Automatically enable the down/upload after time period.

[Switeck]

Pausing all torrents then restarting causes considerable delay in getting back up-to-speed on poorly-seeded torrents. Even uploading can start slowly because the few peers that have less % than most other peers take awhile to find.

It is generally better to decrease the download/upload speed instead.

An exception is if you're going to reboot -- but then µTorrent is shut down completely anyway!

[oliversl]

SolidasRock, I would love to have this feature too.

I'm waiting for this feature since azzureus era, now I'm on ut 100% and I think its a really usefull feature.

Also, all the big download manager have this feature, its called timer or something like that.

Anyway, I vote for this feature to be implemented. I think it will help many people and is not a bloated feature. Just add a memory variable and make the scheduler engine watch for this variable. If you close ut, then the time should be deleted.

Thanks

Oliver

[oliversl]

Can't you just TRY cFosSpeed?

No, because:

1. Its not free: http://www.cfos.de/order/index_e.htm

2. I don't want to install another driver in my XP. Also, I connect

via a router, and I use the same NIC for my lan + internet.

Having this solution in ut will be the best solution for this problem.

Thanks

Oliver

[SolidasRock]

Pausing all torrents then restarting causes considerable delay in getting back up-to-speed on poorly-seeded torrents. Even uploading can start slowly because the few peers that have less % than most other peers take awhile to find.

It is generally better to decrease the download/upload speed instead.

An exception is if you're going to reboot -- but then µTorrent is shut down completely anyway!

I have increased my upload and download already! Please, your post looks like you dont know where you talking about. When i press resume i go almost immediality to my full speed.

Yesterday i have paused all torrent to download something others and now i am looking at the torrents i see it is still paused the whole night till now.

pfffff.....

[oliversl]

Honestly, guys, there is a "Pause all torrents" button right there if you really need it. It isn't that hard to use.

The idea is to make ut more user friendly.

You won't pause ut for 5min, that is not good for the .torrent.

The idea is to pause for 30min, 60min and then ut should resume automatically.

You just pause for 60min, start a patch download via http and leave home!

cFosSpeed allows you to use 100% of your bandwidth ...

cFosSpeed is not free, point.

Or you can just be a bit more careful. If everybody tries to have his weak spots solved with extra code, soon uTorrent will become bloatware.

Bloatware? I think the developers of ut are smart enought to make this feature be as small as posible. They already have a scheduler engine, is just a matter of using 1 more variable a a litle function that pause/resume when the scheduler engine hits the timer value.

Not bloat at all!

Just my point of view.

Oliver

[oliversl]

Pausing all torrents then restarting causes considerable delay in getting back up-to-speed on poorly-seeded torrents. Even uploading can start slowly because the few peers that have less % than most other peers take awhile to find.

The Idea is to pause for more than 10 or 30min. You won't pause your torrents for 5min!

[SolidasRock]

@Oliver, where was you in the past weeks?

Also, there are enough things in Utorrent which i can call it easy bloatware as many other do with my idea. RSS-feeder? Bloatware! Skinning Utorrent? Bloatware! Visual painting of up and down speed? Bloatware! Searchbar to many torrentsite? Bloatware!

They all arent needed or have alternative ways to get the same result. But i am happy they are in Utorrent

But thanks Oliver (there are more people but i dont want to read back) for telling me my idea isnt bloatware.

Greetz SolidasRock

[oliversl]

uTorrent is a small program. It has to pack maximum functionality into its hull to keep from bloating. Which is why I tend to be all for extra functions, but not for automation, especially automation of something that can be easily and better handled manually. Not to mention similar automation is already available.

Its not a bloated feature, its an extension of the scheduler.

You will have a small button in the toolbar, you click the button, type 45 and click OK.

Thats all!

How can that be considered a bloated feature? There is already a scheduler engine and this kind of timer are command in download managers. Its a common feature for the type of application that utorrent is, a download manager (using bittorrent but still is a download manager).

my 2 cent

Oliver

[oliversl]

Just some links:

- I suggested this same feature in october-2005

http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=521

- I just posted the feature in the voting system

http://www.niteshdw.com/utorrent/

HTH

Oliver

[SolidasRock]

Oliver, i now see your topic for the first time, funny we have the same idea

I want to see your topic in the votesystem but i cant find it, what is the exact topictitle of it?

