Talk:QuickPar

Unlabeled

"QuickPar is rather buggy. The app fails to repair the files that have been damaged. Usually several runs need to be performed to get it right. Tech Support will always blame the users hardware even if you are running a mission critical workstation that passes all known stress test and the machine remains in use 24/7.

The best and only hope appears to be using the command line tool instead."

Using it since years. Never expierenced any problems. Don't blame them.

It's great that quickpar works good for you but others are having some trouble with it and the command line tool seems to be the best option. This information is crucial to people who are having trouble getting a large file to repair and are getting frustrated.
The bug I run into most is the one that par tells me the repair failed and the rars did not verify. This is a false negative because I can open the rars and extract the file and it will match the source md5. I have repeated this test numerous times and it occurs most of the time.

It would be helpful if bugreports -like the above- would be a bit more scientific. E.g. mentioning version number etc. How long ago is this? What are the steps to reproduce? Be more specific.

Reliability

• Supposed issues with relibaility and bugs have no source sited. Problems with QuickPar failing to repair a volume have always come down to bad hardware (specifically RAM) in my personal experience. Also claims about tech support are superfluous since QuickPar has no official tech support. As the article notes, no one "takes responsibility" (whatever that means) because QuickPar offers no warranty of any kind. Ryan Hobrock 18:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• QuickPar is the program most reliant on perfectly working hardware that I know of. I personally use it to test the stability of my computer when I overclock. It will fail earlier than any of the programs normally used for hardware testing (Mersenne Prime, memtest86). There used to be a bug where certain combinations of recovery packages would cause it to fail. This has been fixed, however, and in any case it would fail every time. If it sometimes fails and sometimes succeeds on the same files, it is most likely a hardware problem.195.159.43.66 14:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please limit conversations to the article in question, this is not a general forum. Thanx. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 15:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• I found this in the program release notes, which may explain the supposed problems: Yenc PowerPost 2000 A&A version 10A creates .par and .par2 files with invalid MD5 Hash values. When QuickPar tries to use them to verify the associated data files, some of the data files may be reported as invalid when they are not damaged. Such files will still be reported as damaged after a repair attempt.
  I changed the page to a much milder warning. If someone wants to revert it back, references might be useful. ehudshapira 01:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Please provide a cite (other than a personal anecdote) of unreliable operation or this section needs to be removed. Alvis 07:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:QuickPar.png

Image:QuickPar.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)