Gammon Forum : MUSHclient : General : Working with Windows XP (need help BADLY)

Log on

Gammon Forum

Entire forum

MUSHclient

General

Working with Windows XP (need help BADLY)

Working with Windows XP (need help BADLY)

It is now over 60 days since the last post. This thread is closed. Refresh page

Posted by

1BigNewbie (6 posts)

bio

Date

Mon 14 Jan 2008 05:37 AM (UTC)

Message

OK, so for starters...anybody who is reading this to try and figure out how to work MUSHclient with XP, i'm sorry, but we're in the same boat.

On that note, let's get started.

Well i had downloaded MUSHclient before on this very same computer, but only used it maybe 2 times and then never even opened it again. Well recently i was reintroduced into it on a friend's computer who had already had it downloaded. I created a character on a game called LOTS (Legacy of the Sith) and wanted to play him again. But when i tried to get back on MUSHclient i couldn't find it. I realized tonight that it didn't say anywhere that MUSHclient could even be used on Windows XP. Now what happens is that the instant i click on the link to start downloading the file, it fails. I have tried uncountable amounts of times, and i am getting tired of it. i need someones help and will take any advice. i just wanna play my game.

i have an msn account as well as instant messenger, and i will take all the help i can get. Please, please let someone help me. If anyone out there can give me some advice, or if it is impossible for me to get it, could someone at least make that clear to me?

~ 1BigNewbie

top

Posted by

Zeno USA (2,871 posts)

bio

Date

Reply #1 on Mon 14 Jan 2008 05:39 AM (UTC)

Message

MUSHclient works fine on XP.

If you can't download it, have you tried to use another browser?

Zeno McDohl,
Owner of Bleached InuYasha Galaxy
http://www.biyg.org

top

Posted by

Nick Gammon Australia (22,975 posts)

bio Forum Administrator

Date

Reply #2 on Mon 14 Jan 2008 05:55 AM (UTC)

Message

Sometimes if a download fails, the failed download is cached, which means attempting to do it again fails too.

I would try a different browser, like Zeno suggests, such as Firefox.

I have MUSHclient running fine on 3 or so XP PCs.

Also try downloading from a different site, you may not get the latest copy, but quite a few places make copies (I think, don't ask me for URLs, but places like Tucows are likely to have it).

- Nick Gammon

www.gammon.com.au, www.mushclient.com

top

Posted by

Shadowfyr USA (1,786 posts)

bio

Date

Reply #3 on Tue 15 Jan 2008 02:59 AM (UTC)

Amended on Tue 15 Jan 2008 03:00 AM (UTC) by Shadowfyr

Message

Snort. This is why I hate the change they made to the server your hosted on. Since you can't now redirect to an external manager, like Getright, all of the safeguards that those provide, including a) never using a cached version as a start, b) restarting incomplete files correctly (which can fail on even Firefox) and, c) accurately identifying failure messages, so it doesn't ever "fail" the way it does in browsers in the first place, thus never producing incomplete "cached" versions in the first place. Bugs the hell out of me that these features are **STILL** not "basic" features of browsers.

top

Posted by

Shaun Biggs USA (644 posts)

bio

Date

Reply #4 on Tue 15 Jan 2008 06:59 PM (UTC)

Message

You can always just see if clearing the cache helps. It sometimes does. Or reloading the page can occasionally solve this issue.

For working on XP or not, I have a copy of MUSHclient on a USB drive which I use just fine on my Linux box, Win98 laptop, several people's WinXP desktops, and my brother's Win2000 box. Just one copy worked on all of those systems with no issue.

I also have no idea about redirecting to an external file downloading manager for most Windows environments, but I was able to use Curl to download the latest version. I could not try for Windows here, since they do not tend to like it when I download .exe files at work, so my only option was to ssh to my home computer on my phone. I love technology.

It is much easier to fight for one's ideals than to live up to them.

top

Posted by

1BigNewbie (6 posts)

bio

Date

Reply #5 on Wed 16 Jan 2008 04:41 AM (UTC)

Message

hey i would just like to say thank you for all the support that you have posted. Thanks to Nick Gammon for creating everything, and i only had one other question. And keep in mind that i am only 14, so i do not know a lot about the computer. I do not actually know how to uncache a page. Could i get some help with that?

top

Posted by

David Haley USA (3,881 posts)

bio

Date

Reply #6 on Wed 16 Jan 2008 04:46 AM (UTC)

Message

In Firefox, it's under Preferences | Advanced | Network, and then you'll see a 'cache' header where you can click 'clear now'. I don't have IE on this computer (I run Linux...) so I can't help you directly, but you will want to look for something similar. I believe that IE has a history option, which you don't need to clear, but also a "downloaded files" cache or something like that. Maybe it's called "Temporary Internet Content"... I really don't remember. :)

David Haley aka Ksilyan
Head Programmer,
Legends of the Darkstone

http://david.the-haleys.org

top

Posted by

Shadowfyr USA (1,786 posts)

bio

Date

Reply #7 on Wed 16 Jan 2008 01:19 PM (UTC)

Message

Hmm. Curl may behave differently or something. Biggest issue is usually something like:

Website hands you a download link. Link is passed to the external program. One of two things happens, either its not an actual link, i.e. its something like, "blah\blah.php?f=234", or it is a real file, but the server takes one look at the client signature and either goes, "Whoa! Hold on a moment, that client isn't acceptable!", or, "Wait... Why is a different program requesting the file than the one that has the cookie from the site?" The former one also fracks up picture saves, when using Firefox plugins, like "Save Image to Folder", since the plugin doesn't save the cached "picture" it handles it like a file download, which it can't find the correct name/location for, if you have one of those fiddle, "blah\blah.php?f=234", links instead of the actual image address. Oh, and various combinations of that kind of link, cookies, etc. screw up Flashgot and other plugins as well.

