Slow download after 98%

[Lee 84]

What are you on about. He is talking about beta2, and superseeding was removed from 0.5.0, the code isnt an issue in this case. As for the code itself, it sort of worked didnt it? Maybe TBI can elaborate in detail why it was removed. One reason i know of is that he didnt have time to complete it.

The super seeding code is complete and efficient in 0.4.0. As ApexDC++ evolves, TBI needs to keep this code updated and bug-free. It's a possibility that it isnt bug free in the alpha's, or we removed it to see whether it was conflicting with other code.

[Zlobomir 3]

rofl, betas are released on frontpage. How much more can you encourage them.. theyre ment to spread

/Off OK, I feel the need that smo has to resume the events, so we can discuss on one basis (tho U know all that I know and maybe more, and probably there are better places for this, but the conclusion below is for all the users).

1. The so-called 1.0.0 B1 can't be called even alpha, at least considering the locked Bugs & Crashes forum.

2. The so-called 1.0.0 B2 is maybe a bit closer to alpha, considering the coming 1.0.0 B3.

3. The (I hope not just so-called ) 1.0.0 B3 should fix all this crap, but it is still not available for users (in order to avoid 1.0.0 Bxxx).

Based on the above, I am suggesting to wait until 1.0.0 B3 is ready, since to support B1 and B2 is like trying to fix my car. Meanwhile, I was hoping that Embryo is still on 0.4.0. /Off

Edit: I. e., check for this bug suspicion in the latest B3, why not even before releasing it public. So it somehow helps the author I hope.

[Lee 84]

This really doesn't help the original author, keep to the topic.

[Embryo 0]

If by "he" you mean Embryo, I can't see any info that he is using the latest 1.0.0 B1 or B2, and I tactically didn't wanted to speak about the betas and encourage their spreading at all, still.

I am indeed using v1.0.0B2. Anyway, even if my problem doesn't get solved (If it even is a problem from what I read here), Apex is one great client. Huge respect for your work.

[Greg 0]

I'm pretty certain it's just bad lucky on the authors part, no errors anywhere.