View Full Version : Lightweight btt clients
1000possibleclaws
12-31-2009, 08:14 AM
What are some lightweight btt clients developed for Windows? I've used utorrent since the beginning, and know almost nothing about alternatives.
There's rTorrent, not sure if that's for windows, and it looks like it was made in DOS.
Tv Controls you
12-31-2009, 08:25 AM
What are some lightweight btt clients developed for Windows? I've used utorrent since the beginning, and know almost nothing about alternatives.
There's rTorrent, not sure if that's for windows, and it looks like it was made in DOS.
rtorrent is a unix base, and there is diferent releases for different linux distros.
Also if you describe what your trying to do, I think everyone can help you more. Like for what reason do you want this lighter than utorrent btt client?
Funkin'
12-31-2009, 08:39 AM
Check out Halite. That's what I used when I was on Windows. I think it's pretty good, and it's lightweight. Deluge is also on Windows(the client I use on Linux), and it's also a lightweight client. I've just never used it on Windows.
b3owulf
12-31-2009, 11:23 AM
uTorrent is probably most light BT client for Windows ever developed. There's Vuze, but it's JAVA based, BitComet but it's forbidden at a lots of places. Recently I saw a blog post about new Tixati client, idk if it's really that good, never tried it myself...
Review of Tixati (http://tinyurl.com/ylatrcu)
Funkin', Deluge is a good client, but it needs GTK to be installed, which makes it as sluggish as Vuze sometimes.
There's rTorrent, not sure if that's for windows, and it looks like it was made in DOS.
You can run rTorrent on Windows via Cygwin.
I'll second Halite when it comes to lightweight. Are you looking for something portable?
1000possibleclaws
12-31-2009, 07:24 PM
I was looking for something that takes very little resources, for on a netbook. Would Halite be better than utorrent or is utorrent still one of the best choices for low cpu usage?
Tv Controls you
12-31-2009, 07:27 PM
I was looking for something that takes very little resources, for on a netbook. Would Halite be better than utorrent or is utorrent still one of the best choices for low cpu usage?
Get xp performance edition and run utorrent.
I do it on a system with 64mb of ram that's ancient. I recently upgraded to 512mb of ram lol but it worked before...
And as \/ said utorrent is widely accepted at every tracker.
I was looking for something that takes very little resources, for on a netbook. Would Halite be better than utorrent or is utorrent still one of the best choices for low cpu usage?
You may want to check Halite out, but I'd say uTorrent is still the king when it comes to resource usage, even if you have a bunch of torrents loaded. You also have the advantage every tracker allows it (although some block older versions).
Cabalo
12-31-2009, 08:00 PM
Check out Halite. That's what I used when I was on Windows. I think it's pretty good, and it's lightweight. Deluge is also on Windows(the client I use on Linux), and it's also a lightweight client. I've just never used it on Windows.
Linux wise, between ktorrent, transmission, halite or Vuze, what are your impressions?
Have you tried rTorrent with the rutorrent frontend ?
Funkin'
01-01-2010, 01:42 AM
Well, I can't really give an accurate opinion as I haven't used Vuze on Linux yet. I'm waiting to upgrade my RAM to give it a go. With my amount of RAM Vuze bogged down my system on Windows, so I'd imagine it will probably do the same on Linux.
Transmission is a really lightweight client, and very fast. This was the first client I used when I first switched to Linux. And I ran it for about six months or so. I finally switched to something else because the interface and options in Transmission are VERY basic. If you don't mind a plain interface and not many options to mess with, then it's a great client.
KTorrent, I think, is pretty much a native Linux version of uTorrent. It's small and lightweight, and looks to have just about every option uTorrent has, and a few options that uTorrent doesn't have. Plus I like the interface of KTorrent much more than uTorrent. KT is a really good client. Probably the most feature packed and lightweight that I've used on Linux.
rTorrent, I still haven't gotten around to trying. The whole app just seems like a little too much of a chore to use(many I'm sure are going to disagree with me, but I'm not the best at using Terminal yet). If I ever do use rTorrent then it definitely will be with a frontend.