Its really quite annoying how quickly things will break, when some clown decides to get funny with databases, so they can keep simpler track of how many downloads happen, or to make it simpler to organize their end, or to prevent 1% of people from doing something they don't like, or simply because the bozos decided to use a session cookie and the server freaks if the client can't send it. Some sites are so paranoid and convoluted in how they behave that I don't even visit them for files anymore, especially since its often a big file I need from them, so there is a *huge* chance it will break. A fact made even more stupid because *often* the people (Like Sony Online Entertainment, who should know better) who host hundreds of megs, or 1+ gig files also have, "resuming is not allowed on this server". What? Everyone has perfect connections and hours (or on dialup, literally days) free to download the entire file, consecutively? Sigh...

top

Posted by

David Haley USA (3,881 posts)

bio

Date

Reply #8 on Wed 16 Jan 2008 05:28 PM (UTC)

Message

Talk to a network admin some day about the perils of these external download managers and resumable downloads and all that and maybe you'll see why some servers choose to do it. You still might not agree with it but you might not consider them stupid bozos anymore, at least...

David Haley aka Ksilyan
Head Programmer,
Legends of the Darkstone

http://david.the-haleys.org

top

Posted by

Shaun Biggs USA (644 posts)

bio

Date

Reply #9 on Wed 16 Jan 2008 06:53 PM (UTC)

Message

For clearing the cache on IE (version 6.0, at least), look in Tools | Internet Options then click on "Delete Files..." under the "Temporary Internet Files" section of the General tab. I guess I have now had one good thing come out of work not letting me use Firefox or Opera.

It is much easier to fight for one's ideals than to live up to them.

top

Posted by

Shadowfyr USA (1,786 posts)

bio

Date

Reply #10 on Fri 18 Jan 2008 01:01 AM (UTC)

Message

I know why they do it David. Its too prevent most of those managers from opening multiple instances and flooding the server with multiple download connections, in order to do segmentation. And, I 100% agree with them on that, but I also know there are other ways to handle that, not the least being that you can track the IP accessing the site, and break "all" connections from it, if they try to download more than one thing at a time from the server (or multiple of the same file). The problem is, most FTP servers are really dumb about this issue, lack support to identify the IP, or at least, lack the means to check if the same person is requesting two sections of the same file, at the same time. Instead of fixing the damn servers, so they catch and prevent such access, they opted to invent complicated ways to make it harder to start the download in the first place.

Note, ***most*** of them **all** provide resumable interfaces though, so that a temporary server lag, or other issue, doesn't frell the persons download. Even the ones that use session management, like The Underdogs, which checks for more than one download from the same IP, and those that use complex methods to track the user, or feed the files, via browers redirects, and other stuff (which is what the, "?fud=foobar", uses, **still** support resumable servers. Here is the thing.

Sony, which I used as an example, has *no* redirection, so you can get the files from a direct link, no X-number of files per user, and *no* restriction on how many segments are being downloaded at one time. All their downloads are either patches, which you need to own the game for, or demos, so there is no reason they couldn't either a) allow resuming, or b) supply a torrent link instead. No, they opt to let you download the dang 3GB worth of files any way you want, in as many segments as you want, using any download agent you want, then cut your legs out from under you, by making the server a "does not support resuming". Sorry, but I just don't buy the excuse that they are doing it to prevent flooding from morons using segmentation. Most of the servers are, in my experience, either suing something that "tries" to stop that, but which only breaks browsers and irritates people, without really solving the problem, or have just been configured in such a way that they flat out simply don't fracking work correctly. At least one sight I downloaded from once in a while was so badly configured that even *if* the files was a) not segmented, b) downloaded in *any* browser, instead of a manager, c) only a few megs in size and d) you had a valid cookie, about 50% of the time it would fail, for no apparent reason at all, at not let you even attempt to download the same file again, until you went through the whole mess of authentication, cookie acquisition, etc., and then, it might still fail to start, no matter how many times you tried it.

There are better ways to handle this. And **neither** database based redirects, nor non-resumable servers do "anything" to prevent the managers from working, unless you also add in session cookies, and IP checking, so all they *usually* end up doing is making life difficult for the legitimate users. BTW, I gave up on Sony and downloaded the ****fully paid for**** copy of Everquest I via someone's bittorrent backup of it. At the time I didn't know you could download the patcher, then have it "update" everything to the current version, nor did their website say anything at all about doing that.

Put simply. I don't think that a) some people doing this know how badly it can break things, b) intend to use them for the reasons such systems are usually used, c) configure servers properly in cases where they don't intend to create these barriers, or d) really think about how **best** to prevent what they are trying to stop in the first place. I mean, seriously, how hard is it really to simply have a server that goes, "Oh, 66.55.44.33 is asking for file abc.zip at segment 50, is that address *already* downloading part of the file?", then reject the new connection if it is? Wouldn't that have been about 500 times simpler, less complicated and more effective than inventing a dozen layers of cookies, sessions, etc, etc, etc, and doing stuff, like breaking download resuming in the process?

top

The dates and times for posts above are shown in Universal Co-ordinated Time (UTC).

To show them in your local time you can join the forum, and then set the 'time correction' field in your profile to the number of hours difference between your location and UTC time.

28,928 views.

It is now over 60 days since the last post. This thread is closed. Refresh page

Go to topic: Search the forum

top

Quick links: MUSHclient. MUSHclient help. Forum shortcuts. Posting templates. Lua modules. Lua documentation.

Information and images on this site are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia License unless stated otherwise.