When will enough be enough?

[zodium]

This isn't really a question that's all that crucial for uTorrent right now, but I think it's something that needs to be considered. All too often you see applications that start going to hell because the creators start running out of things to implement and so turn to unnecessary bloat simply so they will have something to do.

Will we ever see a version of uTorrent that is deemed feature complete, at which point no more additions will be put in? If so, what features are you looking to put in before this happens?

And if not, will you at least keep a barebones client for those of us who aren't interested in having our BT client also be a web browser or IRC client or whatever people come up with? :0

[Simon]

Never.

[creed]

If you dont want anything in else in the client, dont use another version....

Some people are never happy....

They moan if there is no development with an App...

and they moan if there is....

[Animorc]

Since this client is designed to use as little memory and cpu resources possible, and since this is the mainpage contents:

µTorrent is an efficient and feature rich BitTorrent client for Windows sporting a very small footprint. It was designed to use as little cpu, memory and space as possible while offering all the functionality expected from advanced clients.

I would suppose that it stays that way.

So I would say this will not be a bloatware.

And if, against all odds, it would be, why not just use the current version since it works like a charm?

[hendrix]

i agree partially with zodium.. I think there is a time when enough is enough..(when that is Ill leave to the devs!) BUT then maybe the devs should think about plugins?.. Leaving the exe as is.

That way everyone gets what they want.. Right?

[zodium]

If you dont want anything in else in the client, dont use another version....

Some people are never happy....

They moan if there is no development with an App...

and they moan if there is....

Pardon me here, Comedy Jesus, but if you had read the very first sentence of my post you would also know that I was not "moaning". But thanks for your very contributive reply.

[Leif]

This isn't really a question that's all that crucial for uTorrent right now, but I think it's something that needs to be considered. All too often you see applications that start going to hell because the creators start running out of things to implement and so turn to unnecessary bloat simply so they will have something to do.

Will we ever see a version of uTorrent that is deemed feature complete, at which point no more additions will be put in? If so, what features are you looking to put in before this happens?

And if not, will you at least keep a barebones client for those of us who aren't interested in having our BT client also be a web browser or IRC client or whatever people come up with? :0

This is what i asked myself for a few times now. In my opinion, NO MORE features should be added, or this one comes out where the f*cking azureus is now: a memory and cpu eating monster.

[Astral Monkey]

This is what i asked myself for a few times now. In my opinion, NO MORE features should be added, or this one comes out where the f*cking azureus is now: a memory and cpu eating monster.

Last time I checked it was only 96KB and only uses around 5-8MB memory on my computer...nowhere near 6.60MB and 70+MB memory. So for this program to turn out just like Azureus the creators have to add a LOT of crap...which is not going to happen because this is MICRO-Torrent.

[Xilon]

The way I see it is that when uTorrent has added all necessary features it will basically just start improving them and adding new technology into the client. They (devs) could also innovate the BT protocol similarly to Azureus (their DHT implementation). A client doesn't need to always have new features, i'm just as happy having improvements. And if the client has nothing more to add or improve, then I guess it's finished... the ultimate client But when will that happen?...

[paritybit]

And if the client has nothing more to add or improve, then I guess it's finished... the ultimate client But when will that happen?...

Then the developers ascend to a higher plane of existance and leave us mortals here to admire their work.

[chaosblade]

I agree to an extent. Features should be added, But those features need to be justified. Though, to reply on some posts here, I dont really think ludde andor vurlix will "get bored and turn to bloat".

[drpiety]

for the last three releases no macro had been added to micro. Think it will stay like that.

[creed]

Zodium..

And if not, will you at least keep a barebones client for those of us who aren't interested in having our BT client also be a web browser or IRC client or whatever people come up with? :0

but I think it's something that needs to be considered

start going to hell because the creators start running out of things to implement ....

So this is not you moaning

I was just saying if you dont want any more development, then stick with what you have....

What did your very contributive post mean then, what else are you going to put into Utorrent, cos I dont want it ?

[zodium]

Zodium..

So this is not you moaning

I was just saying if you dont want any more development, then stick with what you have....

What did your very contributive post mean then, what else are you going to put into Utorrent, cos I dont want it ?

There are several things I'd like to see put into uTorrent yet, such as DHT. I am not, by any means, calling for a development freeze and I am very curious as to how you managed to interpret my post that way.

Moreover, your assumption that "sticking with what works" is the best solution is quite silly. You baselessly assume that new features will be the only thing added in, and no improvements to existing features, or bugfixes, or inclusions of core BitTorrent versions, will have the same thing done. These are things that will always be necessary, and as such it will at some point become better for me to upgrade to a current version. However, this could possibly leave me with undesired and likely mandatory resource-hogging features, thus this post.

