EDonkey (& server) in XP

[goweropolis]

Anyone here running EDonkey .60 on Windows XP?

I am running the latest server version on XP. First, users could sign in, but no files were shared (even when running my Edonkey on the same computer). After some tweaking to XP's internet connection settings, it displays the number of files shared and searching gives me some results. Now the problem is EDonkey crashes when I try to download any files (from either my computer or another one) or add a friend. It fired off a report to MS, but that doesn't help me very much. I was just wondering if anyone here was also having problems with the EDonk in XP. Any thoughts?

I know I could probably ask on the EDonkey forum, but after slogging through quite a few messages, I couldn't find anything specific to help me.

Andy

[Nuttyyyyy]

I cant even get connected, it just rattles its way through the server list telling me it cant connect. My firewall is letting it through but still no joy. Try the new WINMX 3.1, Ive been using it for the past few days with no troubles and even 50k/s+ downloads! If you find anything else out let me know as I am keen to get it working with my xp sys.
Nutty

[Roamerick]

I run the client version (have for months now) and it works fine, but then again I dont use the XP firewall. I've heard that can cause problems and is otherwise a bitch to configure for the right ports (not hard, just a lot of donkeywork ;)

[stebajo]

I discovered eDonkey2000 1 week ago, is the best for other than MP3 where winMx has a larger database.
EDo is many better than gnutella and quicker, in particular the new client 61; it's easy download at 50-60K!!!
Have a nice share!!! :fire

[okidoki]

Weblinks don't work with version client 61.

better wait for the new donky

they call it Flock or varvar en somthing else.

check the flock forum klik on the www button
and then go to edonkey webs there you wil find a link

have fun

[johnnyt]

http://home.edonkey2000.com/files/flock0.23.exe

[z05+3R0p5]

It fired off a report to MS, but that doesn't help me very much.

whoa. 'hey mr micro$oft support, i ran into connectivity problems while trying to p2p some pirated 'ware. can u help me?'

hell, i'd never use xp unless i absolutely cannot avoid it (at which time m$ will hopefully have lost off from its standing on the desktop os market and linux will have matured even more) - it's far too proprietary (making greyware programming like p2p clients tough) and far too insecure (if i would share illegal stuff, which i, of course, don't, i'd avoid at all costs the worst stoolpigeon of all os'es round... think about it: just because it's flashy and because the marketing dept has a huge budget, xp is not a good, in fact possibly the worst os to run p2p on - the firewall stinks and is a bitch to replace by a decent one (by which i do not refer to zone alarm - far too hackable and virii-targeted 4 yours truly), the system's tendency to loudmouth about to whoever it may concern about all sorts of activity on your box, including such of the more shady type, precludes it to be used by any security-conscious (or conscious in general, for a crime is crime is a cime, no matter how much you may think it justified 'morally') p2p'er.

insofar, as to answer the original question:
get a decent os ;-)

and about 'flock':
we all know tht dotnet is m$' attempt to blow away java from the desktop market. now, what can we expect? another greedy monopoly scheme, another m$ development with huge security holes, in all probability a vm kernel that now and then squeezes off a little data packet to whoever paid m$ for getting prime user data, just like it's implemented in nearly any m$ app to date.

sorry, folks: using dotnet for a p2p prog (and even if it's just the gui) is nearly as stupid as using ie components (which is why i wont go fasttrack). imho it's more than that: it's talk one way, walk another - who's going to benefit from p2p'ers using m$-code dependent progs?
microsoft is.
see?