uTorrent Gains Popularity, Azureus Loses Ground
Written by Ernesto on December 16, 2007With an install rate of more than 5% on Windows PCs worldwide, uTorrent is now by far the most popular BitTorrent client. Azureus, the most installed BitTorrent application of last year fell back to the third place.
The graph on the right (click to enlarge) is based on data published by Digital Music News based on reports from PC Pitstop, a company that gathers data by “inspecting” the computers of users that try their free online virus / spyware scanners. The data used in this report are collected from Windows registry and table entries of over a million PC’s.
The percentages reflect the percentage of PCs that has these applications installed. September last year Azureus was installed on more than 3% of all PCs but their install rate has declined by more than 30% this year, while uTorrent’s install rate nearly tripled.
In the table below we have listed the 5 most installed BitTorrent applications. It is interesting to not that Azureus moved from the first to the third spot over the past year. The BitTorrent mainline client is now runner up. This means that BitTorrent Inc. now owns the two most popular BitTorrent clients.
The percentages in the table indicate the install base of the most popular BitTorrent clients:
| Rank | Application | Installed on % Desktops |
| 1. | uTorrent | 5.56% |
| 2. | BitTorrent (a.k.a. mainline) | 2.28% |
| 3. | Azureus | 2.11% |
| 4. | Bitcomet | 1.89% |
| 5. | Bitlord | 1.27% |
From the data where the report is based on we further learn that Limewire’s popularity is slowly declining. However, with an install base of almost 18% it is still the P2P application that is installed on most desktop computers. Unfortunately Digital Music News has trouble interpreting their own data, they claim in their press release that it is 36.4%, but that is the market share compared to other P2P clients (shame on you!).
Apart from this tiny mistake, there are a few more concerns about the usability of the data. For example, install rates do not equal usage. The fact that someone installed a P2P client does not mean that they actually use it. So the report can’t say much about the popularity of a filesharing network or application. Secondly, it could be that Azureus and BitTorrent Mainline are installed on almost an equal number of PCs, but that the BitTorrent mainline client is hardly ever used. For instance, novices may start with the mainline client, but move on to better BitTorrent clients later on. Lastly, the report is based on a sample of people who voluntarily did an online spyware scan, something to think about.
Perhaps an even more important comment on the data collection for this report, uTorrent doesn’t necessarily use the Windows registry. So the real install rate for uTorrent might be even higher. Also, Azureus is a true multi-platform client, whilst this test is only for windows based systems.
In summing up we think it is (despite all the flaws) safe to say that uTorrent is becoming more popular while Azureus is losing ground. Whether this is due to negative factors affecting Azureus (such as the rebranding to Vuze, Java or the heavy use of resources), or positive factors around the mainline and µTorrent clients (such as the small install size, and low system requirements) it certainly shows a slide for Azureus.
Previously: BitTorrent, A Boon To Independent Filmmakers
Next: Hessians Hope to Weave Election Magic
175 Responses
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 » Show All
“Azureus with huge memory leaks. A bitorrent program shouldn’t need to use all 3.0 GHZ of my P4 and +500 MB of ram just to run.”
I don’t think it’s possible for Azureus to have true ‘memory leaks’ because of Java’s garbage collection. Any datatypes without a reference will be removed from memory automatically.
Personally, I use Azureus. I have more faith in open source, and I program in java regularly, so I can look at the source code and see exactly what Azureus is doing. I can’t do that with uTorrent.
[quote comment="241990"]But Azureus is now owned by whoever does Vuze[/quote]
That would be the same bunch of developers who wrote Azureus in the first place.
[quote comment="241990"]azureus has fallen to major corporate interests.
At the same time, uTorrent is owned by BitTorrent Incorporated, which has also fallen to major corporate interests.[/quote]
So… what? How does this affect either client? Just because there’s a “coro
[quote comment="241990"]My conclusion, switch to open-source clients![/quote]
And what do you recommend?
[quote comment="241990"]Check out BitComet[/quote]
A closed source client.
