5 ms·

uTorrent is a great client, really is, but it's been plagued with ads, bundled crapware and other "goodies" for years now. I understand software doesn't come fr

uTorrent is a great client, really is, but it's been plagued with ads, bundled crapware and other "goodies" for years now. I understand software doesn't come free and the developers have to be paid, but this is tarnishing the brand now. Good thing for them that the state of Bittorent clients is rather stale and mediocre, there's no way they would survive more competition with that behaviour.

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
It's ironic given that µTorrent was always supposed to be this ultra-compact and lightweight client (it's in the name!). And it has been, but BitTorrent, Inc. have been slowly ruining it.
tyrfing 12y ago
It's a terrible client. The only reason it's survived so long despite the owner shamelessly milking it of every penny they can is name recognition. The brand isn't being tarnished - it's being sacrificed wholesale for dollars, with the singular goal of extracting as many dollars as possible before it dies. I suggest Deluge, or maybe Transmission. http://deluge-torrent.org/ http://deluge-torrent.org/ edit: retracting Transmission recommendation because I'm unfamiliar with it's state on Windows. Looks like there are builds, but I've never used them.
- Djorak_ 12y ago
  I have been using qBittorrent (http://www.qbittorrent.org/ http://www.qbittorrent.org/) for a while and don't have anything to complain about. Perfect for my simple needs (RSS feeds, launch a program on completion).
- cabirum 12y ago
  It's not terrible. It does it's job well enough, ads can be easily disabled via advanced settings, it works in portable mode without even having a chance to install bundled crapware, the UI does not make my eyes bleed.
  - tyrfing 12y ago
    A philosophical difference - I believe that being forced to jump through hoops like that just to make it usable are sufficient to make it terrible. These sorts of things are designed to make it just OK enough to use for technically inclined users, while profiting off of those who don't know better - what percent of users do you think go through the steps you list? You can also add hosts file entries to block application ads after dumping network traffic to find the servers, you can edit binaries with a hex editor and debugger to patch out code paths. But should you need to, just to make it usable? What amount of work is needed to make it not-terrible before it can be declared terrible?
- Lewton 12y ago
  Deluge has an absolutely dreadful UX. It's incredibly frustrating to use. So many small details that have been missed which µTorrent nailed
  - isaacremuant 12y ago
    I use deluge in an extremely simple way so I might not face the same kind of problems but I'm interested. Can you develop?
    - Lewton 12y ago
      Here's some off the top of my head. I know they're nit picking, but that's pretty much what you have to do to create a decent UX * When you're under active torrents, select a torrent, wait for it to become unactive (ie going from downloading to done), the torrent is unselected (because it's not in view anymore) and the details of the torrent are not available. With µ if you select a torrent it's selected until you select something else no matter what states the torrent goes through and which view you're in. * When adding a new torrent, the default destination is always the same, in µTorrent it's the last place you downloaded. When I add a torrent, the content always goes into a sub folder depending on type, it's much more likely that the last destination I used is the correct one (say I want to download a couple of music albums) * The UI when adding a torrent is just cluttered and confusing and I have, a couple of times managed to enter the "add torrent-file"† instead of the "select destination for download" dialogue because it's such a mess † Why is this even accessible from the prompt I get when I double click on a torrent in my file explorer? When would I ever double click on a torrent file, and then want to select a different torrent file? So unnecessarily messy. I develop. Did not know Deluge was using Python. I might contribute one day, but doing front-end stuff is not really something I enjoy
pieter_mj 12y ago
A good windows strategy to avoid bundled crapware is to look for portable software that needs no installation. I always try to install a new program as a limited user (sadly, most programs that come with an installer require administrative rights). Recently i moved over to tixati as my preferred torrent client.
gillianseed 12y ago
A bit of background on µTorrent, it was written by a guy named Ludvig Strigeus (creator of well-known FOSS projects like OpenTTD and ScummVM), and was free albeit proprietary, with no adware/spyware but simply a lean (in resources) yet featurefull client which made it the de facto bittorrent client on Windows. He then sold µTorrent to Bittorrent inc (and went on to co-create Spotify), and from there on µTorrent has gone downhill as Bittorent inc are going for bundling adware/spyware in order to get a return on their investment.
- userbinator 12y ago
  with no adware/spyware but simply a lean (in resources) yet featurefull client I remember when it first came out it was the smallest client available, and that's why it gained a huge following - it was unintrusive and required no installation. uTorrent 1.1.1: 82KB uTorrent 3.4.2: 1.66MB I have a feeling that most of that 20x(!) size increase is not due to any new features in the core torrent functionality. In fact, it appears to be the same size as the official BitTorrent Inc. client... I haven't looked carefully at the code, but just from this comparison I'd bet that it's not really uTorrent anymore but the BitTorrent client with a different UI.
- ludde 12y ago
  That's correct! (Yes I read HN)
  - gillianseed 12y ago
    Heh, hej Ludde!

