gomeler.com — The Comparison [...] "Starting out with uTorrent, I quickly made connections to the seeders and peers and my download rate quickly rose to 3.5 to 3.7 mB/s stable, with spikes above 4mB/s. This speed lasted for the entire duration of the test and I completed my first download of 3GB in 22:03 minutes."
Apr 24, 2006 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountApr 24, 2006
I didn't make any concrete conclusions because it was impossible to determine if one was superior to the other. While uTorrent tended to maintain a slightly faster download speed, both programs maxed out my system memory, the only difference being that Azureus utilized 100% clock cycles while uTorrent peaked around 35%. If you are on a laptop and on battery, your mobility will be seriously cut while using Azureus compared to uTorrent, but then again, why download torrents via Wi-Fi in the first place. Each program has something to offer, lightweight versus full sized with plug-ins and tons of features.
kevnacaApr 24, 2006
Lucky Bastard. Oh wait. They monitor what you're downloading do they? Never go shady on a college connection.
digitaldudApr 24, 2006
I'm not surprised at all. I did some tests on Java's file I/O classes awhile back and the performance was absolutely horrible. I don't know what Java's class library is doing internally, it's as if the stream classes have a buffer thats 1 byte long and the CPU is constantly being pegged.
jonnyfiveApr 25, 2006
utorrent is very nice. I have the regular bit torrent and I was downloading a file at 32KB and 45 Min's to go. I downloaded utorrent, stopped the download on the regular bittorent and bam, shot up to 150KB and 3 Min's to go. I am a believer.
Closed AccountApr 25, 2006
A friend of mine told me that uTorrent has a hidden payload of spyware just waiting to be unleashed by the flock of dodo's using it. Do you really want to be part of his bot army when he flicks the switch? I didn't think so. Use Azureus.
kherrickApr 25, 2006
Actually, I ran uTorrent all night last night under Wine on Linux and it hasn't crashed yet... downloaded two 650 megabyte files and am seeding now... Also, I have heard that some apps actually run faster using the Wine api. uTorrent under Wine certainly doesn't run slow on my 512 megabytes of ram using Debian Sid. One more thing, I'm sure you already know this, but for all the others, Wine is not emulating an API... it is replacing it.
matt0neApr 30, 2006
transmission was very disappointing. download rates never increased above 0.2 (or so) kb/s - which is nothing. Tried the same torrent with bittorrent and it has been rocking it - albeit a little slowly since i am at my dad's in cyprus, but rocking it in comparison.
jesusisapervertMay 23, 2006
The main argument FOR Azureus seems to be its "Safe Peer" plugin, but for those using uTorrent, you can still achieve the same level of privacy (it even uses the same blocklist!), by reading this story:<a class="user" href="http://digg.com/technology/Protecting_yourself_against_the_BitTorrent_bandits_">http://digg.com/technology/Protecting_yourself_against_the_BitTorrent_bandits_</a>Why are some windows people still using Azureus? I used to love Azureus and it saw no competition until uTorrent came about. But Azureus is slow and uses around 100MB of ram, since it's running in an interpretated scripting language. uTorrent on the other hand is tiny (100kbish), only uses 2.2MB of ram, and runs natively on your machine. Don't you think it's time to make the switch if you're still stuck using Azureus? Sure, you can't use plugins in uTorrent, but why would you need them?uTorrent already has an amazing RSS downloader, so you can have it sit in your tray and download whatever you want it to. So that's 1 less plugin needed. And with the tweak from the article above, you are as safe as using the Safe Peer plugin, that's another plugin down. Really, uTorrent has everything you need, give it a spin!
xpir3dNov 1, 2006
this is totally retarded? u rarely get the same seeders/leechers....how is this accurate in ANY sense? coulda been just lucky and grabbed on a fast uploader...
derekfatherDec 23, 2006
Im using transmission right now on a mac, here is some info: im downloading one file of size 709mb. Peers: 6 of 7. Download speed: 117kb/s, upload 4.6k/s. Now my sistem is as follow: transmition is taking 3% of the cpu (max), is taking 27mb real memory, and 222mb virtual. Thats about two or tree times activity monitor. I think is fine. But nothing i can say about the others because i have not tried them.
bozobubFeb 24, 2007
Well, I've used several clients but my two favorite are -so far - Azureus and uTorrent. The only real difference I can see between the two is CPU usage, especially now that uTorrent has a web interface...Where Azureus really rules is in its UI itself; the design is very, very polished.
artifishalfishMar 22, 2007
Dugg at the "uTorrent is the tiny Lotus."
walkinbonfireJun 9, 2008
I've used both Transmission and Azureus on an Intel Mac with 1 gig of memory and a 2.16 gig Core 2 Duo processor. Transmission consistently gave me connection speeds of about 4 kb/sec and about half the time dropped the torrent when it was 95% done. Azureus, on the other hand, gives me speeds of at leas 50 kb/sec on the most obscure torrents, and never drops anything. I've really never found that it slows processes down much either. I usually get about 20 megabytes of free memory and about three hundred megabytes of inactive memory, which is plenty for most apps, and I can always shut down for more demanding ones. Azureus also offers much more control and expandability. Overall, if you have a Mac, go for Azureus.
swoopdogAug 9, 2008
I was hoping for a transmission vs utorrent comparison.I already knew Azureus was inferior
jenniallissaAug 12, 2011
Is it possible for deployed Optical Transmission system to download 240 DVD movies in 1 second?
http://telekomni.blogspot.com/2011/08/broadband-services-root-cause-behind.html