Firon

Probably an issue with the URL you're using, honestly... it's probably returning a web page or error, instead of a .torrent.

well' date=' tuesday morning i decided to wipe the system clean and i installed win7 sp1 x64 instead of x86... but the problem still remains after i configured the limited account. I even installed 27213 but it still asks for UAC elevation so i fired up sysinternals Procmon and i think i might see why: utorrent is asking for full access rights in some places where it only needs read access, not full write access and a few places down: i think that if these accesses were created with desired access rights set to read only it would not trigger the UAC elevation So, you're still seeing the elevation dialog after each run, right?

The problem isn't the client. It's your router.

tee hee should be fixed in a few minutes.

What updating? Are you talking about DHT? That doesn't really consume much in the way of bandwidth. like 1-2kbyte/s.

Yeah, that's the one.

What were the conditions uT was losing connections? I didn't notice that I get : "[2012-05-10 07:40:41] recvfrom ERROR: 10035" when I enable uPnP If the first torrent had no successful connections, it'd set itself into a state where it would stop trying to make connections completely.

New build up with the connection fix.

3.3 is on the alpha track. Only people who are on 3.3 can be updated to the newest version.

Yeah, that's a separate problem... this one was that magnet links would never fetch the torrent.

New 3.3 up to fix magnet links not loading, as well as all outgoing peer connections not working under certain circumstances. 3.2 will be refreshed soon with the same peer connection fix.

When you add a new torrent, it can take a while to allocate the files. Longer if it's an external USB drive.

3.3 is not for general usage. Upgrading to it will not fix any issues you have with magnet links.

3 days pass and you think 3.2's development is dead?

Updated...

It's not silent. I put the changelog up a half-hour ago.

This was an inadvertent change. Fixed in the newest build.

New build up with some crashes fixed, to make this a little more usable.

It might. Just try running it normally... It elevates itself.

27167... should i bother with this when i get home? i wonder if asking for admin rights on Win7sp1 x86 has been fixed yet. i'm currently @work' date=' on an XPSP3 x86 system but it's not showing that error when starting as limited user even with software restriction policies active. I reported this issue with win7 on page 5 of this thread (post #118), uT was then at build 27060. on page 10 of this thread, another user seems to have hit the same bug, post #245 by vovash and he does the same thing as me, replaces the executable manually in program files. The only difference i can see is that he uses win7 x64 while i use x86. since then, i last tried tried running 3.1.3.27120 on win7 as admin from a different directory and letting the built-in installer do its thing thinking that maybe it needed to update some registry settings and would not reach that point if it detected it was already being run from program files. After the installer completed successfully, the first time i tried to run it as a regular user, it asked AGAIN for admin rights. ... i deleted 27120 and went back to 26837, that one doesn't have this annoying (and potentially unsafe) behavior.[/quote'] Once the admin token is set on the file by Windows, it probably won't go away. Delete the executable in program files, DON'T COPY IT THERE BY HAND, and let the installer do its thing. 27167 does not offer any user-visible changes, just minor installer tweaks.

Uh' date=' that's not a bug... it just says it hashed that much data.[/quote'] Why 3.x is a lot of disk read for hashing? hashing bytes = disk read bytes So high disk load. Is this normal? I am using 2.0.4. And it does not do such a thing. Hashing is not necessarily read bytes from DISK. Even if it's hashed from the cache, I believe it still shows up there.

The update is only going out to part of the userbase. You could just update manually though.

Uh, that's not a bug... it just says it hashed that much data.

What find feature?

I'll see if I can write something later for it. For now, just experiment with it!