I want linux version! Anyway I’m quite happy with Deluge which is nice uTorrent look-a-like.
Hmm. Not sure what happened to my last comment. I’ll try again.
Just because there’s a corporation involved, it doesn’t make the software bad. Why does it matter who owns it?
The “Vuze” side of things is being worked on more, but there are still changes going on the core and in the original interface. And UT seems just the same as it always has. So I can’t say I really see what the problem is.
[quote comment="241480"][quote comment="240785"]By the way, you kind of shoot your credability to hell when you talk about Ut’s lack of peer banning. It most certainly does ban on hash errors, and has done for a long time.[/quote]
In my opinion 60is hash fails on a torrent under 100mb with relitively few peers that didnt finish in over an hour of downloading time, shows that there either is no peer banning or that it doesnt work for shit. Especialy when Azureus managed to ban the offending peers and the exact same torrent with the same peers finished in under 10 minutes. I’ll believe what I see with my own eyes thanks.
As for Vuze, welcome to the future of bittorrent. 2p2 is the new content delivery system of choice and Vuze is the benchmark that will be used when the utorrent devs pull their finger out and start offering premium content via their own client. Why should it matter to thieves that you can get free or pay to own media via you’re bittorrent client, or any other mediam for that matter. Has downloading warez screwed your head up that bad that you simply refuse to pay for anything anymore? Still, no one is forcing anyone to buy anything. You dont want it, dont buy it. But on the same hand, dont fkin complain because the bittorrent protocol is actualy starting to be used in the manner that it was designed for. If you dont like it, piss off back to gnutella.
[quote comment="240817"]
It’s multi-platform and it’s open source.
I don’t use the piece of filth that is Windows so I don’t use uTorrent. I’d also rather the source code be known to the world.
[/quote]
You know you can be open source and multiplatform in C++ ?
If they wrote azureus in wxWidgets instead of the shit that’s Java, I would be using it instead of uTorrent.
C++ wins big time.
[quote comment="241990"]Personally, I like a client with as much power (hard customizability, as opposed to “skins”:) as possible.
That goes in Azureus’ favor.[/quote] so, a client you can play with, rather than one coded to do the job properly quickly and efficiently. Shows why no matter how fast copmuters get, tasks still take as long as old versions on old computers.
[quote]Also, if my client were hogging the system (+35% CPU, +35% RAM), I would ditch it for a better one. But Azureus uses ~2% CPU and ~5% RAM on a 3+ year old laptop; I’d say that’s within reason; again,
That goes in Azureus’ favor.[/quote] Psst, you might want to check the resources used by the actual program, rather than just the caller program.
As it says in my bio, I did attempt to try and benchmark torrent clients a few years ago. On hash checking, az took twice as long as the python clients, and they took twice as long as the C++ ones. What took Bitcomet 3 1/2mins, took az a little over 13. mainline, tornado, abc all took around 6 mins.
I might give it another try, and see how it goes now.
I think there are several other issues to be aware of here, which the article hinted to and I will spell out.
Any self respecting pirate is going to be afraid to use utorrent for the plain fact that it is closed source and affiliated with or owned by the MAFIAA.
Any self respecting pirate is NOT going to agree to an online spyware scan.
This equates to utorrent users are mainly newbies.
Azureus installed on a three year old AMD Sempron running full blast is currently using <5% CPU and <200MB RAM. That is NOT A RESOURCE HOG!!! Where these people come up with it being a resource hog is totally beyond me. Azureus has cutting edge configurations that should be embraced by all torrenters. VUZE interface sucks.
[quote comment="242239"]
As for Vuze, welcome to the future of bittorrent. 2p2 is the new content delivery system of choice and Vuze is the benchmark that will be used when the utorrent devs pull their finger out and start offering premium content via their own client. Why should it matter to thieves that you can get free or pay to own media via you’re bittorrent client, or any other mediam for that matter. Has downloading warez screwed your head up that bad that you simply refuse to pay for anything anymore? Still, no one is forcing anyone to buy anything. You dont want it, dont buy it. But on the same hand, dont fkin complain because the bittorrent protocol is actualy starting to be used in the manner that it was designed for. If you dont like it, piss off back to gnutella.[/quote]
Man, you’re a full-of-shit, clueless, Vuze-slurping twat.
