uTorrent vs Azureus

[splintax]

Really? That sounds a bit complicated. How does it know?

Maybe it just has a wizard asking you for your connection details..

[Switeck]

Really? That sounds a bit complicated. How does it know?

Maybe it just has a wizard asking you for your connection details..

The user just had to tell it what ISP and service plan they had. Given that information it presumed certain download/upload values.

But a Wizard which asks the user about their connection's download/upload values (in megabits/sec or kilobits/sec) and calculating what it needs from there would be more sensible.

[Barashin]

While the original post might have been a tad provocative, some of the answers in this thread are far worse.

First of all, the method is not as flawed as many think. That all the unknown parameters of the environment should make tests impossible, is wrong. That's where statistics come in. You get a test data set, as large as possible. The theory is that the parameters we don't know, even themselves out.

Consider a six-sided die, for example. When you cast the die, there are loads of paramters that ultimately decide the result: the die's mass, exact shape, initial velocity, rotational speed, the parameters for the table's surface, the air conditions in the room, etc. Even so, we can do a test on it. If you cast the die 1000 times, and in 99% of the cases, a 6 turns up, you're gonna suspect something's fishy. And you won't blame the table or the air humidity.

And that leads to the problem (as some have pointed out) of the test. Even if the result is not exactly flawed, it's just way too inaccurate. You haven't cast the die 1000 times, you've cast it twice.

Note that when I'm talking about the unknown parameters, I'm not talking about the internal parameters of the BT client. It's very possible that µTorrent has default settings that aren't optimal for the original poster's connection/computer, while Azureus has. I'm not saying this is a flaw in either client, just that I agree that results can differ on different machines/connections. But to be honest, I haven't seen any suggestions on how he should improve his performance. As a test on the default settings of the client, given his configuration, the method is still correct.

[1c3d0g]

That's why I clearly pointed out to the OP that µTorrent might be slow for him/her, or in his/her opinion, but it's definitely not the rule that µTorrent is slower than other clients. I can find just as many people confirm that Azureus is slower for them compared to µTorrent. It's the way you say these things that make or break a discussion... :|

[stevvi]

Firon, ah yes, I forgot about Az's wizard. I think that's already been suggested for uT elsewhere, if I remember rightly. Judging by the assumed increase in uT users and their "configuration help" posts here, I reckon you'd welcome a wizard too. I'll take your word for it about the Az forums

Ultima, I'm with you (but I'll use "law of averages", thanx ) I swapped from Az a few months back and can't say I noticed any speed difference between the clients.

[Firon]

Yeah, I was the one who asked for a simple wizard in µT.

[rafi]

Adding a simple help feature can help... Just copy & paste some of the help texts from here to UT install directory and show it on request. Or simply internal-direct link to a help page(s) on the web. Help documentation is often one of the last thing the devs do. I think it is a mistake and should be done concurrently. If it is a link/activation of help web-pages - this forum can even write them themselves...

[Firon]

well, µT's had a help page from pretty early on, the FAQ. and I update it constantly too.

ludde could add a link for it to the Help menu though, I guess.

[rafi]

I guess so too... A link will be great! Context sensitive links per tab/menu-item to sections of it - will be greater. Ahmmm... how much is it ?

[scholar]

first of all, I'm new here, so: Hi to everyone!

second thing, I found µTorrent is a great client, mainly because of its size, and the way it uses resources in my computer. HOWEVER, I really sad when I saw this thread. the members of this forum is quite childish IMHO.

please try to understand that Rag starts this thread to point out that there is something is 'less' from µTorrent than Azureus. He had done his test, he mentioned his source, that you all can try by yourselves.

I think this is great, in a way that might be that this is true, and that the developers can do something about this, but it is very possible that it's only Rag's problem, and with good settings, it can be solved. BUT all I can see here (I admit haven't read all comments, but it seems to be like it) that most of you just bashing him with unhelpful comments ("you stupid, your test is stupid", or "this happened in the past, surely this will got deleted", etc) and not even the slightest suggestion on what (settings) he can try that might help. this is why I mentioned 'childish' in the begininning.

surely if the test is subjective, then one can suggest the objective one? or if this happened in the past, there should be some solutions to this? and people can show Rag how to do it, or point out where he can find it?

so come on people, be productive!

[chaosblade]

As mentioned so many times before that its not funny, You cant really make a completely objective test because of the sheer amount of factors needing to be taken into consideration, and the random nature of bittorrent aswell as the random peers you get from the tracker.

As for settings, there are enough pointers in the FAQ and in the horde of threads already existing including stickies.

[scholar]

ok, nice try chaosblade , but you might want to actually be productive, point to somewhere somewhat in the FAQ that Rag (or somebody else, in future) can start on reading.

the way you're saying it, you should be able to easily point to one URL, right? or you might not know any, actually?

[Firon]

http://www.utorrent.com/faq.php#Why_are_my_torrents_going_so_slow.3F

[jroc]

thats why I said I thought the speed debates between dif clients were decided a long time ago....as chaos mentioned way too many variables involved........

and thats why searching or reading the FAQ is so stressed here....

[helloworld45]

utorrent fanboys: calm down thx

[yukycg]

one thing I want to point out is utorrent in fact connect slower and took longer on CERTAIN torrent files. For example, if I download a torrent from Taiwan that most of clients use bitcomet, then utorrent will connects very slow and to very limited number of peers(mostly in US flag, and very few taiwanese flags).

