Jump to content

3.4.x Beta


AdamK

Recommended Posts

Who cares what they have been developing or going with version system now a days. uTorrent became suck. Now they are more going towards the money point of view. There is no chance of software getting improved. So better start using uTorrent 2.2.1 for downloading torrents. If you are really concern about features in Client then go with latest buggy version which they have been releasing and start feeling pain.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On 12/04/2016 at 3:37 PM, javacatpaul said:

re: permissions issue above, I said: "Seems to be flac's, not mp3's "   No, it just happened with an mp3 too.  Peer tried to DL a piece while WMP12 was playing the file and it crapped out with "Access Denied".  This is on W764, full admin rights, vers 42178.  Could be due to WMP's bad habit of "updating" a file's ID3V2 tag if that file is not Read-Only, but I havn't seen this error before w/ uT.

Dare I ask a stooopid question???

Why the heck are you playing files while they are still being accessed  by UT (or any other software for that matter)??

I just find the idea completely nuts.

To me, when you've got your file (any file), move it to a safe place out of reach of everything else and remove it from your UT list of files for seeding. If you want to continue seeding it, copy it.

It doesn't make any sense to me to be sharing files that may get altered or locked by another process - that's just daft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both points are valid I suppose.  I don't play it until it's all down, and once it is I play it to see if I like it and want to keep it.  If I do THEN I copy and encode it, cleaning up the tags etc before adding to my library location.  Since playing a file is built right into uT it's pretty clear that doing so was intended by the team, but yes it has its pitfalls, and many beginners do it.

Now, if uT managed to mark finished files as read-only AND left them that way then my method would be flawless.  But it often turns off the R attribute after the DL is complete and it's only seeding the file.  This can cause issues when a player alters the file, as many do (to "update/fill in" the tag, or add things like number-of-plays, volume leveling, cover art, etc.).  When that happens the file fails the md5 check and can't be seeded anymore.  Experts avoid the problem by controlling their player when they can, beginners don't.  Sometimes there's nothing that can be done (WMP12 always tries to add a ID3V2 if one isn't present, regardless of preference settings).

Which gets to freedomdwarf's point, why not copy to a "working directory".  Well, I do when I intend to keep it.  But WHY DOESN'T uT offer that option!  Right now it can MOVE a torrent after DL, but that just moves it, it still seeds it from the new location (I never understood why the option was even there, except maybe to move it to NAS).  Anyway, I want a COPY option to do just as FD said, give me a copy to work with and leave the DL'd file alone for continued seeding.  Then uT could open the files with exclusive access and ensure no one else mangles the md5.  This could be beginner proof too, copying the DL to the user's My Music folder by default (yes, I'm being music-centric here, many torrents are not music, sorry).

Anyway, 42178 seems about as steady as most prior stable releases, there are still cosmetic issues that have been there for years (literally), but it works pretty well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, now days later and the access error just occured again; BUT nothing except uT is running, I am not playing any tors at all.

The exact error message is: 

[2016-04-19 10:27:43]  Error opening "D:\TOR\Shawn Colvin - 9 Albums - 320k VBR\1989 Steady On":
[2016-04-19 10:27:43]  Error: Shawn Colvin - 9 Albums - 320k VBR - Access is denied.  (ReadFromDisk)

that made me wonder, both of the above refs are PATHS, not end files.  Could a string bug be causing uT to attempt opening the dir instead of the file?  these access erros are pretty new, and the latest builds have had some string bugs....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get the latest Beta here.

-- 2016-04-21: Version 3.4.7 Beta (build 42286)

- Do not allow adding single file torrent from webinterface to utorrent root directory (Security fix)

- Fix regression: move torrent after completion - Updated toolchain to VS2015

- Fix potential crash when automatically restoring node selection

- Fix IE frame related crashes

300K larger, does is have some malware inside?....

http://www.imagebam.com/image/0a7407479177952

0a7407479177952.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, rafi said:

But the size is different, right? So something MUST  be different!. And this something is being detected by Avast. I have no issue with "your" file...

Obviously, there's a difference between the files.

Regardless, Virus Total scanners for Avast, GData & Rising detect something with both of them.

I'm not worried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, rafi said:

I am, since it is being rejected here on my PC... Not a very promising start for a new/upgrading user...

As you may be aware, there's barely a week that goes by when a user doesn't complain about uTorrent being/containing malware - I wouldn't be surprised it's not down to the horrible OpenCandy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, so? I am also aware tha 99.9% of those do not bother/know how to disable those "malwared-ads". If they will - they will stop complaining...

This here this is another story, where every Avast user will be blocked because of that new ad-ware-engine addition, and none of this is their fault. Don't you think?...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Rafi - the OpenCandy crap is just awful and comes up as malware.

If I don't allow OpenCandy 'just this once' (in Malwarebytes), the installer fails.

I don't want OpenCandy and I have to go back and uninstall the crap every time I install a later Beta of UT.

It's not new, it's been like this for a while, and it's a bloody nuisance.

The UT developers need to be rid of OpenCandy completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...