Azureus v3.0 (Zudeo)

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:05 am

ah i c - cheers for that

i guess if you're a distributer / seeder? then these things come into play.

if you're more parasitically inclined, however... :icon30:

Post by **S@M** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:34 am

Cooldown wrote:uTorrent ftw

:icon25:

Post by **SplishSplash** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:50 am

^misantropia^ wrote:But don't worry your pretty head about it.

Hahaha are you serious

If you're so smart why don't you do the math on this one:

How many instances of Azureus/µtorrent do I have to open until Azureus gives me an advantage?

Academical, obviously, since you can't open more than one instance of µtorrent.
Which leads to my conclusion, which is HAVING MORE THAN ONE INSTANCE OF A BT CLIENT IS ABSOLUTELY FUCKING RETARDED UNLESS AZUREUS IS EVEN MORE BROKEN THAN I THOUGHT.

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:07 am

^misantropia^ wrote: The bulk of that memory is taken up by the Java VM, not the Azureus executable proper.

but don't u need the java vm to run azureus?

doesn't that make clients like utorrent effectively less memory intensive, since you don't need the java vm for them?

Post by **SplishSplash** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:13 am

My point exactly. It's the typical nerd excuse. Next he'll tell us that it's somehow MS's fault for not integrating Java into Windows or some shit.

Post by ***NoSleep*** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:20 am

bitWISE wrote:Whats wrong with the official client?

Nothing much, if you only download the occasional torrent. But it accesses the hard drive more frequently than Azureus (where this is adjustable) and thus causes more wear. Azureus can be configured to store newly downloaded material in it's cache for longer before writing it .

Post by **PhoeniX** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:26 am

[xeno]Julios wrote:
^misantropia^ wrote: The bulk of that memory is taken up by the Java VM, not the Azureus executable proper.
but don't u need the java vm to run azureus?

doesn't that make clients like utorrent effectively less memory intensive, since you don't need the java vm for them?

Yep.

What he's saying is, that it isn't really Azureus's fault that it takes up so much memory, it's the fact that it's written with Java. Java allows easy cross-platform development and is actually a pretty nice language to program in, but the VM just takes up quite a bit of memory.

If they coded Azureus in C++ then it would (could) likely be much more efficient like uTorrent.

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:44 am

right - i'm just wondering why anyone would use azureus, given that unfortunate constraint.

Post by **Captain** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:48 am

I like teh DC++ zomg.

Post by **MKJ** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:57 am

[xeno]Julios wrote:right - i'm just wondering why anyone would use azureus, given that unfortunate constraint.

i like its ui. i hardly use torrents anyways so i dont care about the OMG BLOAT 10k extra ram usage

Post by **PhoeniX** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:04 am

[xeno]Julios wrote:right - i'm just wondering why anyone would use azureus, given that unfortunate constraint.

50mb or so isn't really that much of a problem any more, a few years ago maybe but I'm guessing most people who would run a torrent client will also be those who know something about computers and have a decent amount of ram.

Saying that, I still prefer uTorrent

.

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:54 pm

MKJ wrote:
i like its ui.

if it were a graphics editing program or web surfing progy or something, i'd see the relevance.

For me, i just double click a torrent file, or drag it into the main display and leave it on in background. Why is UI so important for torrent downloads?

MKJ wrote: i hardly use torrents anyways so i dont care about the OMG BLOAT 10k extra ram usage

not just a matter of 10k

[xeno]Julios wrote:btw the utorrent program itself weighs 173kb (stand alone exe).

it takes up 4 megs of memory when running (without any torrents loaded - not sure how much with torrents)

PhoeniX wrote:
50mb or so isn't really that much of a problem any more, a few years ago maybe but I'm guessing most people who would run a torrent client will also be those who know something about computers and have a decent amount of ram.

Saying that, I still prefer uTorrent .

conserving ram is still a good habit.

Utorrent loads instantaneously, is fucking TINY, and leaves a tiny footprint, and is very functional.

I just don't understand why anyone would use anything else...

Now there may be good reasons - i just haven't yet heard any in this thread (apart from the tracking thing which is only important if you're distributing).

Post by **dzjepp** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:09 pm

I already said why. I get the best and most constant speeds in Azureus (and I've tried most of the clients if you're wondering) plus the plethora of fine tuning options built-in and the different plugins you can download (I use a bunch of them). It allows remote control in a myriad of options etc. If I was running a dedicated server solely for BT use this would be my client of choice as well. I'd like to think the AZ developers are more competent then the others too

Plus uTorrent now belongs to Bram Cohen (creator of BT and bittorrent.com) who has made deals with the MPAA and maybe others. Which might not mean anything now but eh, given the close-source nature of the client who knows.