[oliversl]

@Oliver, where was you in the past weeks?

At the beach in Brasil! Just kidding

I get, as you, a little frustated back in october-2005 when I first suggested this feature but it never came into ut. I have been using ut since then, and every day I whish this feature to be implemented.

I download only at night, and sometimes I have a 100MB patch to download, or I or someone wants to browse at full speed for some time, and is not nice having to stay on the computer just to wait until that hour pass to just click on the "Resume all torrents"

This time, I really want this feature to be implemented, is like a cause I hope one developer could answer me and tell me yes o no.

As you say, having a skin is bloatware, but this feature is really usefull for people that share an internet conection.

Hope it make it to ut 1.4.1 !

Oliver

[SolidasRock]

As you say, having a skin is bloatware, but this feature is really usefull for people that share an internet conection.

I dont understand that? Why would skinning utorrent help by shared internet connections?

Also, i hope you understand i was sarcastic a bit, i like all features of Utorrent....

[oliversl]

I dont understand that? Why would skinning utorrent help by shared internet connections?

Ooops, just a bad english

Here comes agains:

As you say, having a skin is bloatware, but this feature(Automatically enable the down/upload after time period) is really usefull for people that share an internet conection(and I don't consider it bloatware).

[SolidasRock]

Ok, i get it.

But erm... i have write this in a earlier post:

Oliver, i now see your topic for the first time, funny we have the same idea

I want to see your topic in the votesystem but i cant find it, what is the exact topictitle of it?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

No, because:

1. Its not free: http://www.cfos.de/order/index_e.htm

2. I don't want to install another driver in my XP. Also, I connect

via a router, and I use the same NIC for my lan + internet.

Having this solution in ut will be the best solution for this problem.

1) You use BitTorrent and CfossSpeed is "not free"?

2) I suppose you can try Cfoss then. Also, the traffic management stuff should work on your computer. The trialware is free - try it.

The idea is to make ut more user friendly.

Yes, I understand that idea. Did you miss the part where I considered this "automation". Just that I didn't think it was worth it.

You won't pause ut for 5min, that is not good for the .torrent.

I would have thought it is the number of times you pause, rather than the time interval of a particular pause that makes it harmful.

The idea is to pause for 30min, 60min and then ut should resume automatically.

You just pause for 60min, start a patch download via http and leave home!

If you are going to leave home, why don't you just use the Scheduler? Set the hour at 1KB/s UPLOAD on Scheduler, and leave.

Bloatware? I think the developers of ut are smart enought to make this feature be as small as posible. They already have a scheduler engine, is just a matter of using 1 more variable a a litle function that pause/resume when the scheduler engine hits the timer value.

Not bloat at all!

Bloatware does not necessarily start with inefficient programming. Ludde is a magician with his torrent client, but bloatware can also be formed with a failure to objectively assess Utility versus Cost. Eventually, you create Azureus - I've been told recently to my shock that Azureus was a small program once! Many of us came to uTorrent to flee from clients like Azureus and we sure as **** don't want uTorrent to become the next such client.

Yesterday i have paused all torrent to download something others and now i am looking at the torrents i see it is still paused the whole night till now.

Honestly, you have no one to blame but yourself for this situation... Switeck's point is that you are better off slowing your precious Messenger a bit rather than pausing completely, and it'd prevent such total disasters...

Also, there are enough things in Utorrent which i can call it easy bloatware as many other do with my idea. RSS-feeder? Bloatware! Skinning Utorrent? Bloatware! Visual painting of up and down speed? Bloatware! Searchbar to many torrentsite? Bloatware!

If you are talking to me, I'd say that I am dubious about the utility of the stuff you said so far as well:

1) I never use RSS, though I can see its utility if you like poking around in sites with countless new torrents per day - it would be much more than 20 seconds and a bit of memory to search through so many torrents.

2) Skinning ... I never understood the need, and couldn't help thinking the skin is probably bigger than the program.

3) Graph ... It does have diagnostic value and it also does have the point that it shows BT specific uses. But under normal usage yeah it is a bit of eye candy.

4) Searchbar ... There is a searchbar? I heard about it, but I never really saw it - maybe I don't care for the feature and thus don't look hard enough... I agree it is pretty much fluff.

Its not a bloated feature, its an extension of the scheduler.

You will have a small button in the toolbar, you click the button, type 45 and click OK.

