PDA

View Full Version : Your thoughts about Azureus please


Ted
2005-07-28, 12:36 PM
Until very recently, I've been using another BT client (Shareaza) and really have no compaints about it except some very minor ones. I've been reading that Azureus is supposed to be one of the best, but I've also seen people saying it was garbage for one reason or another. I just installed the latest verion of Azureus and was wondering what negative things people have to say about it, that I should maybe watch for. It's installed on a PC and so far I like it. The stats are accurately relayed to the tracker here and at Dime. I don't go to any other sites, but I may be checking out Bootcity soon. I do see that it tends to use CPU resources, but as far as I know, don't all BT clients use a little more CPU than the average progam because they're constantly checking the hash of the blocks that are coming in?

Anyone have anything bad to say about it so that I can see if I experience the same thing? I'd like to get used to this one (and all it's quirks) as quickly as possible and your opinons/experiences would be helpful.

Thanks.

Five
2005-07-28, 01:40 PM
don't do it, Ted...

http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9261

ffooky
2005-07-28, 01:52 PM
I don't understand this stuff about hogging resources...Azureus runs fine on the kids' 350 MHz iMac, which is basically powered by a couple of mice on wheels.

Ted
2005-07-28, 02:14 PM
Thanks, I was looking for that thread.

Well, that's kinda what I wanted to hear in this thread - people's negative experiences. So far, with the exception of it using slightly more CPU than my prior client, it's not too bad. The comments about it's interface, it being "slow" (whatever that means), and it being crap are all opinons. Those I'll discard.

The ones like the AV going nuts are what I'm interested in. If I experience too many of the same problems everyone else is having, then I'll consider going to another client because most likely, the problem is with the client. If my experiences are different, I'll first try to determine if it's me/my system or a problem with the client.

Though I haven't experienced this yet, I suspect that person may not have their AV configured correctly or it's just a bad AV prorgam. My AV hasn't complained at all.

The large footprint - it may be large, but so far I'm handling that easily with only 256MB of RAM on the computer it's running on, so not a problem there.

I know I said Azureus was off my list, but BitTornado still crashes itself when I try to run it. I'm not going to invest any more time in trying to figure that one out. ABC was the other possibility, but I haven't heard enough positive things about it yet.

Azureus has so many more options and gives more information than I'm used to and I'd just hate to invest the time to get to know it when I may be wasting my time and that's the reason for my wanting negative comments - so I can look for those things specifically.

Ted
2005-07-28, 02:20 PM
I don't understand this stuff about hogging resources...Azureus runs fine on the kids' 350 MHz iMac, which is basically powered by a couple of mice on wheels.It does use more resources than the "average" program, but I suspect that it's due to it hashing every block as it receives it - which is something I would assume ALL clients do. I could be wrong though, since I don't have much experience with other clients - I'm only going by the way I know BT works.

What works on your computer or my computer may not work the same on someone else's. There is a lot to be taken into consideration when evaluating how a program affects one's system.

EDIT: ffooky - what's your sig mean? I've seen it before somewhere. Is it Polish?

rerem
2005-07-28, 03:25 PM
I use Bit Tornado on this old relic puter. Auz uses more CPU and Ram,and like Tornado,is slow to release RAM once you close the app. Perhaps a machine with ample resources would show no effects. With Auz I could not do anything else when I had a window open-so I uninstalled,returned to Bit Tornado

ffooky
2005-07-28, 03:43 PM
EDIT: ffooky - what's your sig mean? I've seen it before somewhere. Is it Polish?

Just next-door(ish). I was mucking around with Azureus's preferences and changed the language to Lithuanian. It means "I have a SOCKS proxy, baby".

It'll be my first choice chat up line next time I'm cruising downtown Vilnius :)

Ted
2005-07-28, 04:07 PM
I use Bit Tornado on this old relic puter. Auz uses more CPU and Ram,and like Tornado,is slow to release RAM once you close the app. Perhaps a machine with ample resources would show no effects. With Auz I could not do anything else when I had a window open-so I uninstalled,returned to Bit TornadoThanks for the reply. What operating system are you using and how much RAM do you have?

