Slyck.com
 
Slyck Chatbox - And More

µTorrent Joins the BitTorrent Herd

Discuss Slyck's latest news
Forum rules
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Slyck Forum Rules

Postby dev-random » Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:14 am

The maker claims it has no spyware/adware, but I haven't seen any independent confirmation that it's trustworthy.

It seems to be both closed-source and free. This is a combination that makes me suspicious. Projects that get by on donations are usually open-source. Maybe there is some other revenue source.

It may be too small to contain much conventional malware. However, it could download something else, or transmit data to some party other than torrent participants.
dev-random
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 1:03 pm

Postby Assyrian » Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:24 am

people cant make free closed-source bt clients these days?
away.
User avatar
Assyrian
The King
 
Posts: 4822
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 4:00 am
Location: Sydney, OZ

Postby resueman » Sun Oct 09, 2005 4:51 am

oink pink palace banned utorrent
resueman
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:51 am

Postby Assyrian » Sun Oct 09, 2005 5:25 am

they unbanned it.
away.
User avatar
Assyrian
The King
 
Posts: 4822
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 4:00 am
Location: Sydney, OZ

Postby no_dammagE » Sun Oct 09, 2005 6:03 am

Azureus' major downfall is its java-based core which requires a significant amount of computer resources in order to run stable


That's so fucking untrue that that Azureus downfall is java core and that it requires resources to run stable. It is not java's fault that Azureus requires to much resources - it is the fact that the GUI is slow. While on Windows SWT works flawlessly, other widget sets for example GTK had to be penetrated to work the same was as intended.

That's the downfall - and that's not java's fault. Damn, SWT has been implemented using native code and that is C/C++ (I don't know which one actually).

I can't hear that java is slow myth any more - that is true for java<1.4 in a lot of cases, but since 1.4 not anymore. In a lot of cases java is faster than native C code. For example you might want to check osnews.com, they have an interesting article regarding java performance.

The only thing which is still true is that every java application requires more RAM and a bit more startup time (since the java virtual machine has to be started and dumped into RAM), but it isn't a problem for old hardware, too.

Damn, if java had been so slow, why so much resource-critical software is implemented and running in it?

Remember: your applications is as fast as you want to be it fast (you=programmer). Don't blame java/python/C/pascal/algol/fortran/whatever for being slow.

That was critics from my side, now the honey side: the article was a great read!(except that quote)
Windows? Blah. Linux? Blah. BSD? Blah.
Just make sure you have a computer licence and I can open your fsckin files.
Vorbis | Theora | LaTeX | OpenDocument
User avatar
no_dammagE
 
Posts: 652
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2003 9:37 am

Postby Overnet User » Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:39 am

we need a searchable client. Does anyone know if this one has a search feature? I would like to know what files are out there via the client to just click on them to dl.
User avatar
Overnet User
 
Posts: 2294
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 6:27 pm
Location: Ed2k/Bittorrent

Postby Draco888 » Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:59 am

Assyrian wrote:to those saying "downloads slow"

http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/818/torrent2lq.jpg

thats downloading of a private tracker. remember, it mostly depends on the seeds/peers

i've hit the 600kbps+ (same as i used to get on BitTornado)

we're on AZ only 400kbps+


So ? I run the latest CVS version of AZU ( an update every workingday btw !!!) , I tweaked the client, uninstalled all previous versions of java, and installed the latest version 1.5.
I get speeds close to 300 kiloBYTE/s on a big torrent, and on so/so torrent 80-140 kilobyte/s.


People should learn to properly setup azu (and java) first before starting to complain.
Sure I have a p4-2.8ghz with 1.5 ghz ram. but still.
Once azu is running I notice almost no drain in resources.

And to those complaining azu is noob-unfriendly : the new CVS has the option to choose between amateur,intermediate and advanced mode.

