_-0-_

CONGRATULATION!

I am sorry ... pass over, that both exceptioninfo are same.

Beta2 crashed in case of stress (after). F.e. after searching... Once more: Code: c0000005 (Access violation) Version: 1.0.0B2 (2007-04-10) Major: 5 Minor: 1 Build: 2600 SP: 2 Type: 1 Time: 2007-04-10 23:56:00 TTH: CWLBR24QOCVAJHKKX2A6KQORSW4IRCWPJH36EYA ntdll!0x7C918FEA: RtlpWaitForCriticalSection ntdll!0x7C90104B: RtlEnterCriticalSection d:\cvs\apexdc++\trunk\client\user.h(114): Identity::getNick d:\cvs\apexdc++\trunk\windows\hubframe.cpp(693): HubFrame::onSpeaker OTHER d:\cvs\apexdc++\trunk\windows\hubframe.h(74): HubFrame::ProcessWindowMessage d:\program files\microsoft visual studio 8\vc\atlmfc\include\atlwin.h(3078): ATL::CWindowImplBaseT<WTL::CMDIWindow=0x013BF968,ATL::CWinTraits<1456406528=0x00000000,64> >::WindowProc USER32!0x7E368734: GetDC USER32!0x7E368816: GetDC USER32!0x7E3689CD: GetWindowLongW USER32!0x7E368A10: DispatchMessageW d:\cvs\apexdc++\includes\wtl\atlapp.h(584): WTL::CMessageLoop::Run d:\cvs\apexdc++\trunk\windows\main.cpp(431): Run 0x01350262: ? ApexDC!0x0044E2A2: MainFrame::FileListQueue::`scalar deleting destructor' ApexDC!0x00469A57: [thunk]:MainFrame::`vector deleting destructor' kernel32!0x7C830000: CreateFiberEx 0x009A840F: ? I AM SO SORRY... BUT - APEXDC IS BETTER DC CLIENT, PREVIOUS VER HASN`T COMPETITIVE REPLACEMENT BETWEEN OTHER DC CLIENTS.

Hi, I am sorry, but 1.0.0.B2 is unstable too - see http://forums.apexdc.net/index.php?showtopic=1495&st=20 for exceptioninfo. ApexDC++_0.4.0 was (is) absolutely without problems. New version (1.0.0.B and 1.0.0. is unstable and much slower at start. What the different?

NEW ONE CRASH AFTER SEARCHING: Code: c0000005 (Access violation) Version: 1.0.0B2 (2007-04-10) Major: 5 Minor: 1 Build: 2600 SP: 2 Type: 1 Time: 2007-04-10 23:34:33 TTH: CWLBR24QOCVAJHKKX2A6KQORSW4IRCWPJH36EYA ntdll!0x7C918FEA: RtlpWaitForCriticalSection ntdll!0x7C90104B: RtlEnterCriticalSection d:\cvs\apexdc++\trunk\client\user.h(114): Identity::getNick d:\cvs\apexdc++\trunk\windows\hubframe.cpp(693): HubFrame::onSpeaker d:\cvs\apexdc++\trunk\windows\hubframe.h(74): HubFrame::ProcessWindowMessage d:\program files\microsoft visual studio 8\vc\atlmfc\include\atlwin.h(3078): ATL::CWindowImplBaseT<WTL::CMDIWindow=0x035B2718,ATL::CWinTraits<1456406528=0x00000000,64> >::WindowProc USER32!0x7E368734: GetDC USER32!0x7E368816: GetDC USER32!0x7E3689CD: GetWindowLongW USER32!0x7E368A10: DispatchMessageW d:\cvs\apexdc++\includes\wtl\atlapp.h(584): WTL::CMessageLoop::Run d:\cvs\apexdc++\trunk\windows\main.cpp(431): Run 0x01300262: ? ApexDC!0x0044E2A2: MainFrame::FileListQueue::`scalar deleting destructor' ApexDC!0x00469A57: [thunk]:MainFrame::`vector deleting destructor' kernel32!0x7C830000: CreateFiberEx 0x009A840F: ?

