ifmn

Member
  • Content count

    523
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ifmn


  1. Hi, have you tried enabling PAE[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension] in vista? In theory it should fix this(if your bios supports 4GB, which we know it does). As you know, the other solution is to use 64 bit OS. BTW you can always try some live linux distro with kernel with PAE.


  2. 1. I believe loco is using port 1234 for both TCP and UDP port nos., which makes sense and is often a workaround for Apex.

    2. A "reliable" port should be some free port, not used by another application, and not used by popular services (like 80, 25, 110, 21, all these are to be avoided, Google for a better list). However my Apex DC++ works great on port TCP/UDP 30003, a 5 digit port.

    3. Please do not wtf at people trying to help you. :blushing:

    HTH

    1. afaik tcp and udp ports are two different things. that "too much traffic on one port" confused me, anyway - thats cleared;

    2. yes, thats the point, especially low number ports are registered to specific services, ports from 50000 up are "dynamic", they aint registered, so the chance of a port collision is far smaller than using something like port 23/80/443/1234, etc. also this improves security, but i guess thats not important for you. the user can use whatever port he wants, of course, if some other app on his box doesnt use it, afaik;

    3. i havent asked for any help, im just interested in tcp/ip. im eager to learn new stuff, i may be wrong, i may be right, arent forums like this created for exchange of knowledge and ideas?

    also fyi,

    what the ****, a common expression of confusion or annoyance.

    whats wrong with wtf?


  3. I use port 1234 for both, but you should chose your own to avoid too much IP traffic on one port. Do NOT get into the 5 digit range though... these are used for other things and probably NOT reliable for DC program.

    use 2 apps on the same port, wtf? and what is a "reliable" port? please state out why not to use such ports.


  4. Well... u r fkcued up, m8. Two bad words: 1st - windows and 2nd (even worse) - vista. This "great" OS cant even move files properly, broke compatability with tons of programs, did much more and even caused me 5x more trouble than all my linux distros did. //I wont argue how lame it is any more, so please dont bother defending it.


  5. Code: c0000008 ()
    
    Version: 1.0.0B4 (2007-08-07)
    
    Major: 6
    
    Minor: 0
    
    Build: 6000
    
    SP: 0
    
    Type: 1
    
    Time: 2007-09-10 21:09:06
    
    TTH: 7CNQCQXDGEV7S2IDTUSYEW73M722LLS7BVOOXDI
    
    
    ntdll!0x77DC68B0: ?

    I got disconnected from all hubs, tried "reconnect disconnected" - didn't work. Manually reconnected in one hub and Apex crashed. After the crash i could see the "connecting to..." msg.


  6. Code: c0000005 (Access violation)
    
    Version: 1.0.0B4 (2007-08-07)
    
    Major: 6
    
    Minor: 0
    
    Build: 6000
    
    SP: 0
    
    Type: 1
    
    Time: 2007-08-31 01:22:52
    
    TTH: 7CNQCQXDGEV7S2IDTUSYEW73M722LLS7BVOOXDI
    
    
    ntdll!0x7749B15F: ?				<--- Aztek had the same crash //edit
    
    
    Code: c0000005 (Access violation)
    
    Version: 1.0.0B4 (2007-08-07)
    
    Major: 6
    
    Minor: 0
    
    Build: 6000
    
    SP: 0
    
    Type: 1
    
    Time: 2007-09-06 16:25:29
    
    TTH: 7CNQCQXDGEV7S2IDTUSYEW73M722LLS7BVOOXDI
    
    
    ntdll!0x77812E7B: ?
    
    
    Code: c0000005 (Access violation)
    
    Version: 1.0.0B4 (2007-08-07)
    
    Major: 6
    
    Minor: 0
    
    Build: 6000
    
    SP: 0
    
    Type: 1
    
    Time: 2007-09-06 16:55:36
    
    TTH: 7CNQCQXDGEV7S2IDTUSYEW73M722LLS7BVOOXDI
    
    
    ntdll!0x77812E7B: ?
    
    
    Code: c0000005 (Access violation)
    
    Version: 1.0.0B4 (2007-08-07)
    
    Major: 6
    
    Minor: 0
    
    Build: 6000
    
    SP: 0
    
    Type: 1
    
    Time: 2007-09-09 14:45:07
    
    TTH: 7CNQCQXDGEV7S2IDTUSYEW73M722LLS7BVOOXDI
    
    
    ntdll!0x77D92E7B: ?
    
