digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Awesome Azureus vs. uTorrent / Transmission Comparison

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."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • scinju, on 10/12/2007, -3/+74This is actually pretty interesting, although very basic. Personally, I prefer uTorrent, because of how small it is and how it's just a standalone no-install program, but each to their own.

    Please don't start a flame war.
    • quadvods, on 10/12/2007, -5/+63Download link for uTorrent:

      http://utorrent.com/download.php

      Download link for Azureus:

      http://azureus.sourceforge.net/download.php
    • soogy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Both consume memory, though Azureus is more forward and consumes your RAM, while uTorrent consumes it from the cache. However, uTorrent comes out on top because it doesn't consume much CPU.

      So...
      Memory: Azureus-BAD, uTorrent-BAD
      CPU: Azureus-BAD, uTorrent-GOOD
      Speed: Negligible?
    • Noize, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15utorrent for the win :)
    • Badaudio, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5i prefer utorrent because that was the only client that works for me
    • lukas88, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Amazing. Amazing that the author thought it was worthy to report tests repeated only twice. A huge external factor that he has no control over is the people sending the file to him, not to mention the amount of other people also requesting the file. In order for these tests to be anywhere near valid he would have to repeat the same test at least 10 times on multiple files.

      Well his conclusion seems solid, both are pretty good software. I use uTorrent, pretty much because it is small and simple. To quote albert einstein, "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
    • jesusisapervert, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The 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:
      http://digg.com/technology/Protecting_yourself_against_the_BitTorrent_bandits_

      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!
    • mickrussom, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1utorrent is closed source. sure they aren’t keeping data on you? And now that utorrent is owned by BitTorrent, Inc, do you know that they are trying daily to get into bed with the same content companies that love the RIAA/MPAA so much.

      How easy it is to get people to sell out - make a “better” product that calls home and gives them everything they need to know to put you down.
  • gomeler, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Like scinju said, do not start an Azureus/uTorrent flame war please, all this article does is show how both programs consume resources. While gathering data for this article, I noticed that in the end, with a 2.0+ mB/s connection, both uTorrent and Azureus were system memory hogs, the only difference was with the clock cycles. However if you have something constructive, please voice it.
    • thecoolestcow, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7It's sad, really, that it's necessary to tell people not to start a flame war. I would think it's common sense by now. It's sad, really.

      I used to use Azureus, but then I reformatted my harddrive and installed uTorrent. I was pleased with both.
    • zatrix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7why is it sad? people just like to argue.

      And no I'm not justifying it, I'm explaining why it happens.
  • neilpan, on 10/12/2007, -38/+11I dont see any concrete conclusions here... so, that makes the story pointless.... I was expecting "Azureus" to be more faster and reliable from my personal experiences but meh...

    no digg
    • Vokas, on 10/12/2007, -31/+9The story is not pointless you dumb *****. It answers the question of which client is faster. Neither on was a clear winner, but I did not know that before reading it. Your comment is useless.
  • Pyfco, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13From my experience, if you try this on a not so fast connection, Azureus will still use a load of resources, but utorrents cache use wont be anywhere near so high. Its all java's fault not really azureuss...
    • afsina, on 10/12/2007, -21/+1Dude, you know nothing about Java or azureus. According to my tests, even under load Azureus actually can work with less then 20MB of heap memory and maybe tops 30Megs of non-heap memory. The thing is azureus is a behemoth, it has too many functionality and too many objects created. The tools used in Linux and Windows for checking memory consumption is (especially Linux) deceptive. hopefully i will write my findings in an article soon to finish this comedy once and for all.
    • Badaudio, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3your right
    • Badaudio, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3afsina i hate you
  • gomeler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I 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.
  • szelij, on 10/12/2007, -19/+3So am i the only one that dumps Utorrent because he gets 1kbs speeds ? I did want to use utorrent but everytime i do so it tends to hover below 10kbs...so i usually dump it and go with evil bitcomet. I always turn off dht and seed anyway.
    • daenyth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17most likely you get such low speeds BECAUSE you turn off DHT and do not seed. your download speed is limited by your upload speed with torrents
    • nicarley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Your ISP may have a cap too..
  • gomeler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20By turning off DHT you limit the amount of people you can download from and by not seeding you are not propagating the file. Bittorrent works better when more people seed, and some programs even have functions that choke your download if you don't upload. Don't leech, seed at least to 100%.
    • Mike89, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2My DHT wont connect lately and I have no clue why. It just sits there with 0 peers. Anyone else had the same problem? Torrents still max out my incoming and outgoing bandwidth, thankfully.
    • Ridernyc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3you do realize that's it's not possible for every person to seed 100% on every torrent. Do the math, it won't ever happen and not because people leech. The only way to ever get to 100% is if someone leechs.

