TheDude

But again, if you want a particular torrent sooner than the others, then stopping the other torrents will make it download faster. And in other cases, you want to use your bandwidth most efficiently by max-ing it. There is no "set it and forget it" setup for utorrent that will cover both of those situations. That doesn't work because Force Start nullifies the seeding priority settings:

They don't post quote " This is a bad feature because it takes attention away from what I want. " They post " I can't imagine ever needing that ". PS "Force Start" doesn't stop the other downloading torrents, and Bandwidth Settings then has to be undone when the other torrent has finished (and you then want the torrent to use the max available).

In case Ludde is reading this, a huge help would be: In the right-click menu of the Tray Icon, add "Maximum Number of Active Downloads" (which is currently buried in the Queueing Preferences) I am changing this several times a day. There is no pre-programmed setting that works, reality is more complicated than that. Note that other BT clients do have this setting in the right-click icon menu for the same reason that I need it. I need to change it based on: - Whether I happen to need a certain torrent As Soon As Possible, in which case the setting needs to be "1". - Whether one of the torrents is a "weak" torrent with everyone connected already seeding 100 other torrents (such as the site whose name starts with "Demon..."), in which case adding it to the other downloading torrents does not affect them. - How many of the downloading torrents are "strong" - they could max out my download and thus drown out the other downloading torrents. These factors are too complicated for any current BT client, and so they have to be managed manually, by changing the queue order and by changing the Maximum Number of Active Downloads setting - which currently requires 3 menu selections just to access the setting. PS I did not post this in the Feature Suggestion Forums, because people read that Forum only because they have a feature they are desperate to see added, and so they actively post negative comments on all other suggestions, regardless of their merit. So I've given up on that. And, the fact that the feature exists on another major BT client is enough verification that some other users find it valuable. Thanks for the work you do on utorrent !

It could be a coincidence, but based on one data point (ie one torrent), the performance seems to be worse on 467 than 465. Previously, I would get high download speeds when initially connecting to a torrent with several dozen peers that had been downloading from one slow seeder (since their upload is greater than their download from the one seeder). With 467, I just connected to such a torrent and the speed seems relatively mediocre. IF there are internal changes, they may have problems. OR it could just be the one torrent happens to have a lot of slow uploaders. I just mention it in case someone else reports the same.

I'm not sure why anyone would need that feature. Turning off your computer does not help anything. Hard Drive engineers have told me that it is better that they run 24/7, rather than stopping, getting cold, then starting, warming up, etc. That heating/cooling is worse on any electronics than leaving it on. As far as using power/electricity, turning off the monitor automatically (look in the Windows Power Management) will save most of the power use, the PC itself uses a fraction of the monitor's use.

One minor annoyance of utorrent is that - in regards to the Seeds and Peers column - that any peer to which ut cannot connect, is counted in the Peers column. The problems with this is when there are only Seeds and no Leechers on the torrent - which is often the case in private BT sites that are very "ratio conscious". For example, suppose that a scrape says "10 seeds and 0 leechers". Then when utorrent connects to the torrent to seed, it can only connect to 8 of the peers. It then reports (8) and (2) - which gives the impression that there are 2 leechers, when in fact, there are none. So, we need some sort of option(s) concerning this, such as: - "Do not count unconnectable peers" and/or - "Report scrape data in parentheses rather than utorrent's count" Both of these would be helpful. Most clients use the parentheses to report the scrape data.

I turn off the toolbar on this app (and most others) as it just duplicates functions available elsewhere and uses up too much space. And, the icons in toolbars are usually non-intuitive - they rarely indicate the function from a quick glance. Again, this is on most apps, not just utorrent. So, "it is already on the toolbar" is no argument to me. PS Other BT clients have user-definable context menu.

The only reason you don't feel that need, is that you never came across a torrent with great content, that was named "torrent", "files" or something like "mftp201-4". I'll third the "Rename" addition to the context menu !

Then I don't connect to those peers at all.

I keep seeing the following situation on torrents where almost everyone is completed. The only 2 or 3 peers that are not complete have "0.0%", they all have Azureus 2402 or 2403, and the only flag is "E". I can think of two possibilities - one is a problem with those clients that prevent them from connecting to anyone else (seems unlikely), or a problem with recognizing the true percentage when connecting to those clients when they are encrypted (seems more likely). Probably the true percentage is 100.0%. Anyone else seeing this ?

See Options -> Preferences -> Advanced: gui.limits_in_statusbar --------------------- BTW, biggest missing feature: - logging error messages to a log file ! Why wasn't that in the first version of the program ??

The download and upload speed in the Windows Task Bar are a huge help ! Hurrah !

So, where is this setting now ? Thanks.

Actually, I have encountered that - and it is due to how the tracker's web page is designed. Try some other sites.

What is the large fonts tweak ? I don't see any way to change the font...

So, what is the final thought on what the setting should be for Encryption for those of us who are on ISPs that are not treating BT any differently than any other use ?

Just a report - not specific to this beta - that Super-Seeding is indeed fixed now. I'm currently super-seeding a new torrent, my total upload quantity is 92% of the torrent size, and I have a number of peers at 86%. Very nice !

What would make sense that whatever it is, it doesn't happen until mid-April

Do you mean the tray icon ? I much prefer the new one - but everyone's taste is different.

I was going to say what rafi said - Bug fixes are important - and must be done before a stable version is released - otherwise - get this - it isn't "stable".

With 428 (not sure when this started), if you hash check a torrent where you downloaded some files and skipped other files, the log file has an entry for each skipped piece: [time of day] Error: PF_NOT_FOUND, o=(long number), S=(long number) [time of day] ReadFile error: (name of file):(more numbers) AND the hash check takes longer than usual. But it comes out as 100% anyway.

Is it possible that utorrent can add the following code: Read Peer Client; If Peer Client is Azureus_Client_Version_with_the_problem Then Turn Off Encryption for that Peer Else Continue;

If the news media posted a headline "Invasion of small black spiders !" , then you can bet that suddenly everyone would notice small black spiders in their house that they previously had not noticed. :D The same thing applies to hash fails and corrupted files. I had all of those things with 1.2 and 1.3 and ABC as well. Just because one person has corrupted files doesn't mean the program is flawed.

Hashfails are not a problem of the client software, they are an advantage of the client software. If you mean "false hashfails" then please use that term to clarify your meaning. Thanks!

Question to Martin Levac : Are you saying that "always_prioritize_rare" will not decrease speeds in normal, healthy swarms? And thus should be on by default for everyone ?