[µTorrent 3.0 (32-bit) Stable Release]

ajitesh_m - What's your line speed on your internet connection?

Also what speeds do you obtain when torrenting?

[µTorrent 3.0 (32-bit) Stable Release]

May I quickly jump in and say:

200 windows explorer windows open when you select 200 torrents and

hit <ENTER> http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php … 66#p587866

Is a joke.

You can't code for user stupidity :\ Otherwise you will have to pop 50 pop up boxes.. "Are you sure you want to keep downloading this torrent?" "How about now?"

[µTorrent 3.0 (32-bit) Stable Release]

Only with Bitcomet?

[µTorrent 3.0 (32-bit) Stable Release]

There's no hook for triple clicking.

Try clicking once, Ctrl + A.

[µTorrent 3.0 (32-bit) Stable Release]

features is not a good thing. I personally go for fast and efficient, that is why I choose uTorrent.

I would suggest that make those extra features as an addon or extension whatever you call, and allow users easily customize with those features.

it sorted and IMHO I think it's the best way. I like seeing the peers which matter most to me (the ones that have the data I want), and the best way to do that is to keep them near the top of the list. I've grown accustomed to having it sorted this way and I think it makes the most sense to make it the default sorting order. Though you may not agree with me, I'm sure everyone can at least agree that sorting by IP doesn't make much sense at all. But really, this is not that important because it's something that can easily be customized.

I think the developers should focus instead on the more important issues.

It's not quite that easy.

Also, I think for the feature set added, uTorrent is capable of remaining extremely light. It just needs more time to mature.

...I think the developers should focus instead on the more important issues.

Yeah' date=' and not on just GUI issues... [/quote']

Back to the old command line we go

[µTorrent 3.0 (32-bit) Stable Release]

I hope this is the right place to ask - i did look in the FAQ.

Seems like with the 3.0 betas i've installed, i suddenly see my peer count zeroing out in days after a complete DL in all but a few of my loaded torrents (in seeding mode). In 2.x, I almost always had at least some activity in like 13 or 14 out of 15 seeding torrents. In 3.0, it's zeros in like 10 of 15.

Plus my peer count now seems to never match the peer count listed on the torrent page for torrents I'm downloading. Right now I'm DLing a torrent that's supposed to have 8 seeders and no leechers, but my peers tally is showing 0 (2).

I have the green check all the time, and I see nothing actually slowing my torrents, other than a smaller swarm than I think I'm supposed to enjoy.

Is this a settings issue? If there is FAQ info on this, I'd love to find it. I've been using 2.x betas for a couple of years - i feel like I should be able to fix this, but can't.

Thx

That would be because when you are finished downloading, you are uploading. When you are uploading, you don't need to upload to other people that have already finished downloading (a.k.a. Seeders). That's why you are seeing 0 seeds.

Peer counts are updated daily at best, more often weekly. The result is the information on the website is out of date.

I agree with you here. My speeds have been sub par since the 3.0 builds.

[µTorrent 3.0 (32-bit) Stable Release]

ou known what really gets problems fixed quickly? Red. You, sir are a genius.

Bahahaha.. Getting sick of it hey?

I have been seeing some unacceptable behaviour on the forums lately.

Here are some examples of behaviour that is counterproductive for you, and may result in a permanent ban:

Whining

Threats

Foul language

Insults

Breaking other forum rules

These forums are for all users. Use your head.

Although I in NO WAY endorse or agree with the behaviour of the users taking a swipe at you and your development team; they are reacting to the software you have delivered.

They are bitching and moaning (again, I don't agree with it) and being met with very little in response (to their unreasonable approach). Add to this that uTorrent has progressed to RC3 with a collection of bugs still present and various issues unanswered that even die hard fans are starting to question the wisdom of their loyalty.

I've been on these forums for a long time. I do lots of reading and (until recently) not much writing.

Although I know this isn't the case; it appears as though you do not care about users points of view. You are (justifiably) ignoring the ignoramuses, answering a percentage of the decent questions. The issue is that it APPEARS you are ignoring issues, even if you are not.

Appearance is more important then fact, especially in these kind of matters.

The great irony of all this is that the douche bags on your forums represent perhaps 50% of your forum population, and less than 0.01% of your total user base.

</condescending sophomoric rant>

[µTorrent 3.0 (32-bit) Stable Release]

Going to jump in on the health bar colour.

The orange gives the impression that something is wrong and is completely at odds to the rest of the interface.

Worth going back to green I think. Beyond that I have nothing to add

May I ask (as a sidenote) what criteria are used to decide when uTorrent moves from Beta to RC readiness? Just seems a little haphazard..

[µTorrent 3.0 (32-bit) Stable Release]

The new colours/interface are a massive improvement.

The entire interface seems unified. I like it

Slow graph response after a torrent finishes seems resolved.

Everything looks good from my reported issues, I can't test the hard drive cache thrashing currently.

[µTorrent 3.0 (32-bit) Stable Release]

What Alpha-toxic is showing there is what I was seeing on my server.