      Sorry but this is just another one of those etiquette rules that people throw around without thinking about and this stuff is really bugging me.
  • spazzium, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Transmission is a poor client. In my setup it was ignoring my custom port settings, thereby limiting me to passive connections only. Upload rate limiting is very poor too, it cannot effectively keep the rate under control. Plus those are like the only 2 features of the client, and neither work very well.
    • Lostcosmos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I agree - Transmission is at present a featureless client. Do you know of a better universal binary client?
    • fohat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I've been using Tomato http://sarwat.net/bittorrent/ I don't think it's universal yet (but I can't tell). I like it alot, it has a little drop script thingy that lets you drag torrents to it to "download torrent here". I've never had a crash with it, and am running an intel mini solo.
    • ShitHappens, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I run transmission on linux and I have to say it is one of the best clients i've used. It doesn't use very many resources and I have none of the problems you listed. Port settings and upload capping work perfectly.
    • spazzium, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The only other good "universal" client for Mac that I know of is Azureus. I switched to it after deciding Transmission sucked (because it does). If anyone knows any other alternatives for Mac, I'd love to hear about them.
    • toveling, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Transmission is a wonderful client - as long as you don't want to have a queue of 50 torrents at all times. For a few quick downloads, it's great. I've never had problems with it ignoring settings, and most of the advanced features in Az or uTorrent go unused. This isn't to say that I use it for everything bittorrent - I use uTorrent on my windows computer for quick stuff, and keep Azureus running loaded on queued stuff on my server.
    • matt0ne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2transmission 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.
  • mikeazorin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Here's what it comes down to for me. If you have a strong computer and there's an extension for Azureus that is particularly useful for you, then take Azureus. However, know that uTorrent is pretty much better in almost every way. The features are comparable, it's just that Azureus has a little more extendability.
  • thestorey, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2i used to use azures but immediately switched over to utorrent. i prefer its "small town feel" plus it is faster in my opinion and not so mainstream myspacy yet
    • kankerfist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You prefer a client to not be mainstream? Open source projects usually benefit a lot when they become mainstream...
    • CorpT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Great reason not to use something. Let me guess, you also use Linux because it's "not so mainstream myspacy". Why not use what you find best? Not using something because it's not mainstream is just as bad as using something because it is mainstream.
    • kalisphoenix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I grok what he's saying. Or at least I do the same thing. It's not really a "I want to be different" thing, it's an "I want to encourage diversity." And not in a *****-college-lit-class-where-the-teacher-doesn't-speak-comprehensible-English sense, I mean in a "Sure, Mozilla's the best, but I think Opera has some killer features and I'd like to contribute to the size of their user base and drop some cash to enhance their features because I think they can be even better than Mozilla someday."

      It's not right to use the mainstream thing only because it's mainstream, true. It's not right to use the "alternative" solution just because it's alternative, true. But I also think it's worth a little pain and discomfort to stick up for an OS like Linux circa 1993, any mom-and-pop store circa the past twenty years, et cetera.
    • Badaudio, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1wat a douche
  • DCUK, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Both programs work fine for me, they will both always max out my connection if I let them.

