Jump to content

Pause all transfers for xx minutes


oliversl

Recommended Posts

I understand what you mean oliversl. Heck, of course everyone would want it to be implemented.

But us, others, who'd rather keep the client as small as possible at any cost, also have the right to give our opinions about the idea. I never flamed your idea. I just stated my opinion in this matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The Web GUI is seperate entity from the main program (praise the Lord), Oliversl, so it's not exactly going to "bloat" the program. Look, we all want features that we'd like to see included, but if Ludde says no, then it'll stay that way. And we don't keep repeating the same request over and over. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me ask u this oliversl: if its not put in, will u switch clients? I had a request for temp peer ban for creating seeders faster. It wasnt put in, and I learned to live with it. Now I use the bandwidth allocation for what I wanted to use temp peer ban for.

Like someone suggested, use whats already available to u. (Scheduler) If its not put in, u may have to.....

I mean we all are entitled to our opinions. I play devils advocate on most feature requests cuz most of the features I might never use. Hell, (minus all the bug fixes) I could use 1.1.7.2 and still be satisfied....lol

With that being said, I think this might be a useful feature for ppl who share their PC's with others.

But also like someone said: if u used this feature for recieving a file from IM or whatever, who do u know how long its gonna take? I think the profile idea is not bad, either

(ok im finished playing devils advocate) :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this idea.

As µTorrent already has a scheduler I can't imagine a small addition to it would bloat the software. Something like, when the 'torrent is paused for xx minutes' µTorrent would add a temporary schedule to pause/limit the client for that given time. The limiting value would of course be defined in the scheduler preferences.

Of course anyone could do this manually, but the the scheduler preferences isn't exactly quickly accessible, unlike the systray icon. Keeping ease of use in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

---------------------------------------------

Please read at the end of this post, thanks

---------------------------------------------

Guys, specifying a customizable, but fixed, value is going to be a pain in the butt. If it's a quick http download, you go in and specify 5 minutes. Next time it's MS's SP3 patch (it's going to be big :-), so you go in the settings again and increase to 2 hours. Then it's a priority email you're receiving that you don't know how long it's going to take... Isn't it easier to just hit the pause button twice?

I was thinking about a right click on the notification area.

So, you right click on the utorrent icon near the time, then click on the submenu "Pause for ...", then click on one of the coices: 5min, 10min, 30min, 60min, "Especify ...".

If you click on "Especify ..." a small dialog appear asking for a number of minutes to pause. This value can also be saved in the "Last used" menu item.

Select your torrents, click pause, go download, unpause when done. Feature Implemented. Extra code to save two clicks ?

The problem is that you can't always check the status of your downloads, you sometimes have anything else to do, like: playing, working, go outside (yea right), etc

The idea of this feature is to "Pause and forget", so can optimize your download bandwidth.

A dupe of this feature request is being discused again:

http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=4362

Please comment and vote, many thanks

Oliver

---------------------------------------------

Here is an update on this feature:

We have been talking with SolidasRock in this topic:

http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=4362

about this feature. That topic is filled with posts and maybe

that can confuse people. You can read/post that topic or this one.

---------------------------------------------

Lazy feature. :/

Lazy argument ...

This helps wen you have to leave home and you can only start downloads in a different schedule as configured in the scheduler.

Helps me and many others. I understand that it won't you, but is not lazy, its automation that helps many users.

I sick of all people that just come to the feature request forum in order to say: "thats a bad feature, thats a lazy feature, it is bloatware, etc, etc"

If the feature does not helps you, continue reading the next topic.

Thanks

---------------------------------------------

The scheduler is there for a reason, the Web GUI is coming soon so you can play with µTorrent all you want...do you want µTorrent to wake you up in the morning too? :|

Its ok that you don't need this feature, and its also ok if you don't understand it.

Who is talking about a webgui here, please don't go offtopic.

---------------------------------------------

still it is a lazy feature

Thats your opinion. And what is Lazy in a computer? The programs should make our life easiear. I you don't agree, go use a tree to heat up your coffee instead of using the microwave, come on!

Again, saying "its Lazy" on a new feature only probe that you have nothing to say here.

Have you 2 read the rules of forums???

-Please don't post unless you have something relevant to say about it. Don't be a forum troll - nobody likes them, and especially not the personal attacks they launch.

http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?pid=15767#p15767

---------------------------------------------

that's a bloating feature.. i don't think that there would be enough people who would like utorrent to do that..

Thats you opinion, I don't consider it a bloating feature. Please count the people that likes this feature and the people that don't like it in this topic. The "Yes" replies win, that is, the mayority.

I'm waiting for the voting system to aprove this topic, it takes some days as I noted.

If someone wants this feature, please answer so in this topic. Thanks

Oliver

---------------------------------------------

hah it doesn't depend on that.. 10 million people can say Yes but it all depends on ludde.. if he doesn't want to impelement it he will never do so

I know that ludde decides, who is saying it is not?

Please remember what you said, you said:

i don't think that there would be enough people who would like utorrent to do that..

So I told you to see(count) that here are more people that wants this feature. You are in the minority that does not wants this feature.

Again, if you don't want this feature, say it only once. Please let not trash this topic again, with comments that does not talk about the feature exaplained here :(

Thanks dAbReAkA

---------------------------------------------

Agreed. :) And b.t.w, anyone and everyone can comment on each and every feature request. That's why these threads are here for.

Hi 1c3d0g, I agree with you on this.

You don't have to fervently defend your opinion with each and every single reply from someone who doesn't like a particular request. ;)

I don't agree with you on this, because you know that saying "this is bloatware", "you're lazy", etc, contributes nothing to this topic/forum. The forum rules are clear on this. But, anyone can talk.

---------------------------------------------

I won't repeat everything I said about Utility and Cost. Right now ...

Thanks oh my dear God!!! lol

All your "example uses" can be handled by the Scheduler.

No, they are not. I can not start the scheduler at 2030hr, I won't loose 30min of download time at 512kbps, no way.

About the pro/agains counters, please don't count the users that only says "lazy feature/bloatware" in the forums, count real users with real needs.

---------------------------------------------

To Firon:

can you please change the title of this topic to fix the typo?

Please change "al" with "all", its a typo, my fault.

Thanks!

---------------------------------------------

1) ... so real accuracy is impossible anyway.

2) ... at Half Speed Ahead. ...

3) ... Pause it manually and tell them to come and put it back ...

Dear Kazuaki Shimazaki, honestly, I can no longer fight with you, you won.

That 3 points that you wrote, are all wrong for my case. But I won't answer you because it will go on, and on, and on.

I please ask you to stop trying to convince me that I don't need this feature. I do need it. So, good night and have a good time.

---------------------------------------------

"higher resolution scheduler" i'd like that

it would make all what oliver talks about, and wouldnt be exactly much more code to add

I will not save me the work of having to reconfigure the scheduler every few hours.

What I need is to just add a job in the scheduler, not modifying the scheduler.

That job I must add to the scheduler will run only one time, that is: "resume all transfer at xx:xx hr"

oliversl:

The cost of implementing what you mean simply isn't worth the KiB, just as previous posters stated. I do however see a good solution to the problem in the scheduler-idea.

Please read my reply about Pros&Cons, there is no bloating in the runtime memory and in exe file size.

You will never know how much KiB will bloat until you are the developer, have the source and have compiled the new version. You can't not probe that it will add too much KiB, point.

Don't act like an exentric minimalist, do you readed that webgui is comming?

---------------------------------------------

Forgot 1 important point:

oliversl:

The cost of implementing what you mean simply isn't worth ...

Thats your opinion, for me, it is worth any cost. Even if it add 1MB in download size and 1MB is runtime size.

Its the developer's decision to analyse the final cost in KiB, not your's, not mine's.

---------------------------------------------

I understand what you mean oliversl. Heck, of course everyone would want it to be implemented.

But us, others, who'd rather keep the client as small as possible at any cost, also have the right to give our opinions about the idea. I never flamed your idea. I just stated my opinion in this matter.

Apreciate your comments shadek, I understand your point and respect it and I see you respect my point. Thats all I want here.

---------------------------------------------

... Look, we all want features that we'd like to see included, but if Ludde says no, then it'll stay that way. And we don't keep repeating the same request over and over. ;)

Hi 1c3d0g,

I know that its ludde's call. Thats fine for me.

But I don't keep repeating my request, the other are the ones that keeps saying that they don't like it. Its ok for me, but I will reply always that I see a person that does not respect my needs.

I want this feature and I asked for it only once, in the first topic. All other posts are replies to people that does not respect my needs or try to minimize them.

---------------------------------------------

Hi jroc,

Let me ask u this oliversl: if its not put in, will u switch clients?

Never, I love utorrent :)

I mean we all are entitled to our opinions.

yes, that is what some people does not understand. They try to convince that I don't need this feature, hell, how can they do that. They don't know all my environment.

I respect that people don't want this, that is ok for me. I respect them, but I don't like people that try to convince or try to minimize my need.

With that being said, I think this might be a useful feature for ppl who share their PC's with others.

cool, one more vote :)

But also like someone said: if u used this feature for recieving a file from IM or whatever, who do u know how long its gonna take? I think the profile idea is not bad, either

I think I don't ever need to answer this, but, hey, here it is.

I download my http files with a download manager at a costant rate, so, the program called program manager gets you an estimate of long will it take, you know. So, I add some 20min to that and I configure utorrent to resume at the time calculated. Simple as that.

See, I wrote a whole paragraph to just explain to you my situation. Is this really necesary? Should I explain all that I do in my computer, to all users? Just to later someone tells me that I should only request the feature once?

I have posted this request in october-2005 and before that I have wanted this feature since Azureus became popular, so I said "hell, lets make utorrent better than Azureus, I will suggest this feature"

Again, to all: if you don't want this feature implemented, just say it only once. I will understand your point and respect it.

I you want to know why I need this feature, just read my post or ask me.

---------------------------------------------

hah it doesn't depend on that.. 10 million people can say Yes but it all depends on ludde.. if he doesn't want to impelement it he will never do so

I agree dAbReAkA, that is the rule and I agree. It only depends on ludde.

---------------------------------------------

geez, how many double/triple/cuadruple posts have u made?

Have you count the other people double post? Please note I don't start the double post. Maybe I say things twice(or more) because people does not read my post. All that bloatware, cost&utility discussions could be avoided if they read my first post!

12 posts in what could have been 5 posts (on this page alone), please use the edit feature, it helps reading everything

I have to reply specific to users, or people wont understand who I'm talking to.

I reply to the topics instantly to the people that talks to me, that why there are too many posts from me. Why do you complain? Its normal to reply a post, and I think a double post is only posting the same thing twice.

Also, you do have anything to say about this feature or are you just being off-topic?

---------------------------------------------

Hi Firon,

I reply each user individually.

Every user talks to me, so I have to answer all of them. Its is no double posting.

And what Nefarious told about double posting, is totally off-topic.

He has nothing more to say, so it say I'm double posting? Not good :(

1c3d0g

http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?pid=54853#p54853

http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?pid=54840#p54840

---------------------------------------------

Hi Firon,

I edited all my posts after I noted that you started editting them.

I have done this to save work from you.

I hope people can understand this post, is just too big.

BTW, I never saw a forum where you have to edit your previous

post in order to reply a later post. And force users to go from

one page to the previous page just to understand the flow

of the conversation.

:(

---------------------------------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oliversl:

You don't have to reply to every single post that this topic has. It makes you appear desperate and by repeating your case over and over in your posts, not bringing anything new to the conversation, just makes you a nuisance. It makes people hate the feature just because you so annoyingly promote it, so to speak. :P

Basically, rewording your earlier post but keeping the content the same is annoying. Swiztek (or something like that) did that a lot in his "omg bitcomet is the cheatorz" topic. It drives people crazy.

And yes, I still support this feature, or something similar to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 for this feature.

I don't see what the big deal is. Surely this can't take much code at all? Right-click µT systray icon -> pause all torrents -> dialog pops up asking how many minutes -> wait that long -> unpause?

Similarly, the scheduler, the WebUI, RSS and several other features are of no use to some, and added a lot more to the executable size. I don't know why we're all so paranoid about µT becoming bloatware. ATM, it is far from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this is a triple post, because again, I made another post in a row without anyone else having posted inbetween me, instead of using the edit button. :P

(I'll delete these once you see them and get what I mean by double/triple post)

Oh, I get it. Thanks for explaining the double-post definition. I thought that double-posting was posting twice the exact same post. I will copy&paste the replies in one post now. (it would be nice to have this definition in the Forum Rules)

You don't have to reply to every single post that this topic has. It makes you appear desperate and by repeating your case over and over i ...

Herra,

thanks for your comments. I was just hiting "Quote" in every post that was directed to me, like I do with the "Reply" button in my email program. I think every question must be answered, but the result was not the intended.

I never wanted to sound like a desperate/annoying person, I just wanted people to understand my point and to stop telling me that I don't need this feature.

And thanks for supporting this feature ;)

That beeing said, maybe this can be my last post in this topic because I wrote all that I think is necesary in the first post. I sorta of "have it" ... I need some peace now ... good night, good fight!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 for this feature.

I don't see what the big deal is. Surely this can't take much code at all? Right-click µT systray icon -> pause all torrents -> dialog pops up asking how many minutes -> wait that long -> unpause?

I'd guess a lower limit of 100 bytes (the minimum to add all the new text and a few lines of code to bring up the appropirate parts of code), and the rest is up to Ludde's arm.

Similarly, the scheduler, the WebUI, RSS and several other features are of no use to some, and added a lot more to the executable size. I don't know why we're all so paranoid about µT becoming bloatware. ATM, it is far from it.

I don't use PE (I hope I never will be forced into it), Lazy Bitfield and RSS. I fear I may have to use WebUI in the office occasionally now I finally got myself a job and can't micromanage my torrents.

It is far from it, so far. But even with Ludde at the controls, it can only remain so if we carefully assess the utility of each proposal - in other words, rationing out the bytes. So, it is the number of people who need it, and how much it will help them and whether there are alternatives.

We don't want uTorrent to be "Less draggy than Azureus". We want it, if possible, to be "invisible". That makes the amount of resources uTorrent could use MUCH smaller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Oliversl, you again wrote very nice and clear, it couldnt be done better by me, i am sorry to see Kazuaki Shimazaki isnt ready with repeating.

That beeing said, maybe this can be my last post in this topic because I wrote all that I think is necesary in the first post. I sorta of "have it" ... I need some peace now ... good night, good fight!

Thats the same thought i have had in my own thread. It is hard to talk about a featurerequest with afraid peoples. They really think Ludde will become nuts and add something big to Utorrent so that Microtorrent will become Fattorrent and we all need to go back to Azureus.

I think it is a good idea to close the featurerequestforum since all new features are called bloated if they are bigger than 500 bytes.

Oh, by the way, Kazuaki Shimazaki, please dont reply at this post, i known what you want to repeat again and again. Dont afraid i dont know, i really do....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Old thread, but I found it while searching before making this same suggestions. As discussed in another thread, I every so often get VOIP phone calls during hours where scheduler is set to use maximum bandwidth. Doesn't happen a lot, but when it does I hit Pause All. Then I forget to come back and unpause when the phone call is finished and and everything is sitting idle wasting precious, precious bandwidth.

I'm already using scheduler to the max extent, so that's not really the solution. There is a very real gap here and it's the reason pause exists at all. I guess some people would rate any pause feature lazy and would have it ripped out of the program. But I think there are plenty of us who would just like a Pause All button that would pop up a choice box (1 minute, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour, 6 hours) like when you right click on u/l or d/l speed.

Codewise, I would hazard a guess and say it would be minimal work to integrate this into the existing scheduler setup.

Edit:

Just saw this on the unofficial todo list and waffled on whether I should leave this post. Finally decided to post it so Firon can have more examples to tell ludde why this would be a good feature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, right, figured someone would try to fix my QoS problem. ;)

Believe me, I know a lot about computers and networks and I have tried. I have yet to successfully get the VOIP box speakeasy uses to live peacefully behind my router, so all QoS is right out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hi all,

I have written a 3rd party program that sits in the systray, when right mouse clicked it gives 3 options, "Exit for 15 Min", "Exit for 30 Min" and "Exit for 1 Hour". You make your choice and it will exit utorrent for you, then after the specified time, it will reload utorrent. I made this as i was sick of my wife pausing utorrent to browse the net and then forgetting to un-pause it. The program is written in Visual Fox Pro, so the run-time library needs to be installed. I have included all files in a setup.exe including a shortcut that is added to your startup folder to launch uTorrentTimer.

Because the run-time library is included, the setup comes in at a huge 7Meg. but the application itself is only a tiny 80KB.

Please let me know if anyone is interested, i will provide free of charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a further note on this.

If there wer added just a few documented commands that can be sent directly to uTorrent either direct to the process via the API or by way of the WebUI, that will allow things like stop all start all pause all resume all etc. That way scripts and programs can do all the work of timers and UI's and uTorrent can be kept nice and small and simple.

Any chance of a DLL file to allow API access??? Or direct http commands, such as

http://username:password@ipaddress:portnumber/pauseall

http://username:password@ipaddress:portnumber/resumeall

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wil33z, I run the program you sended via email, but it started replacing some Windows system files so I stopped it.

Now my computer works a little strange, could you please send me the files that you included in your setup program so that I can verify my windows installation?

Thanks

Oliver

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...