Rediculous download manager

Hi,
Yesterday I started downloading Windows Vista RC1 from IE6 (not using the
download manager).

This morning I came to look at it and the image (ISO) wasn't the same size
as the download said it should be..... and it was corrupt.

So I figured maybe it was a problem during download (it happens from time to
time in IE6).

This morning I began downloading it again using the Download Manager
provided by Microsoft....
At around 52% it came up with the following error:

"Download manager cannot handle this download"

At which point it deleted the incomplete file, and wouldn't allow me to
continue the download without starting it all over again.

That's nearly 5GB of my bandwidth wasted!

Has anyone else had this problem? Does anyone know how to solve this?

Regards,
Simon

I had the same problem that you did. After several tries and days of wasted
time and bandwidth I gave up and downloaded the latest build from torrent.

"SJS" wrote:

> Hi,
> Yesterday I started downloading Windows Vista RC1 from IE6 (not using the
> download manager).
>
> This morning I came to look at it and the image (ISO) wasn't the same size
> as the download said it should be..... and it was corrupt.
>
> So I figured maybe it was a problem during download (it happens from time to
> time in IE6).
>
> This morning I began downloading it again using the Download Manager
> provided by Microsoft....
> At around 52% it came up with the following error:
>
> "Download manager cannot handle this download"
>
> At which point it deleted the incomplete file, and wouldn't allow me to
> continue the download without starting it all over again.
>
> That's nearly 5GB of my bandwidth wasted!
>
> Has anyone else had this problem? Does anyone know how to solve this?
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>

That's has to do with allocation of transferring package. It's your server
that doesn't, allow you to download that far, it's time it takes to download.
Your ISP has limited time to download. When you sit and download, your
browser is sitting idle. Once you idle long enough, your browser or ISP
server instruction calls for disconnect, session timed-out.

Also, packages themselve can cause corruption or collision. These transfer
package has little checksum for file download transfer like Vista or other of
its kind. Solution:
1) get better FTP like Torrent or, what was it, bit or something.
2) The other way is to get larger downstream allocation, meaning more money.
What ISP do you have? Check your downstream and upstream.
3) pay for shipping DVD iso.

This is as far as I know.

VR,
Watis


"Thew" wrote:

>
> I had the same problem that you did. After several tries and days of wasted
> time and bandwidth I gave up and downloaded the latest build from torrent.
>
> "SJS" wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > Yesterday I started downloading Windows Vista RC1 from IE6 (not using the
> > download manager).
> >
> > This morning I came to look at it and the image (ISO) wasn't the same size
> > as the download said it should be..... and it was corrupt.
> >
> > So I figured maybe it was a problem during download (it happens from time to
> > time in IE6).
> >
> > This morning I began downloading it again using the Download Manager
> > provided by Microsoft....
> > At around 52% it came up with the following error:
> >
> > "Download manager cannot handle this download"
> >
> > At which point it deleted the incomplete file, and wouldn't allow me to
> > continue the download without starting it all over again.
> >
> > That's nearly 5GB of my bandwidth wasted!
> >
> > Has anyone else had this problem? Does anyone know how to solve this?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Simon
> >

Watis,
Actually my ISP doesn't limit my download time, size, or anything else.

I've downloaded files over 4GB in the past with no issue, it's just this
particular instance where I've had so much difficulty.

Taking the advice of Thew and downloading it from torrent. I just hope it's
actually RC1 and not yet another mislabled copy of Beta 2! That's the only
downside with torrents, and thus the only reason I wanted to do it via the MS
website (garantee that it is the correct one).

Anyway... cheers for the replies.

