Instead I have a new post full of complaints...

I have an issue with the way the latest update handles the dates of downloads.

It would be nice to have some way to still have the created-date set to the download-date as it used to be.

Maybe a checkbox in the download-dialog asking if FDM should keep server-dates for downloads to that particular folder. That way some downloads (some folders) could still get the new functionality, and some could have the download-date also for created-date.

If that is too much hassle, then maybe at way in settings to change the date-handling for all downloads.

The reason i want the option to get creation-date set to downloaded-date for some of my files is that I sometimes download video clips with FDM straight into a folder that my WDTV media player has access to. This mediaplayer only sees the creation-date of the videos. So browsing the videos by date is a nightmare if I don't change the dates manually, wich is a real pain in the behind.

cyberlakrits wrote:I have an issue with the way the latest update handles the dates of downloads.
It would be nice to have some way to still have the created-date set to the download-date as it used to be.

Using timestamp (current or from server) was always a global setting for new downloads in FDM. There is only a separate option for FTP and other download types in older FDM versions.
It would be nice (and it's probably easier) to port old options already available in FDM 3.9.7 before adding new ones in FDM 5.1.

yash wrote:.

FDM shows incomplete/cancelled, etc... downloads in downloads folder. Downloads folder looks messy if few downloads are incomplete, cancelled, etc...
I think would be better if incomplete, cancelled, etc... downloads are not shown in downloads folder (Like IDM, it doesn't show incomplete, cancelled, etc... downloads in downloads folder...I like that).

Hello,

You mentioned its in to-do list...when is it coming in fdm?

Thank You

Usher wrote: It would be nice (and it's probably easier) to port old options already available in FDM 3.9.7 before adding new ones in FDM 5.1.

I 100% agree with you Usher. I feel sure many other do as well.

-----

IMHO it should have been a "no brainer" decision close to 5.1 Development's starting point). I say this based upon the obvious Worldwide popularity and success of FDM 3.9.x (currently 3.9.7).

I do not understand why options and features that 3.9.x Users used and liked so much (most of its its options) were not close to top of the 5.1 Development process and certainly implemented by the time 5.1 was first released as Stable. I believe had Dev. done that, they would have had a much larger and happier 5.1 User Base. Instead,many like me, have held back and only downloaded 5.1 a few times to see how it has progressed and gone back to 3.9.7 on finding that wanted 3.9.7 options and features have not yet been implemented (maybe some never will be). Such a shame and a missed opportunity.

I know the Dev. Team work very hard and FDM is 100% Free but with 5.1 I feel many of us have the impression (unintentionally I am sure) that the Dev. Team's 5.1 priorities are decided more upon what it wishes to work on or think important, in preference to what Users (especially existing 3.9.7 Users) think and are requesting as important or urgent priorities. Please don't forget 3.9.7 's development and popularity is based upon a proven record of what Users and Dev. team deemed important in a Download Manager. Bearing that in mind, why are 3.9.7 options and popular features not considered as important to implement and already in 5.1by now? . As I said earlier I really "do not understand".

I also do not understand why there is such a reluctance to Publish and update the To Do List (with APPROXIMATE time lines) on FDM Forum for all visitors to see. I have requested this before but seems to have "fallen on deaf ears". I know we all see what is new each time a new version is released but why the secrecy in not wishing to let us know what is planned,prioritized and being new features being currently developed, in advance? We are asked for input to help development, yet feed back on our input and interest is mostly "we will put it on our To Do List" or "its on our To Do list". Publishing and maintaining a To Do list is a tiny time consumer. I am not requesting you give detailed information on each item on the To Do List, just a one liner. Nor would I or anybody expect a timeline to be shown for lesser priority items further down the List.

Dev. Team we Users, are on you side and grateful for all you do for us with both 3.9.7 and 5.1 , but why not let us in a little more, by keeping us more informed in advance by publishing and updating a summarized "To Do List" for all to see . No one expects the To Do List to be "Laid in Stone" and we all understand updates, reordering of priorities and/or timelines will happen as and when you feel necessary or appropriate.

Kind regards

FDMUser512 wrote:
I 100% agree with you Usher. I feel sure many other do as well.

Kind regards

Dear User!

You can always find the new features that are planned and prioritized on the Vote list.

The following features have been already added, and they are all from the Vote list.

1) Calculate downloads checksum
2) Shutdown after the download is complete
3) Scheduling (set timetable to start or stop the download)
4) Batch downloads
5) Localization to the most popular languages
6) Remove all “File is missing” downloads
7) Download all files from a webpage
8 ) Change links
9) To set file date & time from the server
10) Download flash videos from browsers
11) Load a list of URLs from a text file (via clipboard)
12) Add additional information to "winwfpmonitor.exe" file

Thank you for the feedback.