Thanks ffooky ;)

Five
2005-07-28, 08:25 PM
It does use more resources than the "average" program, but I suspect that it's due to it hashing every block as it receives it - which is something I would assume ALL clients do. I could be wrong though, since I don't have much experience with other clients - I'm only going by the way I know BT works.
part of the trouble is that Azureus "compies to bit" ... I have no idea what that means, my gf told me that's why its got big feet.

lostboy
2005-07-28, 09:18 PM
I've been using Azureus since last September, and have been pretty happy with it. The only real problem I've had was when they added DHT and dime blocked it. So I looked what people here suggested at the time...and tried G3. G3 initially worked great, nice interface...then 2 weeks later, would freeze the window, but keep seeding and downloading, but couldn't tell how much. By then I was caught up at dime and went back to Azureus.

Ted
2005-07-28, 09:32 PM
I've been using Azureus since last September, and have been pretty happy with it. The only real problem I've had was when they added DHT and dime blocked it. So I looked what people here suggested at the time...and tried G3. G3 initially worked great, nice interface...then 2 weeks later, would freeze the window, but keep seeding and downloading, but couldn't tell how much. By then I was caught up at dime and went back to Azureus.I'm using the latest version on Dime. I think the DHT was causing problems with torrents that were older than a certain date. The two I've downloaded were very recent. My ratio is still accurate there.

Five - I just woke up from a nap and my head is still a little fuzzy.
"compies to bit" - is that a typo, a joke, or is that really what she said? You have me curious.

TheMamba
2005-07-28, 09:45 PM
I recently switched from Azureus to Bit Comet.

Jury's still out on my final word but so far I'm liking it better the Az.

Ted
2005-07-28, 09:50 PM
Why did you switch?

Lights_1
2005-07-28, 09:58 PM
I have been using Azureus for 6 months now and like it a lot. I have not had any problems with it at all. The only time it seems to slow anything down is when I load up multiple torrents at one time, I am talking 10 torrents running at once (It really doesn't it slow it down that much either). If I only have a couple of torrents downloading/uploading my system runs perfectly including burning CDs and DVDs while torrents are going. I am running a AMD 1ghz, 512mb, 200gigs w/Win XP (SP2).

I have noticed since I installed XP last year everything seems to run more efficiently.

peace

Five
2005-07-28, 11:52 PM
Five - I just woke up from a nap and my head is still a little fuzzy.
"compies to bit" - is that a typo, a joke, or is that really what she said? You have me curious.
Java compiles to bytecode meaning that what you get when you compile a java program is not understandably by any computer. There is an intermediary, the Java run time Environment, that relays signals from the program to the computer. This allows for easy cross platform compatibilty, but comes with an overhead.

^^written by my gf :D

p.s. compies to bit should have read compiles to bytecode. oopsie!

U2Lynne
2005-07-29, 12:07 AM
Damn, Jamie, I was reading that and I thought "that is not the Jamie I know writing that!" I've seen you go all techno on me with your mp3 detecting stuff, but never computers. hehe. I like this gal!

Ted
2005-07-29, 12:47 AM
p.s. compies to bit should have read compiles to bytecode. oopsie!Ok, NOW that makes sense. Thanks. Actually, since I've been using it, it doesn't seem to be too much of a resource hog. I know JRE is (which also has the big footprint), but the actual Azureus isn't. Of course, you can't have Azureus without JRE, though. Anyway, it's not much worse than what I had before, which wasn't too bad. So for me, from what I've experienced so far, it doesn't take too much of a hit on my system. I'm sure other clients are better in that respect, but is there one that has all the features, the stabililty, good communication with the tracker, and the nice interface?

pete's montreux
2005-07-29, 01:01 AM
I'm sure other clients are better in that respect, but is there one that has all the features, the stabililty, good communication with the tracker, and the nice interface?

Nope!

Evenreven
2005-07-29, 03:22 AM
What's strange is, I've heard negative stories from pc users, but never a negative Azureus story from a mac user. I'm a mac user and haven't had any problems. Could it be that it uses more resources on a pc?

ssamadhi97
2005-07-29, 07:54 AM
Azureus is fine - I've been having exactly zero problems with it here. Maybe people just need to upgrade their soft- and hardware to this millennium?

Anyway, people who run into resource issues etc when using Az should probably look into Arctic Torrent

http://www.int64.org/arctic.html

TheMamba
2005-07-29, 08:46 AM
Why did you switch?


