Ð.Sp!dér

Are you aware of the fact that fake files still get hashed ? There are programs that generate files in a totaly unique way. I'm not talking about those that generate files based on consecutive random numbers. That's how SDC++ first checked it. By TTH. If it contained consecutive bytes, then i was definetly FAKE. But that's not how things go. People can always screw around with files. My favorite is to create a random .uha archive, passw it, then rename it and archive it some more into .kgb ! Then rename it once more into .iso or .avi ! It's not such a hard thing to do. That 'non-tth crap' is still allowed by many hubs. Why you ask ? Because of the numbers, man ! The numbers ! That's how hubs get popular. People see 5.000 users, they get like "Oh, the more, the merryer" "I'll sure find what the hell I'm looking for out of 5.000 people" ! And that's not fair at all !!! oDC is a LEECHER's tool. And people seem to like corrupted files (yeah, right / i was using oDC for a year or so and not once did an AVI not play or found a corrupt MP3) as long as they're happy not having to wait for the hashing process to finish. From all the hubs i've visited (that show user tags) about 50% users were using oDC !!!

People using oDC are to be considerd LEECHERS since we can't get their filelist.

I also think hashing is stupid. I do. ^_^

When I clicked on it from the queue > Remove, it crahed. Was using NetLimiter 2 Pro capped at 2 MB/s at the time... Also, I choose 10 segments. About 280+ people had that file (~350 MB, executable).

What about that md5 checksum thingie ?

Good ideea. But the error i meant earlyer would do wonders ! Imagine downloading something and waching very carefuly the download progress. After 10 seconds or so, the download gets killed and a weird text is shown. Imagine the look on their face when it says oDC is 3 years old and was dropped by the developers... Not a very happy one ? Most people in Romania don't even know how to read proper English. Especially the technical/new age stuff...

Right now, I don't have enough

It's because of my AC power supply. More activity implies more power consumption. Electricity's a bitch where I live and the PC dies if my HDD reads/writes over 8 MB/s in total. At least in my case. When a i see uploads at my full uploading speed and juicy shares (50+ GB), why can't I get filelists ?? Oh, it's because of those 50% oDC-using stupid people that don't even know other DC++ clients exist ! And the fact is, they don't even care !! They got used to the 'Eye" icon and think that is the BEST client EVER MADE ! It's sad actually... :ermm:

Sounds nice, huh ? An option auto-getting a user's filelist that was downloading from you at a certain speed. If someone was to download from you at >= 1 MB. Mabey a user/filelist check ? If that user has shared less then say, 10 GB, closing the filelist because it won't be worth it that much... I think it's a nice ideea.

Could it be done automaticly ? It would be nice not having to manually set that speciffic hub to show a normal DC++ stupid tag...

Great ideea. But offline hubs are already marked in red. So there's no point. Could become an option though... "Bolding" tabs could keep their width by either changeing their font or by shortening their name. If, say, "Hub of the Great Emperor of Sausage Cans" (or similar) turns into the short form "Hub of the Great Emp..." to keep the width and the tabs not moving at all ! Firefox 2 uses this tehnique and it works very well. Moving tabs can get confusing sometimes...

Have you ever tryied PeerWeb DC++ ? I was developed by the same team as Apex And it fully supports oDC-based clients. A sound add-on sounds great. (Get it ? )

Why not asking for a rename of the file ?

From my point of view, SearchSpy should be illegal. In some countries, members of "the law" are joining random hubs in order to find notorious "kriminelz" downloading illegal material. What do you think it will happen if you provide them with names and IPs ? They can easyly get search warrants from court and break into your appartment and legally search your computer ! Not even the pr0n is legal... Considering they can fine you the full price of the downloaded software, what happens if you download the latest C++ bulder as a Suite tagged at over $3.000 ? And what about Windows ? Are you using a licensed copy ? Not to meantion the music you download(ed) ! Every song is divided by the number of tracks the album has. And if the album is tagged at $15 and has 13 tracks, one song costs about $1. Imagine how much 2.000+ tracks cost ! Some albums cost more. Long story's short: This feature could get alot of people into trouble ! .

That part, I figured it out for myself... I just wasn't sure about it. Why don't you add a customizable field so that every user writes their own tags next to the "Emulate DC++" checkbox ? Would be cool lieing about about what client I use. Buy only if that hub has a problem with Apex's tags !

You get the point...

But he/THEY can ! It's not fair.

-TTH is created by CRC and filesize so the first request is out. Based on those, every file is unique even if it's renamed or contains different attributes (like Read-only or Archive) -Animated smiles would be nice, but in some cases would spike the CPU, and Apex already does that (beng based on StrongDC++ and all...) -Turning off the mainchat would be SO NICE ! Good thinkin' ! Did you know that when someone types somethnig in the mainchat YOU download a few bytes from that hub ? If you're present in over 10 hubs, those bytes turn into kilobytes ! And those kilobytes affect download speeds. Not by much, but still... Some people chat like crazy on some hubs ! For them, that's the primary point in using a DC client. Downloading comes second. -As for the browser ideea, Firefox simply rulz ! It's much safer, bloking malicious scripts on webpages and ****... Plus the loads of add-ons and extensions that it supports. Like weather, custom search bars, pop-up blockers, IRC, etc. Edit: wtf is LUA ?? :)

Apex 0.3.0 doesn't... What about PM's ? What if i were to scroll up and the other person won't spot typeing ? That's what i said...

Then, auto-checking it by default after 1 min or after I scroll to the end of that main chat... This would considerably speed up browsing in some cases where people are chatting like crazy. Sometimes it gets annoying even for a power user... But for a newbie is hell ! ^_^

It's a minor feature anyway. It doesn't bother me that much, but still... Could you fix it ? :)

I know about the check box in there. But some hubs powered by Verlihub seem to have a problem with the new Apex 0.3.0's tag...

This is my first since I upgraded to 0.3.0 and my 5th (or 6th) since I'm using ApexDC++ ...

Are you guys aware that StrongDC++ v2.03 is out ? Is this release based on that too ? Edit: Yes you did. Sorry for asking. The changelog says CVS200. Good job. I'm hoping it will work using the same settings from v0.2.2 because I would really hate it if I were to hash 115 GB again ! Also, I had a few wierd crashes from now and then... Hope you've plugged all the holes. Edit 2: I love the blue folders (darker would've been nicer) but hate the green hub icons ! Yellow folders are probably the best and blue hub icons (or a shade of whit-ish purple) would've looked nicer.

Let's say someone just won't give up on downloading even though that particular person knows it will take about a month or so to finish. So he's downloading at about 0-600 bits/s (no more than that) and he frikin' knows it !! He's not even using multi-source or something that would cut me some slack ! I'm talking about a feature that disconnects (mabey even removes uploading users from queue) users downloading at speeds under 1 kB. That would mean more pipe for those who deserve it. I hate stubborn people... This guy's just taking up a perfectly good slot. In the meanwhile, someone else with a much better connection would wanna connect. Btw: He's downloading pr0n from me, that stupid excuse for a wanker... 800 MB mpeg @ 500 B/s (go figure!) Or you could do something similar to BitComet. Ban user for 5m/10m or 1h/24h. But not banning the user's IP. That would mean not being able to PM him. Nor would he, for that matter... Actually, it's a great ideea. Ban IP > the perfect ignore. And I know that this kind of software exists (PeerGuardian?) but that kind of software bans the IP for every single connection. What if I don't want a friend downloading from me that's currently added into my messenger list ? Then I wouldn't be able to talk to him at all. So keep this IP banning within the program.