|
These five freeware bittorrent clients are rated excellent as they performed at or near the top of all the bittorrent clients on all of the test torrents. All of the clients that are rated excellent had very low CPU use.
It would be fair to call all of these a Top Pick, but here at Gizmo's Freeware Reviews there can be only one. This time around, µTorrent, captures the Top Pick for this category. In my review a year ago I called it a virtual tie between µTorrent and Vuze, but gave the edge to Vuze. Vuze is also one of the excellent clients, but comes in second this year . Halite, did not even make the list last year as it caused high CPU issues on my computer. This time around there were no issues and it performed excellently. Tixati is a new bittorrent freeware that should be interesting to users. BitComet remains an excellent choice, but is overshadowed by µTorrent in efficiency and features.
There are links to set up guides for these excellent clients and for articles on search sites in the Related Links section at the end of this review.
At the request of Max, a visitor to the site, I have put in an  icon for those clients that support magnet links. For many this feature is not that important right now. But, for those on restricted networks it may be important.
 µTorrent is the top pick because it is performs excellently, is efficient and has all the options that a basic bittorrent user could want. Additionally, µTorrent has great help resources and retains its focus on becoming a better bittorrent client. A short time ago they were acquired by BitTorrent, Inc. and were tainted by BitTorrent's association with the media industry. This quality program, packed in a tiny 281KB download, has overcome that issue to become the most popular bittorrent client. µTorrent's RAM use is lowest among bittorrent clients, matched only by Halite. Although not officially released yet, µTorrent's new uTP protocol establishes them as a leader in bittorrent. It is also a symbol of their focus on bittorrent as opposed to Vuze's progress. µTorrent is essentially a Windows only application, but can be run on Mac (Intel) and Linux with Wine (guide) There is a µTorrent for Mac now, but it is still in beta and was not reviewed here. µTorrent's FAQs, guides and forums make for excellent support. µTorrent Guides Note: µTorrent 2.0 is being tested now. There are several significant changes in this version, including full support of uTP. This review is for an older version.
Pros Excellent performance on all test torrents. Small, lightest (tie) on system resources but has all the needed features. Excellent support. Always improving as a bittorrent client.
Cons There were several "highly critical" security alerts for µTorrent in 2008 issued by Secunia. Although the present version has no security risks, you should be aware of this as none of the other "Excellent" rated clients has had a security alert issued by Secunia. Toolbar install (optional, but enabled by default) in program install.
 Vuze (formerly Azureus) was my former favorite due to its excellent performance, wide array of features and options and superior help resources. It has fallen to second due to µTorrent's rise and Vuze's lack of focus on bittorrent. Azureus was always well known for its informative interface and wide variety of plugins due to its being open source. This is still the case and the additions of the Vuze HD platform for legal torrents and the Friends plugin kept Vuze as a leader in bittorrent. However, neither of those has seemed to catch on. For a while Vuze seemed to focusing more on becoming a better video application than being a better bittorrent client. However, the versions released after this review was originally published have improved Vuze as a bittorrent client. Vuze now loads faster and its RAM use has been reduced. Vuze now uses half the RAM it did when I first started using it 3 years ago. Their recent release of a non-freeware portable version did sour me a bit also. Vuze is cross platform and has excellent support at its Azureus-Wiki, Vuze forums and Vuze FAQ. Vuze still performs with the best and for many would be an excellent choice. Vuze Guides
Pros Excellent performance on all test torrents. Excellent support. Wide variety of plugins and features. Open source. Vuze HD network. Friends plugin.
Cons At the high end of RAM use for a bittorrent client. Toolbar install (optional, but enabled by default) in program install. Advertisements on Vuze HD platform (not visible in Classic mode). Official portable version is payware.
 BitComet is the third choice due to its excellent performance, low RAM use and its ability to get through some networks that other clients can not seem to. Also BitComet provides very good help resources. It is a Windows only client that is missing remote control, but has all the other features a user would want. Its RAM use is on the low end, near µTorrent and Halite. Some users have reported that it is able to get through some networks (schools etc.) that other clients cannot. BitComet also has a media preview function that can help to avoid fakes. However this will slow download speed and fakes can be avoided by only downloading a torrent where the comments indicate it is clean and real. Their two forums (ToComet and P2P) are well maintained (there is a nice FAQ at the forums) and their wiki and blog provide some guides, making for very good support. BitComet has a loyal following of users and you may find it appealing also. BitComet Guide
Pros Excellent performance on test torrents. Very good support. Low RAM use. Able to get through some networks (schools etc.) that others can not.
