3.4.x Beta

[zdnko]

Strange indeed. On my Win7/1920x1080/x125%-font/30971:

 

Are you sure you are at that resolution? Picture seems fuzzy... and your system details? Can you try with my settings ? Maybe my skin changes things...

You can get them here: http://forum.utorrent.com/topic/60691-utorrent-v2x3x-best-practice-tips/

@ O & K...

 

My monitor doesn't permit 1920x1080, it's a 1600x900.

Skin change doesn't change line spacing.

 

Look at my picture (with 30971!) it is the exact same as his 30636.... It's  something to do with your the system settings, and till we'll find out what it is, they will not know how to fix it... So, make an effort and add that info.

 

I didn't change my settings and the line spacing was constant from uT 1.6.1 to build 30636

 

 

That doesn't make sense - it's our system settings but "they" (i.e. µTorrent) can fix it?

It also suggests "they" (µTorrent) have broken something

 

I think the same

 

 

What i would further investigate is:

a. wether you have gui.show_status_icon_in_dl_list = true

b. wether you have the "Playback", "Health" or "Status" column visible

 

"Playback", "Health" or "Status" columns are already disabled

I turned gui.show_status_icon_in_dl_list to false but nothing change (the same after uT restart).

[rafi]

mike20021969, on 01 May 2014 - 11:16 AM, said:

That doesn't make sense - it's our system settings but "they" (i.e. µTorrent) can fix it?

It also suggests "they" (µTorrent) have broken something

 

I think the same

 

True, a bug by uT devs. Regardless, since you can all see this exact same release working fine on my PC, I still claim that this is bug related to one of your Windows config.or hardware. If we'll pin point it, it will help them fix it...

 

For now, the only thing that comes to mind, is the screen resolution. 1920x1080 vs 1600x900. Does anyone with 1920x1080 sees this line width effect?

[mike20021969]

the only thing that comes to mind, is the screen resolution.

 

My resolution is 1280x768.

And as no dev's are inputting here, this could be a "banging our head's against a brick wall" affair.

 

[pulbitz]

bug. 1366x768(notebook), 1920x1080(PC), 1920x1200(another PC) all the same.

[rafi]

I think I understand why I cannot see it... I have my fonts set to 125% and this "fills up" the gaps between lines...

Also, here is the exact build where it happened:

 

-- 2014-03-23: Version 3.4.1 Beta (build 30722)
- no changelog

 

 

Let's hope this will help the devs ...

[saulob]

Ok, that's strange. I'm using 30971 and out of nowhere it's crashing.

 

How can I report it better?

 

Using Win 7 x64

[rafi]

Upload to here the crash dump (if created). Should be near the exe... 

[Soumya Sinha]

I'm using uTorrent 3.0 for 5 months now. 0 crashes. Everything is as it should be.
Just 10 minutes ago, I manually checked for update, and 3.4.1 update was available for download.
I did the installation, then uTorrent re-launched itself. After 5-6 minutes, it crashed. This same problem occurred when I used 3.3 version couple months ago as well.
Is there any way around it, or do I need to stick with utorrent 3.0?

[Soumya Sinha]

How to upload the crash dump? There is no option to attach any file.

[rafi]

Upload it to any hosting site you like and paste the link here...

[Soumya Sinha]

Crash Report - https://www.mediafire.com/?z5rnsta9oqpgdkt

[lwiczek]

From the older thread:

lwiczek, on 28 Jan 2014 - 10:19 PM, said:

I've upgraded today to RC4 from 3.3.2 and noticed that each time after adding a new torrent a view is reset to root element in tree (i.e. "Torrents (x)") instead of persisting in selected category/label. A tad annoying

 

With the latest 4.3.1 above behaviour is still happening and it's suuuuper annoying :/

[Squall-Leonhart]

For some reason, as reported and indicatd by the provided crash dumps, the latest rc client is attempting to execute code from memory marked as non-executable.

[Soumya Sinha]

Not only the latest build, every release for the past 1 year and more is causing the same exact problem. Crashing consistently.

 

I'm using utorrent from the 1.6 or 1.7 version, Never I encountered any crashes, whatsoever, so I have no choice other than disabling auto-update, and not installing any new build.

 

Using the 3.0 version presently, any version after this, is crashing after every 5-10 minutes. 3.0 runs forever without any crash.

