Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BitTorrent Clients Reviewed

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the still-looking-for-the-anti-leech-device dept.

prostoalex writes "PC Magazine is running a review of several popular BitTorrent clients. They review uTorrent, an app that 'packs an outstanding array of features in 107KB, and doesn't even create a folder in your Program Files' and give it 4.5 stars. BitTorrent Client from BitTorrent.com, 'whose clean interface has three basic elements: a large progress bar for each torrent you're working on, a slider that controls your maximum upload rate, and a link to the BitTorrent Search engine', gets 4 stars. BitPump 'features an attractive interface that sacrifices a detailed feature set for BitTorrent tweakers in favor of simplicity and ease of use' and gets 4 stars. Finally, Azureus, 'a favorite with advanced users, who enjoy its plug-in system and huge range of tweakable settings', gets 4.5 stars. An interview with Bram Cohen from BitTorrent is available as well."

4 of 484 comments (clear)

  1. Eeeeeyyyyyyy, Azureus! by Orrin+Bloquy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Selectively remove unneeded files from an archive? Sweet.

    --
    "Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on /. and I must look smart."
    1. Re:Eeeeeyyyyyyy, Azureus! by kuzb · · Score: 5, Informative

      uTorrent does this as well (when you have a torrent selected, in the lower pane, select the "file" view, and right-click on any file), is smaller, lighter, easier on system resources, and has no additional dependancies.

      I don't understand why people use Azureus on Windows anymore, uTorrent is far superior to it. Someone should make a uTorrent clone for Linux so we can escape this plauge they call Azureus.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
  2. One little problem: by thepotoo · · Score: 5, Informative
    Azureus is a real RAM hog. I'm not trolling here, I used it for a while (still do on my linux computers), but a java app that eats half your RAM while you download something?
    Yuck.

    I use Bitcomet now instead whenever possible. Sure it's not geek-friendly (no linux support), but it offers the same stuff as Azureus (that's file selection, advanced options) at a lot less RAM and CPU usage.
    I am dissapointed not to see it reviewed here.

    --
    Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
  3. Re:BitComet anyone? by Cramer · · Score: 5, Informative

    DHT networking is a truly peer to peer protocol meaning you are slightly safer with your illegal downloading from the aut[h]orities.

    WRONG!!!! In order for you to download content, you must be able to find other peers. And likewise, other peers must be able to find you. DHT does not magically make this requirement disappear. It's actually easier to find peers within DHT because there's no restrictions on accessing the swarm. With a private tracker, one must access that tracker to find the peers within the swarm. With DHT, anyone can find the peers for a swarm. DHT is more easily monitored making it much more dangerous.

    The entire problem with BitComet was it's turning to DHT when the tracker was unavailable despite the torrent being marked as private. Some may call that a bug. But those that know bitvomit will suspect it was intentional...

    You are completely mistaken about the reasons for a private tracker... illegal content is just as easily found on public trackers as well. The motive for a private tracker is fostering a community where people give back instead of take, take, take, and take some more. Remember suprnova, where there were swarms with thousands of peers yet the best anyone could download was a few kbps? Yet even on small "private"[*] trackers where swarms are just a few dozen peers (at best) download speeds were hundreds of kbps.

    [*] "private" as in "registration required", but anyone can signup