Cons Toolbar install (optional, but enabled by default) on program install. Bad reputation has it banned at some private trackers. Not as efficient as others when initial seed. Advertisements on interface.
 Tixati comes in at number four as it performs excellently, is easy on system resources, has an appealing and useful interface and has no ads or toolbar on install. It lacks some features and its help resources need some work. Tixati has a very attractive interface and although not as efficient on RAM as µTorrent and Halite, it comes very close. Options are very accessible in the interface. Tixati is missing a scheduler and RSS feed. Its help resources are minimal right now, but growing. There is online help which will answer many questions, but still has a way to go before being complete. They do not have forums, but have a comments area, which is well maintained, but primitive. Tixati is a newer bittorrent client and is a work in progress. The use of Bytes for speed takes some getting used to. Tixati is available for Windows and Linux users. I am preparing a speed guide for Tixati.
Pros Excellent performance on test torrents. Very attractive interface. Low RAM use. Clean Install (no toolbar).
Cons Missing scheduler and RSS feed options. Minimal help resources. Note: The latest version of Tixati (1.31) now includes scheduler and RSS feed options. It is currently being tested. This review was based upon an older version.
 Halite is a lightweight bittorrent client that comes matches µTorrent in RAM and performance, but is open source and has no ads or toolbar on install. Its lack of features and support options keeps it from rising higher on this list. There are forums for Halite that appear to be well maintained, but Halite does not have a help file, FAQs or any guides. Halite is missing a scheduling feature and a RSS feature. Presently UPnP is temporarily hard coded always on (due to issue with underlying software). With those added and corrected and better support documentation, Halite could move up the list here. For those of you who do not need such documentation and a scheduler or RSS feed, this is an excellent choice. My view is that it is still a work in progress. Halite Guide
Pros Excellent performance on all test torrents. Lightest (tie) on system resources. Open Source. Clean install (no toolbar)
Cons Lack of support documentation. Missing scheduler and RSS. UPnP temporarily hard coded always on.
|
Other Suggested Clients
|
|
The following are freeware bittorrent clients that work well, but do not rise to the level of the excellent clients above. Three of these four clients tested excellent on all of the large and medium swarm test torrents, but stumbled slightly in comparison to the three above on several of the small torrents. The fourth, Miro, tested excellent on the small and medium swarm test torrents, but stumbled on three of the large swarm test torrents. Still, if one likes their interface, none of these would be a bad choice by any means. I have linked to their sites, rather than the more descriptive anchors here for the Top Picks, to keep this review to a reasonable length.
Three of these clients had very low CPU use. Miro had spikes of CPU use up to 15%.
BitTornado is a cross platform client that is missing some features, PEX, DHT, RSS and remote control and has a high memory use for a fairly basic client. Its forums are well maintained, with much input from the developer, but the FAQ is a bit weak. (Screenshot)
Deluge is a cross platform client that is missing a few basic features. Its memory use is high for a basic client. Its forums are not that active, but are well maintained. The FAQ also has some support info. (Screenshot)
BitSpirit is a Windows only client that is missing a few basic features and uses a moderate amount of memory. They do have forums that are sparsely used and a FAQ that consists of two guides. (Screenshot)
Miro is more than a bittorrent client, but its bittorrent features are basic and its RAM (and CPU) use is the highest of all clients. Miro did perform excellently on the medium and small swarm test torrents, but it performance on the large swarm test torrents was good. Its performance on the test torrents would rate it higher, but its extremely high RAM use puts it down here. Its CPU use was highest of all clients tested, but did not exceed 15%. If you use Miro for its other purposes, then it makes a very good bittorrent client (but no creating torrents). But as a standalone bittorrent client its high RAM use and lack of features makes any of the excellent clients here a better choice. (Screenshot)
|
|
Clients That Are Not Suggested
|
|
Arctic has not been developed in some time and it is a shame. This was the stablest of all bittorrent clients tested, never showing any CPU use and a never changing small RAM use. However, its lack of development hurt on the small torrents as it was not able to garner additional peers/seeds through DHT/PEX and its speeds were fair. It did perform excellently on the large and medium swarm test torrents.
