Slyck.com
 
Slyck Chatbox - And More

Mac µTorrent: Smaller, Faster than Azureus?

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

Mac µTorrent: Smaller, Faster than Azureus?

Postby SlyckTom » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:28 pm

µTorrent has shown itself to be one of the most popular BitTorrent clients available, outpacing the competition in low memory and CPU consumption. Although shorter on features than its chief competitor, Azureus, µTorrent’s lightweight characteristics helped propel this client to near instant stardom. Sound great, as long as you’re using a PC.

When it comes to P2P, Mac uses have historically had fewer choices. They were largely overlooked during the days of FastTrack and Napster; however the days of Gnutella and BitTorrent have been kinder. LimeWire and Azureus, both Java-based applications, ensure cross platform compatibility and enjoy considerable popularity within both Mac and PC crowds.

µTorrent has proven that lightweight applications are in high demand. Transmission, a BitTorrent client designed for Linux, BEOS and Mac, has also capitalized on this high demand and in the process become one of the most popular alternative OS clients. But in a crowded P2P market, isn’t there always room for another client?

News <a href=http://torrentfreak.com/utorrent-for-mac-is-coming-an-early-review/ target=_blank>leaked</a> last month that µTorrent for the Mac OS was in beta testing. Since µTorrent was bought by BitTorrent, Inc., in December of 2006, the company has been working feverishly to bring this client to the Mac environment. The competition in the Mac environment is already tough; Azurues, Transmission and xTorrent all rule the roost. If µTorrent wants to make an impact, it has to bring the same attributes it did when it hit the Windows environment in 2005.

Slyck was anonymously given a statistical comparison of the Mac µTorrent with the Mac Azureus from a source close to the development. The stats reveal the maximum/average download rate and resources dedicated to memory and CPU consumption.

<b>Azureus/Vuze Macintosh</b>
Max Rate Seen: 297 KB/s
Average Rate: 235 KB/s
Consumed RAM: 155 MB
Average CPU: 20%

<b>µTorrent Macintosh</b>
Max Rate Seen: 840KB/s
Average Rate: 698 KB/s
Consumed RAM: 14 MB
Average CPU: 6%

If these numbers are correct, it shows that µTorrent is not only significantly faster, but also much less resource hungry than Azureus. Slyck.com talked to Azureus’ CEO Gilles BianRosa, who disputed the validity of the findings - especially the download speeds.

“We are not aware of any such stats, and clearly would doubt their validity. BitTorrent is a standard, and clients have, by design, limited ways to optimize transfer speeds. We have implemented features to optimize "around" the protocol, such as PeerExchange, but getting such wide variations without "bastardizing" the protocol beyond recognition (and making it not compliant/compatible in the process) make these numbers look VERY suspicious, if not ridiculous.”

“People should choose BitTorrent clients based on their feature set. On a similar note, although internet browsers claim to be faster than others, who actually can notice the difference? Again, features and ease of use is what make the difference”

According to our source, the test was conducted via the Vuze portal by downloading an identical Transformers HD trailer. The download speeds do appear extraordinary, however this could be attributable to the fact that µTorrent coexists with the mainline DHT network overlay. Azureus maintains its own DHT network overylay, which is smaller. Additionally, the torrent in question likely has an excessive number of seeders and peers, leading to a plethora of download sources. This coupled with the large number of mainline DHT users could explain the high download speeds. Such an advantage may not be so easy to obtain with more conventional material.

Without an official release of the Mac µTorrent, it’s difficult to verify the numbers provided. But they hold a fascinating insight into what might be just around the corner.
Follow us on Twitter @SlyckDotCom
Join our Facebook Fan page
SlyckTom
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New York City

Postby CptAmerica » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:58 pm

this is interesting stuff. hopefully it means that a Linux version of µtorrent is also soon to come *crosses fingers*
CptAmerica
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:58 am

Postby wolf202 » Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:41 pm

those numbers are complete BS and I'm a µtorrent fan
User avatar
wolf202
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 6:42 pm

Postby SlyckTom » Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:51 pm

I hope that more utorrent/mac users respond...unfortunately I don't that demographic is very big, but we'll see.
Follow us on Twitter @SlyckDotCom
Join our Facebook Fan page
SlyckTom
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New York City

Lies, damned lies and statistics

Postby bugnotme » Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:53 pm

The difference in download rate is absurd. The tests are obviously not controlled and can be influenced by various variables (e.g. which peers are randomly selected, peers available, etc). The use of Mainline DHT doesn't explain it because Mainline DHT is an alternative to the tracker (it is not used in conjunction, but only in case of tracker failure). Azureus DHT *is* used in conjunction with the tracker so you would expect the opposite results (assuming the tracker is online).

RAM usage reported by the OS is meaningless (it is not the actual amount of RAM that is exclusively 'used' by the application).
bugnotme
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:36 am

Postby Repzak » Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:10 pm

While I agree that the speed differences are riduclous I must dispute your claim that RAM usage is meaningless. It's most certainly not - and neither is the CPU usage.

As for whether the RAM usage is reported correctly - I'm no expert on MacOS, but while it's possible to use "hidden" resources in most OS'es it's a rare thing to do, and in general the usage reported by the OS DOES give at least a very good indication of the efficiency of an app.
Repzak
 
Posts: 381
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 9:34 am

Postby who_me » Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:40 pm

one thing that isnt disputable is the fact that azureus is a resource whore. :roll:
ADVERTISING SPACE
FOR SALE.
who_me
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 6:49 am

Postby hellrabbit » Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:48 pm

As I understand it, speed comparisions are virtually impossible to do in a controlled way.

Another important point is that utorrent is closed source. The ridiculous reasons for not opening it and other statements, about open source in general, made by the author does not inspire confidence.

