Community input on possible size increase (and related benefits)

[cyRq]

Do what you gotta do

[LastNinja]

as long as u can maintain compatibility with windowsversions older than vista and xp it sounds like an okay sacrifice... i would never want to rely on the ".NET framework" (slooooooww, buggy and incompatible) either so please dont integrate that ...ever... (then u could just as well convert utorrent into java)

the reason i use utorrent is for speed, low ram usage, compatibility, interface, huge amounts of torrents can be run simultanously, and also that utorrent never crashes, and it dont hog up the registry with its clean installation ...its these features combined that makes utorrent really stand out as the best torrent application for pc's! :-)

its really a big plus that utorrent dont rely on that many windows components and im happy that im being able to run it without problems on a crippled version (for maximum server-speed) of windows 2000

[NeoIsis]

I am very new here but FWIW I will say that that increase in size would not I think be a problem to anyone considering what the program is used for (dealing with much larger files).

The low RAM and CPU usage is very important to me with my old PC.

[ab.ba]

Seems no one really cares about file size anymore, so I just have to chime in . As far as I know uTorrent startet out to be smallest full BT client around. This was about footprint, of course, but also about file size.

So increasing the size of the program does matter because it means dropping of the ideological overhead and I am strictly opposed to that.

Just my 50 cents...

[Algis]

Time flies. Users want new features and better stability and they want them now, not next quarter. I dont care if the size increases twice if uTorrent, for example, could start stable support for magnet links today.

Facts:

1. Every Visual Studio version improves developer productivity. We can argue 15%, 10% or 5%, but improves.

2. Every switch to new Visual Studio version takes some developer time out of development (learning is required).

So do not waste time now with changes from one outdating technology to another, unless developers are skilled in VS2005 and this change will save the total development time. Otherwise continue with current platform for now, and go for Visual Studio 2008 in 2008, maybe after uT 1.8 release is just the right time to switch all the team to modern environment. Users who do not like to upgrade and stay on W95 can follow their habit and use 1.7.5 version that will continue to be good enough for these <1% staying with this OS. Even if developer productivity will increase just 5% in next VS version, go for it. If you can increase developer productivity by another 5% using .NET and C.Sharp instead of C++, its also OK. I have several unbelievably small .NET applications that convert transport streams with digital video, run very fast on Vista .NET 3.0. And with added benefits - one executable both for 32bit and x64, and a pleasure to develop with C.Sharp compared to C++ headaches. I don't think developing in assembler is a good idea even if that will produce the smallest and highest perfomance program (after my death). Billions were spent developing .NET, its becoming OK from version 3 (as with all MS products, version 3 is when you can start to use), so use it if time can be saved and something reused from that investment.

Who can say developers are developing faster than needed with less errors than planned? The most important question today is when 1.8 will be available with all the new features, better performance, and with less than expected bugs. Less important if in form of 1MB or 10MB executable, on .NET or without it.

Happy holidays, its Christmas again After them, will be another (just) 220 work days till Christmas in 2008.

[jewelisheaven]

You want to look at the 1.8 development thread here Merry Christmas indeed.. have YOU done your shopping yet?

[hakre]

I've been working with wininet and I hate those messages. From this side (and if it stays compatible with wine) I would give it a go. The Compiler should be a Decision of the Devs not the Users. It's your tool. Have you tried UPX to compress you exe? It ever did a very good job for me. 100k is not that much if it really improves the proggy a lot. In my opinion you did an amaizing job until today keeping uTorrent that small anyway.

/edit: just read you're already using UPX, so that's not an option any longer

[ajones81]

@Algis: I for one would not appreciate a .Net-based version! Who in their right mind wants to carry around the ~200 MB .NET 3.5 package on a USB stick in order to run a ~200 KB executable? :/

I for one don't care what's used to code/compile uTorrent. You could use Delphi for all I care, as long as the final program stays small and is light on resources. I hate bloatware and hope uTorrent never goes that way, else it'll be time to bid adieu.

uTorrent rocks! It's the best torrent client around, bar none. Here's wishing the devs, mods and other users Merry Christmas/Festivus. Cheers!

[repeteor]

go for it !

[jewelisheaven]

Festivus eh? We all know you've heard of a certain comedy starring a certain comedian. Merry Festivus to all, and to all a good night