BitLet is a browser based bittorrent application that initially had some appeal as it does not need to be installed. However it is a very basic bittorrent program that requires Java and uses a good deal of RAM (javaw.exe). It performed excellently on the large and medium swarm test torrents, but its performance on the small swarm test torrents was fair.
Ares (the real one at sourceforge) is a gnutella client that added bittorrent support. It tested excellent on the large and medium swarm test torrents but performed at the bottom on the small swarm test torrents. Ares seemed to have trouble rotating through the trackers on multi-tracker torrents and that hurt it on the small swarms. Its RAM use was surprisingly low and rivaled µTorrent and Halite.
ABC is based upon BitTornado and has better memory use, but it has not been updated since 2005 and that means it is missing many of the newer features of bittorrent. This hurt its performance on the small swarm test torrents where it performed poorly. It did perform excellently on the large and medium swarm test torrents.
BitTorrent Simply put Just get µTorrent. For some time BitTorrent has been the µTorrent bittorrent client, except that it adds the unnecessary software DNA to its download. DNA does nothing for bittorrent and is always running, even when BitTorrent is closed. Yes BitTorrent performed as well as the top three and yes DNA can be removed without affecting the bittorrent program, but again Just get µTorrent.
BitTyrant is an Azureus 2.5 knockoff that is supposed to deliver better speeds by slightly violating the bittorrent protocol. It tested excellent on the large and medium size swarm test torrents (but no better than others). Its performance on the small swarm test torrents was near the bottom. If you like the look Just get Vuze and set it to classic look.
Frostwire is a cross platform Gnutella/Bittorrent mix. It performed good on the medium swarm test torrents, but just fair on the large and small swarm test torrents. Its lack of basic bittorrent features and relatively high memory use (42,000K) also make it a non-choice.
Flashget is a download manager that has added bittorrent support. performed good on the medium swarm test torrents, but its performance on the large and small swarm test torrents was just fair. Flashget had issues maintaining connections with other seeds/peers that affected its performance. Its RAM use on the small and medium swarm test torrents was on the lower side, but its RAM use while on the large swarm test torrents was incredibly high, rising to 260,000MB before settling in at 130,000MB. CPU use was generally low, but there were spikes up to 20%.
Opera is a browser that supports bittorrent. It lacks many features and its RAM use (45MB more than when just used as a browser) makes it a poor choice. It also fared poorly in the test torrents, performing good on the large, fair on the medium and near the bottom on the small.
BitLord is also based upon the old, buggy BitComet code and is banned at some private trackers. It performed the worst overall of all the clients tested. Its performance on the medium swarm test torrents was good and on the small and large test torrents it performed near the bottom.
|
|
Subscribe to our RSS feed or enter your email address below to get the feed delivered to you by email:
New! Follow Gizmo on Twitter
Go straight to the Quick Selection Guide
2.0 (Build 18296) 
Unrestricted Freeware 
Wine, Windows 95 (Winsock2), 98/ME, NT/2000/ XP 2003/ Vista/7
Comments
When downloading a torrent with Flashget makes the application uses 260 gigabites of ram? I don't think so!
FDM sucks. It's slow, especially torrents with few seeders. Utorrent downloads fast even there are few seeders. My highest speed on torrents with few seeders is around 30-40 kb/s if I remember.
plz post a review on free download manager.
I am using it for past 2 years without any difficulties.
The review will be updated in due time. Please have patience.
I tried bitspirit, vuze and halight.
All of them are slow - the speed is around less than 20 kb/s;compare to utorrent which the speed is around 30-40+kb/s.
A bittorrent client is mainly an accelerator cum download manager. Ri8?
I found Free Download Manager to do exceedingly good on my desktop(intel pentium iv 2.99ghz,2gb ddr2 ram)and my laptop(intel i3 2.13Ghz,3 GB ddr3 ram).
Previously I used Vuze,but now Iuse FDM all the time(both for torrent & non-torrent).
May be it's time for you guys to take a look.
Yap, FDM is one of my favorite download manager too, because of the usefulness as a download manager for torrent & non-torrent, and also it's a portable software. I couldn't find any download manager that can do these 3 things. So I 2nd the motion to review this one too. Sorry for my bad english! :D
My favorite website is http://www.sumotorrent.com, it’s fast and reliable, established since 2007 and still growing.
