7.0.3 (3392.517.1242) (Jan 23, 2011)
Release date: December 10, 2010
Version: 7.0.4 (3412.520.1245)
Size, MB: 85.8 (x86) / 97.0 (x64)
0.9.1 (r71) (Aug 5, 2009)
I've installed this on Windows 7 and I can highly recommend it. It's much much better than Peer Guardian. It's faster and hasn't crashed once like PG did on XP and W7. Like it a lot.
220.127.116.112 R2 Beta (Sep 15, 2008)
Not a bad player as this played some flv files that VLC didn't.
18.104.22.1685 (Aug 30, 2008)
I like this app (hence the 5 stars), but change the friggin' name and call it what it is - AudioMonkey! Stop calling it MediaMonkey because it doesn't play videos (do not mention the 3rd party plug-in to me again!). If this did what it already does and yet also did the job of VLC, then I wouldn't have a problem with the name. But as it is it I'm actually going to give it 4 stars because the misleading name still really p!sses me off.
1.03 (Jul 21, 2008)
I've used it and I like and I still like it. And for those who say don't use it, read on:
"In July 2007 professional networking specialist Robb Topolski conducted an independent analysis of most accusations leveled against BitComet including the DHT Exploit and Super-seeding controversies mentioned above. He found all but one of the claims to be false or unverifiable. He found that BitComet is not detrimental or malicious to the download or upload speeds of a BitTorrent swarm or the tracker.
The one claim he verified as partially correct was that, "BitComet is a poor peer due to no upload slot control; upload bandwidth is stretched too thin.". Topolski's tests indicated that BitComet does lack upload slot control, but only when BitComet is initially seeding a torrent that is, when BitComet is the only seeding peer in a swarm, it tends to seed less efficiently than the two other clients he tested. Topolski asserts that when BitComet is not the only seeding peer in the swarm, or when it is a non seeding peer, upload slot control is managed exceptionally well."
The fact that BitTornado still bans BitComet says a lot more about BitTornado than it does about BitComet in my opinion.
1.03 (Aug 19, 2011 - 11:23 AM)
@ RMerlin: Well if that's the case then that's extremely surprising indeed and I'm at a loss for words, that's stunning news.
1.03 (Aug 18, 2011 - 4:56 PM)
Nah, there's a specific reason for this. One we'll either never know about or won't come to know about for some time. Like they've got some sort of contract tie up to be the sole provider of Windows tablets with Windows 8 installed on or something. They could probably make very much more money from that kind of tie up than selling TouchPad. Or maybe Microsoft have said if they release WebOS on PC's that they'd completely pull HP's access to Windows and so they've decided to kill WebOS rather than risk losing Windows. No one gives up this easy so soon for no reason and you can bet your life it's got nothing what so ever to do with iPad at all.
1.03 (Aug 17, 2011 - 8:20 AM)
Okay here's my take on this.
1/ There's no Android phone with a good enough battery life, without swapping the battery.
2/ Despite the lack of Flash I really kind of like iOS, I honestly do.
So if there's two iPhones released next month - iPhone 5 and iPhone 5 Nano - and iPhone 5 Nano is free on a contract, I will get it. Simple as.
However I am not prepared to shell out another few hundred quid because things are just too tough at the moment. We're in a worldwide recession and that doesn't mean the world excluding my home - it has affected me and money just doesn't go as far as it used to.
I have an iPhone 3G that makes calls, plays music, picks up e-mail, and surfs the net. It's not slow, the battery life is great, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it - I don't need iPhone 5.
If this 'cut down' iPhone that's being talked about surfaces and it's free on a contract, I'll get it. If not, I won't.
(Or maybe Windows Phone - I keep forgetting).
1.03 (Aug 16, 2011 - 8:08 AM)
This is all bull. When Firefox 4 came out then fair enough. But Firefox 5 should have been named Firefox 4.1, and Firefox 6 should have been named Firefox 4.2. If there is only 'behind the scenes' changes and no obvious visible change, then it doesn't require a significant version increase at all. The fact that Firefox 6 Final is released is an absolute joke when I have only just upgraded to Firefox 4 - the naming of versions has become an absolute joke.
Oh yeah and don't get me started on add on compatability!
Firefox 7 is out next week by the way, with Firefox 8 pencilled in for 29th August. We should be up to Firefox 32 by Christmas.
1.03 (Aug 16, 2011 - 7:26 AM)
What a load of bullcrap.