Neverminding that, it would be very nice to have a developer response of some kind to this. Long term thinking is very important to any project, and ironically also the kind of thinking that is most often missing.

[worbd]

There will always be stuff to do. New developments/technologies. Bugfixes. Maybe rewriting stuff to make it better/more efficient.

[drpiety]

maybe the feature will/wont come topic should be updated more often so peeps could see about what arguing is pointless.

I personally would like the password feature but i wont post a word about it as its been declined.

[tkout]

This is what i asked myself for a few times now. In my opinion, NO MORE features should be added, or this one comes out where the f*cking azureus is now: a memory and cpu eating monster.

Last time I checked it was only 96KB and only uses around 5-8MB memory on my computer...nowhere near 6.60MB and 70+MB memory. So for this program to turn out just like Azureus the creators have to add a LOT of crap...which is not going to happen because this is MICRO-Torrent.

You have to understand that Azureus uses the java jre so if you open up your Task Manager and look for javaw.exe that is also being used by Azureus. Mine is sitting at 55,676K at this moment, add the 1,896K for Azureus you get a heafty chunk of memory for a BT client.

And on the record I'm all for K.I.S.S(Keep It Simple Stupid)! I hate using apps that eat up my systems ram, I already have to fight windows to get a chunck of it back let alone my BT client.

[zodium]

maybe the feature will/wont come topic should be updated more often so peeps could see about what arguing is pointless.

I personally would like the password feature but i wont post a word about it as its been declined.

Ideally it would be very nice to see some kind of roadmap, honestly. I don't even think it would be that time consuming to make as I've made roadmaps before, but it's obviously up to the developers. uTorrent is in my opinion the single best torrent client on the 'net so far, but that doesn't mean I don't think there's no room for improvement.

[Anime Janai]

If you don't want more features, don't upgrade to the next larger version of uTorrent. You can stay with version 116 if you wish, even a year from now.

What the developers might codify for now is the type of changes associated with version numbers. This will let users who want to stay with an older version feel "better". For example, Certain "obvious" numbered client increments such as version 1.5.0 or 2.0.0 or 2.5.0 or 3.0.0 would be purely bux-fix ultra-stable versions. No new features added, just bug fixes for those. That way, if someone chooses to sit with a version for a long time, they can.

[paritybit]

If you don't want more features, don't upgrade to the next larger version of uTorrent. You can stay with version 116 if you wish, even a year from now.

What about bugs big boy? Meh, excellent solution genius boy. Love the size btw. Next time aim for some caps too. Actually, turn on caps lock then just remove the key. Your opinion is obviously more important than everyone elses even though it is a poor solution.

[Anime Janai]

Hmm, looks like the insults are starting to fly when people cannot force others to have a viewpoint they don't approve of.

[paritybit]

woops sorry, missed the edit. Thanks for qualifying what you said with the solution that the maintainers will have 4 versions to maintain and bug fixes for one version may not work with others.

Sorry about the hostility in my last post. I was a bit upset about the whole massive font thing, SORTA LIKE WRITING EVERYTHING IN CAPS REALLY.

[UTorrentUser]

I have noticed also that the client has gone from ~80kb's to ~96kb's... Now, I understand why and that it is too be expected; but is this something we need to worry about? Is this a pattern that will be continued.

[zodium]

If you don't want more features, don't upgrade to the next larger version of uTorrent. You can stay with version 116 if you wish, even a year from now.

What the developers might codify for now is the type of changes associated with version numbers. This will let users who want to stay with an older version feel "better". For example, Certain "obvious" numbered client increments such as version 1.5.0 or 2.0.0 or 2.5.0 or 3.0.0 would be purely bux-fix ultra-stable versions. No new features added, just bug fixes for those. That way, if someone chooses to sit with a version for a long time, they can.

Hey, Captain Comprehension, I already addressed why this argument is a retarded assumption on page one. Also, nice hack fix to back up said retarded assumptions. I'm sure the developers will want to maintain several different versions of uTorrent instead of just one. Also, size 22 text is a fantastic idea and everyone should use it more often. Go you.

Hmm, looks like the insults are starting to fly when people cannot force others to have a viewpoint they don't approve of.

I think you mean "big letters", not "insults", by the way.

Edit: I'd like to formally request that this thread be closed because people are incapable of grasping what I meant with this thread and simply assume I'm calling for an immediate feature freeze despite my repeated saying that I am not.