Anyone who trusts a closed source file sharing program is, IMHO, a fool. Still, being one is not illegal...

As for Linux, I doubt utorrent is going to be a big hit unless it's opened. Linux users tend to be a little more sensitive to such things.

[Edit: Grammar.]
I only bite if you ask me to.
hellrabbit
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 2:02 pm
Location: Faydwer

Postby ignorantcow » Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:53 pm

hellrabbit wrote:As for Linux, I doubt utorrent is going to be a big hit unless it's opened. Linux users tend to be a little more sensitive to such things.

There isn't any plans to port it to Linux any time soon, anyway.
ignorantcow
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 12:57 am

Postby krawkie » Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:11 pm

µTorrent smaller and faster than Azureus? No way! :P
krawkie
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:54 pm

Postby ta2 » Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:13 pm

wolf202 wrote:those numbers are complete BS and I'm a µtorrent fan


Ditto.
ta2
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 6:06 pm

Postby xforce » Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:54 pm

question: who cares? yay for mac users, but seriously why the hell would you download anything using a mac?
xforce
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 11:21 pm

Postby CptAmerica » Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:01 am

ignorantcow wrote:There isn't any plans to port it to Linux any time soon, anyway.


Thats not what the website says. Where did you hear that?

As for Linux, I doubt utorrent is going to be a big hit unless it's opened. Linux users tend to be a little more sensitive to such things.


You would be amazed at the number of lunix users already using µtorrent through Wine, and just waiting for it to be ported to a native version.
CptAmerica
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:58 am

Postby SwordOfZork » Fri Jul 13, 2007 3:18 am

CptAmerica wrote:
As for Linux, I doubt utorrent is going to be a big hit unless it's opened. Linux users tend to be a little more sensitive to such things.


You would be amazed at the number of lunix users already using µtorrent through Wine, and just waiting for it to be ported to a native version.


Yeah, thats what I hear from the few linux users I know. They're either running uTorrent through Wine, or Azureus.
User avatar
SwordOfZork
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:53 pm

Postby elf » Fri Jul 13, 2007 6:46 am

are there any mods for this?
elf
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:07 pm

Postby IceCube » Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:23 pm

For uTorrent, there can only be hacks.

It's my understanding that mods are made via opensource (hence "modification") whereas a closed source client like uTorrent, you can't modify the code because the source code is not (legally) available. Therefore, if one were to want to make any changes to the client, a likely way is to reverse engineer the client instead (thus, only hacks can exist)

Azureus, on the other hand, is open source, so there's quite likely mods for it (I'm not familiar with any of them though)
User avatar
IceCube
 
Posts: 17079
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:31 pm
Location: Igloo Country?

Postby BenJones » Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:26 pm

CptAmerica wrote:
ignorantcow wrote:There isn't any plans to port it to Linux any time soon, anyway.


Thats not what the website says. Where did you hear that?


Probably the same place I did - from the developers themselves - go ask in their support channel even, you'll get the same info

IceCube wrote:Azureus, on the other hand, is open source, so there's quite likely mods for it (I'm not familiar with any of them though)

Oh, there's lots of them, and not all good. There are some that turn on DHT even with the privicay flag on (you know, that thing everyone was up in arms about with bitcomet), there's ones to fudge your data transfer to the tracker (v usefull on ratio sites), hell, if there isn't a 'plugin' used to automatically log IPs on a torrent, for use by Anti-P2P companies, I'll be very surprised. All thanks to open source, and plugins.

Remind me again why no-one bitches about this? Oh yeah, its 'open source' you can only do bad things with closed source clients, as *everyone* knows.
BenJones
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:32 pm

Postby MrFredPFL » Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:37 pm

thanks for the refreshing perspective about open and closed source, ben. much appreciated :)
MrFredPFL
 
Posts: 15709
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 4:48 pm

Postby CptAmerica » Sat Jul 14, 2007 1:16 am

Probably the same place I did - from the developers themselves


Oh, i didnt know that you had direct contact with the development team over at BitTorrent. My bad...
:lol:
CptAmerica
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:58 am

Postby IceCube » Sat Jul 14, 2007 1:32 am

BenJones wrote:its 'open source' you can only do bad things with closed source clients, as *everyone* knows.


Hiding something in an open source project is a little tougher than in a closed source project.

There's, admittedly, similar problems with eMule clients (ala leech clients) which is why there is an anti-leech feature that is very actively being developed on. I have to say, the users on ED2K are very good at finding all the bad clients and banning them, even the "cloaked" ones.

Of course, this whole debate usually boils down to what client you like better, and you are free to pick whatever client you want to use. It's, of course, the internet.

While I'm personally an Azureus fan, I'm happy there is a movement to get uTorrent on a Mac. That really means that Mac users will get to have a larger selection (by at least one) of clients to choose from and obviously, uTorrent has its fans as well.
User avatar
IceCube
 
Posts: 17079
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:31 pm
Location: Igloo Country?

Postby kennyg101 » Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:38 am

The speed comparisons are absolute shite in that report. I cannpt see any purpose at all in including them apart from stringing the story out.
Azureus uses way too many resources. I joined the blue frog back when the client first came out and kept with it for years, but once I moved to utorrent I suddenly had my computer back.

As for the open source closed source balloney. Lets be honest, it is more than likely that utorrent is just a highly sophisticated way of the MPAA getting into our computers in order to gather information about our theiving habits before they finally prosecute the whole BT community in a massive series of court cases leading to the wholesale seizure of filesharers homes resulting in the MPAA becoming the worls richest corporate body.
In the meantime,I quite enjoy utorrents ease of use.
kennyg101
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:19 pm


Return to Slyck News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2001-2008 Slyck.com