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago

It's ironic given that µTorrent was always supposed to be this ultra-compact and lightweight client (it's in the name!). And it has been, but BitTorrent, Inc. have been slowly ruining it.

tyrfing 12y ago

It's a terrible client. The only reason it's survived so long despite the owner shamelessly milking it of every penny they can is name recognition. The brand isn't being tarnished - it's being sacrificed wholesale for dollars, with the singular goal of extracting as many dollars as possible before it dies. I suggest Deluge, or maybe Transmission. http://deluge-torrent.org/ http://deluge-torrent.org/ edit: retracting Transmission recommendation because I'm unfamiliar with it's state on Windows. Looks like there are builds, but I've never used them.

Djorak_ 12y ago
I have been using qBittorrent (http://www.qbittorrent.org/ http://www.qbittorrent.org/) for a while and don't have anything to complain about. Perfect for my simple needs (RSS feeds, launch a program on completion).
cabirum 12y ago
It's not terrible. It does it's job well enough, ads can be easily disabled via advanced settings, it works in portable mode without even having a chance to install bundled crapware, the UI does not make my eyes bleed.
- tyrfing 12y ago
  A philosophical difference - I believe that being forced to jump through hoops like that just to make it usable are sufficient to make it terrible. These sorts of things are designed to make it just OK enough to use for technically inclined users, while profiting off of those who don't know better - what percent of users do you think go through the steps you list? You can also add hosts file entries to block application ads after dumping network traffic to find the servers, you can edit binaries with a hex editor and debugger to patch out code paths. But should you need to, just to make it usable? What amount of work is needed to make it not-terrible before it can be declared terrible?
Lewton 12y ago
Deluge has an absolutely dreadful UX. It's incredibly frustrating to use. So many small details that have been missed which µTorrent nailed
- isaacremuant 12y ago
  I use deluge in an extremely simple way so I might not face the same kind of problems but I'm interested. Can you develop?
  - Lewton 12y ago
    Here's some off the top of my head. I know they're nit picking, but that's pretty much what you have to do to create a decent UX * When you're under active torrents, select a torrent, wait for it to become unactive (ie going from downloading to done), the torrent is unselected (because it's not in view anymore) and the details of the torrent are not available. With µ if you select a torrent it's selected until you select something else no matter what states the torrent goes through and which view you're in. * When adding a new torrent, the default destination is always the same, in µTorrent it's the last place you downloaded. When I add a torrent, the content always goes into a sub folder depending on type, it's much more likely that the last destination I used is the correct one (say I want to download a couple of music albums) * The UI when adding a torrent is just cluttered and confusing and I have, a couple of times managed to enter the "add torrent-file"† instead of the "select destination for download" dialogue because it's such a mess † Why is this even accessible from the prompt I get when I double click on a torrent in my file explorer? When would I ever double click on a torrent file, and then want to select a different torrent file? So unnecessarily messy. I develop. Did not know Deluge was using Python. I might contribute one day, but doing front-end stuff is not really something I enjoy

pieter_mj 12y ago

A good windows strategy to avoid bundled crapware is to look for portable software that needs no installation. I always try to install a new program as a limited user (sadly, most programs that come with an installer require administrative rights). Recently i moved over to tixati as my preferred torrent client.

gillianseed 12y ago

A bit of background on µTorrent, it was written by a guy named Ludvig Strigeus (creator of well-known FOSS projects like OpenTTD and ScummVM), and was free albeit proprietary, with no adware/spyware but simply a lean (in resources) yet featurefull client which made it the de facto bittorrent client on Windows. He then sold µTorrent to Bittorrent inc (and went on to co-create Spotify), and from there on µTorrent has gone downhill as Bittorent inc are going for bundling adware/spyware in order to get a return on their investment.

userbinator 12y ago
with no adware/spyware but simply a lean (in resources) yet featurefull client I remember when it first came out it was the smallest client available, and that's why it gained a huge following - it was unintrusive and required no installation. uTorrent 1.1.1: 82KB uTorrent 3.4.2: 1.66MB I have a feeling that most of that 20x(!) size increase is not due to any new features in the core torrent functionality. In fact, it appears to be the same size as the official BitTorrent Inc. client... I haven't looked carefully at the code, but just from this comparison I'd bet that it's not really uTorrent anymore but the BitTorrent client with a different UI.
ludde 12y ago
That's correct! (Yes I read HN)
- gillianseed 12y ago
  Heh, hej Ludde!