=
Come on Steve, time for a complete review again. It's been almost a year. Some of these clients have improved greatly since last year. Tixati just came out with a huge update this week that has an auto-throttle thingy that I've not seen anywhere else. It keeps my downloads from clogging up my internets so I can browse the web at the same time without big slowdowns.
Also, an article about the IPv6 world of torrenting would be cool too, I just discovered this using the go6 client to tunnel from my IPv4 internet connection. There's also 6to4 and teredo tunneling that do the same thing. I only wish I could find more IPv6 torrents, but I'm not sure how to look.
Tell me Keroffs, why isn't magnet URI's as efficient as torrents?
Because BitSnoop only supports magnet nowadays...
Magnet links take a bit longer to get going, but once the torrent is going the speeds are generally about the same.
Bitsnoop is online again.
Regards
max
Thanks Max.
I just got back from vacation and will change the Searching page.
Steve
Well, having read all the comments, I felt that I have something to say.
Vuze is one of the best P2P client software I have seen or used.
Those who say that vuze should be banned are insane, Vuze as I know is an excellent program, it is even more efficient than Utorrent and the rest.
beware trojan re torrents etc
http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/00001931.html
Thank you for that.
It is always good to put out information on those scams.
Many people fall for those.
Steve
You may want to take a look at this:
http://filenetworks.blogspot.com/2010/02/vuze-and-deluge-to-be-banned-on...
Thanks for that.
I had seen articles on Vuze being banned, but the two private trackers were not named. Now I know the names.
It looks to me that Vuze is being punished for being open source and therefore easier to modify. I also question those who keep insisting that Vuze is bloated, when it is more efficient (less RAM/CPU use) as Vuze, than as Azureus.
The Deluge situation is more troublesome. I can not tell from what is said whether the trouble is due to modifications or the basic Deluge model.
In any event, this will affect ratings here (I am starting a new round of testing) and I thank you for the update.
Steve
Steve i use 1.31 version and when i download a torrent,memory in task manager "says" 40MB-45MB!!!The comparison is between tixati and utorrent!!!For the same download-torrent,utorrent uses only 15MB-20MB!!!
Interesting as I was running a fast torrent (which uses the most RAM) in Tixati just before I typed my previous response and Tixati was running 14-16MB. uTorrent was running 16-20MB on the same one. Both of those were with the interface visible.
Not sure why there would be such a difference between us.
I do have to agree with the other two comments on RAM use. If the bittorrent client has all the basic features, RAM is not much of an issue to me. Vuze uses about 75MB of RAM on that fast torrent, but still rates high as it performed well on all test torrents and has a host of features. I used to use Vuze on my old computer (when Vuze used even more RAM) and never had an issue, even though I had 512 RAM.
Opera falls in the not recommended mostly because of its poor performance on small torrents (I have not tested the new Opera yet) and its lack of features compared to uTorrent etc. The mention of RAM there is to show that despite its lack of features, it uses more RAM than most of the suggested clients.
Please forgive my ignorance, but why does it matter? These days 45 mb is nothing in a pc, and i would only see this as an issue with low end netbook or an elderly pc.
I agree. A lot of folks seem obsessed with seeing the biggest figure for free RAM possible in their tray monitor. Memory was designed to be used by programs to enable them to function effectively and not saved to look fat in the tray. Certainly on an old system this could be an issue, but not on a modern machine.
Tixati is really a good client but when you download a torrent in task manager you can see that tixati uses a lot of memory!!!
I do not know which version you are using, but I am running 1.31 and see little jump in RAM when downloading.
All bittorrent clients show a jump in RAM when downloading, especially on faster torrents.
So far Tixati has come in lower on RAM than the other bittorrent clients on the fast torrents I am testing.
Steve
Downloading a torrent with Opera makes the application use an extra 45 gigabytes of memory? I don't think so -- please revise and remove the extra 0s!
Yes it is 45MB. Not sure how those 0s got in.
Thanks.
Steve
have become fan of tixati
really great
will stick to it for a while
I agree. Tixati has become my favorite.
Steve
If the 2 features you requested for Tixati were RSS and scheduler you should update the post, these 2 features are off by default, you can turn them on in the settings options.
