StarDestroyer.Net BBS

For a long time I had been using the classic BitTorrent program, with generally no problems. Some of the java programs like Azureus and BitComet were looking pretty snazzy though so I've been taking Azureus for a spin. I'm trying to like it, but it won't shut up about firewall ports/NAT, something that's really pissing me off because BitTorrent never gave me shit about it.

Just FYI I have Windows XP Service Pack 2, with the Windows Firewall enabled. Is there a magic fix to Azureus, is there a better BT client out there, or should I go back to the (admittedly spartan) classic?

BitComet isn't Java, it's C++, and it's pretty fast on Windows.

Just download BitComet, set a port for it to use in its settings, and open the port in the Windows Firewall. You have the option of not using the port, but download speeds will then be considerably slow.

I had been leaning towards BitComet anyways, this helps. I take it you've never had any serious problem mucking around with the ports in BitComet, just set it up and you're done?

What was your problem with Azureus? You only need to open a single port, so if you do that you should have been fine. If you didn't.. well.. no torrent client will work properly.

BitComet all the way.

Stark wrote:What was your problem with Azureus? You only need to open a single port, so if you do that you should have been fine. If you didn't.. well.. no torrent client will work properly.

The yellow smiley-face NAT error. I've followed their Wiki, and under Windows Firewall --> Exceptions, I have two listings for Azureus, each one opening a specific port for TCP and UDP. No dice, I still get rates of about 1.5-2 kb. As far as I can see the only way for me to find a port that doesn't have a blockage is to go individually port by port to find one that does allow Azureus.

BitTorrent required a bit of setup, but after that was out of the way it worked great. Unless there's something pretty easy I'm missing, I'm ready to jump ship.

Huh. I just picked a random port, forwarded it, and that was it. I can easily max out my connection. *shrugs*

I'm a big fan of utorrent (that's micro, not the letter u). All of 156 kb, and not too large a memory footprint when run. Plus, some torrents ban BitComet for being leech-friendly. I didn't really like Azureus, mostly 'cause I don't like the way other programs act when I have large Java applications running. Don't know what the cause is, but whatever. I have yet to find a function I want that utorrent doesn't have.

Yeah, (u)torrent is my fallback. Azureus is a fat cow, so it's no good for all systems.

BitComet is blazing at 110 KB/s. I'll keep an eye on (u)torrent in case a torrent bans BitComet like Alan Bolte said, but so far it's been clear sailing.

You have to adjust settings for your router too, although UPNP should take care of it
6881 is the standard bittorrent port.


Anyway, I use Azureus since it's the most fully featured Linux client (I run bittorrent on my lousy 400MHz fileserver, so I dont care about resource usage since I just forget about it until the file is done.)

utorrent. I used to use Azureus, but there was a noticable performance increase after I switched over - best of all, it retains almost all the features Azureus does. Bitcomet has a bad rap for doing things like ignoring private flags and leeching too much or something.

µTorrent all the way. Bitcomet feels sluggish in comparison, plus µ's got a nicer interface and a better setup wizard. A lot of people also block BitComet because it cheats with ratios.

I use Bitcomet for almost everywhere and Azureus for Empornium, since Bitcomet'll get you in trouble there.

Many people seem to use bitcomet, but really (u)torrent seems to be better in every respect without being blacklisted due to internal cheating. So... why would anyone use bitcomet? Like, ever?