Don’t tell me: the internet was originally designed to sell banner-ad space too…
ZOMFG!!1 IT’S TRUE I TELLS YA!!2
How nice of PC Pitstop to gather all of this data.
As other posters have mentioned, those who are clued up would use other anti-virus scanners.
Please take heed!
[quote comment="242284"][quote comment="240817"]
It’s multi-platform and it’s open source.
I don’t use the piece of filth that is Windows so I don’t use uTorrent. I’d also rather the source code be known to the world.
[/quote]
You know you can be open source and multiplatform in C++?[/quote]
He didn’t say it was impossible - he just said that uTorrent wasn’t either of those things (which it isn’t).
If it was as straightforward to code a multiplatform application in C++, then you’d probably see uTorrent for the Mac and Linux. But we don’t (yet).
[quote comment="242284"]If they wrote azureus in wxWidgets instead of the shit that’s Java[/quote]
The GUI is written using the Swing libraries, so it allows the application to look like other programs running on the OS. So what difference does it make that it uses that and not wxWidgets?
[quote comment="242304"]On hash checking, az took twice as long as the python clients[/quote]
Hash checking was improved a while back.
I use Azureus (running under OSX), and while it is certainly a resource hog, there’s no denying it’s an outstanding program. When it comes down to it, Torrent performance is what matters (to me), and it’s in that area that Azureus beats out all of its competitors. I don’t have an IT networking background, but I took the time to read over the Azureus wiki and figure out what everything does, and I get much faster speeds as a result of it.
My only gripes are Vuze, and the fact that Azureus is coded in Java. I understand why they used Java, but it’d be nice if the team had the manpower to rewrite it in Cocoa.
fuck utorrent, it’s proprietary and u never know what they gonna put into it,
uTorrent 1.7 (218 KB)
uTorrent 1.6 (574 KB)
uTorrent 1.5 (154 KB)
what did they put into the 1.6 that made it almost 400% increase in size from previous version?
if you use utorrent, use pre v1.6, i prefer old versions of bitcomet or the latest azureus.
it’s funny how people complain about the “high” ram usage of azureus, it’s there to be used you geniuses, otherwise it sits there doing nothing, being wasted,
azureus is to fancy.
transmission all the way!!!
[quote comment="242400"]
[...]it’s funny how people complain about the “high” ram usage of azureus, it’s there to be used you geniuses, otherwise it sits there doing nothing, being wasted,[/quote]
Ever hear of multitasking, braniac?
(Christ on a bike…!)
[quote comment="242394"]I use Azureus (running under OSX), and while it is certainly a resource hog, there’s no denying it’s an outstanding program. When it comes down to it, Torrent performance is what matters (to me), and it’s in that area that Azureus beats out all of its competitors.[/quote]
You’re running OS X? How the hell do you come to the absurd/mistaken conclusion that “it’s in that area that Azureus beats out all of its competitors.” when you can’t even execute the majority of them?
Talk fucking sense, son. (& get a _real_ computer - not that toy you laughingly call one.)
kthxbi
First, in response to the Azureus / Vuze controversy - good idea, however the problem here is that it would appear to be a blatant violation of the GPL.
Now, on to the actual question at hand - the distribution of torrent clients by popularity. The method used here to gauge popularity is hilariously inaccurate - in fact, there is really no truly accurate way to measure this. The *most* accurate method, however, would obviously be to gather client versions from people connecting to popular trackers - such as the TPB trackers, Sumotracker, Slad’s trackers etc. I would be interested in actually getting numbers like this.. I could talk to Slad, see if he could get something like that done on his trackers (they are used by EZTV) :)
[quote comment="242400"]
uTorrent 1.7 (218 KB)
uTorrent 1.6 (574 KB)
uTorrent 1.5 (154 KB)
what did they put into the 1.6 that made it almost 400% increase in size from previous version?