SJS

"watis" wrote:

> That's has to do with allocation of transferring package. It's your server
> that doesn't, allow you to download that far, it's time it takes to download.
> Your ISP has limited time to download. When you sit and download, your
> browser is sitting idle. Once you idle long enough, your browser or ISP
> server instruction calls for disconnect, session timed-out.
>
> Also, packages themselve can cause corruption or collision. These transfer
> package has little checksum for file download transfer like Vista or other of
> its kind. Solution:
> 1) get better FTP like Torrent or, what was it, bit or something.
> 2) The other way is to get larger downstream allocation, meaning more money.
> What ISP do you have? Check your downstream and upstream.
> 3) pay for shipping DVD iso.
>
> This is as far as I know.
>
> VR,
> Watis
>
>
> "Thew" wrote:
>
> >
> > I had the same problem that you did. After several tries and days of wasted
> > time and bandwidth I gave up and downloaded the latest build from torrent.
> >
> > "SJS" wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > Yesterday I started downloading Windows Vista RC1 from IE6 (not using the
> > > download manager).
> > >
> > > This morning I came to look at it and the image (ISO) wasn't the same size
> > > as the download said it should be..... and it was corrupt.
> > >
> > > So I figured maybe it was a problem during download (it happens from time to
> > > time in IE6).
> > >
> > > This morning I began downloading it again using the Download Manager
> > > provided by Microsoft....
> > > At around 52% it came up with the following error:
> > >
> > > "Download manager cannot handle this download"
> > >
> > > At which point it deleted the incomplete file, and wouldn't allow me to
> > > continue the download without starting it all over again.
> > >
> > > That's nearly 5GB of my bandwidth wasted!
> > >
> > > Has anyone else had this problem? Does anyone know how to solve this?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Simon
> > >

SJS wrote:

> Watis,
> Actually my ISP doesn't limit my download time, size, or anything else.
>
> I've downloaded files over 4GB in the past with no issue, it's just this
> particular instance where I've had so much difficulty.
>
> Taking the advice of Thew and downloading it from torrent. I just hope it's
> actually RC1 and not yet another mislabled copy of Beta 2! That's the only
> downside with torrents, and thus the only reason I wanted to do it via the MS
> website (garantee that it is the correct one).
>
> Anyway... cheers for the replies.

SJS:

The hashes for RC1 are public knowledge

RC1 (build 5560):

32-Bit
MD5 hash: 22486e815a38feffd9667317dfeec55a
SHA1 hash: e00b4ebbc81fb420cf047973b95a9cfb7cdf51b7
64-Bit
MD5 hash: f3a385aae6e4dea9226e31d9f1148b56
SHA1 hash: 8e4de7a72c828a3543ff1663243eb0836da07eea

so you will know if you have RC1, and if the download is good.

David Wilkinson

actually the pre-rc1 was 5560 rc1 itself is 5600

"David Wilkinson" wrote:

> SJS wrote:
>
> > Watis,
> > Actually my ISP doesn't limit my download time, size, or anything else.
> >
> > I've downloaded files over 4GB in the past with no issue, it's just this
> > particular instance where I've had so much difficulty.
> >
> > Taking the advice of Thew and downloading it from torrent. I just hope it's
> > actually RC1 and not yet another mislabled copy of Beta 2! That's the only
> > downside with torrents, and thus the only reason I wanted to do it via the MS
> > website (garantee that it is the correct one).
> >
> > Anyway... cheers for the replies.
>
> SJS:
>
> The hashes for RC1 are public knowledge
>
> RC1 (build 5560):
>
> 32-Bit
> MD5 hash: 22486e815a38feffd9667317dfeec55a
> SHA1 hash: e00b4ebbc81fb420cf047973b95a9cfb7cdf51b7
> 64-Bit
> MD5 hash: f3a385aae6e4dea9226e31d9f1148b56
> SHA1 hash: 8e4de7a72c828a3543ff1663243eb0836da07eea
>
> so you will know if you have RC1, and if the download is good.
>
> David Wilkinson
>

dfeifer wrote:

> actually the pre-rc1 was 5560 rc1 itself is 5600
>
> "David Wilkinson" wrote:
>

dfeifer:

You're right. RC1 was 5600. But the RC1 hashes I have were correct.

David Wilkinson