Thats all!

How can that be considered a bloated feature? There is already a scheduler engine and this kind of timer are command in download managers. Its a common feature for the type of application that utorrent is, a download manager (using bittorrent but still is a download manager).

1) I notice that it is not that common a feature in BitTorrent clients...

2) Everything can be considered an "extension" of something else - the Scheduler is an extension of the nearly mandatory overall Up/Down load limiters. But when similar functionality is available in only 20 seconds or even two mouse clicks, I just don't see an overwhelming need to waste a 0.5-1K - which doesn't seem like a lot until you remember that Ludde crams in PE and PEx within about 11KB, and I must say PEx and PE look about 1000x better returns on investment.

I download only at night, and sometimes I have a 100MB patch to download,

Tell me why you can't use the Scheduler, crimp the upload to 6KB/s for the hour, and go to sleep in this situation. It is arguably a better solution - your download actually keeps working.

or I or someone wants to browse at full speed for some time, and is not nice having to stay on the computer just to wait until that hour pass to just click on the "Resume all torrents"

Tell me why he can't just right click and Pause when he starts and right click to Resume when he ends. Either way, he pauses and resumes once. Or just use the Scheduler to crimp the UL for that same hour.

[oliversl]

I want to see your topic in the votesystem but i cant find it, what is the exact topictitle of it?

I think it was deleted I recall posting it for voting in october.

Will check again, but since I submited this post, maybe its ok to left it that way.

Regards,

Oliver

[oliversl]

Ohh boy, this was long Will try to answer quicker ...

No' date=' because:

1. Its not free: [url']http://www.cfos.de/order/index_e.htm

2. I don't want to install another driver in my XP. Also, I connect

via a router, and I use the same NIC for my lan + internet.

Having this solution in ut will be the best solution for this problem.

1) You use BitTorrent and CfossSpeed is "not free"?

2) I suppose you can try Cfoss then. Also, the traffic management stuff should work on your computer. The trialware is free - try it.

As I said, cFossSpeed is not free. I don't want to install a driver just to download a file.

The idea is to make ut more user friendly.

Yes' date=' I understand that idea. Did you miss the part where I considered this "automation". Just that I didn't think it was worth it.

You won't pause ut for 5min, that is not good for the .torrent.

I would have thought it is the number of times you pause, rather than the time interval of a particular pause that makes it harmful.

The idea is to pause for 30min, 60min and then ut should resume automatically.

You just pause for 60min, start a patch download via http and leave home!

If you are going to leave home, why don't you just use the Scheduler? Set the hour at 1KB/s UPLOAD on Scheduler, and leave.

Just for the record, I do use the scheduler. I download only at night. And also, the scheduler only works from 1 hour to 1 hour. Lossing 59min of idle download is

not an option to me.

Bloatware? I think the developers of ut are smart enought to make this feature be as small as posible. They already have a scheduler engine, is just a matter of using 1 more variable a a litle function that pause/resume when the scheduler engine hits the timer value.

Not bloat at all!

Bloatware does not necessarily start with inefficient programming. Ludde is a magician with his torrent client, but bloatware can also be formed with a failure to objectively assess Utility versus Cost. Eventually, you create Azureus - I've been told recently to my shock that Azureus was a small program once! Many of us came to uTorrent to flee from clients like Azureus and we sure as **** don't want uTorrent to become the next such client.

You could't be more wrong, everybody flee from Azureus because it uses too much memory(64MB minimum), not because it has too many (usefull) functions.

Yesterday i have paused all torrent to download something others and now i am looking at the torrents i see it is still paused the whole night till now.

Honestly' date=' you have no one to blame but yourself for this situation... Switeck's point is that you are better off slowing your precious Messenger a bit rather than pausing completely, and it'd prevent such total disasters...[/quote']

I want a program that takes work out of me, not a program that makes me work/remember more.

Also' date=' there are enough things in Utorrent which i can call it easy bloatware as many other do with my idea. RSS-feeder? Bloatware! Skinning Utorrent? Bloatware! Visual painting of up and down speed? Bloatware! Searchbar to many torrentsite? Bloatware![/quote']

If you are talking to me, I'd say that I am dubious about the utility of the stuff you said so far as well:

1) I never use RSS, though I can see its utility if you like poking around in sites with countless new torrents per day - it would be much more than 20 seconds and a bit of memory to search through so many torrents.

