Why make a client that destroys DC++?

[DeathStalker77 0]

yes users understand that.

I'm not limiting whole computer/internet connection. that wrong and nonsense.

if they know how to open ports and use dc clients they are smart.

if they don't know to read 4 lines they probably using emule

Israeli chilled 12 years old doing that and upload all bandwidth with sababadc.

why not in apexdc?

more upload more faster download in DC community.

just try and see i"m right

Sorry, anyone who advocates using QOS does not know what they're talking about. ALL QOS does is send info to Microsoft - that's why it's called "Quality Of Service" - it USES UP bandwidth.

[themaestro 0]

Sorry, anyone who advocates using QOS does not know what they're talking about. ALL QOS does is send info to Microsoft - that's why it's called "Quality Of Service" - it USES UP bandwidth.

sorry, read again what i wrote.

I wrote to change it from 20% (installed default) to 0.

so i'm not using it

[Big Muscle 1]

QoS is something for sending/receiving service packets by system. It's not normally used and the set value says how much is reserved for system, but this part of bandwidth is still free to other programs, so it has really no meaning whether you set it to 0 or 20.

[RadoX 0]

I like that ApexDC 0.2.1 puts limit speed in descriptions so ops can have it under control. But does it detect a NetLimiter in computer as the icelandic mod DCf++ did, I really liked that. Simular like what ApexDC does, it showed {L20} in description if user was limiting with NetLimiter at 20kb/s.

If ops can see it, then limiting can be used without abuse. I know cheters always find away but this would make it hard to limit for most users.

[Crise 26]

I like that ApexDC 0.2.1 puts limit speed in descriptions so ops can have it under control. But does it detect a NetLimiter in computer as the icelandic mod DCf++ did, I really liked that. Simular like what ApexDC does, it showed {L20} in description if user was limiting with NetLimiter at 20kb/s.

If ops can see it, then limiting can be used without abuse. I know cheters always find away but this would make it hard to limit for most users.

yeah netlimiter limit should be placed as connection type :)

[RadoX 0]

yeah netlimiter limit should be placed as connection type

Does it show what user is limiting to, I have to know the speed.

P.S what does it mean the number in description, this 2 = [2][L:60KB] :)

[Lee 84]

Does it show what user is limiting to, I have to know the speed.

P.S what does it mean the number in description, this 2 = [2][L:60KB]

Yes it will show the speed. The [2] is the number of free upload slots the user has.

[RadoX 0]

I would take that out, It only work if you are always refreshing the uselist and most ppl don´t know that and starts complaining that it sayd 2 slots but I did not get any and blabla

...my opinion :)

[Lee 84]

I would take that out, It only work if you are always refreshing the uselist and most ppl don´t know that and starts complaining that it sayd 2 slots but I did not get any and blabla

...my opinion

It does update, just not that often. It's a rough indicator anyway, you don't have to enable it.

[almiteycow 0]

Sorry, anyone who advocates using QOS does not know what they're talking about. ALL QOS does is send info to Microsoft - that's why it's called "Quality Of Service" - it USES UP bandwidth.

Bah, I don't know much about QOS, I'll admit. I don't set it on my computer, I set it on my router, and damn it's amazing. It lets me devote my full bandwidth to DC when I'm not doing anything else, but if I'm playing games, it allows those priority.

All that said, I have a nice, expensive router that most people don't have, and before I bought it, I used to netlimit, which for a while didn't work due to a bug in StrongDC. So, I used the built-in limiter, because I may be only running DC, so all my bandwidth is devoted to that... but I have 5 more computers in my house that can't even use the internet if my computer is uploading full speed on DC. It makes sense to leave it in... and leave it in the tag to be fair to other users.

[Greg 0]

We don't hide the limits from people, and there are restrictions upon it to stop it being used to help "leech". As for multisourcing.. it depends. If you really think that it's destroying DC then I have to say that's jsut stupid.... look how partial sharing has been developed to be used in turn with multisourcing, you can't possibly say partial sharing is a back feature which kills DC. In fact, I believe you don't have a choice about partial sharing within the client, I think (not sure) that youhave to share/upload your partial files. Even a brand new person to computors with a 0 byte share can start sharing and giving back to DC as soon as they start a download.

