uTorrent is small because its Microsoft-whore? True or False?

uTorrent sorta claims that it's small because it was coded very efficiently or whatever, but i heard and read rumours that it just relies heavily on .Net and dotnetfix and on Java and on IE libraries, and that is why its small, not because its programmed so brilliantly.

I am inclined to believe that, since I am sceptical of the "efficiently coded" Magic Wand of it all.

Anyone else agree with me?

but i heard and read rumours that it just relies heavily on .Net and dotnetfix and on Java and on IE libraries, and that is why its small, not because its programmed so brilliantly.

.net - bullshit

dotnetfix - bullshit

java - what the fuck was that guy thinking?

ie libraries - only for https (if it uses them that much)

But why are azureus and bittorrent it self so huge then? and uTorrent keeps getting smaller and smaller!! Somehow, I can not blame these guys for thinking like that, it seems fishy.

Don't hate me for it, just seems odd.

Also, arguments like " bullshit" .... not very convincing.

Where does the download page say that uTorrent requires you install the .net framework or a java runtime package?

Nowhere, because it doesn't require them. If uTorrent relied on .net or java, it would REQUIRE the .net framework or a java runtime.

Azureus is so huge because:

1> Feature creep

2> Java

3> Trying to stay multiplatform

4> Feature creep

5> Vuse

6> Feature creep.

http://utorrent.com/faq.php#How_can_.C2.B5Torrent_be_so_small_and_so_fast.3F

The fact ludde based µTorrent upon a windows-specific libraries does not make it a "microsoft whore". uT is statically linked, and compressed... which is mentioned in the FAQ if i'm not mistaken. That is what keeps it low. By the way, it HAS increased in size http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=30871

DWK, sure it doesn't say that, nowhere on the DL page. reason 3 makes sense and is a tat more convincing than "bullshit!", reasons 1, 4 and 6 ... oh well, your spelling is excellent, so I understood that immediately

tnx anyways

Whether they are even "ie libraries" is debatable - technically, they are just system libraries that IE happened to update or add back in the day. For example, did you know that IE changed the core shell and common controls libraries and added features to the basic Windows controls back then?

-----

OK, there is some real misinformation here. First off, the answer is simple - Ludde spent an amazing amount of effort making previous versions efficient - and we try very hard to do the same or better; that's it. Also, to address some stuff from jewelis's post - uTorrent is dynamically linked, and that thread linked in the post never happened as I mentioned multiple times. In fact our switch to VC2005 even reduced uTorrent size by a few K.

erm? I hate misinformation. I'm sorry I was the cause. In any case FUD like this tralc should have gone to the trash immediately. Anyone who doesn't search or read the FAQ first deserves the bandhammer.

Well, I DID read the faq, I just happen to be am a bit sceptical, hence the phrase "magic wand". I wondered if there were other sceptics as well. And it's not like uTorrent is another Total Commander, or coded in Assembler.

jewelis's reaction, with threats and all that doesn't show a whole lot of self assuredness and takes away a lot of the convincing remarks made by DWK.

Listen, I just asked a question, because I don't happen to take everything at face value. If you can't face that, well sue me.

I take back "Microsoft-whore", its not a constructive word to use.

... FUD of any kind is, well FUD.

The only person committing ad hominem is you my dear.

If you don't take it at face value, do your own research using any of the many available tools for windows debugging/troubleshooting... and post it. This forum is open for all legitimate debate... (protip: you can start with a tool regularly used to help with "crashing" problems because uT is "broken"... It is found at http://www.sysinternals.com and is called "Process Explorer"), illegitimate debate however is met with the vigor of DWKnight.

just shut up, jewelisheaven

I have µTorrent running on a Windows 98SE box.

No .NET (can't even run that on Win 98/ME!)

No dotnetfix

No java required

oh yeah, I used IE Eradicator to remove almost every trace of Internet Explorer from the system.

µTorrent runs just fine.

Speaking of FUD, i can't let this one stand uncorrected:

Azureus is so huge because:

1> Feature creep

2> Java

3> Trying to stay multiplatform

4> Feature creep

5> Vuse

6> Feature creep.

1) Maybe

2) Yes

3) No; already covered by 2

5) Vuze (with z) can be disabled and thus does not consume any resources if disabled

Even with Vuze disabled, it still makes the file bigger.

Sure, but who truly cares about the file size in the terabyte age, especially considering that you're going to download heaps of data with that tool anyway? Imo the real concern for most users is memory footprint.

