computer help

fucking annoying ass problem. i've got a laptop running Vista for about 2 years now. for the first 1.5 years, everything was working great. but for the last couple of months, I have been unable to download large files via an internet browser. every time i try, the download will show about 5 to 10 mb of progress, and then it will just stall. no error messages. it doesn't time out. it just hangs there infinitely. during this time, i have no problem surfing the net or otherwise connecting. Also, Torrents work fine. Streaming appears to be fine. But I cannot download a large .avi or .zip file or whatever via an internet link.

the laptop connects to my network wirelessly. like i said, it was never a problem until recently. my desktop, which is connected via hardwire, has no problems downloading the exact same files that stall out on the lap top.

I've goodled this problem and it appears that a number of people have had it, but the solution seems to be particular to their own setup. for example, one guy fixed it by uninstalling Nvidia Network Access Manager or something. I don't have an Nvidia card.

what the fuck. i need a nerd. stat. thanks.

i've also had this problem from time to time, but on my mac. i think it may have something to do with your wireless connection and interference? i live in an apartment and have pick up at least 9 different wireless routers at once with my airport. never really found a solution to it. it just seems to have stopped about a month ago. sorry i couldn't be more of a help.

it's your wireless connection.

maybe a neighbour has a new laptop which is messing with your signals. go round there and kick his nuts.

  On 1/19/2010 at 3:17 PM, LOL Alzado said:

i've got a laptop running Vista for about 2 years now.

stopped reading there.

but yeah it's your wireless try some new wireless drivers or try using a hard connection and reproducing the problem.

I think a quick interim solution is to download a free download manager ( something like http://www.freedownloadmanager.org/ ) and use that for your big files. Obviously you'll still want to find a proper fix, but this should do until then ....

  On 1/19/2010 at 4:22 PM, mcbpete said:

I think a quick interim solution is to download a free download manager ( something like http://www.freedownloadmanager.org/ ) and use that for your big files. Obviously you'll still want to find a proper fix, but this should do until then ....

thanks man. that works. if the problem is my wireless connection, why would downloads work via download manager on the same wireless connection?

download manager may be cool with resetting your connection if there are little hickups, or pausing the download until the connection is 100% again.

your browser probably just gets pissed and gives up if there is a hickup while a file is downloading.

can you try this with a hard wired connection? that will tell you immediately if it is your wireless or some stupid ass vista bullshit.

ah, that makes sense.

i haven't tried hardwiring the laptop. but my desktop is hardwired and it downloads the same files from the links without any trouble.

change/fix your wifi card.

Change the channel in your wifi options. Most people just leave it on default and there could quite alot of people on the same network, this can clog shit up.

What everyone else has failed to mention is the fact that even if you do a parallel boot of your download existors, you need to hard morse the cold drives every time your dos prompts you for the google chrome passcode. So if your wifi drive is encrypted, you can bounce the thermal readouts without taxing your printercables too hard. What typically happens is those printercables will get massively overclocked and your I/O bus will fry, pretty much rendering all downloads in the download drive corrupt. Have you gotten ahold of support yet? I have a great contact if you need one.

i asked sandra in accounts, she said she'll get back to you.

  On 1/19/2010 at 5:28 PM, Fred McGriff said:

What everyone else has failed to mention is the fact that even if you do a parallel boot of your download existors, you need to hard morse the cold drives every time your dos prompts you for the google chrome passcode. So if your wifi drive is encrypted, you can bounce the thermal readouts without taxing your printercables too hard. What typically happens is those printercables will get massively overclocked and your I/O bus will fry, pretty much rendering all downloads in the download drive corrupt. Have you gotten ahold of support yet? I have a great contact if you need one.

or switch it off then on again.

  On 1/19/2010 at 5:28 PM, Fred McGriff said:

What everyone else has failed to mention is the fact that even if you do a parallel boot of your download existors, you need to hard morse the cold drives every time your dos prompts you for the google chrome passcode. So if your wifi drive is encrypted, you can bounce the thermal readouts without taxing your printercables too hard. What typically happens is those printercables will get massively overclocked and your I/O bus will fry, pretty much rendering all downloads in the download drive corrupt. Have you gotten ahold of support yet? I have a great contact if you need one.

Tech Help From McGriff would be a book I'd fucking buy in an instant.

down low manager-

upgrade your ram

upgrade ya gray matter cause one day it may matter

  On 1/19/2010 at 5:28 PM, Fred McGriff said:

What typically happens is those printercables will get massively overclocked and your I/O bus will fry, pretty much rendering all downloads in the download drive corrupt.

