jewelisheaven Posted December 23, 2007 Report Share Posted December 23, 2007 It's mentioned in the FAQ... that and ludde IS ONE SMART COOKIE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajones81 Posted December 23, 2007 Report Share Posted December 23, 2007 Old versions may suffer from security issues or other problems. For eg., 1.7.0 reported incorrect download/upload stats to trackers, and thus was banned by many sites. Would you want to use that version? I suppose it's obvious why older versions are not supported. If anyone can provide a compelling reason to use an older version, then well and good. Else do as the devs say - upgrade and use the latest supported version. They don't want to waste their precious time answering queries about problems long since fixed in newer versions.Azureus is not written in C++ but in Java + SWT. That in itself explains the huge size, as well as the fact that it supports plugins etc. and some features still missing from uTorrent (whether those features are really needed is a matter of debate).The main BitTorrent client is written in C++ now and in case you didn't know, increasingly is based on uTorrent code (after BitTorrent Inc. bought uTorrent). So I guess the BitTorrent client should become smaller and more efficient as the days go by! Is there anything else that's confusing you? 'Cos if not, this topic is starting to sound a bit like a broken record...Edit: Just checked out the older versions from the site you mentioned. Here are the results with the latest UPX and --brute:File Size Ratio Format Name-------------------- -------- ----------- ----------------588023 -> 566519 96.34% win32/pe uTorrent_1.6.0.exe480512 -> 224000 46.62% win32/pe uTorrent_1.7.0.exe472368 -> 219952 46.56% win32/pe uTorrent_1.7.5.exe550192 -> 254256 46.21% win32/pe uTorrent_1.8.7237_Alpha.exeSo it does seem that the 1.7 line is much smaller uncompressed and compresses to less than half the size of the 1.6 line. Also, while in terms of size 1.6.0 >> 1.7.0 > 1.7.5, 1.8 is larger again (possibly due to the switch to VC++ 2005?), but all versions from 1.6.0 onwards seem to compress better than previous ones! Impressive. I wonder what this is due to? Simply a lot more efficient coding or does the compiler switch affect compressibility as well? BTW, the >100 KB drop in size from 1.6.0 to 1.7.0 was simply amazing, considering that that's an almost 20% reduction combined with the fact that the feature-set went up several notches meanwhile! Wow! I never paid any attention to it earlier, as I would simply overwrite the older version with the latest stable release. Way to go devs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultima Posted December 23, 2007 Report Share Posted December 23, 2007 The unpacked 1.6 build wasn't an "official" unpacked build, so I'm not sure if something got messed up along the way when it was unpacked that caused it to no longer compress down well (or that caused it to be larger than the real unpacked build would've been).@zploek: I've never tried BitTorrent 6.0, but indeed, as has been mentioned, it's built on µTorrent. As far as I know, with the exception of a few extra things added to the interface, there isn't much difference between the two clients. When you download BitTorrent 6.0, it comes with other things, like an installer (looks like Inno Setup to me, which -- when I last checked -- is a semi-large installer) or DNA. In all, the entire download comes out to ~800-900KiB, which isn't so much larger (certainly not 10x larger).If you were referring to the old mainline... it was written using Python, not C++. Python is an interpreted language, so it's not surprising that it's much larger (they have to include the interpreter because not everyone has Python installed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zploek Posted December 28, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 28, 2007 Thanks a lot ajones and Ultima Moderator, this makes things a whole lot clearer to me. Certainly more than some fangirl yellling and drooling ....! It seems that some of my theories and suppositions ring true, about conditons when an equal functional prog is much bigger: coded language, for instance.And again, don't take it out on me if I express surprise in such a program being smaller (or getting smaller, I thought ult mod figgerd it out, but now ajones has me doubting again, anyway, whatever). In this day and age of every thing bloating up, its a remarkable thing.I don't of any program of comparable functionality being this small, well maybe vDub and Total Commander, but those are it. And they are small, but bigger by comparison.I wish you two the best for 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajones81 Posted December 28, 2007 Report Share Posted December 28, 2007 I simply love programs that are small and functional at the same time. Unfortunately bloatware has become the norm rather than the exception nowadays as developers seem to think that users can throw massive amounts of resources at their programs anyway, so why bother with optimisation? That sort of thinking just bugs the hell out of me. Writing small, beautiful and fully functional code is an art, and very few are really good at it. Sigh!That's one of the reasons why I moved to NOD32 from Norton AV years back. Never regretted it one bit, esp. since it got my system back to performing the way it was meant to, not like a ruddy 286. That's also why uTorrent rocks! In fact, with its small size and self-contained nature, it reminds me of a DOS utility more than a typical bloated, crapping-everywhere-in-the-registry-and-HDD, refuses-to-uninstall-properly Windows program. @zploek: Sorry if I made you doubt uTorrent again. Was just surprised myself at how it's gotten better at compressibility and still remains so small with every successive version (excluding the 'unofficial' 1.6.0 build as Ultima said). Anyway, as long as new features are added, good ones are retained and no malware or inappropriate behaviour can be detected by any of the smart people out there, who really cares how they got it to be smaller? Just enjoy the magic conjured up by the devs (thanks again, guys!) and hope you have an equally magical new year ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.