To try something new. I recently had my system hard drive crap out on me so I've had to reinstall Windows and everything else. Figured I'd give BitComet a try while I was at it.

I never had any problems with Az or it's memory hogging. I run a fairly high-end gaming system though. Only thing that I didn't like about Az was the automatic updates, but I don't like that on any of my programs.

ffooky
2005-07-29, 09:02 AM
Only thing that I didn't like about Az was the automatic updates, but I don't like that on any of my programs.

Preferences/Options->Interface->Start...uncheck the three options relating to updates.

Ted
2005-07-29, 09:05 AM
Yeah, I don't like auto-updates on anything either. You can turn them off in AZ by going to Tools/Options/Interface/Start and then the second and third check-boxes from the top (uncheck them). If for some reason that doesn't work for you, you can block the IP/domain it tries to connect to with a firewall.

EDIT: Oops, we must have been typing at the same time - and thanks - I missed that last box myself.

ffooky
2005-07-29, 09:25 AM
Heheh. Thinking about it, the third box probably wouldn't come into play without either of the first two anyway.

Ted
2005-07-29, 09:44 AM
No, but some software doesn't behave like it's "supposed" to. I don't remember the name of it, but one program was told not to do auto-updates, but if you didn't check "never" in the frequesncy box, it would still check on schedule. It was a bug, obviously and it never hurts to tell the prorgam in as many ways as possible.

Azureus, being open source, is probably more trustworthy than most, so I don't worry too much about what it does. That's a major point of open source.

Five
2005-07-29, 03:06 PM
No, but some software doesn't behave like it's "supposed" to.
perhaps realplayer? :lol

Five
2005-07-29, 03:07 PM
Damn, Jamie, I was reading that and I thought "that is not the Jamie I know writing that!" I've seen you go all techno on me with your mp3 detecting stuff, but never computers. hehe. I like this gal!
heh... I think I'll keep her around! ;)

Ted
2005-07-29, 04:59 PM
perhaps realplayer? :lol :lol You had to go and trash this thread, didn't you? Ever try to uninstall it (completely)? It's a registry nightmare :mad:

musicguy81
2005-07-29, 05:01 PM
I've BitComet, Azureus, Arctic, and Nova Torrent.
Azureus is suppoed to be faster than BitComet, but I can't really tell.

The things I hate about Azureus are the update thing, the slow startup time (that stupid "Intializing" whatever junk that is), and that it makes me d/l the whole torrent at once. I thought the other 2 were okay.

I like BitComet the best for me. No update thing, it starts up fast, and fast downloads, and it lets me select one album, one song, or one file at a time to download. I just like it so much better. :clap: :)

Ted
2005-07-29, 05:06 PM
The things I hate about Azureus are the update thing, the slow startup time (that stupid "Intializing" whatever junk that is), and that it makes me d/l the whole torrent at once. I thought the other 2 were okay.

I like BitComet the best for me. No update thing, it starts up fast, and fast downloads, and it lets me select one album, one song, or one file at a time to download. I just like it so much better. :clap: :)Not trying to change your mind, but rather shedding some light on your comments:

Update thing - refer to one of the threads above for where the settings are so you can disable it.

Slow start-up - probably because that's Java loading it's big ass into memory :p (nothing can be done about that, short of a faster processor)

Downloading a single file (or select files) - you can. I believe you right-click the torrent in the queue and cilck properties (or details). From that page, you can decide which files to download (or not).

chazuke
2005-07-30, 11:55 AM
I can't tell Azureus but can tell ABC. Great tool. Will do about anything you might want. Exception: see my "mechanics" thread.

Apparently, no matter which client, these disadvantages apply to all:
- slow at loading :
Reason: the volume of the files. Not the actual program.
- crashes:
Reason: overheating, check ventilator. Expiry of RAM space, expand memory.
(My guesses, not sure.)

Five
2005-07-30, 12:36 PM
:lol You had to go and trash this thread, didn't you? Ever try to uninstall it (completely)? It's a registry nightmare :mad:
ugh... I've probably still got registry entries to hunt down, thanx for the tip

the best way to get around it is to use Media Player Classic with reallternative (when you can't avoid real, like on the bbc site). there's also a quicktime alternative available for that prog, too.