    I just use uTorrnet because (as people have already mentioned) the size of it.
  • tmanka, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I don't think people should be running Az with less then a gig of memory. If you have the resources then you should use it, the modular design with the available plugins make azureus VERY powerful.
  • gomeler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I will be testing Mac clients in about a month when I get my MacBook Pro, so I am sorry I haven't got more details for you spazzium, but once I have a platform to test Mac software on, I'll be updating.
  • Maasneotek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Fascinating stuff,

    I'm an azureus man, after this article i might switch. Not that it matters though, RCN is throttling torrents or just downloaded files over 10mb.

    -maasneotek
    • ctheory, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Do you have encryption+changed ports and all that jazz with Azureus?
    • Maasneotek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah i did, I have been getting packet loss up to 85% ( so RCN tells me) they are paying my modem a visit tomarrow. I might have a new inflamatory anti ISP post tomarrow night heh.

      Seriously, before the tech agreed to send someone for tomarrow, he mentioned how RCN throttles Bittorrent downloads to 2k per sec. But even with encryption on, ANY transaction is throttled down to zero within 10 minutes. we'll see what happens.

      I'm a big fan of Azureus simply beacause I support JAva.... decions decisions....


      -Maasneotek
    • ShadowRelic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4azureus has a large number of plugins that will let you expand it much further then the basic utorrent. sometimes that is worth sacrificing a few kbs.
  • Dutchdude148, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I download and share a lot of video clips via Azureus. I've used Utorrent, but never received any good download speeds. With Azureus, I have gotten a download speed of 400 kb/sec. So, im just gonna stick to that lol.
  • chrish01, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7how the hell do you get milli-Bytes per second ;-)

    i think you want the capital M

    Mega-bits = Mb
    Mega-Bytes = MB
    • foxhoundadmin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2i think he may also want the lowercase "B." i doubt if he has a 32Mbps connection.
  • Fly1m1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9uTorrent rules!
  • diggnationdevon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Well uTorrent is definitely better because it is light on system resources. My CPU would always get too busy and sometimes overloaded when I used Azureus.
  • BassCadet, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6This only tells me what I learned a year ago when I first switched to uTorrent:

    Azureus is the client of choice for the same people who like bloated, dumbed-down software like Kazaa, iTunes, and Yahoo messenger.

    If you like tight, minimalist software that gets the job done CLEANLY, uTorrent is the one to use.


    • countplusplus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4And yet strangely I use both uTorrent and iTunes.
    • BassCadet, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5@countplus -

      As an iPod owner do you really have a choice?
    • terminalpariah, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3I guess we should all dump Firefox for Opera, huh?
    • countplusplus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@BassCadet

      No. But in all fairness, other than the bloat I like iTunes (used to use WinAmp but I like having all my albums loaded). Of course, other than the bloat I like Azureus (also used to use but got convinced to try uTorrent last time a thread like this popped up and for me it does all the same things and is smaller).
    • MeridianBlade, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Opera FTW!
    • ucg1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2bah, uTorrent doesn't even have a web interface yet. It's useless to me. Even CLI clients are more useful for the way I use BT. But Azureus does have a web interface that works well, so it's what I use. To top it off, I need something that will run in Linux, and uTorrent is certainly not that.
  • ynggrsshppr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I tried and like uTorrent, but I couldn't wean myself off Azureus. There were a few little things I liked that uTorrent didn't have, small things like differences in the UI.

    Both great clients though.
  • trunkster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I've been a Azureus user for quite a while now. Just recently I decided to try uTorrent and I am very happy with it. I still use Azureus on my Mac but for windows, uTorrent is simply kick-ass fast. I just tried Transmission for the Mac, but I really need those advance settings that Azureus and uTorrent provide. So Azureus for the Mac and uTorrent for windows, that's my 2 cents.
    • 12Volts, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I had much the same experience - Azureus however has gone from my system now.
  • mcabiling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+83.5Gigabytes in less than 30mn ? now what kind of connection did he have ??
    • jasonhe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2yeah i was wondering the same thing!
  • Nitro2985, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I used Azureus for around a year, always hated how slow it was, but loved the features.