2) Skinning ... I never understood the need, and couldn't help thinking the skin is probably bigger than the program.

3) Graph ... It does have diagnostic value and it also does have the point that it shows BT specific uses. But under normal usage yeah it is a bit of eye candy.

4) Searchbar ... There is a searchbar? I heard about it, but I never really saw it - maybe I don't care for the feature and thus don't look hard enough... I agree it is pretty much fluff.

You don't see the searchbar? What version of ut are you using????

Its not a bloated feature' date=' its an extension of the scheduler.

You will have a small button in the toolbar, you click the button, type 45 and click OK.

Thats all!

How can that be considered a bloated feature? There is already a scheduler engine and this kind of timer are command in download managers. Its a common feature for the type of application that utorrent is, a download manager (using bittorrent but still is a download manager).[/quote']

1) I notice that it is not that common a feature in BitTorrent clients...

2) Everything can be considered an "extension" of something else - the Scheduler is an extension of the nearly mandatory overall Up/Down load limiters. But when similar functionality is available in only 20 seconds or even two mouse clicks, I just don't see an overwhelming need to waste a 0.5-1K - which doesn't seem like a lot until you remember that Ludde crams in PE and PEx within about 11KB, and I must say PEx and PE look about 1000x better returns on investment.

I download only at night, and sometimes I have a 100MB patch to download,

Tell me why you can't use the Scheduler, crimp the upload to 6KB/s for the hour, and go to sleep in this situation. It is arguably a better solution - your download actually keeps working.

I do use the scheduler, I only download at night. I live where 128kbps cost 100US$.

So, using 6KB/s is a big amount when I only have 16KB/s

or I or someone wants to browse at full speed for some time, and is not nice having to stay on the computer just to wait until that hour pass to just click on the "Resume all torrents"

Tell me why he can't just right click and Pause when he starts and right click to Resume when he ends. Either way, he pauses and resumes once. Or just use the Scheduler to crimp the UL for that same hour.

I tell you, because I don't want to loose 20seg to un-configure my scheduler, 20seg to configure a new setting just to later waste another 20seg to re-configure my scheduler to my original configuration.

I think it would be a lot easier for you to enumerate 1 single valid reason why this feature should not be implemented.

Thanks

Oliver

[oliversl]

Forgot this

I would have thought it is the number of times you pause, rather than the time interval of a particular pause that makes it harmful.

If you left running you torrent 30min or more, no matter how many times to pause a torrent. What harm a torrent is if you pause a torrent every 5min.

[SolidasRock]

@Oliversl, you wrote very good, it isnt the bloatware from Azureus why people went to Utorrent but just because Azureus eats 100 MB memory and also slow down their pc.

A timer wont eat more MB, also the size will not grow so much, it could be based at the scheduler, i dont know why people resist against this small good idea

It looks they are afraid for change, even they know it isnt really a big difference....

[shadek]

I like the origonal idea, maybe a mod of the Pause All Torrents button when you right click on it.

maybe hold shift and click on it, and a popup comes asking for how long ?

I think titanz0r is on to something there.

[oliversl]

I like the origonal idea' date=' maybe a mod of the Pause All Torrents button when you right click on it.

maybe hold shift and click on it, and a popup comes asking for how long ?[/quote']

I think titanz0r is on to something there.

Maybe Shift+Click is a litle dificult, but having those toolbar buttoms with a dropdown at the right could do it. Good idea.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

As I said, cFossSpeed is not free. I don't want to install a driver just to download a file.

An ethical person, I see...

Honestly, what matters is not its status, it is its function. CfossSpeed WORKS.

You could't be more wrong, everybody flee from Azureus because it uses too much memory(64MB minimum), not because it has too many (usefull) functions.

Thank you for saying something that agrees completely with my position. Do you think most people hate bloatware because of all the extra features, even if they are of marginal utility? They hate bloatware because it is slow to manuever and takes up half the computer's resources, thanks to all those extra features, each of which takes up room and slows the machine up!

BTW, Azureus is a glutton, but on my computer it only took up 24MB real RAM (minimized) and maybe 40MB maximized (though it does creep up over time) as of Version 2.3.0.4.

I want a program that takes work out of me, not a program that makes me work/remember more.

What makes you think I don't understand this. You are constantly screaming about your Automation wants. Besides, you aren't remembering more than you are doing with other clients.