[boo]

1) BitComet cheats

2) BitComet has BT protocol header encryption and if its activated,

µTorrent wont be able to communicate with it.

[Firon]

That and it's hard to connect into a swarm like that, I doubt BC would leave many connection slots open for µTorrent to get in

[splintax]

Yeah, I was the one who asked for a simple wizard in µT.

lol, thought it was me?

The user just had to tell it what ISP and service plan they had. Given that information it presumed certain download/upload values.

Oh, well that sucks, and it is as complicated as I had thought, insofar as you have to update the client every time ISPs update their plans, and there are always going to be millions of people not covered by the plans in the program.

But I think it would be a good idea just to list the names of ISPs that are known to filter BT traffic, and warn you that you may experience problems as a result, in the wizard..

edit: actually, that sort of information would be better listed in the FAQ or "post new topic" pages.

[idle.newbie]

yukycg: i think that's 'coz many peers you're trying to connect to are behind VPN(P.R.China) (µT does not implement NAT Traversal), and many of these peers (or yourself, like so-net) are in PeerGuardian P2P blocklist or ipfilter.dat. enable built-in mini tracker may help a little.

µT does not have much user in P.R.China, ppl like BC's well connection/leech ability.

[bitaz]

I've tried several clients, and I find they all have their good points. So in that case, I look for the cons -

BitComet - someone said they add info that causes problems for others. Haven't tried BitComet, and now I won't.

Azureus - was my favorite until uTorrent 1.3.2 BETA. Mainly due to the fact that I have experienced too many issues with it "going stale" after running for several hours, which, IMO, is due to an inherent problem with java and leakage.

uTorrent - does it for me. I wish it had some of the functionality of Az, like a separate window for completed torrents. For me personally, that helps me better manage my share ratio's and quickly find something to seed when someone asks for it.

It's been mentioned here by several contributors, and IMO is the most significant: while there are many reasons and factors for good upload/download speeds (really shouldn't say "good", should say "optimal" based on your connection capabilities) is SETTTINGS SETTTINGS SETTINGS!!!!

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

BitComet - someone said they add info that causes problems for others. Haven't tried BitComet, and now I won't.

Actually, I recommend very much you install it as a backup. Some of the stuff that causes problems for others might be your savior on a weak torrent (besides, everyone on those weak torrents seem to use BitComet anyway). So one day, if uTorrent is slow in getting flow, boot it up for 15 minutes to pool a little on your hard disk. Then transfer the torrent so you can get some work done.

The usefulness of this in uTorrent may be coming to an end though. Still, BitComet ain't that big on the disk (though much bigger than uTorrent).

[pax]

While the original post might have been a tad provocative, some of the answers in this thread are far worse.

Too true.. if Rag is an Azureus fanboy then many of the people attacking him are uTorrent fanatics... Pffft... Sad reading.

Anyway, on topic.. Would be interesting to see his "experiment" repeated by other posters here as well;

Everyone chosing two torrents (one well-seeded, one poor-seeded), downloading them using the different

clients, and measuring connectivity and speed at different intervals and perhaps time to completion.

As the number of tests grow, the differences should even themselves out. If they don't

there are several possible explanations:

1. (Standard-)Configuration issues between clients (certainly a possibility, would be good to have "tweakers" get the best out of their preferred client)

2. Client X is, in fact, generally faster than client Y.

3. Network conditions when test was run (probability of this will go towards zero as the number of tests increase, though)

If you're unable to admit to the possibility of 2 and just keep on attacking the evidence, the knowledge of

other posters, their perceived agenda or whatever, then you're the fanboy/fanatic REGARDLESS of which

client is X and which client is Y.....

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Too true.. if Rag is an Azureus fanboy then many of the people attacking him are uTorrent fanatics... Pffft... Sad reading.

Anyway, on topic.. Would be interesting to see his "experiment" repeated by other posters here as well;

Everyone chosing two torrents (one well-seeded, one poor-seeded), downloading them using the different clients, and measuring connectivity and speed at different intervals and perhaps time to completion.

Oh. I've done that one informally many times. Especially with a poor torrent, there is no such thing as a consistent "time to completion" - you merely hope it can be completed at all.

For what it is worth, my results would go something like this, and I've got 56 torrents to go by. In general, uTorrent gets comparable overall speeds as the others.

About half of the torrents that had involved uTorrent so far are relatively good torrents (they've got at least dozens of seeds and peers and I'm not concerned it'd die any second). Speeds obtained there are averaged with past experiences with BitComet and Azureus. Overall, speed roughly the same, but definitely slower ramp up. The newest betas show a tendency towards uTorrent taking the cake.

The other half are weak (1-3 seeds, <10 peers recorded on tracker, most of them using BitComet/BitLord, tracker often crapping out). A more direct comparison is possible here because I always use Priming, which means at least two clients. From start to initial >5K DL flows is typically <5 minutes on BitComet (along with a huge list of peers BC managed to find). With Azureus it is quite a bit slower, but still <10 minutes to Significant Flow is common. With uTorrent, even AFTER the priming (meaning I have a bit to upload), it still takes 5-10 minutes to get flow (during which I'm hand-transferring IPs from BitComet/Azureus using "Add Peer"). Without priming, 20-30 minutes is more like it. One hour along, however, speeds are again comparable, so I'm not complaining.

Before someone says the latter part is a little unfair because BC cheats, all I can say is that many BC clients on such torrents is a reality, so in that respect it is completely realistic and fair.

[Firon]

The betas have improved the speeds significantly for most people. For me, it's always been the same, but I'm special.