Ted
2005-07-30, 01:10 PM
Yep, I already use Classic with Realalternative. I thought I mentioned that (guess I forgot :p). When I "have" to use RealPlayer, I either grab the direct link to the file (if I can) and download it to view in Classic, sometimes I convert it from Real format, depending on what it is, and sometimes I just not get the file at all. I miss out on some good stuff that way, but at least I don't have to spend half an hour cleaning my computer of RealPlayer after I'm finished.

Just an FYI - Norton/Symantec is almost as bad as Real when trying to remove all remnants safely. You'd think they would know which keys they modify/add so that the uninstaller could delete those too.

Five
2005-07-30, 02:42 PM
that's just sloppy coding :mad:

Ted
2005-07-30, 03:47 PM
Very sloppy. Same thing with Windows. They think that computers have all this capability so that now they can be sloppy/inefficient with their programming. Let them try to do something worth anything with minimal RAM and CPU. When I was using my Apple, that was the most fun part of programming - streamlining the code (we had to back then).

witekk
2005-07-31, 05:36 AM
I am using less known client called BitSpirit. I tried Azureus, BitComet, ABC, BitTornado at times and in my opinion it beats them all. I've never heard of a feature in other clients BitSpirit doesn't have.

Official site:
http://www.bytelinker.com/intl/bs.htm

Although the latest version can be found here:
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/win/30786

ClassOfAllMyLove
2005-07-31, 05:01 PM
I got 512mb of ram and a athlon 2200, and i use azureus and it doesnt slow the computer down at all, i never have problems (though that is becuse i dont have an AV at the moment, juts a firewall and spyware destroyer, i seem quite lucky without viruses, and AV programs always seem more hassle than they are worth for me = every 4 months i install, run then delete)... anyway...

azureus i have no problems with, it is slow starting up as its loading the torrents, and sometimes it seems to take a few of the torrents "update with the tracker" until a light goes green (for some reason all torrents are on red for first 10 minutes or so), but thats probrably a problem with my connection rather than azureus. as for the whole extra cpu usage... is this like when you hit Ctrl Alt Delete and see the percentage its using? because if so azureus is on 0, whereas "javaw" jumps to 2 or 4 at most, azureus does that as well....


long ramble there, but basically i think its great, been using it for 6 months now.

Ted
2005-07-31, 05:33 PM
ClassOfAllMyLove -

AV - Of course the choice is yours, but did you know you can keep the AV installed and just do a scan every 4 months? To keep it from sucking resources, you need to go into the options and disable "Auto-protect" or whatever it may be called in the software you use. Of course you'll no longer be protected (you aren't now anyway), but it'll keep you from having to install/uninstall every four months. Plus, it gives you the added convenience of being able to specifically scan a particular file/directory at any time.

Ctrl-Alt-Delete thing with AZ - We're refering to the Processes tab (CPU column). The "javaw" is the one that "hogs" resources for the reason Five's GF gave in one of the prior posts.

I still haven't used AZ extensively because I don't download a whole lot, but from what I've seen, it looks like it's working out ok for me and I think I'll stick with it until it lets me down.

Thanks again for everyone's replies.

Cowboy Bob
2005-08-02, 11:28 AM
Java compiles to bytecode meaning that what you get when you compile a java program is not understandably by any computer. There is an intermediary, the Java run time Environment, that relays signals from the program to the computer. This allows for easy cross platform compatibilty, but comes with an overhead.

^^written by my gf :D

p.s. compies to bit should have read compiles to bytecode. oopsie!

Not true exactly. Yes there is an intermediate step in that the program is compiled to bytecode rather than native code. But, when the Java Virtual Machine is started up, the bytecode is compiled to native code on the fly and optimised using the Just In Time technique.

This means two things:-

1) Initial start-up time is increased
2) The final running program can be faster than native code since it will be compiled at runtime to your specific system

Given that, anything that runs slowly or uses up too many resources is not very well written. This can be true in any language, but is often preceived to be more true in Java since the barriers to entry to Java programming are much lower than other languages (free compilers, easy syntax etc) - hence anyone can and does have a go at it. Therefore, I'd argue that these "bad programs" are as much to do with its success rather than anything else.

It is a fallacy that the bytecode is interpreted as your description implies above. It is true that that was once the case, but it has been untrue since Java 1.2.

E-Bay runs 100% on Java based systems, yet it is one of the highest traffic websites in the world, and doesn't suffer performance problems because of it.

Bob