If you want to tell everyone you know to ban this client, well, be balanced about it first. Send them to this thread where you don't actually suggest how we can improve the client, and direct them to this post in particular so they can see other people's points of view. If you still have any other problems with the client and/or my post (and others) havn't satisified your current problems, feel free to say so... If you come here and start telling us that we're ruining DC, and generally take the attitude you are, don't expect us to be all that nice, it's jsut human nature to be defensive. If you came here with a reasoned point of view and explain your problems and allowed us to understand what they are and why they are a problem we may be more willing to listen and try and sort out any problems you might have. I think you will also have to face the fact that DC has changed since it began. When it was single-source filesharing everyone must have been using 56k dial-up connections, since then the internet has changed, the connections we use have changed.... the hub owners, OPs, and DC users have changed. You talk about us ruining DC, well.... it's not the same DC it once was, it needs to advance, otherwise it will be left behind.

If you want us to change and try and to help the DC community then plese, try to be constructive. Do not simply come here to tell us that you are going to ban the client everywhere, it's because of stupid acts like that, that clients similar to ApexDC++ are banned... people telling others what to do, when did making up your own mind become such a bad thing?

[Rigor O'Mortis 1]

how to download more faster and surf the web when DC CLIENTS (ALL) working ?

1. your upload slot - 2-3 . no more.

2. if you have sp2 installed, run this patch

http://sababadc.com/ver/files/sp2_patch.zip

3. tweak tcp connection - run this reg file

http://www.sababadc.com/win2k_tcp.zip

4. only for windows xp pro users

This tweak is designed for broadband users on Windows XP Pro Edition. For

Windows Home Edition, consult the forum, as gpedit.msc is not available

for you. This tweak will only remove an internet reserve of 20%,

although this is not active unless you are running QoS Aware programs.<br>

1.Log on as "Administrator".

2. Run - gpedit.msc

3. Expand the "Local Computer Policy" branch

4. Then expand the "Administrative Templates" branch

5. Expand the "Network" branch

6. Highlight the "QoS Packet Scheduler" in left pane.

7. In the right window pane double-click the "Limit Reservable Bandwidth" setting

8. On the settings tab check the "Enabled" item

9. Change "Bandwidth limit %" to read 0 (if you have router

change it to 1)

10. Then go to your Network connections Start= Connect to= Show All Connections and right-click on your connection. Then under the General or the Networking tab,

(where it lists your protocols) make sure QoS packet scheduler is enabled.

now restart your computer.

that all now you can upload, download and surf the web !

Listen, themaestro, before you come in here and start bragging about knowing some technical sollution that you thnk nobody else could have known, do some inquiries. Your post appeared as both infringing towards law and quite in lapse of intelligence.

1. Do you have any idea that there's a FREAKIN` GOOD REASON why WinXP comes with that limitation to the number of TCP/IP connections, or with a bandwidth reservation ? No, I guess you didn't...

2. Did you know that such hacks, as described by patching system files with unauthorized files is actually illegal ? You know, some of us actually have licensed Windows XP copies...

3. Did you ever think that some users might not be running on Windows XP Pro SP2 only, as you stated, but, perhaps, Windows 2000, Windows 2003, Windows Longhorn/Vista, etc. ?

4. Did you ever think that perhaps I'd like to reserve AT LEAST 10 kbps out of my 10MBPS connection for a small FTP server I've set up for some friends, so that we can quickly swap pictures once they return from their vacation, or me from mine, etc. ? So what am I supposed to do? Tell them "Sorry, guys, I'll wait for the printed versions, just because some idiot can't understand that ANYWAY ANYBODY can have a bandwidth-limited client without any OP ever realizing" ?

Listen, if you're so keen on your Jewish-native client, how about you transform it in a non-limitable version of ApexDC++ ? I have tested it and it's far from matching when it comes to performance.