I know, but I think that's what he was referring to by mentioning it. Filesize really doesn't matter much in the end, no.

Yes Firon,

Of course filesize doesn't matter in terms of diskspace it occupies, that is a ridiculous remark. I am mentioning it of course, because filesize indicates efficiency of programming, which points to cleverness, neatness, and stuff which programmers forget (a good programmer accounts for every eventuality his program will run into, a bad coder forgets stuff, which leads to crashes.).

In short, quality.

As a rule of thumb, the smallest program with the same function is the best (thats why we call big klunky apps bloatware). Of course there are exceptions to the rule. And this doesn't really fly for OSes. Or so it seems.

In the case of uTorrent v Azureus v BitTorrent, the size diff is so huge that I became suspicious of all three. I think we're talking about 1 : 20 : 10 or something like that.

PS and thanks for telling jewel fan boy to shut up. she/it can't read and then blames others for that fact.

The8472 -- Something is up with the Vuze versions, because I can't run them well on my lower-memory systems that I could run the last Azureus versions on. The first thing I do is turn off the Vuze views so that it looks and acts like Azureus, but it seems to still have a larger memory footprint than the last Azureus releases.

Are you saying that this shouldn't be the case?

I think it's Sun Java, I really do. It simply sucks performance on Windows and it is excellent on Linux. I'm thinking the Sun guys don't use Windows as their day-to-day platform.

PS: Vuze and the features added since Azureus are excellent! By no means is this a criticism of it, just an observance.

The earliest versions of utorrent were actually around 80kB small! But back then it didn't have a fraction of the number of features it has today. You can check out old versions [sNIP], to see how utorrent has evolved

@funchords

there's a difference between just disabling the views and unloading the vuze ui, there's a switch under interface display that should do the trick.

although i think that's the wrong forum :]

Don't link to old versions! They are not supported!

@Lord Alderaan and @ tjobo:

wHY not link to old versions? Even if they are not supported, what harm can it do to run them?

And this is the first app i've ever seen to cut its size in half with an upgrade. More than half actually. This, more than anything, made me "suspicious" of uTorrent, so hence this thread. Unless the coding is in a completely other language, like a symbol based language like APL or Assembler, (which seems highly unlikely) this remains very odd.

And yes, it's a very good app and all that and there's no better in its kind. But TANSTAAFL: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, and all that.

So?

...? Cut its size in half...?

1.6.x was ~170KB

1.7.x is ~210KB

1.8.x is currently ~240KB

If you want to see how µTorrent has changed in size, you can see here. µTorrent is packed using UPX (and was previously packed using PECompact2). The 1.6 on the page tjobo linked to was unpacked -- that's all.

At any rate, I'm not really seeing why being very small (or having the size get cut in half, if it ever happens) would make µTorrent odd/suspicious. I managed to cut the size of the BEncode Editor executable by perhaps 30% between v0.2 and v0.3 -- nothing weird going on. Being conscientious about file size shouldn't make any developer a target of suspicion.

He brings up quite a valid point... On unpacked EXEs, as well as with a utility like Process Explorer ON packed EXEs, you have the ability to inspect the process. Look at the calls made, DLLs loaded, and strings in the file. While you may not have the sourcecode, it certainly shows everything that the µT community has been saying. It is not malware. It does not link or require any bulky interfaces. It doesn't advertise you or your downloads to a home site.

again, why are old versions dangerous? do they bring down clients worldwide?

Since it seems agains board etiquette/superstition (x out appropiate) i've not made it an active link.

Okay, but you'll have to realize that that unpacked version is widely spread, so hence my wonderment.

I will assume that the wikipage sizes are correct. And I am not saying that small sized progs are suspicious, far from it. If that is what you thought I implied, don't think that.

I was just looking at the enormous size difference between the 3 clients, Azureus, BitTorrent and UT.

And in general, if two program with more or less the same function have such a difference it can mean several things on the part of the bigger prog:

1. sloppy, inefficient coding

2. more functions

3. malware, spyware etc

4. independent library use and such

5. a coding language which is based on human language

6. really bad compiling

and maybe others

Now, if an application sudden reduces it's size, all of these can also be applied to that app. Since it seems that there was no sudden size reduction for UT, it doesn't apply to UT.

Still, it makes one wonder: how can UT be sooooooo small while the other are sooooo big, with more or less the same functions, and all presumably being written in C++?

10 to 20 times smaller is a big deal.

I'm sure theres a completely sensible explanation for it. I am merely curious as to what it is.