    I switched to the muTorrent recently and loved the reduction in system resources. I still get great speeds on my active torrents so unless I need to use another OS, I'll stick with muTorrent.
  • Cbeck527, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3How is he gtting speeds like that?
    • kevnaca, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2He has some sick connection! He probably ties up his local network in the process. I know the evil nature of bittorrents on connection speed.
  • L2006, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1When I'm downloading something while surfing the internet (like a movie) I have to use Azureus. Because Utorrent will make the Internet go really slow. And the the Utorrent goes speed is slow because I have Firefox open. And I'm on a wireless connection (I have to be) so that really doesn't help either. When I'm downloading something over-night I use Utorrent.
    • acorn22, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Perhaps One of them has a limit set to how fast it is allowed to dl
  • gomeler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4My connection is provided to me by Georgia Tech. Using some of the online bandwidth tests I have achieved download speeds over 8MB/s and I have almost maxed my 100MBit(12.5MB/s) connection on burst transfers.
    • kevnaca, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Lucky Bastard. Oh wait. They monitor what you're downloading do they? Never go shady on a college connection.
    • foxhoundadmin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1do you mean "100Mbps?"
  • micro506, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I have used Azureus in the past, and I really love the features, but I just can't get over the size issues. I personally would love nothing more than to try uTorrent, if only there were a Linux port available...
    • kherrick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Try it using Wine, I did, and it worked fine... except for minimizing in KDE... for that I just used the "Hide/Show uTorrent" option out of the System Tray icon, and then it doesn't freeze the window when hiding it... For the Wine setup I also have IE installed so that other Windows apps will install easier, not sure if this matters for uTorrent though. I have downloads going on right now, seems to work quite well.
    • michaelg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I too would be interested if there was a linux port. I stick to Azureus right now because of the ease it is to add plugins such as a web interface and I plan to implement some of my own plugins for Azureus, which I have running on a little home linux server, to make it into the ultimate TV torrent and overall torrent setup availible. I know I could do wine but that seems like utorrent would catch up in CPU cycles by emulated an entire API which would also loose some stability.
    • kherrick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Actually, 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.
  • raitchison, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I guess I'm the only one still using ABC, genrally using it because I am used to it.

    One thing I've noticed with running pretty much any P2P is that if I am uploading my Internet connect slows to a crawl. I have a 384k upstream pipe per multiple bandiwdth tests yet the most that any P2P app (well mostly only use ABC and DC++) can upload is ~50K, if I am uploading any faster than 40k my Internet connection is useless for any device in my house. I have to choke ABC's upload speed down to 35K just to check my E-Mail.
    • kherrick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I have the same problem... plus I'm on a shared connection, so I just love the uTorrent scheduling... 10k up and down during the day, unlimited during the night. :-)
    • NCC1701A, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Me To!

      Searched high and Low for the fix, haven't found it yet.
      Some have stated that the Broadband router is the problem, so I tested with New setups of: WinXP / No Router, with the proper settings for connections oin XP etc. Same problem.

      Others who work with me with the same ISP (Aliant) are getting hugh DL numbers without the problem of slowing their intranets!

      But I use uTorrent cause it's portable....

  • Sixxer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I prefer Transmission because of my basic needs and because it isn't butt ugly like pretty much ever other client. Shame so many people put up with (close to) full screen apps too. Transmission is tiny.
  • neezdutz, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0I am not in awe. I want my money back.
  • RAT-Man, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2uTorrent never allows me to upload with torrents correctly. Azureus works wonders, but uTorrent craps out on the uploading side a couple hundred mb's are uploaded.
  • gookie, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3anyone still using Bloatzureus???
  • thestorey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1utorrent rocks just look at my current download i got going http://thestorey.googlepages.com/utorrentproof.jpg
    • gookie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6i can top that with photoshop
    • m00nmaster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Incriminating evidence of downloading "Lost" episodes? Let me call ABC, hang on. =)
    • FormulaOne, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2
      Dumb ***** implicates himself. News at 11.
  • antareus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Wow, you guys sure take your Linux ISO downloading pretty seriously.
  • DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I'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.
  • Riker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Although I make use of UTorrent and Azuerus (depending on which computer I am using). It appears that these clients are not always the most popular.