The two features I requested were scheduler and the option to show speeds in kB or MB, instead of bits.
Thanks for reminding me to update the comments in the article.
Several of the suggested clients have made significant changes since last July and I need to go through them.
The article is based on clients as of July, 2009 and since I have been attempting to get another test round going, I have not made any changes.
But I will make the changes on Tixati as they are easy ones.
Thanks again
Steve
(again with the login, hehe)
Anyways, if you are going though another round of testing, please give more detail on deluge and bitspirit (and the other 2 non-descriptive clients)...
I am interested in the older posts that say bitspirit has these certain functions that the other client do not have...I would really appreciate it if you put emphasis on these because speed and RAM use is not always the case.
I think those "special features" were in regards to the previous version of BitSpirit. Apparently, work stopped on it for some time and began again. I am not sure if it even has the same developers. I will look around further on this.
The reason there is not much on those 4 is that they lagged behind the others in testing. However, from my first sampling, Deluge and BitSpirit look to be moving up to the top line.
BitTornado will not be tested again as it has not been updated since 2006. In addition to not having the latest features, no point in suggesting a client that is no longer being developed.
Next time around, I'll devote more space to those that come close to the top. There are some clients that will be rejected for not being developed and that will leave more room.
Thanks. Comments and suggestions are always welcome.
Steve
Seems that uTorrent 2.0 has come to take uTorrent out of its 1st place.
Forced uTP by default which no one asked for and which effectively works as a seed capper to limit our uploads and downloads, the inclusion of routines that are giving bandwidth preference to other uTorrent clients, and a developer feedback which now seems to rely on sheer lies.
Not a good show. In fact, it's pretty ugly.
I used to be an avid user of uTorrent until 2.0... for now I just went back to 1.8.5 and disabled uTP on it, but I'm seriously considering to change to Vuze or Deluge (the latter improved considerably and it's looking good).
You bring up some good points that I am still looking into.
I have found in the past that when there is a significant change in a bittorrent client's protocol there arises many claims. It generally takes some time to filter out the truth. It does seem likely that much of what you say will turn out to be true.
Also to be checked are the possibly positive changes in 2.0, including STUN. Supposedly a method of getting incoming connections without direct connectivity to the Internet. This allows µTorrent to punch holes through routers and firewalls to increase connectivity and improve speeds. It is even possible to connect two firewalled peers through uTP's NAT traversal feature.
I was testing bittorrent clients prior to the uTorrent 2.0 release and am now re-testing 2.0 in a variety of configurations to see the effect.
I will also be re-testing Deluge as many users have commented to me that it has improved.
Vuze has improved greatly as a bittorrent client with its recent releases. Its RAM use is down again, but still above others. I also noticed that they have now added shutdown options, which they avoided for a long time due to possible leeching issues. So it seems they are becoming more responsive to users requests.
However, the Vuze HD platform seems now to be almost worthless. If you give Vuze a shot, I would suggest setting it to "Classic" mode. This does not load the Vuze HD platform, but still has the wide variety of options and plugins that Vuze has always offered.
BTW Tixati has really been improving their client. They are still missing some features, but I like how responsive they are to users requests. They have already implemented two options that I requested. I would say Tixati is definitely worth a look.
Thanks for your valuable input.
Steve
http://blog.bittorrent.com/2009/11/13/testing-%C2%B5tp-is-%C2%B5tp-actua...
http://blog.bittorrent.com/2009/11/02/visualizing-%C2%B5tp/
Thanks for those links.
I had seen some comments from the uTorrent people, but nothing as complete as those.
Still, that is their position and I am not sure yet whether it is accurate. My biggest concern is the favoritism of uTorrent clients to each other. I have not done enough testing yet to see the truth of this, but have seen many comments regarding the lack of uTorrent peers at the forums of other clients.
Steve
(I posted the links, darn, hadn't logged-in)
Well, from experience with 1.8.5, I used to get my max speeds (117Kbps) but it was very unstable, one minute they were at max, then the next they are on 78Kbps.
But with 2.0, my speeds do not vary much and is kept on a good rate. (100-109Kbps)
I have had no issues with 2.0, but I have seen that there is a significant minority that has had some major CPU issues and speed issues similar to what you had before. As far as the speed issue, that may have something to do with the ISPs involved.