So many "problems" with azu can be reduced to the java . .
- uninstalled previous versions (Java doesnt auto-uninstall) running simultanious
- too old versions : java got a whooole lot lighter on ram and cpu since 1.4, and 1.5

People should make it a point of making ppl aware of these two simple things before running or blaming azu.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die."
User avatar
Draco888
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 7:29 am
Location: In the darkest Corners of the Human Mind

Postby dogster » Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:40 pm

Very little memory used and seems to have adequate
features.As for speeds,as good as any client IMHO
Took about 60-90secs to get up to 300kB/s+..although the S/S is from a private tracker. :wink:

Image
dogster
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 3:21 am

Postby coleisgone » Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:08 pm

I've been using for about 2 weeks now and i have to say it's a rather nice little client, good to the resources, Version 1.1.2 used to sit around 02 CPU and 7mb RAM, Version 1.1.3 sits around 14mb RAM usage which is still beter than Azureus and Bitcomet which on my machine usually sat around the 56MB mark, it's also great for those that have problems browsing and using messenger programs with other clients

I am puzzled to hear that some private sites [fatalbits] have banned this client, don't know if it's the same reason oink did or another reason?
coleisgone
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 4:07 pm

Postby IceCube » Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:19 pm

I hope people don't assume that it's the client that dictates how fast you download a file because it's the swarm that limits your speed. A one seed swarm is still a one seed swarm and no client can make it go faster if the down speeds suck.
User avatar
IceCube
 
Posts: 17079
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:31 pm
Location: Igloo Country?

Postby napho » Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:10 pm

If uTorrent adds DHT and a disk cache it'll be bigger and use more resources. BitComet seems to have lots of features and reasonable resource use.


Overnet User

"we need a searchable client. Does anyone know if this one has a search feature? I would like to know what files are out there via the client to just click on them to dl."


ZipTorrent is big on that.

http://www.download.com/ZipTorrent/3000 ... 28986.html
User avatar
napho
 
Posts: 497
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2003 3:31 am
Location: The Great White North

Postby resueman » Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:16 pm

does it have a rss feature that will download torrents matching criteria?
resueman
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:51 am

Postby ftcnt » Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:33 pm

it's perfect for my old machine. running 950mhz windows xp. 89kb footprint works well for me. its basically the client ive been waiting for and now can use. the scheduler is a plus as i can time it when to download what during the week as im often not at this computer
ftcnt
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:58 am

Postby Kenrin » Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:40 pm

needs to go open source so other people can help add more features >.<
User avatar
Kenrin
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 7:02 pm

Postby Assyrian » Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:01 pm

Kenrin wrote:needs to go open source so other people can help add more features >.<


why not just go to their forums and help them out?
away.
User avatar
Assyrian
The King
 
Posts: 4822
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 4:00 am
Location: Sydney, OZ

Postby KTetch » Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:55 pm

LANjackal wrote:On the other hand, it's SLOW compared to BitComet by a factor of at least 2 (on the torrent that I tested it on). And yes the test was as fair as I could possibly make it. I started the torrent in uTorrent, ran it for a while, then stopped it. I then immediately started the same torrent in BitComet with the file saved to a different location (so that BitComet would be forced to start the download from scratch). Uploading also seems to be a problem.


Obviously you don't understand as much as you think you do.

Unless you're connecting to the exact same peers, at that same completion point as the client you just disconnected with, the speeds will obviously be different. Different peers, they will not have the same connection speeds, maybe you'll get people mainly on home DSL lines, instead of that guy at the local uni. Starting again also means you're an unattractive peer to upload to, since you've not uploaded to that client, so you have to start again. perhaps smoe distance/completion plotting might work this out, but again, you're varience is based on the now differing completion of the epers you're connected to, and in turn the peers THEY are connected to (if you don't have a aprt they need, you can't upload to them, can't upload to them, and they will upload in preference to others that have)

As you can therefore see, your basic premise, that the client is slow, based on a supposedly fair test, is rubbish. Trust me, this exact kind of benchmarking is something I've been trying to work out for about 18 months. Short of a large field of systems all under my control, (say 60 peers, at various resettable rates, on a purpose made torrent) its not possible. REkmember, to make it a fair repeatable and thus comparisonable test, everything but one variable must be changed, the client in this case. You've not kept the peers the same, (and thus their connection speeds0 or their completion or those of the ones they're connected to etc.)