[saulob]

Crashing a lot for me too

[Butch Coolidge]

streaming feature removed. i am dissapoint.

[rafi]

And I am relieved ...

[Butch Coolidge]

And I am relieved ...

why is that? it's not like you had to use it...

[rafi]

It's For the greater good... It destroys the Bittorrent P2P scheme in a downloading-oriented swarm (& clients) by prioritizing pieces instead of distributing them evenly.

For streaming - use  streaming "systems"/protocols (browser/uTube, AceStream,  Sopcast , BT live etc)  within  swarms that are stream oriented by nature (like live streams/stations with proper servers).

[Butch Coolidge]

It's For the greater good... It destroys the Bittorrent P2P scheme in a downloading-oriented swarm (& clients) by prioritizing pieces instead of distributing them evenly.

For streaming - use  streaming "systems"/protocols (browser/uTube, AceStream,  Sopcase , BT liveetc)  within a swarm that is stream oriented by nature (like live streams/stations with proper servers).

 

i don't see how it makes a difference which pieces i download first. maybe i make them less available to others if i prioritize them, but still, then i will have them sooner and seed them on.

 

but then again, i'm no expert, maybe it does do something, but i doubt it DESTROYS the swarm.

 

anyway, it was a useful feature to me. the programs you mentioned are useless for torrents. i switched back to 3.3.2

[martix]

Latest build (30971), supposed to be RC, but less stable than previous ones and crashes quite readily!

[p3ngwin]

i don't see how it makes a difference which pieces i download first. maybe i make them less available to others if i prioritize them, but still, then i will have them sooner and seed them on.

 

but then again, i'm no expert, maybe it does do something, but i doubt it DESTROYS the swarm.

 

anyway, it was a useful feature to me. the programs you mentioned are useless for torrents. i switched back to 3.3.2

 

if you download a Torrent it will have a sorting-algorithm that gets you the file parts out-of-order to give the entire file sooner to you.

 

if you tell your torrent client to get you the file in-order, you will get it later. you may not think it makes much of a diference, but that's just when one node does the change.

 

now, muiltiply that by everyone in the swarm, and you have destroyed the entire point of the torrent protocol and it's algorithm: efficiency and scale.

 

it's the same as hacking your browser to use more http connections beyond the spec, you unblance the equation in your favour at the expense of everyone else, compromising the entire poiint of a balanced colective that shares fairly.

 

it is like you think you give yourself 1 terabit internet speed, at the expense of everyone else goes back to dial-up speeds, you are not making the network better, you are are compromising the network.

 

This relates the the entire discussion going on right now wiuth net-neutrality. Too many people simply do not understand the potential problem of tiered access, and right now you're advocating the same "me first" behaviour because of your ignorance of the metrics at hand.

 

you're literally unqualified to have this discussion.

 

so you may not think it makes much of a difference "which pieces i download first", and that's simply your ignorance of the protocol and it's algorithm, but that doesn't mean you can ignore the way networking and torrents work and expect a free lunch by leeching at the expense of other's experience in the same netowrk.

 

"maybe i make them less available to others if i prioritize them"

 

gee, do you think selfishly prioitizing your downoads at the expense of others deteriorates the netowk? the point is not to get YOU the file fastest, the pioint is to get EVERYONE the file fastest.

 

EVERYONE's requests need to statisfied EQUALLY, not by prioritising yours.

 

if we all decided to behave like you, the network wouldn't be sustainable, and yes, eventually be destroyed.

 

There's a reason we have a working torrent network, and it's because thankfully not everyone thinks like you.

[Butch Coolidge]

if you download a Torrent it will have a sorting-algorithm that gets you the file parts out-of-order to give the entire file sooner to you.

 

if you tell your torrent client to get you the file in-order, you will get it later. you may not think it makes much of a diference, but that's just when one node does the change.

 

now, muiltiply that by everyone in the swarm, and you have destroyed the entire point of the torrent protocol and it's algorithm: efficiency and scale.

 

it's the same as hacking your browser to use more http connections beyond the spec, you unblance the equation in your favour at the expense of everyone else, compromising the entire poiint of a balanced colective that shares fairly.

 

it is like you think you give yourself 1 terabit internet speed, at the expense of everyone else goes back to dial-up speeds, you are not making the network better, you are are compromising the network.