[/quote]
I think they added on the html service capability, or they bundled in a dll file. It’s all fuzzy now, but I am sure it is in the changelog somewhere.
[quote comment="242453"] I would be interested in actually getting numbers like this.. I could talk to Slad, see if he could get something like that done on his trackers (they are used by EZTV) :)[/quote]
Next it will be IPs. Thanks, but no thanks.
i just realized that bitcomet is closed source too, but hell,i think some Chinese dudes code it so i’m not too concerned about it being closed source.
yeah i know about multitasking genius, how u gonna multitask on your 128mb of ram? why don’t you upgrade your piece of shit computer, you can get 2gigs of ddr2 for under $40 FFS.
[quote comment="242453"]
Now, on to the actual question at hand - the distribution of torrent clients by popularity. The method used here to gauge popularity is hilariously inaccurate - in fact, there is really no truly accurate way to measure this. The *most* accurate method, however, would obviously be to gather client versions from people connecting to popular trackers - such as the TPB trackers, Sumotracker, Slad’s trackers etc. I would be interested in actually getting numbers like this.. I could talk to Slad, see if he could get something like that done on his trackers (they are used by EZTV) :)[/quote]
Alternatively, each one of us (TINU) could upload the stats reported by our (TINO) respective client. This data could be collated & analyzed by the bean-counters anongst us (TINU) with conclusions drawn - & ultimately, posted for debate/discussion.
Personally speaking, by far the most utilised client I see on _my_ peer-list - irrespective of category of data (i.e. Game, App., Movie) is…
wait for it…
uTorrent (HUZZAH!),
…closely followed by that vile, non-compliant monstrosity, Bitcomet (YECCCH!). Used, AFAIK, exclusively by hit’n'runners, ratio-cheats & other varieties of ‘Net-Scum’.
[quote comment="242322"][quote comment="242239"]
As for Vuze, welcome to the future of bittorrent. 2p2 is the new content delivery system of choice and Vuze is the benchmark that will be used when the utorrent devs pull their finger out and start offering premium content via their own client. Why should it matter to thieves that you can get free or pay to own media via you’re bittorrent client, or any other mediam for that matter. Has downloading warez screwed your head up that bad that you simply refuse to pay for anything anymore? Still, no one is forcing anyone to buy anything. You dont want it, dont buy it. But on the same hand, dont fkin complain because the bittorrent protocol is actualy starting to be used in the manner that it was designed for. If you dont like it, piss off back to gnutella.[/quote]
Man, you’re a full-of-shit, clueless, Vuze-slurping twat.
Don’t tell me: the internet was originally designed to sell banner-ad space too…
ZOMFG!!1 IT’S TRUE I TELLS YA!!2[/quote]
You’re an idiot, that much is obvious. Anyone with the slightest knowlege of bitorrent knows that its primary function was to offload the load placed on central servers by distributing the bandwidth amongst peers. It was not designed for you and your friends to share you’re collection of pirated gay porn.
I can’t really argue with the conclusion that uTorrent has taken over from Azureus (It did for me), I will question the importance of this data. It’s based on a population that runs computer scans at the ‘Pc PitStop’ but who does that? I know I’m not about to submit myself, my computer and my data to an ‘investigation’ by some unknown entity, and I imagine most torrent-freak readers wouldn’t either. So, is the sample population representative of a less security conscience group that overlaps the ignorance of the main-stream and the generally more internet-savvy bit-torrenter? If so, what does it really mean here, that less savvy users have moved to uTorrent (saying nothing about others)?