Again, you can't make assertions like this, its not not possible.
User avatar
KTetch
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 12:55 pm

Postby thejynxed » Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:19 am

All I know is, that I boot weird clients off of my peers list in AZ. Mainline? Booted. uTorrent, booted. Shareaza, DEFINATELY booted (if for the leeching problem if nothing else). Basically, if it doesn't say AZ, ABC, Bit Tornado or the original BT client, it gets booted and banned (along with any peers from the USA, because god only knows if they are the Feds or not). I just don't trust unknown (to me) software connecting to my machine in any way. Maybe a few months down the road if those apps prove more trustworthy I will allow them to connect.

BTW, anyone notice that USA peers seem to leech alot? Hell, I am from the USA and even notice this...I get better swarm rates with peers from the UK, Germany, Canada, Greece, etc than I do from peers in my own country, but like I said, I boot USA peers off anymore, too risky.
"FlickR is supposed to be weird, fun, experimental, way out-there -- oh no, wait, now that it's so close to being part of Microsoft, FlickR's supposed to bore people to death and empty their pockets while pretending to innovate." - Bruce Sterling
thejynxed
 
Posts: 1953
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 12:22 pm
Location: In a Galaxy Far, Far Away....

Postby LANjackal » Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:15 am

KTetch wrote:Trust me, this exact kind of benchmarking is something I've been trying to work out for about 18 months. Short of a large field of systems all under my control, (say 60 peers, at various resettable rates, on a purpose made torrent) its not possible. REkmember, to make it a fair repeatable and thus comparisonable test, everything but one variable must be changed, the client in this case. You've not kept the peers the same, (and thus their connection speeds0 or their completion or those of the ones they're connected to etc.)


Good point, but it was the best I could do to make some sort of comparison. Unfortunately, as you say above, the best I could do wasn't very good at all.

Bottom line is that I had to make a decision as to which client to use, and that was basically the only benchmarking I could do *shrugs*. It sucks, but that's really the only thing I can go on. If you have a better idea, I'm all ears, really.
Follow me around the internet!
[Windows 7 Pro x64 (Primary OS)
User avatar
LANjackal
 
Posts: 5895
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 1:58 pm
Location: Various networks. In the physical world I'm an adaptive AI that pretends to be human

Postby bkman » Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:24 am

thejynxed wrote:All I know is, that I boot weird clients off of my peers list in AZ. Mainline? Booted. uTorrent, booted. Shareaza, DEFINATELY booted (if for the leeching problem if nothing else). Basically, if it doesn't say AZ, ABC, Bit Tornado or the original BT client, it gets booted and banned (along with any peers from the USA, because god only knows if they are the Feds or not). I just don't trust unknown (to me) software connecting to my machine in any way. Maybe a few months down the road if those apps prove more trustworthy I will allow them to connect.


That is a very ignorant attitude to have. And Mainline IS the original BT client, btw.
Last edited by bkman on Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
bkman
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 1:24 am

Postby bkman » Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:29 am

KTetch wrote:Trust me, this exact kind of benchmarking is something I've been trying to work out for about 18 months. Short of a large field of systems all under my control, (say 60 peers, at various resettable rates, on a purpose made torrent) its not possible. REkmember, to make it a fair repeatable and thus comparisonable test, everything but one variable must be changed, the client in this case. You've not kept the peers the same, (and thus their connection speeds0 or their completion or those of the ones they're connected to etc.)


Actually, I was also thinking about this. It should be possible to write software that is essentially a simulation environment for bittorrent, that would set up virtual peers in a set co-ordination for any BT client to interact with and thereby guage its speed. Its just an idea at this stage, however. :wink:

In the meantime, you can get a roundabout idea of different client performance by retrying an arbitrary test with an arbitrary swarm, and comparing the trends that different clients seem to follow (and they often distinctly do).
User avatar
bkman
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 1:24 am

Postby LANjackal » Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:20 am

bkman wrote:In the meantime, you can get a roundabout idea of different client performance by retrying an arbitrary test with an arbitrary swarm, and comparing the trends that different clients seem to follow (and they often distinctly do).