Regards,
Clive

i dont know how to say this...but...fdm5 start to feel suck for me,i dont know why(im excited when u guys add dl video feature but this is really harder and slow to use than idm)... ...i dont feel using it anymore...already edit all of my post(except this one)...read fdm5 forum again make me feel sad actually...most of them was negative review...and thinking again i wonder how much the installer size will increase after new feature added...guess thats all...i will check forum always though...i sorry devs...i must be nuisance asking this and that...i do want a download manager but this one really feel lacks of something...sorry again if my english is bad(im sure its bad though)

---------------------------
Delete file
Remove from List
---------------------------

Is there a second question after clicking "Delete file"? I presume not. But Windows Explorer asks a 2nd time before deleting fie(s) because user might click the wrong command.

This "Delete file" (without 2nd question) nearby "Remove from list" is very dangerous - especially in "Completed" and "Select all". => One could loose all with one click. How bad

I completely agree that this should have been rolled out as an *option*, NOT a blanket change for everyone that cannot be reverted. It has caused me problems too, in the way I archive my downloads. Please allow the user to choose whether to keep the server date and time, or the download date and time.

I have tried installing an older version of FDM, but alas it breaks the browser integration - can anyone please tell me how to make an older version work in Firefox?

cyberlakrits wrote:Instead I have a new post full of complaints...

I have an issue with the way the latest update handles the dates of downloads.

It would be nice to have some way to still have the created-date set to the download-date as it used to be.

Maybe a checkbox in the download-dialog asking if FDM should keep server-dates for downloads to that particular folder. That way some downloads (some folders) could still get the new functionality, and some could have the download-date also for created-date.

If that is too much hassle, then maybe at way in settings to change the date-handling for all downloads.

The reason i want the option to get creation-date set to downloaded-date for some of my files is that I sometimes download video clips with FDM straight into a folder that my WDTV media player has access to. This mediaplayer only sees the creation-date of the videos. So browsing the videos by date is a nightmare if I don't change the dates manually, wich is a real pain in the behind.

DebD wrote:I completely agree that this should have been rolled out as an *option*, NOT a blanket change for everyone that cannot be reverted. It has caused me problems too, in the way I archive my downloads. Please allow the user to choose whether to keep the server date and time, or the download date and time.

Dear Users!

The option to switch between the time variants will be available in the next release.

Regards,
Clive

Clive Sorensson wrote:
Dear User!

You can always find the new features that are planned and prioritized on the Vote list.

The following features have been already added, and they are all from the Vote list.

1) Calculate downloads checksum
2) Shutdown after the download is complete
3) Scheduling (set timetable to start or stop the download)
4) Batch downloads
5) Localization to the most popular languages
6) Remove all “File is missing” downloads
7) Download all files from a webpage
8 ) Change links
9) To set file date & time from the server
10) Download flash videos from browsers
11) Load a list of URLs from a text file (via clipboard)
12) Add additional information to "winwfpmonitor.exe" file

Thank you for the feedback.

Regards,
Clive

Many thanks for your information Clive . I will look there in future.

May I ask
1) if voters see the numbers of votes cast for each option (and those listed under "other"). I ask because having no google email or account I am unable to progress further than the public viewable page (and cannot vote of course).

2) Does Dev. Team use the votes as a basis of what new features/options will be worked on next, or does it use the votes as an important guideline of User wishes but may choose change the order if felt advantageous. This is not a catch 22 question Clive, I am just interested and am totally happy either way, as I appreciate Developers will know a lot more salient factors than we Users do and also that sometimes programming logic/simplicity may come into play on why an option needs to be re-prioritized up of down.

Finally, please correct me if I am mistaken. From what I can see migrating 3.9.x options to 5.1 is not already added or one of the options offered for voting on (except by adding to "other"). IF, I am correct, then I admit I am very surprised 3.9.x users have not voted for that in large numbers (unless they plan to stay with 3.9.x)

Many thanks

FDMUser12 wrote:

Clive Sorensson wrote:
Dear User!

You can always find the new features that are planned and prioritized on the Vote list.

The following features have been already added, and they are all from the Vote list.

1) Calculate downloads checksum
2) Shutdown after the download is complete
3) Scheduling (set timetable to start or stop the download)
4) Batch downloads
5) Localization to the most popular languages
6) Remove all “File is missing” downloads
7) Download all files from a webpage
8 ) Change links
9) To set file date & time from the server
10) Download flash videos from browsers
11) Load a list of URLs from a text file (via clipboard)
12) Add additional information to "winwfpmonitor.exe" file

Thank you for the feedback.

Regards,
Clive

Many thanks for your information Clive . I will look there in future.

May I ask
1) if voters see the numbers of votes cast for each option (and those listed under "other"). I ask because having no google email or account I am unable to progress further than the public viewable page (and cannot vote of course).