You don't see the searchbar? What version of ut are you using????

The latest betas - which I download almost blind and never have a big problem with to report. I'm sure it is really there, just that I don't care so I don't really see it.

I do use the scheduler, I only download at night. I live where 128kbps cost 100US$.

So, using 6KB/s is a big amount when I only have 16KB/s

You are downloading. You should do reasonably with 8-10KB/s upload remaining. Besides, if you don't mind crimping your DL (and you don't, since you are willing to pause it), you can also set UL to 1K. CfossSpeed is simply a better solution to this kind of sob story anyway - it'd arrange things full auto so your DL only takes up as much upload as necessary and leaves the rest for uTorrent.

I tell you, because I don't want to loose 20seg to un-configure my scheduler, 20seg to configure a new setting just to later waste another 20seg to re-configure my scheduler to my original configuration.

In other words, you are too lazy. I see. Maybe a more useful feature, then, is something that allows Scheduler Profiles you can swap at a click - it'd take the same amount of room and it'd benefit more people.

I think it would be a lot easier for you to enumerate 1 single valid reason why this feature should not be implemented.

Cost vs Utility isn't a thing? There are very few features that do not at least have a marginal utility. But your first problem is best solved with a dedicated program and the second is a laziness problem of 1 minute b/w the whole process. Both these problems should rank low on priority lists.

Everybody that wants a feature says the same thing - theirs will be useful and it'd only take up a few hundred bytes and both are probably true. Except eventually all these few hundred bytes add up for everybody and yet those features are useful to a relative few. Do you realize our dear uTorrent has nearly DOUBLED (85->141) in size since its inception by now? About 10KB went to RSS. Another 10 was split between PEx and PE. I think DHT took maybe 7KB. All of these are arguably revolutionary advances that are much needed. That's 112KB or so - but where did the other 30 go?

How much more expansion can it take before it begins to significantly lose its low resource consumption?

I have some Automation Wants myself. Who does not want a Scheduler with Minute Resolution? Workable Full-Auto Upload Speed Optimization (not over simplistic Ping-Time system)? How about Auto UL Allocation algorithms, so I can repay a Download 1 that is giving me 150 Down for 25 Up and not get "cheated" getting 15 Down for 30 Up in Download 2? I'm sure they would each take only 1KB!

But they aren't Needs. So I see uT, see people with bigger problems and remember Azureus. All of a sudden, I decide not to bother mentioning these Wants. I can do most of this stuff myself.

[oliversl]

Honestly, what matters is not its status, it is its function. CfossSpeed WORKS.

You can pay for or use an ilegal copy of CfossSpeed, but don't wait for me to do that!

In other words, you are too lazy. I see.

lazy? Yes my general, sir, yes sir!

I don't time to waste in the option window every day in my live, come on. Should I really change my scheduller config every day?

And about setting my download to 1kb/s, its not only the bytes transfered that affect the quality of my conection, it is also the packets/seg sended/received. I also have problems with high responce time(pings), so, its not a matter of shaping my traffic, is a matter of pausing ut all thogether and making ut more flexible for the poweruser without confusing normal users.

Maybe a more useful feature, then, is something that allows Scheduler Profiles you can swap at a click - it'd take the same amount of room and it'd benefit more people.

talking about bloatware ... Profiles? You are duplicating the space for saving your scheduler info(in ram and in disk), I just want 1 variable(in ram) for storing when to resume the downloads.

I think it would be a lot easier for you to enumerate 1 single valid reason why this feature should not be implemented.

Cost vs Utility isn't a thing?

What IS the cost? 10kbytes of exe download? Come on, are you against a 10kb download size(if it ever get to 10kb)?

keep reading ...

About 10KB went to RSS. Another 10 was split between PEx and PE. I think DHT took maybe 7KB. All of these are arguably revolutionary advances that are much needed. That's 112KB or so - but where did the other 30 go?

If RSS takes 10kb, do you really think this feature we are talking about will take 10kb too? We are talking about 10kb of download size, not 10MB in runtime size.

Please, these days 10kbyte is nothing.

Please remember that utorrent will never be as Azureus. Azureus in writen in Java, you know, the VM takes 24MB of runtime size just for opening a window.

utorrent still uses 4MB of runtime size, how many MB do you think this feature will take?