[quote comment="242536"][quote comment="242322"][quote comment="242239"]
As for Vuze, welcome to the future of bittorrent. 2p2 is the new content delivery system of choice and Vuze is the benchmark that will be used when the utorrent devs pull their finger out and start offering premium content via their own client. Why should it matter to thieves that you can get free or pay to own media via you’re bittorrent client, or any other mediam for that matter. Has downloading warez screwed your head up that bad that you simply refuse to pay for anything anymore? Still, no one is forcing anyone to buy anything. You dont want it, dont buy it. But on the same hand, dont fkin complain because the bittorrent protocol is actualy starting to be used in the manner that it was designed for. If you dont like it, piss off back to gnutella.[/quote]
Man, you’re a full-of-shit, clueless, Vuze-slurping twat.
Don’t tell me: the internet was originally designed to sell banner-ad space too…
ZOMFG!!1 IT’S TRUE I TELLS YA!!2[/quote]
You’re an idiot, that much is obvious. Anyone with the slightest knowlege of bitorrent knows that its primary function was to offload the load placed on central servers by distributing the bandwidth amongst peers. It was not designed for you and your friends to share you’re collection of pirated gay porn.[/quote]
You seem to think that the BitTorrent protocol was designed to make money: “[...] when the utorrent devs pull their finger out and start offering premium content [...]“.
YOU ARE WRONG. End of story.
Go IRC with Ludvig - or better yet, Bram. Ask a few pertinent questions (Hint: MojoNation). You might even garner yourself a clue or two - enjoy! Pretty much _all_ the clients out there are freeware, & pretty much _all_ of them were designed (as was the original) to break up & transmit LARGE ENCRYPTED FILES (Hint: Movies). Bram was discouraged by the then-current crop of P2P clients, which took too long to transmit the large single-file ‘chunks’ as they generally came from one peer at a time. This is where the BT clients enter the story; These soon took up the slack caused by the eventual demise of Napster, Scour, WinMX, et al., with Kazaa, Gnutella, etc. no doubt soon to follow.
Yes, yes, blah, blah, blah - we all know that P2p file-sharing communication protocols CAN be used for transmission of open-source data, or as an internal content-delivery system, but if you think that anything BUT the VAST majority (and I mean the high-90’s % mark) of BT traffic is NOT pirated media, then you are indeed the fuckhead I’ve had you pegged for.
P.S. “you’re” means “you are”, not “your”, you dolt! And why the fuck are you hanging out in pirate-friendly conversations if you’re (<=== see that? That’s the CORRECT usage…) so fucking anti-P2P?
Anyhoo, seeing as you’re so keen, go suck on (your hero) Dan Glickman’s black-worm jism - & come back when you have an inkling of what most of us pirates have known for years:
That P2P technology in all it’s shapes & forms was (& continues to be) designed BY US & FOR US - to circumvent copyright restrictions.
Mkay? MKAY!
HTH
HAND
Etc.
[quote comment="242100"][quote comment="241990"]But Azureus is now owned by whoever does Vuze[/quote]
That would be the same bunch of developers who wrote Azureus in the first place.
[quote comment="241990"]azureus has fallen to major corporate interests.
At the same time, uTorrent is owned by BitTorrent Incorporated, which has also fallen to major corporate interests.[/quote]
So… what? How does this affect either client? Just because there’s a “coro
[quote comment="241990"]My conclusion, switch to open-source clients![/quote]
And what do you recommend?
[quote comment="241990"]Check out BitComet[/quote]
A closed source client.[/quote]
That was a very good deconstruction of my arguments! I’ll respond though.
Azureus is owned by the same people who do Vuze, true. However, it is open source, making it a lot easier for the BT community to keep tabs on what exactly is being done to the client, on a regular basis. This is in contrast to Vuze.
The issue with corporate ownership is that corporations are much more legally responsible for their product (”software”) than coding enthusiasts are. This makes them more restricted by regulations, and more susceptible to abuse of such regulations (by, for example, the mafIAA).
I technically recommend BitComet because I have seen such a huge performance increase (under duress of my school’s routing) over Azureus.
I philosophically recommend open source, because I agree with the philosophy. (I just haven’t had the time/inclination to do a full comparison of open- vs. closed-source clients).
Peace out.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 » Show All
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.