 

This relates the the entire discussion going on right now wiuth net-neutrality. Too many people simply do not understand the potential problem of tiered access, and right now you're advocating the same "me first" behaviour because of your ignorance of the metrics at hand.

 

you're literally unqualified to have this discussion.

 

so you may not think it makes much of a difference "which pieces i download first", and that's simply your ignorance of the protocol and it's algorithm, but that doesn't mean you can ignore the way networking and torrents work and expect a free lunch by leeching at the expense of other's experience in the same netowrk.

 

"maybe i make them less available to others if i prioritize them"

 

gee, do you think selfishly prioitizing your downoads at the expense of others deteriorates the netowk? the point is not to get YOU the file fastest, the pioint is to get EVERYONE the file fastest.

 

EVERYONE's requests need to statisfied EQUALLY, not by prioritising yours.

 

if we all decided to behave like you, the network wouldn't be sustainable, and yes, eventually be destroyed.

 

There's a reason we have a working torrent network, and it's because thankfully not everyone thinks like you.

 

Well sir, first of all, there no need for the condescending tone... I admit i don't have a very deep knowledge of how the algorithms work, nor am I trying to act like I do.

 

What I'm sure of is that this is no simple matter. How a certain number of "streamers" would affect the behavior of a swarm is a relatively complicated math problem, and I seriously doubt that you have done any real calculation other than speculating. And, since the feature has been here for years, it seems that the developers didn't think it was a problem either.

 

Why the feature was removed, I don't know, but i sure would like to find out. I kinda doubt that it was because it caused problems with the proper functioning of the swarms.

[mike20021969]

 

now, muiltiply that by everyone in the swarm, and you have destroyed the entire point of the torrent protocol and it's algorithm: efficiency and scale.

 

 

 

It makes you wonder then why they (the µTorrent "boffins") added it in the first place.

What on earth were they thinking of?

[p3ngwin]

Well sir, first of all, there no need for the condescending tone... I admit i don't have a very deep knowledge of how the algorithms work, nor am I trying to act like I do.

 

What I'm sure of is that this is no simple matter. How a certain number of "streamers" would affect the behavior of a swarm is a relatively complicated math problem, and I seriously doubt that you have done any real calculation other than speculating. And, since the feature has been here for years, it seems that the developers didn't think it was a problem either.

 

Why the feature was removed, I don't know, but i sure would like to find out. I kinda doubt that it was because it caused problems with the proper functioning of the swarms.

 

you are mistaking a percieved tone, as there is no condscendence at all, simply i'm agreeing with you when you say you don't know enough about the topic, and we're educating you further to change that.

 

If you're uncomfortable having conversations with poeple about topics you know less about, don't be offended just because the conversation went in a direction they knew more about....especially when you brough the subject up in the first palce.

 

Don't like it? then don't go there.

 

"I admit i don't have a very deep knowledge of how the algorithms work, nor am I trying to act like I do."

 

that's not true, because you said previously you "don't see how it makes a difference...i'm no expert, maybe it does do something, but i doubt it DESTROYS the swarm.", so we tried to inform you about the very details you thought you were certain of.

 

if anything you're complaining somewone bothered to educate you against your own admitted ignorance.

 

no pleasing some poeple.

 

"What I'm sure of is that this is no simple matter. How a certain number of "streamers" would affect the behavior of a swarm is a relatively complicated math problem, and I seriously doubt that you have done any real calculation other than speculating"

 

really?

 

you aren't sure of your OWN knowledge, but you ARE sure no one else can know more than you ? priceless arrogance for sure, right in the face of two people telling you already how your ideas for selfish leeching affects the network. Nope, we can't know more than you, absolutly lol.

 

"And, since the feature has been here for years, it seems that the developers didn't think it was a problem either."

 

Riiiight......, we don't know what we're talking about, and you admit you don't either, but the fact the feature was there for sometime aparently supports you own opinion, while you ignore the fact it was just removed can't possibly support OUR opinion ?

 

again, priceless confirmation bias of the arrogant mind.

 

whether the feature was removed for reasons of a permanent change of develoepemnt, or a temporary removal to fix something that broke in the feature, it's amazing how your single-minded bias means you simultaneoulsy can't be wrong about the feature, and we can't know more than you.

 

<slow clap>