I seems that you don't understand the diference between bloated features, bloated download size, bloated runtime size and bloated procesor time.

Having a timer for resuming the download after 30min will never bloat utorrent in any of those 4 bloating categories. Please understand that. There are NO real costs!

If you don't like this feature, just say so, but don't say there is real costs involved.

As I see, this feature will not be implemented because: there is no time to write it or it is against the design philosophy of ut. Both I can understand, but I will find it difficult to understand if this feature is not implemented to prevent resource bloating.

I have some Automation Wants myself.

Please post them, I bet more than one person will agree with your automation wants.

And maybe even get to a ut release.

I never write too much in forums, but I feel that this time I have to explain my point of view.

I understand that this is a feature request forum, and I don't think all my request should be implemented. I understand that ut is a free program, I just want to suggest how it can be a better program. thats all.

[SolidasRock]

@Kazuaki Shimazaki: please READ what Oliversl write and dont think immediality a answer for it. READ and think about it. I know you have difficult to see another things (as if you never noticed the searchbar OMG!) but please, dont write long stories with bullshit as if Azureus use only 40 MB at maximum, hell... do you use the same Azureus as i have do the past years?

Also, it is beginning irritate me you tell the same story over and over because you are feared Microtorrent will become Bigtorrent. Why i am not feared and you are?

Hell, You tell us Utorrent is now 141 KB and growing, as if it is the worstest thing ever. I am sure you couldnt sleep when Utorrent reached the 150 KB....

@Oliversl, again you wrote very well. Thank you for writing the answers, they are exact mine thoughts.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

You can pay for or use an ilegal copy of CfossSpeed, but don't wait for me to do that!

My copy is, in fact, as it happens, perfectly legal in case you must know. Honestly, given how weak your connection is, I strongly recommend you just get it. It'd help everything, not just BT.

lazy? Yes my general, sir, yes sir!

I don't time to waste in the option window every day in my live, come on. Should I really change my scheduller config every day?

If that's what necessary. My uT-using life is a long series of manual micromanagement for optimum performance:

1) LowCPU True/False based on what I'm doing.

2) SparseFile On/Off for each individual torrent I start based on how big is the torrent and how much space I have left.

3) Write_Queue Auto/32768 based on how fast I'm downloading, because the Auto falls down at high speeds.

4) Upload bandwidth allocation for each torrent that's running, and the number of slots for each.

5) Bandwidth allocation priority for each torrent that's running, depending on their health.

6) Priority of files in my torrents based on what is completed and its health.

Every hour while I'm downloading, I'd have to open it up and micromanage all this, and if I have to make any adjustments it won't be 20 seconds only. I don't scream for Automation.

And about setting my download to 1kb/s, its not only the bytes transfered that affect the quality of my conection, it is also the packets/seg sended/received.

You can't be moving around that many packets/second at 1KB/s Up and Down.

I also have problems with high responce time(pings), so, its not a matter of shaping my traffic, is a matter of pausing ut all thogether and making ut more flexible for the poweruser without confusing normal users.

That's why auto management using CfossSpeed is the better solution for you. You can set it so your pings get priority and you get better response times and that your HTML traffic goes first - the Net drag falls to almost nothing while running uT, even if your upload (say you are pure-seeding) otherwise takes up the whole UL pipe! Sheesh, man, trying it is free. I just don't see why you anally decide to not even try it and then whining about your need to pause your connections so you can FTP.

talking about bloatware ... Profiles? You are duplicating the space for saving your scheduler info(in ram and in disk), I just want 1 variable(in ram) for storing when to resume the downloads.

1) Everyone has GBs of disk space these days. RAM is a much scarcer commodity, so the penalty of storing scheduler info on disk is not that much as far as I'm concerned.

2) Cost vs Utility - even if it Costs a bit more, I think my idea provides more options so its Utility is much higher, making it possibly a worthwhile feature (I'd still be cautious, though).

If RSS takes 10kb, do you really think this feature we are talking about will take 10kb too? We are talking about 10kb of download size, not 10MB in runtime size. Please, these days 10kbyte is nothing.

Actually, I'm estimating about 1KB for the entire feature, maybe even 500 bytes if we are lucky. See Previous Post.

That's why it sounds like such a good idea - it looks like nothing.