2) Does Dev. Team use the votes as a basis of what new features/options will be worked on next, or does it use the votes as an important guideline of User wishes but may choose change the order if felt advantageous. This is not a catch 22 question Clive, I am just interested and am totally happy either way, as I appreciate Developers will know a lot more salient factors than we Users do and also that sometimes programming logic/simplicity may come into play on why an option needs to be re-prioritized up of down.

Finally, please correct me if I am mistaken. From what I can see migrating 3.9.x options to 5.1 is not already added or one of the options offered for voting on (except by adding to "other"). IF, I am correct, then I admit I am very surprised 3.9.x users have not voted for that in large numbers (unless they plan to stay with 3.9.x)

Many thanks

Yes I absolutely agree about voting without google account as this is preventing many users from voting. Maybe the developers can integrate voting into this forum for registered users. I've written more on this post viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17512&start=195#p44124

FDMUser12 wrote:Many thanks for your information Clive . I will look there in future.

Dear User!

1) Yes, the voters see the numbers of votes for each option. ("Other" section - can't, but it's a lack of Google Forms). However, the most popular features from "Other" are added to the Vote list.
2) Yes, we use the votes as an important guideline.
Of course, there are many factors that influence our decision. However, all most popular features from the Vote list are already available in FDM 5.
3) The truth is that users haven't voted for the migrating options.

Regards,
Clive

Clive Sorensson wrote:

FDMUser12 wrote:Many thanks for your information Clive . I will look there in future.

Dear User!

1) Yes, the voters see the numbers of votes for each option. ("Other" section - can't, but it's a lack of Google Forms). However, the most popular features from "Other" are added to the Vote list.
2) Yes, we use the votes as an important guideline.
Of course, there are many factors that influence our decision. However, all most popular features from the Vote list are already available in FDM 5.
3) The truth is that users haven't voted for the migrating options.

Regards,
Clive

Many thanks for info Clive.
did not expect 3) as I know I (and Usher) have pushed for those in Topics on 5.1

I suppose that is the problem. Quite a few posters over time have expressed a desire for many/all/some of the 3.9.x options in the "Vote for upcoming FDM 5 features" and in FDM 5.1 this Topic but have not (or those without a Google account could not) add their wishes directly to the Voting Forum. The problem with Options being displayed and "Other" for everything else people tend to respond to clear options they can see, rather than thinking deeper what they'd like to add in "Other"

I must admit I have for a long time mistakenly assumed the migrating of 3.9.x options would be an automatic early decision by the Dev. Team (unless impossible in a cross platform app) based on a logic of IF LIKED AND USED by many in 3.9.x then will be liked/wanted by most of those wishing to upgrade to 5.1.

Additionally, if Dev. Team felt many of the options/features so long seen and liked in 3.9.were worthwhile (which made it popular Worldwide) why aren't those same features and options not felt very high priority and desirable in the major upgrade which is 5.1.

Maybe many 3.9.7 Users are not planning to switch to 5.1 whilst the Dev. Team continues to support it, which maybe explains thge lack of interest on this.

:) Anyway Clive I really appreciate your time in replying to my enquires.

Regretfully without migration of options and features I always have used in 3.9.x, any time soon (if ever) I do not see me being able to consider upgrade to 5.1

Kind regards

I don't found convert youtube videos to mp3. It's normal?

Just downloaded the v5.1.24 build 5803 and so far here is what I got.

- Overall the FDM 5.1 seems quite stable and ready for day to day use
- New video downloader bar design, would love a smaller version with just logo and FDM written

--- Things Dev Should Know About ---

- I tried downloading video while FDM was closed and it seems FDM did not catch the video nor did it start itself up
- Still the copy link from clipboard does not work if the links are only separated by space, instead of being in individual lines
- No option to add or remove Trackers for torrent
- Regardless of what ever I do, the maximum number of connection for normal downloads is 10 and Youtube video is 2


--- Implementable Features ---

- Show download info window (instead of main GUI) has 15.9% of total votes
- Assign a virus scanner to scan each downloaded file has 13.1% of total votes. Should allow users to execute command lines for scanning files. Most antivirus has a help site for the command lines
- Site explorer (download a local copy of a website) has 10.1% of total votes. Would be nice if Web Grabber accompanied it. Web Grabber is one of my favorite Feature
- Save download speed statistics has 3.6% of total votes. Is a pretty neat feature. Should not be that hard to make it work


All those things being reported, I would like to state that I really appreciate what the people behind FDM is doing. Yes, it would have been wiser to just migrate all those features from the older version to the newer one and yes the overall process has been slow. However, I still appreciate what they are doing and hope they can quickly make FDM better then IDM and the older version.

todo wrote:I don't found convert youtube videos to mp3. It's normal?

Seems like FDM can download videos in audio m4a and webm format.