I am going to be running testing on uTorrent with both the new uTP and old protocol enabled and with each solely enabled to see what crops up. At default both uTP and the traditional protocol are enabled.
I have noticed that there is a larger percentage of uTorrent peers on torrents now. I have not compared peer lists with other clients running on the same torrents, but will be checking into that.
anyone know anything about shareaza?
I have used Shareaza for a while some years back. It is similar to programs like Limewire, Frostwire, eMule, and others. I had heard about virus coming from Limewire, that's why I did not try it. Shareaza was a pleasing experience... I liked the interface, and its functionality. Most of all, to me it seemed safe, and I did not get any malware while using it. After many years of inactivity, recently, new versions of Shareaza have been released, and I am sure it must have improved more. You should give it a try, if you haven't.
Anupam
I am glad you added that information.
I was just referring to Shareaza as a bittorrent program and forgot to mention its other (primary) function.
Personally, I stay away from the traditional P2P applications as the risk of malware is higher than with bittorrent.
Steve
Yep, Shareaza is basically a P2P software, and I do not even know if it has torrent capabilities :D. I also stay away from such programs for the very same reason that you mention... malwares. I absolutely did not wanted to use Limewire, and so I was looking for something different. Shareaza was from the sourceforge community, and so I gave it a try, and the experience was pleasant. But, that was some years ago, now I don't use P2P programs at all. I have Shareaza with me though, in case I need it for something.
Yes it has bittorrent capabilities. Almost all of those P2P programs have added bittorrent support over the last few years.
Just so people are clear, Shareaza is a clean program as all Sourceforge programs are. It is the Gnutella, Gnutella2 and eDonkey networks it can use that Anupam and I are referring to as possibly having malware.
It is in my next test batch.
I had hoped to have the testing done by now.
Unfortunately, I have not had a sufficient block of time available to get the testing going.
The testing is my first priority here and hopefully will be done by the end of the month.
Steve
All the rest bt software are literally JUNK comparing to Xunlei:
1,Xunlei is FAR FAR faster than any of the rest BT software in the market, especially if your ISP try to ban BitTorrent (most of the
ISPs in the world try to contain p2p to various degree nowadays), then you may experience more than 100X faster download speed when
you switch to Xunlei, only depend on your theoritical broad width.
Most if not all p2p users who have tried xunlei stick to xunlei due to its vast superiority over the rest junk wares.
For instance, there are some Hong Kong people discuss the speed of different p2p, and most people reports Xunlei get far far faster
(as faster as 100X faster) download speed than the bit-torrent download clients and thus most people there prefer to use Xunlei to
download bittorrent stuff.
http://www2.uwants.com/viewthread.php?tid=6577015&extra=&page=4
2, Xunlei supports massive formats of p2p, includes their own format of p2p, BT, edonkey, and actually xunlei's download speed for
edonkey/emule stuff is also much faster than the edonkey/emule's own clients, however its search engine for ed source is worse than
these of edonkey clients, therefore I usually use emule to search some sources and copy the ed link to xunlei and let xunlei to
download it.
3,Xunlei has many other interesting features, includes built-in services which comparable to youtube, and a vast sources/media base,
can download offline (which means the Xunlei serves will download stuff you want to you local, much faster Xunlei servers and keep it
there until you download it to your computer.
That's why even through officially Xunlei only offers Chinese-language version for their software (thus limits its usage to these who
can understand Chinese), its still the most popular p2p client in the world.
So I am not surprised Xunlei being the most popular bittorrent client, I would be surprised if it would not since its at least 10X
better than any of the rest crap p2p software.
As for its ads, yes they get ads, but considering the services they offers, I can stand with their ads, actually you can pay to
remove these ads and yes, they happen to like everyone else,need to make money, and no, its not leecher, I have download some
software from some torrent website who have statics for your upload/download ratio, using Xunlei, my up/down ratio is always around
1.1 once I finish my download, with other bittorrent client my up/down ratio is <0.2 when I finish my download.
Believe me, comparing to xunlei, uTorrent is pile of shit, this is especially true when your ISP try employ advanced algroithms to
ban or limit p2p type data transmissions.
Whenever someone talks about speeds being 100 times faster than ordinary bittorrent, I do not believe a word.
