Greg

Being passive is fine as long as you don't expect to download. A lot of OPs don't (other than for checking filelists) therefore it shouldn't be a terrible issue. Sometimes it's very important to get someones filelist to confirm something for another OP or whatever, and if such a situation arose I would just make myself active, but at the moment I'm not using DC to download at all, so I don't need to be active. When I get a connection timeout message when checking a list I automatically check to see if they're in passive mode. It would be nice if the client just told you you were attempting a passive-to-passive connection, but I'm unsure if it can disguise this?

+1 Good idea.

Of course it will use a few extra resources. I don't mind using a few kilobytes of my RAM to make my client look more active. (And that's all we're talking I think... Wouldn't be a significant increase in resource usage.) It's only worth having if it's well implemented though.

Indeed, restrictions put in place because of leechers do lead to restrictions for normal users. However, we try to make any limits as fair as possible, and I don't really think they're too restricting to normal users. To be fair, showing the fact you're using a limiter in your description shouldn't be an issue for anyone. If you really wanted to limit without people knowing you would probably use an external limiter which isn't detected by your client. Also, if you use traffic shaping (and a program like cFosSpeed) then you're not likely to need to limit. At the end of the day, this is open source software, if there's a feature you don't like then take it out. There's plenty of ApexDC++ mods out there already, some of which are bound to reverse some of the stuff we've put in. The developers and hub owners, to extent, are the ones who understand how the network works and you should trust them to make the right decisions about the client they're producing. Not putting in this feature because of leechers isn't the only reason this hasn't been implemented, show us a stable client where it's well implemented and we'll see about adding it then. At the moment there's other things we'd like to work on, especially considering we're releasing the betas leading up to a version 1 of ApexDC++. Stability is our main concern at the moment, not adding new features. This would not be quick and easy to implement therefore it can't even be realistically considered at the moment.

From internal testing it seems to be running pretty much perfectly on Vista now. Hopefully there won't be any issues. A little odd it was enabled by default, but at least you found out this new feature existed. :)

Just center the wallpaper as I said, unless your widescreen in 1680 wide? :)

Hopefully there won't be too many issues which would stop people wanting to upgrade from 0.4 in the first place. :)

Heh, I don't think it looks that good in other colours, but there's a blue anyway: If it's the wrong shade or whatever then give me some directions on what to change.

Glad to see it's been released. Enjoy everyone. :)

Have had a go at making something over the last week, surprisingly difficult to do much with the logo, it having a hole in the middle is annoying. Here's one wallpaper though: It's is 1600x1200, but center it on lower/different resolutions rather than stretching it.

Correct. Scores 1. RadoX - 3 1. Kulmegil - 3 1. Noctis - 3 2. Greg - 2 3. Satan - 1 3. Lee - 1 3. Balder - 1

That sounds a bit optimistic. :)

We don't set release dates, but hopefully it'll be released very soon. :)

I would use it if it had some options similar to those you get when setting the wallpaper on Windows. Tile, center, stretch etc. Being able to anchor the image into one corner would also be useful. If it's poorly implemented where the image is automatically streched (badly) then it's not worth adding. By the way... Interesting choice of picture Pundan. :)

Out of interest, which other clients support it?

Yes. It works for me.

Chocolate covered pretzel? Scores 1. RadoX - 3 1. Kulmegil - 3 1. Noctis - 3 2. Greg - 2 3. Satan - 1 3. Lee - 1

Venus.

Indeed, if it were just us to do it then Apex would basically hash all MP3s differently to other clients. Definitely a good idea though, just need implementation by all DC clients.

Would definitely be useful, unsure of how easy it'd be to implement etc..

Been suggested before, unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. It'll probably never happen.

Had to settle for Metallica instead of Megadeth.

Which Firefox components? Undeniable that there's some components Firefox has which allow it to do things Opera can't but I'm interested in which ones they are for you.

My desktop, using eye candy stuff at the moment. Not my usual wallpaper, but as I'm posting my desktop here I thought I'd change it. :)

Just beat me to it. :)