1.1.1.B2 is probably O.K., one hour without crash... Thanks for quick repair.

Hi, previous version was without crashes, 1.1.0.B is malfunctions on my computer :-( Code: c0000005 (Access violation) Version: 1.0.0B (2007-04-09) Major: 5 Minor: 1 Build: 2600 SP: 2 Type: 1 Time: 2007-04-10 09:38:16 TTH: TKIC3A5ZDYMVOAH5PD722A77JWZ6AGMKBK6OQWA ntdll!0x7C918FEA: RtlpWaitForCriticalSection ntdll!0x7C90104B: RtlEnterCriticalSection d:\cvs\apexdc++\trunk\client\user.h(114): Identity::getNick d:\cvs\apexdc++\trunk\windows\hubframe.cpp(695): HubFrame::onSpeaker d:\cvs\apexdc++\trunk\windows\hubframe.h(74): HubFrame::ProcessWindowMessage d:\program files\microsoft visual studio 8\vc\atlmfc\include\atlwin.h(3078): ATL::CWindowImplBaseT<WTL::CMDIWindow=0x0353A480,ATL::CWinTraits<1456406528=0x00000000,64> >::WindowProc USER32!0x7E368734: GetDC USER32!0x7E368816: GetDC USER32!0x7E3689CD: GetWindowLongW USER32!0x7E368A10: DispatchMessageW d:\cvs\apexdc++\includes\wtl\atlapp.h(584): WTL::CMessageLoop::Run d:\cvs\apexdc++\trunk\windows\main.cpp(431): Run 0x00060090: ? ApexDC!0x0044E2A8: MainFrame::FileListQueue::`scalar deleting destructor' ApexDC!0x00469BAC: [thunk]:MainFrame::`vector deleting destructor' kernel32!0x7C830000: CreateFiberEx 0x009A840F: ?

DU Super Controler (not with double l in controller) - if is not detected in Apex string, or better idea (hardware solution): bandwidth shaping throught router (f.e. Asus WL 500g with Oleg`s last firmware).

Please, look at my text once more - your view is very simplified. Leech is declinated upload, or size of share... Both is not problem (with methot, that is difficult to recognise by OP`s), but it is not my purpose. I want possibility of choice only... Turning off segment downloading, like mothod of suspending sharing fragments is not solution. In EU is changing author`s law state by state, everyone must adapt (find compromise between risk and gain). Several pre-setting possibilities increases chance for effective defence.

Yes, I am blind :-) No other comments please :-)))

Am I blind? :-)))

Question has been this: Is possible to remove the NetLimiter string from connection type? Startup warning is not interesting, but NetLimiter string (any limiter string) is unacceptable for some HUBs...

I understand, but for court is sufficient proof part of relevant file / time / IP (data from "enemy organisation`s client and from providers`s log), proxy using is problematic... In my coutry was case this type... BMHO is better to decrease probability of "problems". Not suggesting sharing is not good way. Fact, if is this type of sharing in "full meaning of the word" is not substatial. Important is one fact only - if is sanction more likely, or not. Please, speculate about it. For me is only one resoultion at the present time - disuse segment downloading. My proposal is easy: make possible to choice sharing of partial files (exact determination of shared files or parts of shared files). Better way is choice "switch off sharing partian files". (I know, that not "in the full meaning of the word" :-)))

You meen not NetLimiter only, but NetLimiter and DU SuperController in all... O.K., I will reduce upload trough my router - it`s safe :-))) Thanks for answer. Notice: Should be been possible to separate identification string from Apex :-))) Not every one have router with bandwidth shaping...

Thanks for link and answers. I will try it without damage of partial files. It will be hard - i have in queue about 1k files and cca 30 GB of partial files) :-(