I noted insanely high read usage and just wrote it off as irrelevant because I had time constraints on my uploads. I rolled over to Bitcomet due to slow up speeds.

Server 08 R1 SP 2 x64 no anti-virus installed running Windows Firewall.

[µTorrent 3.0 (32-bit) Stable Release]

@ Bigfalls - Thanks for the info. A vast majority of us understand what you said. You are obviously going to get hit up by some of the trolls. I think so long as you keep us (the people testing your pre-release features) informed (which is something the uTorrent team aren't great at) and consider (not necessarily follow) our responses and feed back you will have a strong core user base.

Just please don't get tunnel vision with the features your adding. I think there are some good things coming, but I think you shouldn't be afraid to drop features (in the short term) that aren't sitting well with the users. Other then that, awesome

--

I have something to add relating to the interface, I'm not sure what to call this..

I currently have my uTorrent set up to seed for 60 seconds after finishing the torrent (due to having a shared connection, I re-upload during off-peak). I noted that when the seeding started, the download stayed up at a high rate for an extended period. In the case of my screenshot 12 seconds, but 30 seconds later it was still sitting 40KBps above the rate it should have been.

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd108/articuno1au/uTorrent2.png

It's a bit odd, like I said, not sure what to call it. Hopefully you can read your own speed graphs to spot what I am talking about

[µTorrent 3.0 (32-bit) Stable Release]

uTorrent 3.0 is slowly gaining a peak download speed. With bandwidth of 15 Mbps uTorrent 3.0 spends about 4-5 minutes to achieve maximum download speeds, and version 2.2.1 - 10-30 seconds on the same system with one and the same ". torrent" file. How do I fix this with customizations? Or is it a bug / feature of version 3.0?

The issue is that even with the same torrent file, you may have connected to different parts of the swarm and that explains the difference in download speeds and the rapidity with which you obtain these speeds. (It means that there is no corollary between the build and the speed issues :|)

I am inclined to agree that there are speed issues with this build. I couldn't get a server with a 100Mbps pipe above 2Mbps constant upload.

I'm lucky in that the files I download are generally exceptionally well seeded, so I haven't had to many issues overall..

[µTorrent 3.0 (32-bit) Stable Release]

I can reconfirm Meddio's post about misreporting speeds' date=' I had noticed it but thought it was just the difference with overhead. I since rechecked.

In the latest build my actual download speed issues have cleared up. Torrents are coming down at their expected rates, so I'm removing my previous report (not that I think you guys take speed reports seriously :\)

@ MacGyverek - Wow.. Just wow :\[/quote']

The problem with speed issue reports is that torrents are SO variable that differences in speed are usually just by chance.

Yeah, I completely understand. I'm a network engineer myself. I just won't report it unless I can confirm it.

I'm on an 8Mbps connection that peeks at about 800KBps. I'm not exactly a high speed downloader For speed tests I am always hitting torrents with superseeding servers or massive seed counts.

Even then I understand that who in the swarm I connect to and their current peer connections will affect their serving speed, but not to the tune of 500KBps generally >.<

That said again, you don't listen to these reports for the same reason that tech support always walk you through the idiot trouble shooting steps; if it is an idiot issue, you spend a day chasing down a non issue.

If there is client software that doesn't display the peers ip wouldn't that be a more secure way to go?

Ostrich with the head in the sand.

Bit harsh isn't it?

He is of course correct though (as per normal).

For legitimate (read: non-illegal) use of the program, the peer list can help diagnose setting and network errors.

For illegitimate (read: illegal) use of the program... well, those users don't really have the high ground to make this kind of request.

For those who simply are concerned with privacy, unfortunately for them, peer-to-peer data transfer requires IP-specific connections.

For legitimate and illegitimate users, being able to access the peer list let's you download your torrent. The protocol has to include this functionality or you can't download anything. You don't need uTorrent to collect all the peer data, there are a dozen swarm scrapers out there that will do it for you..

As a side note, since when does one need to have the moral high ground to make a feature request?

[µTorrent 3.0 (32-bit) Stable Release]

I can reconfirm Meddio's post about misreporting speeds, I had noticed it but thought it was just the difference with overhead. I since rechecked.

In the latest build my actual download speed issues have cleared up. Torrents are coming down at their expected rates, so I'm removing my previous report (not that I think you guys take speed reports seriously :\)

@ MacGyverek - Wow.. Just wow :\

[µTorrent 3.0 (32-bit) Stable Release]

I'm having serious speed issues with the last 3 builds. I can't get torrents that regularly average 800kbps+ above 300.

I've had a look through my settings and checked my connection.. Everything seems fine.

Anyone else having this issue?

EDIT::

The new build seems to be capable of pushing up to 350, which is still about 1/3 of line speed..

The torrents are all sufficiently seeded, so that's not the issue, image attached: http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd108/articuno1au/uTorrent.png

Not the horizontal lines. I've been having that for a couple of builds as well O.o

P.s. I will literally pay for your IPBoard subscription if you move to decent forum software :\ No java resizing attached images.. Oh dear..