I tried to do an quick version of the above, and Ktech went town on me for it :cry: :wink:. I'm so depressed.
Follow me around the internet!
[Windows 7 Pro x64 (Primary OS)
User avatar
LANjackal
 
Posts: 5895
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 1:58 pm
Location: Various networks. In the physical world I'm an adaptive AI that pretends to be human

Postby asellus » Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:06 am

no_dammagE wrote:
Azureus' major downfall is its java-based core which requires a significant amount of computer resources in order to run stable


That's so fucking untrue that that Azureus downfall is java core and that it requires resources to run stable. It is not java's fault that Azureus requires to much resources - it is the fact that the GUI is slow. While on Windows SWT works flawlessly, other widget sets for example GTK had to be penetrated to work the same was as intended.

That's the downfall - and that's not java's fault. Damn, SWT has been implemented using native code and that is C/C++ (I don't know which one actually).

I can't hear that java is slow myth any more - that is true for java<1.4 in a lot of cases, but since 1.4 not anymore. In a lot of cases java is faster than native C code. For example you might want to check osnews.com, they have an interesting article regarding java performance.

The only thing which is still true is that every java application requires more RAM and a bit more startup time (since the java virtual machine has to be started and dumped into RAM), but it isn't a problem for old hardware, too.

Damn, if java had been so slow, why so much resource-critical software is implemented and running in it?

Remember: your applications is as fast as you want to be it fast (you=programmer). Don't blame java/python/C/pascal/algol/fortran/whatever for being slow.

That was critics from my side, now the honey side: the article was a great read!(except that quote)


Can you then explain why Azureus will want javaw.exe to consume 100+MB of RAM just running about 3 torrents? With BitComet it will be around 50++MB while with utorrentis only 4-6MB (even running with 15 torrents or so). Azureus is a good example how slow a Java application can be compared to, well, programs written with other languages like C++.

And Java is faster than C++? Don't give me the laugh. If that really the case why we don't see games like Half-Life 2 or Quake 4 being written in Java? Certainly PC games will benefit from the faster speed of Java if what you said is really true. Fact is, Java is slower and bloated than C++/C.

About mission-critical software, can you then explain why many are moving away from Java to some other equally-as-reliable-but-much-faster platforms. For example, my bank online website used to use Java as their back-end software. But now they migrates to the Linux platform (although they still use Sun's hardware). Banking is about as mission-critical as you can get, and I know more cases like that happened.

And lastly, about all computer languages has the same speedand all depends on the programmer, I can safely say that it is not true. Some languages are just plain slow (like VB and of course Java - VB>Java though). No matter how skillful a programmer is, language the programmer picks will largely determine how fast a program can be. For example, unless you are God or something, programs written on Java will never be as fast as the same program written with ASM. Never. Hello World is not counted.
asellus
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:52 pm

Postby thejynxed » Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:49 pm

Java is slow and and any apps based on it are resource hogs period. Hence why many devs are moving to C# and other languages.

Mainline BT client. No wonder I boot it, it sucks. Not to mention if you click the news link on the official BitTorrent homepage, it uses...MySearch. Now, if that guy is stupid enough to use a known spyware company to host his search functions, his client DESERVES to be banned.
"FlickR is supposed to be weird, fun, experimental, way out-there -- oh no, wait, now that it's so close to being part of Microsoft, FlickR's supposed to bore people to death and empty their pockets while pretending to innovate." - Bruce Sterling
thejynxed
 
Posts: 1953
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 12:22 pm
Location: In a Galaxy Far, Far Away....

Postby Charles » Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:04 pm

About the java performance, you guys might wan to look at http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=12169

Java is here to stay. Easy dev and cross-platorms are two main features. And while Swing GUIs are slow and cumbersome to write, core java code is very fast.
Multinetwork apps are good for making every network they connect to less efficient. I think I hate them ;)
User avatar
Charles
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 8:04 pm

Postby bkman » Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:06 pm

thejynxed wrote:Mainline BT client. No wonder I boot it, it sucks. Not to mention if you click the news link on the official BitTorrent homepage, it uses...MySearch. Now, if that guy is stupid enough to use a known spyware company to host his search functions, his client DESERVES to be banned.


He created the effing protocol. :roll:
User avatar
bkman
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 1:24 am

PreviousNext

Return to Slyck News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

© 2001-2008 Slyck.com