By the way, Halite doesn't appear to be Linux native. It may run under Wine though.
Well, I can't really give an accurate opinion as I haven't used Vuze on Linux yet. I'm waiting to upgrade my RAM to give it a go. With my amount of RAM Vuze bogged down my system on Windows, so I'd imagine it will probably do the same on Linux.
How much RAM do you have? Also, there are some tweaks to reduce Vuze's memory usage, did you try them? They won't do miracles, but do take away some MBs.
hotshot6473
01-01-2010, 09:17 PM
Your only choice is really utorrent because any smart torrent site will have all of these new and beta clients banned
PerMaFrOsT
01-01-2010, 10:42 PM
uTorrent is probably most light BT client for Windows ever developed. There's Vuze, but it's JAVA based, BitComet but it's forbidden at a lots of places. Recently I saw a blog post about new Tixati client, idk if it's really that good, never tried it myself...
Review of Tixati (http://tinyurl.com/ylatrcu)
Really impressive! Tixati has a lot of avanced options and possibilities. Could I use it in private trackers like TL or SCC??
Really impressive! Tixati has a lot of avanced options and possibilities. Could I use it in private trackers like TL or SCC??
Maybe on TL, since they're very relaxed with clients. I think SCC, as well as a lot of other trackers, is more strict and won't let you use it.
Funkin'
01-02-2010, 06:18 AM
How much RAM do you have? Also, there are some tweaks to reduce Vuze's memory usage, did you try them? They won't do miracles, but do take away some MBs.
512MB. And I haven't tried Vuze. What I used back on Windows a few years ago was Azureus. But since they're both the same I figured I would get the same lag on my computer browsing and internet browsing when the client was active.
Maybe I'll give it a try and use some of these tweaks(I see their homepage recommends 1GB of RAM). I think I remember Cabalo also mentioning this to me a long time ago.
512MB. And I haven't tried Vuze. What I used back on Windows a few years ago was Azureus. But since they're both the same I figured I would get the same lag on my computer browsing and internet browsing when the client was active.
Use the classic interface, and read these two pages:
http://www.azureuswiki.com/index.php/Reduce_memory_usage
http://www.azureuswiki.com/index.php/Reduce_CPU_usage
Most of the time Azureus doesn't go above 60MB in my PC, although I don't have too many torrents loaded - adding a lot of them can indeed cause lag.
Funkin'
01-04-2010, 02:15 AM
Thank you, anon. I'll do what you suggested and give the links a look through.
And I usually ever only have around 50 torrents at the most added in my client. So hopefully Vuze will be able to handle that amount without giving me lag.
And I usually ever only have around 50 torrents at the most added in my client. So hopefully Vuze will be able to handle that amount without giving me lag.
In my case it took loading over 100 torrents before it'd lag. I have an AMD Athlon 3000+ with 1.5GB of RAM. :)
Funkin'
01-04-2010, 08:10 AM
Damn...that much RAM and you still got lag after only a 100 torrents? That sure is a bulky client, isn't?
I was planning on upgrading to 2GB of RAM anyways, so hopefully that will be enough to where I won't have any problems with running anything on my computer.
Damn...that much RAM and you still got lag after only a 100 torrents?
Probably caused by my "decent" processor. :dry:
kukushka
01-04-2010, 04:11 PM
100 torrents is a quite vague term... one thing is when they just announcing, and the whole other story when they're all active at the same time...
as for me - i'm leeching stuff at 3mbit at pIII-1000 system with 512 ram. with 4 currently active torrents and dl channel fully occupied utorrent consumes about 35MB including its cache and 1-6% of cpu (20% at peaks obviously when it writes something). so it's quite acceptable for me
100 torrents is a quite vague term... one thing is when they just announcing, and the whole other story when they're all active at the same time...
Well, these were just announcing. I was seeding a lot of stuff I had snatched from STB.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.