I, and a great many people, often get the maximum speed of our internet connection with uTorrent and other bittorrent clients. The speed of your internet connection is not theoretical and can not be exceeded.
I tried Xunlei and found it to be nothing special at all. It may well be effective with the interference of ISPs in China, but other than that there is no reason for the average user to use it for bittorrent.
The other features may be interesting to some, but only add RAM and CPU use and do not add to the bittorrent portion (which is what this article is about).
Steve
Does Bitlord Give you viruses. I had a computer that just recently crashed and was wondering if bitlord caused it. I also had Limewire on it.
Both BitLord and Limewire have no virus. However, things that are downloaded with either may contain virus or other malware.
With a bittorrent client, like BitLord, malware can be avoided by only downloading a torrent where the comments/ratings indicate it is clean.
There is no option like that for the Gnutella network that Limewire uses and it is reported that there is a lot of malware there (I have never used the Gnutella).
Steve
My rankings
1. BitSpirit + Tixati + Deluge
(2). BitComet
5. Vuze + Halite
7. uTorrent, BitTorrent (dont like at all)
10. BitTornado + BitLord + ABC + and go on (abolutelly pointelss)
Interesting rankings.
I like Tixati a lot and it shows promise. Not a BitSpirit fan myself, but they do seem to have developed a loyal following and it is a good client.
BitComet is as good as any client out there.
I still do not understand why so many people think Deluge is great. Halite beats it in every way.
BitLord is a piece of junk.
Not sure what your issue is with uTorrent/BitTorrent.
Thanks for your input.
Steve
Deluge 1.2.0 Final for all platforms release today!!!!
Its great client
Halite dont support many important BT technologies according Wikipedia.
Halite is poor client. Only for "first aid"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BitTorrent_clients
fileforum.betanews.com/browse/WWW-Internet/File-Sharing/new
www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/File-Sharing/
Do You know OneSwarm ??? New opensource client for testing :)
I took a look at OneSwarm and it is a Vuze knockoff.
Its default state is to use a web page as its GUI, but its classic mode is Vuze in classic mode. I also noticed it is being developed by a Vuze developer.
It used more RAM than Vuze and, as a bittorrent client, there is no reason not to just use Vuze.
Looks like it is expanding on the "friends" feature that Vuze recently dropped (it was the least popular addon for Vuze). If setting a network of friends up is your goal, then this might be worth a look. But I am not sure on this as I did not take a deep look as it is a Vuze knockoff and no reason to investigate further for this review.
Steve
- Hmm, Its big regret about OneSwarm and Vuze (but surely want see some data within your comparation)
- Review of KTorrent/Transmission/Deluge (all on Linux),
and KTorrent/Deluge (both on Windows) could be very interesting
Dave
You are correct on Halite and Deluge features. I somehow had my notes backwards on them on this.
Looking at that softpedia link I can not believe they offer those accelerators, which are a complete scam.
I am testing a new batch of clients and OneSwarm is included. Bittorrent is kind of secondary to their "friends network" feature, which offers some privacy (but which I do not think will take off).
This batch is significantly larger than the last test batch, so it will take some time. I hope to get the review up within a month.
Steve
I used some accelators more than 4 years ago. (with Bittorrent, uTorrent, BitComet, Bitlord).
I saw, many of them are not scam, but too expensive (hovewer - some are freeware) and no real extra speed. So, in my opinion, its only business for money. No real help for file sharers. But, normal P2P, like eDonkey, Kazaa, DC++ or sth else (not Bittorrent-based) maybe working faster with these accelerators.
Who knows. I haven´t experience at all.
We´ll looking forward to next month. Yuhuuuu
Tixati is now win7 compatible.
Thanks.
Steve
what do you think of 'Tribler'? any good?
I took a look at Tribler and as a bittorrent client it is not so good.
Its RAM use was moderate, but its CPU use was high (10-25%) when running a torrent. The better clients all run at 5% or less.
Also, there are no real options for bittorrent.
Steve
It is in my next test batch, so I do not know how it is as a bittorrent client.
Bittorrent is really secondary to its main function as a video application (that uses P2P).
I'll be interested to see what type of video content they have on their network. I should be reviewing sometime within the next few weeks.
Why I don't like uTorrent that much
-----------------------------------
I have been using BitSpirit for a long time and I thought it was an OK product until I realized that it wastes too much RAM and CPU power.
