISP throttling taking place. Concurrent browser downloads from the same sites increase throughput.

    And, here's the kicker: Almost always, the file is corrupt, and I can't open the zip file. If it's another type of file, it MAY play until it presumably hits the corrupt portion. Downloading Ubuntu images, for example, is out of the question. The MD5 never matches.

    In comparison, I spent years using the free DAP without SSL and it was FAST using 8 connections and had low CPU use, but when it wouldn't do SSL, I switched to DS (should have bought the newer DAP and more $$ in hindsight). Also, I wanted the extras of youtube downloads, etc. so I leaped before I trialled due to DS reputation. Trade press reputation, that is, so it's really on me.

    (I also tried ReGet, it had DAP-like performance but also serious browsers' plug-in issues. Plus later on tried others, so this is not just a DS vs. DAP vs. ReGet comparison)

    Also in comparison, I used Newsleecher for years and it was able to handle 20 SSL nntp connections with light CPU usage and I NEVER encountered corruption issues. BTW, I won't use torrents.

    So, back to 'why': Why would a company stop development & maintenance on a product that had/has so much promise before fixing problems that competitors don't have? And why are they still selling it and people buying it if it's so broken?

    (Yes I know, once again the real question is 'why would I buy a pig in a poke' :-() I repeated my mistake with Mezzmo, but that's another story...)

    EDIT: I do not 'capture'.
    Last edited by tpx; 04-07-2013 at 04:29 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. How to Que downloads? & Major Memory Hog on large downloads
    By Ahlitah in forum DownloadStudio Questions and Support
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-27-2013, 01:57 AM
  2. Sony blu ray - file corrupt
    By 06blade in forum Mezzmo Questions and Support
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-17-2012, 03:20 PM
  3. File corrupt or unrecognized
    By Doogalob in forum Mezzmo Questions and Support
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-25-2012, 12:59 PM
  4. Filesonic Corrupt Rar's with Download Studio
    By xcaper in forum DownloadStudio Questions and Support
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-23-2011, 02:31 PM
  5. Corrupt data error
    By SmellyCat in forum Mezzmo Questions and Support
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-18-2010, 08:43 AM

Tags for this Thread


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts