Archived

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

Firon

µTorrent 3.1.2 stable (26821)

Recommended Posts

Rush, stop recommending and guiding for rollbacks.

He did not tell me anything I did not already know. He did not tell me where to find older version,anyone with half a brain is quite capable of accomplishing that themselves.:D

As I said a few posts up,I would love to use the newest version of the software,but like I and many,many others have pointed out,3.1x has cache problems,it does not function correctly.I do not want (and will not) use any other client,as they are not of the same quality utorrent is.

Hopefully this issue will be correct in a near future release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is "switch to an earlier, unsupported version of the program" is not a valid solution. Switching to an older version to "circumvent" issues doesn't actually help solve those issues for other people.

Explained a dozen times before as to do with magnets.

On the topic of Magnet links, will it ever be possible to see the file list using them? Or is that a limitation of the format?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Is it true that Swift protocol of Next- Share is better than uTP..?

(Ref. http://libswift.org/)

Can devs shed some light on this .....:|

It is being implemented in Tribler.

Is there any plan to implement this in uTorrent in near future... ?

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah well you can say what you want, and do as many fixes as you like, since utorrent 2.2 all your versions have been crap.

Utorrent used to be the reference but more and more people are either changing clients or falling back on the older versions.

I would like your old quality back please and stop messing around and supposedly bettering something that works fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah well you can say what you want, and do as many fixes as you like, since utorrent 2.2 all your versions have been crap.

Utorrent used to be the reference but more and more people are either changing clients or falling back on the older versions.

I would like your old quality back please and stop messing around and supposedly bettering something that works fine.

How much did you pay for development of µT? :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah well you can say what you want' date=' and do as many fixes as you like, since utorrent 2.2 all your versions have been crap.

Utorrent used to be the reference but more and more people are either changing clients or falling back on the older versions.

I would like your old quality back please and stop messing around and supposedly bettering something that works fine.[/quote']

How much did you pay for development of µT? :/

i didn't pay shit for µT to be developed but i loved the program and now it's fucked up so don't jump on every person that states the obvious. and in the mean time the developers have been and will fix all the shit that might make a few extra bucks (µTorrent Plus crap) but why not fix the problems that'll make it useable for everyone or is that too difficult? you might have to remove a µTorrent Plus option or two i guess until you see the errors but i guess that's too much to ask?? way to go, i'm sure if money was an issue alot of people would have donated to keep a functional program including me!! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but why not fix the problems that'll make it useable for everyone or is that too difficult?

Don't you think they *WANT* to fix all possible issues? Apparently, it is not that easy to find the problem.

And I could not find even one(!) post here that provides the user's setup files, a link to his problematic torrent, plus - his files-selection in it, so that it can be possible or at least easier to reproduce the issue at the devs' table. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Don't you think they *WANT* to fix all possible issues?"

If ISP's are throttling the developers are limited in what they can do. I notice many users that can't transfer uTP because of this. That's why I'm seriously considering to abandon it. It's not just a issue of "fixing" but also an issue of what's the most stable way to deliver traffic with all the throttling that is going on. TCP looks to me the most stable and faster way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this but the issue is that many users don't know this, the developers don't help them to know this because the "force" uTP on them and the whole community suffers. The easy way for those users is to abandon uT and suddenly they see magic with their speeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someones' ISP does not allow UDP traffic, this someone better replace his ISP!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True but the issue is that many users don't know what is going on. Only advanced users know this and how to fix the issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Is there a way to downgrade to 2.2.1? I mean, will the settings screw anything up?

I guess no-one will give me a download link (the one on the forums doesn't work), but I can probably find it elsewhere. Just need to ask this question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there a way to downgrade to 2.2.1?

FYI: You'll open yourself up to security issues if you downgrade.

Like what? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there a way to downgrade to 2.2.1?

FYI: You'll open yourself up to security issues if you downgrade.

Like what? :rolleyes:

Like have BT devs/Admins jumping all over you... very dangerous & insecure for yourself ... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Is there a way to downgrade to 2.2.1?

FYI: You'll open yourself up to security issues if you downgrade.

At least I will have working client and not this piece of turd ver 3 is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does "Global maximum number of connections" setting work for anybody? It has value "550" for me but I continiously see in Alert log of KControl such messages:

[06/Mar/2012 14:19:46] CONNLIMIT connlimit="600" firewall="firewall.mydomain.local" hostip="192.168.35.2" hostname="192.168.35.2" time="Tue Mar 06 14:19:46 2012" username="not logged yet"

I've tried to raise the limit to 1200 connections per host - no luck, uT host has successfully reached this limit, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like have BT devs/Admins jumping all over you... very dangerous & insecure for yourself ... ;)
Is this a comedy forum now? If don't know anything of value to say, tell a lame joke? What kind of argumentation is that?!?

What security holes are there in 2.2.1? The changelogs don't mention any, but that might also be due to a policy security by obscurity policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What security holes are there in 2.2.1?

Ask the guy that has suggested that. Not me. Maybe he was kidding... Like myself... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does "Global maximum number of connections" setting work for anybody? It has value "550" for me but I continiously see in Alert log of KControl such messages:

[06/Mar/2012 14:19:46] CONNLIMIT connlimit="600" firewall="firewall.mydomain.local" hostip="192.168.35.2" hostname="192.168.35.2" time="Tue Mar 06 14:19:46 2012" username="not logged yet"

I've tried to raise the limit to 1200 connections per host - no luck, uT host has successfully reached this limit, too.

The client only counts open connections in its limit. Your firewall will track connections even after they're closed for a period of time, which means that the two limits won't ever match up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.