Therefore I switched to uTorrent. Then rather than being overawed about it like many of its fans are I found the lack of the following features disheartening.
1. You cannot set it to automatically stop and shutdown if no data is received for more than a certain (configurable) period. This is critical in a region like mine where connections have long downtimes. I don't want to wake up in the morning to see that the PC has been on the whole night but the download is still stalled at 2%.
2. You have to manually set the "automatic shutdown after download is completed" at every program launch. Can't it be set as the default behavior?
3. When a torrent is double clicked the dialog box has "start torrent" enabled. Can't it remember my last choice? Or why can't I set a manual start as the default behavior.
All these were possible with BitSpirit.
Oh well... might as well try Halite.
-Uditha
Please disregard (3), It was available under options.
- Uditha
Interesting comments. Not things I would have thought of.
As to
1. I was unaware this option was available in BitSpirit. All I saw was an option to stop the torrent job if no data was received for x hours. Where is the shut off computer option for this?
2. Most bittorrent clients do not even have a shut off option as they feel this encourages leeching. The trouble with setting shut off when downloads complete as default is that when you open uTorrent and there are no downloads (as there would be if you had shut down with this option) it will start to shut down immediately.
3. You can disable the "Start torrent" option of the "Add New Torrent" box at Options>Preferences>UI Settings and enable the option "Don't start the download automatically" under the "When Adding Torrents" section.
Although I was not that pleased with BitSpirit myself, I did not have CPU issues and it used a moderate amount of RAM on my computer.
Steve
(Just another addition to No-2. I think the program should be smart enough to realize not to shutdown immediately when you start it up if there are no downloads. Then BitSpirit too should have the same problem, which it does not.
At least there should be the option to shutdown when download is completed and a specific upload objective is achieved (Say 1:1), that can be set as default.
Power is very expensive in our country.
Dear Steve,
Thanks for the reply. I tried to correct myself before you saw No-3 but I suppose you beat me to it (blush!).
Bitspirit lets you shutdown the computer if no data is received by the combination of 1 and 2. It lets you stop the download (by No 1) and then since you can also set it to shutdown the computer when jobs are completed (in this case stopped) the computer will shutdown automatically (giving the user a grace period to cancel shutdown within 30 secs).
This is the reason why I need option 2. Our connections are poor so days where download has stopped in between are frequent.
Don't you think an option where there is a possibility of a shutdown where no data is sent or received for (x) hours is a good thing? At least it will conserve power as this node is useless to me as well as the other peers.
I just installed Halite and it has even lesser options than uTorrent. Oh well the search goes on.
- Uditha
I do not think you are going to find better options for what you want than BitSpirit. (Thanks for that info BTW)
I re-installed BitSpirit (v3.6.0.300) and it uses about 8MB RAM and no real CPU.
What version of BitSpirit are you using?
What kind of RAM use does it have?
I meant to mention that it was unlikely Halite would have those options as they adhere to bittorrent protocol pretty strictly.
Vuze does have an add on that does close when the ratio is 1:1, but I do not think it shuts down the computer and anyways BitSpirit uses less RAM than Vuze.
I can tell you BitComet does not have the options you want, they are almost identical to uTorrent. I do not think Tixati does either and I am almost sure BitTornado, Miro and Deluge do not.
Steve
PS I am in the process of testing a number of lesser know bittorrent clients and I will look out for those options.
I think the version I was using was 3.5.0.256. Actually the CPU load and RAM usage was not so bad as to bog my system down, but compared to uTorrent it felt like a lot.
I remember it using up to 40-60mb RAM when downloading several files at once (about 3-4).
I have made a feature request to uTorrent regarding possible implementation of "shutdown if no data sent/received for (x) hours". Hopefully they will implement it in version 2.0.
Thanks Steve - please make a comment if you find an acceptable client with the above option.
Hi kerreofs, I still look forward for upgrade article with programs I requested 28/11. When it will be done ?Thanks
I am looking into those. It will take some time. I run tests on 30 torrents and that takes some time as I have to constantly compare speeds to known quality clients. So I have to have a good block of time free before testing.
Several are linux clients and will not be included in this review. Gizmo's is planning a Linux section and hopefully I will have a Linux review ready by then.
Steve
Linux section is up now.
Post new comment