[µTorrent 3.0 (32-bit) Stable Release]

He's not even a developer and he's apologising for it

[µTorrent 3.0 (32-bit) Stable Release]

Something strange in download graph:

bye

I noted this phenomena when I was attempting to seed box my servers.. It would peak, drop down then hold on a solid speed for a while then go back up and hold again..

It's very weird.

This build needs some love pretty badly >.<

[µTorrent 3.0 (32-bit) Stable Release]

I remain hopeful that the uTorrent team won't make the same mistake >.<

I am having significant issues with this build, but that has happened to me before during beta phases. Benefit of the doubt for now

[µTorrent 3.0 (32-bit) Stable Release]

people who have 100% of a file, to carry on upping it.  How about making uTorrent speeds up and down = each other.  So if you download at a fast speed you upload at a fast speed.  I see plenty of peers with 100%, but with hardly any speed.  I think this is very unfair.

This is a silly idea.

The obvious reason being that internet connections are generally asynchronous. This means most people can only upload at 1/8th of the speed they can download at.

Furthermore, that's not the way the system is designed to run, thus implementing it a client level without protocol support seems stupid.

[µTorrent 3.0 (32-bit) Stable Release]

uTorrent 3.0 Beta without tweaking:

Max Upload Rate: 348KBps.

Avg Upload Rate: 274KBps.

uTorrent 3.0 Beta with tweaking:

Max Upload Rate: 2.2MBps.

Avg Upload Rate: 963MBps.

Bitcomet 1.27 out of the box:

Max Upload Rate: 8.1MBps.

Avg Upload Rate: 6.3MBps.

To be fair, I can't even work out how to tweak Bitcomet, but at least it's working.

Personally I love you guys to bits, but recently the client has been less then impressive speed/efficiency wise of late

I hope the focus remains on speed over features; I am aware there may be set up issues but it shouldn't require a networking degree (which, ironically, I possess) to make it run at decent rates.

As per normal, you guys are the bomb diggity, and please don't consider this me bitching at you. I have the utmost respect for the developers of this project..

EDIT::

Got slack with my bits and bytes >.>

EDIT::

I ironically possess, not possess ironically.

[µTorrent 3.0 (32-bit) Stable Release]

SNIP!

Thought better of my query.. It may be related to the 3.x beta, however I'm not sure.

http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?pid=582284

Link if you want to check it out.

EDIT::

Removed post as it was perhaps a little off topic >.>

[µTorrent 3.0 (32-bit) Stable Release]

@ Kestral71 - It's a minimalist's client. It is supposed to small and quick. Adding bloated and flashy UIs is rather against this idea. That having been said, the UI is pretty damn good.

@ XxP2P25xX - Check your stream options, it allows streaming to a bunch of different clients. It worked for me with VLC, so I am going to suggest user error at this point and stop searching for the black box.

@ Firon - I think that may be something worth letting people know on a grander scale. I have been using the Alpha for months and was a little confused when the tabs all disappeared, I expect a lot of your users will be if you don't let them know.

Overall I think this new client is very nice.

I'm impressed with being able to leave it downloading all day on my media server, and having it auto throttle when it detects network activity. This means I can torrent all day without pissing off my family.

I also like the remote webUI. I must admit I hate the apps and think it was a silly idea, but I used to hate Cherry Coke as well >.>

We shall see, either way congrats to Firon et all for the progression from Alpha to Beta

[µTorrent 3.0 64-bit experimental 25570]

Don't they test these ALPHA releases prior to releasing them...

It's an alpha' date=' so... no. It's only minimally tested.[/quote']

As easy as it was to find several bugs it's very apparent that the development team is only doing a minimal test, if any. It sure makes it apparent that updating to just released ALPHA's should be avoided.

The uTorrent team don't seem to do an aweful lot of pre-release testing before releasing to Alpha channels.

To be fair there is no right or wrong way to do Alphas. It is what it is.

You shouldn't be testing Alpha software if you don't understand the developers aims and release goals..

Also: It's an Alpha build, of course it's buggy I will however say that this 3.x alpha process has been the buggiest set of testing builds I have ever seen from you guys, I was a bit disappointed, but big changes = big bugs

Looking forward to testing the x64 build once it goes into auto update territory

[µTorrent 3.0 "Falcon" (32-bit) alpha 25207]

I wonder - who many people in the world do indeed use uTorrent on their phones at all ? Any stats on that ?

No one uses uTorrent on their phone' date=' and no one uses the uTorrent webUI or ever has. uTorrent reached 100% as a torrent client -- just like Azureus did -- and now it is becoming slowly more and more bloated into a piece of shit -- just like Azureus. If things keep heading this direction uTorrent will be replaced in 1-2 years with another barebones torrent client and history will again repeat itself.

[b']Just keeping it real.

This also.

I don't agree with the way it's worded or the comments about the webUI etc, but I do believe he is correct.

Big fan of you guys and your work, but I am not loving the new uTorrent. That having been said, I will continue to give you the benefit of the doubt as your work has always been good in the past. I just hope uTorrent continues to be the client for me >.<

[µTorrent 3.0 "Falcon" (32-bit) alpha 25207]

Such is the life of an ALPHA tester..