    
    Code: c0000005 (Access violation)
    
    Version: 1.0.0B4 (2007-08-07)
    
    Major: 6
    
    Minor: 0
    
    Build: 6000
    
    SP: 0
    
    Type: 1
    
    Time: 2007-09-09 18:51:22
    
    TTH: 7CNQCQXDGEV7S2IDTUSYEW73M722LLS7BVOOXDI
    
    
    ntdll!0x77D92E7B: ?
    
    
    Code: c0000005 (Access violation)
    
    Version: 1.0.0B4 (2007-08-07)
    
    Major: 6
    
    Minor: 0
    
    Build: 6000
    
    SP: 0
    
    Type: 1
    
    Time: 2007-09-10 00:09:47
    
    TTH: 7CNQCQXDGEV7S2IDTUSYEW73M722LLS7BVOOXDI
    
    
    ntdll!0x77D92E7B: ?
    
    
    Code: c0000005 (Access violation)
    
    Version: 1.0.0B4 (2007-08-07)
    
    Major: 6
    
    Minor: 0
    
    Build: 6000
    
    SP: 0
    
    Type: 1
    
    Time: 2007-09-10 02:11:34
    
    TTH: 7CNQCQXDGEV7S2IDTUSYEW73M722LLS7BVOOXDI
    
    
    ntdll!0x77D92E7B: ?
    
    
    Code: c0000005 (Access violation)
    
    Version: 1.0.0B4 (2007-08-07)
    
    Major: 6
    
    Minor: 0
    
    Build: 6000
    
    SP: 0
    
    Type: 1
    
    Time: 2007-09-10 13:11:51
    
    TTH: 7CNQCQXDGEV7S2IDTUSYEW73M722LLS7BVOOXDI
    
    
    ntdll!0x77D92E7B: ?

    Sorry for reporting them now, been busy. Apex crashes for no apparent reason, here are the things I remember I did during the last 3-4 crashes:

    - Got disconnect from a hub, pressed reconnect, double clicked it again after 1-2 sec (dunno why) and Apex crashed.

    - Gave 1 user an extra slot for a day, Apex crashed. I was also chatting with that person. Afer that, the user did not have extra slot, had to give him slot again, crashed again, and again. :blushing:

    Note: I've been uploading and downloading constantly.

    Second note: i the past, i had download queue open all the time, now it causes 100% cpu usage, so i cant even open it. So, indeed, i may have done the same as Aztek, and thus the same crash.


  7. Did you try adding the folder with a different name? I didnt get all of what u and MiRaGe said, but anyway - i think this will work 100%:

    • 0. Close the client, wait for its process to end;
      1. Delete HashIndex.xml and HashData.dat in settings directory;
      2. Remove all shared directories from DCPlusPlus.xml (search for <Share> ... </Share>) and if you want Noshare-d;
      3. Move stuff around and then share everything you want to;
      4. Thank MiRaGe and ifmn for their efforts/help :) //joking

    Also, you may try this without doing step 1, dunno if it'll work.

    HTH. //Congrats on your new HDD, i wish u big share and upload :)

    //Edit: should've posted this in support, Mikey_69. Reminder @ staff: please move this thread. ;)


  8. Hi,

    When you restart apex your finished downloads/uploads list is cleared. To pevent this behaivior, go to Settings > Advanced > Keep downloads/upload/ history between sessions.

    To open your download folder, File > Open downloads directory. Check there.

    Also, check if apex succeded moving and renaming the file from your temp folder. You can also find out your default download and temp directory from settings > downloads.

    One more thing, did you just download the file or downloaded it to another location?

    HTH.


  9. BM, you are wrong. this can be proven mathematically/logically, but ill just post a quote:

    In computer science, a hash collision is a situation that occurs when two distinct inputs into a hash function produce identical outputs.

    All hash functions have potential collisions, though with a well-designed hash function, collisions should occur less often (compared with a poorly designed function) or be more difficult to find. In certain specialized applications where a relatively small number of possible inputs are all known ahead of time it is possible to construct a perfect hash function which maps all inputs to different outputs. However, many hash functions, including most cryptographic hash functions, produce a fixed size output from an arbitrarily long message. In such a design, there will always be collisions, because any given hash has to correspond to an infinite number of possible inputs.

    also, check this: http://www.cryptography.com/cnews/hash.html