    I'm seeing of lot of popularity among the BitComet and BitLord clients on the majority of torrents I D/L, see for yourselves.
  • cvrefugee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The last time I used uTorrent it wasn't good at handling multiple torrents. For some reason it wouldn't queue them correctly (or in order). That problem may be fixed, but I'll continue to use Azureus because I'm familiar with it and plus I donated $10 for it.
  • strcmp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3For everyone who thinks that Java is not slow: it is. You can wave around all the benchmarks you want but Java apps are slow.
    • FormulaOne, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1
      For people that think you're ignorant. It's true.
  • xbmcrules, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I've been using azureus for a while and I can't change.
  • ucg1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1uTorrent doesn't have a web interface so it's useless to me at the moment (hence I use Azureus). They are working on one:
    http://www.utorrent.com/faq.php#Does.C2.B5Torrent_have_a_web_interface.3F
  • hcl40u, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Interesting since I've never had Azureus go beyond 100MB of mem usage for me and that was with 512MB of RAM(60MB avg). Almost never that high CPU usage to but then again I don't have the kind of connection speeds that the author of this blog has.
  • popezaphod, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1No Mac client = No Digg
    • kherrick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Transmission is on Mac... and so is Azureus. Maybe uTorrent will work with Wine on Mac... I got it to work with Wine on Linux... The only people seemly missing out is the Windows people. :-)
  • crizpiz2, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1bitcomet anyone?
    • lament, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4worst bittorrent client ever and banned by several bittorrent sites, correct.
  • CptnObvious, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I use KTorrent and it rules, it is very similar to uTorrent. Azureaus uses a lot more CPU and RAM since its Java and for something that will be siting in my tray that I barely ever see I don't need it gumming up the works.
  • Silencer7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2If Utorrent is the Corvette of the bittorrent world, then Azureus is the diesel U-Haul.
    Az changes direction too slowly and uses up too much of my system's concentration, but its seeding rules are the best way to handle many things at once.
    Utorrent moves fast, stops fast, and lets me cruise, but good luck trying to juggle more than 10 torrents if you're trying to seed based on tracker, availability, or anything other than share ratio.
    Anyway, with just 384MB ram, running Az is like a U-Haul with a lawnmower engine, so no luck.
    • FormulaOne, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Interesting choice of words. I guess that makes your brain the Vegetable Oil of alternative fuels.
  • kherrick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Just to throw this out there... I have always used Azureus as I need Linux stuff as well as Windows stuff. I never heard of Transmission, but installed Jam with apt-get, then built from source... and it kind of reminds me of Democracy in simplicity... though I have ditched Democracy because at least on my Windows box it is horribly buggy...

    As far as uTorrent... I never used it because I have always used Azureus... but let me be the first to say what an awesome client. I especially like the built in scheduler... maybe Azureus has this, but I never found it... also, I just tried it on Wine for Linux... works like a charm with one hangup, at least on KDE when I minimize and then restore, the window freezes... so I don't minimize that way, I right click on the icon in the system tray and click the "Hide/Show uTorrent" and it works like a dream... WOO HOO!
  • Jammerdelray, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0former azureus user now using utorrent.....more options, lighter package.
  • h0dg3s, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1blog spam
  • k3ymaster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Really interesting, I've been using Azureus for the longest time and like it, but I always noticed it would eat resources like crazy. I think I'm going to try uTorrent.
  • FormulaOne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"So...
    Memory: Azureus-BAD, uTorrent-BAD
    CPU: Azureus-BAD, uTorrent-GOOD
    Speed: Negligible?"

    You forgot one thing:

    Open Source: Azureus-GOOD, uTorrent BAD

    In the end, Azureus wins. Do you know what your P2P client is doing underneath the covers?
    • Rowen7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Azureus = Opensource. Multi-platform.
      Competition = Not.

      Azureus has won community awards and is open source. On Mac OS X, it runs wonderfully though it will make a laptop rather hot.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.