It's funny that you mention that actually because the guy that sold me my last mouse pad mentioned that the 400 series of I/O's were supposed to have taken care of that problem but that a lot of users were still reporting a pretty high frequency of corrupt d/l drives.

apparently the documentation doesn't tell you that you will still get corrupt drives if you're spinning a baud rate of below 4500:1. lol i wonder how many people shelled out the cash for the I/O 400's not knowing that they were buying a tin box with the exact same failure rate.

anyway, I checked the printercables and they all seem to be running their own isolated channels which is my preferred setup ever since i moved my system onto a 16 pin server. so, i don't think that's the problem. it took me all morning but i ran system reveal scantron on each individual entry in My Documents/Downloads and I think I may have found the error. I had a corrupt zip file that was burping out a stream of traffic data which I think was causing a false conflict in my external default ports. so, i should be able to fix it assuming a malware scan doesn't turn up any other instances of USB 2.0.

  On 1/19/2010 at 7:51 PM, LOL Alzado said:

  On 1/19/2010 at 5:28 PM, Fred McGriff said:

What typically happens is those printercables will get massively overclocked and your I/O bus will fry, pretty much rendering all downloads in the download drive corrupt.

I lol i wonder how many people shelled out the cash for the I/O 400's not knowing that they were buying a tin box with the exact same failure rate.

 

*raises hand*

  On 1/19/2010 at 7:51 PM, LOL Alzado said:

  On 1/19/2010 at 5:28 PM, Fred McGriff said:

What typically happens is those printercables will get massively overclocked and your I/O bus will fry, pretty much rendering all downloads in the download drive corrupt.

It's funny that you mention that actually because the guy that sold me my last mouse pad mentioned that the 400 series of I/O's were supposed to have taken care of that problem but that a lot of users were still reporting a pretty high frequency of corrupt d/l drives.

 

apparently the documentation doesn't tell you that you will still get corrupt drives if you're spinning a baud rate of below 4500:1. lol i wonder how many people shelled out the cash for the I/O 400's not knowing that they were buying a tin box with the exact same failure rate.

 

anyway, I checked the printercables and they all seem to be running their own isolated channels which is my preferred setup ever since i moved my system onto a 16 pin server. so, i don't think that's the problem. it took me all morning but i ran system reveal scantron on each individual entry in My Documents/Downloads and I think I may have found the error. I had a corrupt zip file that was burping out a stream of traffic data which I think was causing a false conflict in my external default ports. so, i should be able to fix it assuming a malware scan doesn't turn up any other instances of USB 2.0.

yeah that's a pretty solid workaround, just keep in mind that if you get a failed bitmap resize during the system reveal it's because you've inadvertently indexed all of your cortex F5's in the master database, thereby generating a false-positive defrag map. have you considered re-routing all of the 2.0 dataflow through the monitor bus driver? this will give you a much-needed memory boost, probably a good 60 or 70 wpm faster that way. and if all else fails you can just flash-boot the keyboard (obviously) from the I/0 terminal for a good 2 or 3 seconds without even plugging the sucker in.

this guy here will help you with all your computer needs:

  On 1/19/2010 at 8:10 PM, Fred McGriff said:

  On 1/19/2010 at 7:51 PM, LOL Alzado said:

  On 1/19/2010 at 5:28 PM, Fred McGriff said:

What typically happens is those printercables will get massively overclocked and your I/O bus will fry, pretty much rendering all downloads in the download drive corrupt.

It's funny that you mention that actually because the guy that sold me my last mouse pad mentioned that the 400 series of I/O's were supposed to have taken care of that problem but that a lot of users were still reporting a pretty high frequency of corrupt d/l drives.

 

apparently the documentation doesn't tell you that you will still get corrupt drives if you're spinning a baud rate of below 4500:1. lol i wonder how many people shelled out the cash for the I/O 400's not knowing that they were buying a tin box with the exact same failure rate.

 

anyway, I checked the printercables and they all seem to be running their own isolated channels which is my preferred setup ever since i moved my system onto a 16 pin server. so, i don't think that's the problem. it took me all morning but i ran system reveal scantron on each individual entry in My Documents/Downloads and I think I may have found the error. I had a corrupt zip file that was burping out a stream of traffic data which I think was causing a false conflict in my external default ports. so, i should be able to fix it assuming a malware scan doesn't turn up any other instances of USB 2.0.

 

yeah that's a pretty solid workaround, just keep in mind that if you get a failed bitmap resize during the system reveal it's because you've inadvertently indexed all of your cortex F5's in the master database, thereby generating a false-positive defrag map. have you considered re-routing all of the 2.0 dataflow through the monitor bus driver? this will give you a much-needed memory boost, probably a good 60 or 70 wpm faster that way. and if all else fails you can just flash-boot the keyboard (obviously) from the I/0 terminal for a good 2 or 3 seconds without even plugging the sucker in.

I could read banter like this all day long

technical banter subforum