geezer Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 In case any newcomers are interested, I've updated my RSS instructions to reflect the fact that wildcards (*) are now supported in Favorites filters. Please let me know if I've made any mistakes so I can update the post. Thanks!http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?pid=36682#p36682 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nefarious Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 3: When connecting to a swarm which maxes out bandwidth' date=' I notice that µTorrent doesn't drop sources. If I'm downloading at a full 250 or 500 KB/s (maxed out), then I think really slow sources should be dropppd (< 1KB/s).[/quote']I can understand about wanting to kick people off if you are maxing out your connections but not your bandwidth, but why do you care what they are giving you if your bandwidth itself is maxed out?uTorrent is supposed to drop totally inactive guys if it needs the connection. But I'm relatively new and I already think Ludde doesn't want to implement something that would kick away guys that are merely slow - same reason why we are never likely to have a conveniently placed "Kick and Ban" switch.Kicking and banning is not the way to look at it. Byt the simple fact is, the less connections I need, the more efficient. And I don't need those <1KB/s connections, but some slower users (dial-up or budget broadband) may be happy with it. In the above case, faster peers/seeds will need to create extra uploadslots, because even though they could send me 30 / 50 KB/s, they can't since I'm maxed out and hence send me only 10 - 20 KB/s.So, I'm no talking about kicking and banning people, I'm talking about using the least amount of connections to fill my download. Less connections is more efficient and I think it may also reduce the wasted bandwidth a bit. Because Bittorrent more or less looks like a pyramid (at least in the first stages of a swarms lifetime), any gains in efficiency with perpetuate.what if the seeder is a 8kB/s uploader and the people downloading that same thing are only 1kB/s peers? is better to have only 8kB/s ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Just a note, sometime between beta 390 and 393 my Folder Options got messed around a bit. "Put new downloads in:" was selected but blank (where previously I had it set to a particular directory), and "Store .torrent files in:" had been turned on without me knowing it. Been trying to figure out where the copies of torrent files with .1 in their names had been coming from, and why right-click -> Remove and... -> Delete .torrent wasn't properly deleting the torrent files all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1c3d0g Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Yeah Primus, Build 390 to 392 were messed up pretty badly. Should be fixed in Build 393 for good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matrix77 Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 I have difference of speed between azureus and utorrent only with torrents from www.robotolabs.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeekK Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 ... it appears that we cannot use private RSS feeds, at this time. Is this correct?Most of the sites I choose to frequent are private. Is this being worked on or some workaround available now?[...]As an example dimeadozen sasy the following: Please note, that the feed is available for members only. You'll need a RSS reader which supports HTTP basic authentication.Is this being worked upon? - I searched this whole thread but couldn't find an answer.I'm also using private trackers which have RSS-feeds, so I would like it a lot if I could use them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 µTorrent supports basic HTTP authentication, but not cookies.http://user:password@site.com/rss.xml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeekK Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Thanks, it occured to me after posting to try that (and works of course). :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jibba Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Please do not make uTorrent to fat. Try to stay under 128 kb please.Version 1.4 will get 1 MB?, 1.5 - 2MB, 1.6 - 9 MB ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICleolion Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Between the latest beta, and the first version of utorrent available for download, it hasn't even doubled in size. This is despite how small it was then back then, and despite ALL the features that have been added since then. Ludde is developing this project superbly, and even if the client finally does break the 200kb barrier, i bet every last bit of code will be worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 And the nice thing is that adding code does not necessarily increase memory use (or at least by any noticeable amount). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webdr Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 last bit of code will be worth it.agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICleolion Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Plus Ludde has released new versions of his program (with extra features and bug fixes in) and the program size has got SMALLER. Ludde is clearly capable of taking care of his baby, there is no need to tell him to try and keep it smaller than '128kb'.Bittorrent as we know it will probably be a thing of the past before this client ever reaches the size of a floppy disk. And even if it does reach that size i'm not gonna be bothered as long as its memory and CPU usage is still top notch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nefarious Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 indeed, being small is not the only good on utorrent, is just that is the only one that has accomplish being so great for so litle thx for all your hard work ludde, we really appreciate it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webdr Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 as a user size is not important for me at the first sideit can be 10 mb there is no problem,i can still use itusability and functionality is the most important thingbut the size is really incredible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grisom Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 And the nice thing is that adding code does not necessarily increase memory use (or at least by any noticeable amount).memory usage would be even slightly smaller without using pecompact. there is always some overhead when using exe packers.i don't care if utorrent is 120kb or 300kb, as long as it's not a resource moster like azureus.btw, there are exe packers compressing better than pecompact, especially for small files. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firon Posted January 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Which packers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grisom Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 well, i was thinking of nspack or winupack, but nspack is commercial stuff, so you can try winupackthis gave me always better results on small files. not as future rich as pecompact, to be honest.i personally would appreciate an uncompressed version, as this uses less memory. people still can compress the exe using whatever exe packer they prefer... upx, pecompact etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxyshadis Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Uncompressed exes are a license to people with a disassembler to crank out hacked versions to get around annoying things like semi-enforced fairness and truthful up/down reporting. Unless there's a pecompact unpacker I'm not aware of. (Then again many things can be done with memory patching, but not nearly as easily, elegantly, or permanently.) I bet that's one reason ludde chose pecompact over upx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grisom Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 sorry, but a person who has the skills to hack utorrent that way, most likely also is able to unpack pecompact.everything can be unpacked, no doubt about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kookykrazee Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 I tried to run 390' date=' no go, as it runs and is started, I can see it in Task Mgr, but never 'starts'. Any suggestions?I have reverted back to 389, in th mean time. Thanks again for a great product. And boy is it great to have my broadband back after 3 weeks of dial-up..lol[/quote']Try Build 391? :|Sorry for replying so late, but I decided to do a reformat over my weekend (Fri/Sat), but 391 did the same thing. When I ran utorrent under the fresh install (391) I had no problems. So all is well again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jibba Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 as a user size is not important for me at the first sideit can be 10 mb there is no problem,i can still use itusability and functionality is the most important thingbut the size is really incredibleuTorrent is not only so nice becouse it doesnt need much PC Power (Ram, CPU) - where i have to say ! respect ! . Its so good becouse its thin (current non beta : 115 kb) too.if its would growing to 5-10 MB its mostly like all other BitTorrent clients out there (only the less power using would be nice). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kookykrazee Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Okay, had a few minutes to test basic authentication, but I can't seem to get it to download anything? I verified my settings and such and have everything right? What could I possibly be doing wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynx Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Firon, on the mainpage, it still says version 1.3.2 391 beta, perhaps time to correct the link, the info and the changelog.lynx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICleolion Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 woot build 395 is out, got my update fix for today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.