Please remember that utorrent will never be as Azureus. Azureus in writen in Java, you know, the VM takes 24MB of runtime size just for opening a window.

utorrent still uses 4MB of runtime size, how many MB do you think this feature will take?

Let's do this part and SolidasRock's together.

@Kazuaki Shimazaki: please READ what Oliversl write and dont think immediality a answer for it. READ and think about it. I know you have difficult to see another things (as if you never noticed the searchbar OMG!) but please, dont write long stories with bullshit as if Azureus use only 40 MB at maximum, hell... do you use the same Azureus as i have do the past years?

I didn't say it used 40MB maximum. I said it used 40MB maximized (Window Open), but agreed that it tends to creep up as you keep using it. I used Version 2.3.0.4.

Also, it is beginning irritate me you tell the same story over and over because you are feared Microtorrent will become Bigtorrent.

Am I to say you are equally annoying telling the same story over and over of problems that are arguably best solved by other solutions - something that you seemed to have realized in the previous page but now decide to change your mind again...

Hell, You tell us Utorrent is now 141 KB and growing, as if it is the worstest thing ever. I am sure you couldnt sleep when Utorrent reached the 150 KB....

Here's what I do know. When I started using uTorrent (Ver 1.2.2 or so), it took about 2MB idle and minimized in RAM. Now it takes more like 4MB and it will expand if the DL speed goes up, which it seems to do more and more often due to improved data transfer algorithms.

The disk size has increased by 20% or so, but the RAM size increased by more like 80-100%. C++, by the way, is no guarantee of smallness - BitComet uses C++ IIRC and it still takes about 24MB idling and minimized and a tolerable but quite annoying drag, and by now it doesn't have that many real features we don't have.

Why i am not feared and you are?

What we have is not a lack of mutual understanding. In fact, we understand each other so well we are getting sick of each other's position. Rather, we have a incompatible set of priorities.

Whatever occasional requests I may have, here are my two real Feature Requests for uTorrent:

1) That it stays reliable.

2) That it stays small and unobtrusive.

I can understand your priority - they are those of one who is poor in free upload bandwidth. I believe you won't see uTorrent expand at a high-DL speed because with your weak UL (if you have a half-decent UL you won't want to pause at all), you probably get almost exclusively medium and low speed DLs. So you may not realize that when you DL at 600KB/s (let alone MB class speeds some people luxuriate in), uTorrent expands to taking about 24MB and starts being a real drag on your system - and it turns out that I didn't have SparseFiles engaged for that torrent - I checked and my disk is kept nicely defragged. Hell, you start feeling a bit at 200KB/s+ (I think uTorrent takes 10MB+ at this kind of speed). And every time uTorrent expands, its RAM usage will inevitably grow and the Detectable Drag Threshold Speeds (D1) and Unacceptable Drag Thereshold Speeds (D2) will fall. But your crummy connection probably means you will never reach D1 until I'm suffering from D2 regularly. You see how our priorities might be a bit different?

On the other hand, there are, as I've said before, genuinely useful or necessary features. So I envisage a field where Feature Requests are splattered based on Utility/Cost. A ring is set up - inside which something gets implemented. Generally, important features like DHT and PEx Cost more but are exponentially more Useful, so they get positions close to the center. Things like RSS are splattered further out. Important features also have the advantage they are quite countable so the expansion is limited and estimable (Back in V1.2.2 I expected an expansion for RSS and PEx, for example). I think a dedicated cache for high-speed people may well be the last big one we don't have - that might move us all the way to 150KB.

Ideas like this on the other hand tend to cost little, but are worth even less. Worse, there are potentially countless of these ideas, because while a person's genuine Needs are rather Limited, their Wants are rather Unlimited. If the ring is set out far enough to accomodate your idea, countless other ideas will also meet the Utility/Cost criteria for implementation - if yours got implemented, why not theirs (I have a brief Dream List up there and that's just One Person's Wants at a Single Moment in Time). And each of them will be 1KB each.

As I mentioned before, there is a very mysterious 30KB or so of uTorrent Expansion that is not clearly accounted for in Big, Definitely Useful features. Call me a worrywart, but this "black zone" and its size (over 20% of the total file size) greatly concerns me. Your feature by itself is nearly harmless. However the idea to implement features of this low level of utility is IMO Harmful to uTorrent's Primary Objective that is written clearly on the front page: to be LightWeight and Efficient.