DOUG S.  I gotta say the reason I stopped using Azureus and move to Transmission was simply that Azureus' UI was /is horrible.

Your app runs great and is definitely a great bittorrent app, but my recommendation to you is to NOT follow Azureus and instead design a nice, clean, front end to your app.

Do that, and you'll be the only BT app for Mac or PC that has all the features, is fast, and has a nice friendly UI.

Heck, do that and I'd be willing to pay for it.  
(Version 1.1.1)

CHERRYPIE  Excellent, nice to know I'm prioritizing my uploads to those who give the most in return. If only I could use it on every tracker (it's not an approved client in a few places so I have to fire up azureus for those occasions).  
(Version 1.1)

AZPEDR  Well, I get the exact same speeds out of both Azureus 3.0 and BitTyrant 1.1 , but in BitTyrant it's much easier to achieve those speeds. Basically all you have to do to get decent speeds is mess around with the upload limit until it seems like you've hit a hotspot in download speeds. I do this in both programs... but in BitTyrant I always have to upload more to get the speeds I want, which isn't a bad thing (leechers annoy me).

In Azureus it may even be possible to get your speeds even faster than BitTyrant, but it would really be too much trouble (have to keep messing with certain settings). BitTyrant does a relatively decent job with a fraction of the trouble.

At the same time, I too have had trouble with UPnP, and the GUI gets a little glitchy sometimes (I'm running OS 10.4.9). It just barely isn't as stable as Azureus.

All in all, I'd recommend this program above all others...  
(Version 1.1)

MIKURO  I'm pretty happy with Azureus, but I decided to give this a try. I was in the middle of downloading a torrent at around 90-120K/sec in Azureus, so I cancelled the download and resumed it in BitTyrant. I gave BitTyrant about half an hour to "get going", and the result was that it downloaded at about 25-60K/sec, but it uploaded faster than Azureus had been. That's not quite what I expected!

This particular torrent was fairly well seeded — about a 1:1 seeder:downloader ratio. I assume BitTyrant is geared more towards new torrents that don't have so many seeders. Also, they admit that the results on cable modems like mine will not be as good as what is advertised (I don't know what kind of connection their numbers are based on). So maybe that's why the results were so underwhelming. However, I would expect something that's supposed to be so geared for download speeds to be at least as good as "normal" clients in "normal" circumstances. Bummer.

BitTyrant had some trouble using UPnP. I don't know why, since Azureus works just fine and BitTyrant is based on the same core. Eventually BitTyrant did start working, but only after a few attempts and a relaunch. Could've been a fluke, I guess.

After a while downloading with BitTyrant and seeing no positive results, I went back to Azureus. It went back to the 90-120K/sec range within 10 minutes or so. So the speeds were NOT just a fluke.

I've decided not to make this a full-fledged rated review since I have not yet tested it with a wide variety of torrents (I don't download torrents all that much, so it might be a while before I have the opportunity to test it on a non-well-seeded torrent). I'll keep it around for testing in the future, but plain ol' Azureus is still my go-to client when I need advanced features. (Transmission is great when no features are needed and you know how to manually configure your router/firewall.)

From what I've seen so far, I do feel comfortable saying that it is NOT hands-down better than Azureus. But it still might be better in some circumstances.  
(Version 1.1)

THREEDEE912  People! Please learn exactly what this program does before you bash it!

The program will not seed to other users who are only downloading (unless they just started to download) and are not uploading or have a very low upload rate, being greedy (leeching). This is how BitTorrent is supposed to work, but some people always have to set the upload to 0 and download to max, so this is what BitTyrant is trying to fix.

It's perfectly fair. Everyone shares with everyone.  
(Version 1.1)

AMBERV  We definitely have a lot of "fluff over stuff" folks rating this application poorly for whatever reason. Some people prefer a full featured client over some toy that does little more than download torrents when you plug in a tracker address. There is definitely a place for that, and there is a place for more. Currently none of the suggestions offered here come near Azureus/BitTyrant in features.

Further, to post suggestions to applications with normal download algorithms in an area for a specialised client only further reveals your ignorance.

Fortunately, while BitTyrant may not be as "pretty" as some of these other gutless clients, it is very easy to use. Don't let the "Delicious Crowd" fool you.  
(Version 1.1)

ATTENTIONWANDERED  its azereus user interface (pretty much, looks good with windows and alright on a mac)

so stop hating  
(Version 1.1)

SCRIBE1001  I have tried many Mac clients and only a few are accepted on Private trackers at the moment, out of all of them I have found the btpd-front application to be the best, available here : http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/23255

it is a pleasure to use compared to the Azureus bloatware.  
(Version 1.1)

BERNDII  If you look for a real simple, clean and good looking client go for Transmission.  
(Version 1.1)

MATTHEW GREEN  this kinda bugs me, my connection is adsl that means BY DESIGN it downloads faster than it uploads this just capitalizes on the fact  
(Version 1.1)

AMBERV  Just to clarify the post made about BitTyrant being "greedy;" the poster of this comment (and the author of the blog they link to) lacks an understanding of issues at hand. Yes, BitTyrant prioritises its bandwidth usage to move data as rapidly as possible amongst the fastest peers. If one were to disconnect the moment they got the file, that would be a bad thing, but if you leave your client on as you should, the net effect on the swarm is *positive*. It increases the number of active seeds much more quickly. It does this by actually ignoring the real leech clients that upload very little or none at all.

The question is really this: Is it more or less fair to distribute your bandwidth thinly during the download phase, or to highly optimise it during the download phase and then open the filters once you are seeding? The standard route results in everyone slowly acquiring seed status. The second option means broadband users will hit seed status in less than half the time, increasing the availability of the data, and potentially the longevity in smaller swarms where the risk of losing all of your seeds increases.

As long as you are an ethical torrent user and only disconnect once your ratio is favourable, BitTyrant is a good thing, possibly better than most clients which waste their time in the download phase with leech clients.

We'll see. As someone posted in the comments to the linked blog, BitTyrant is experimental technology. It remains to be seen whether or not its net effect will be positive. Divorced from the social aspect, as a technology there is nothing wrong with it. The term "selfish" or "greedy," is a technical term not to be confused with the ethical common usages. This is no different than a creationist getting confused over the usage of the word "theory," in evolution science.

Anyway, if you want to see the theory behind the application, take a look at their whitepaper:

It is a great deal more thought out than this blog post.  
(Version 1.0)

KCTIPTON  It won't launch on my 10.3.9 system.  
(Version 1.0)

BLUESHEAD  Before using this client,,read this..

http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/01/bittorrent_bull.html

basically ..it's greedy and this has been noted..Most bitttorrent sites will ban it in the next week or two...  
(Version 1.0)

AMBERV  This indeed does seem to work as advertised when compared to a well tuned Azureus client. Of course, being as volatile as the Bittorrent system is, it will require more than a few tests to determine if it is consistently faster, but I just downloaded two files of around 1 gigabyte each. The first was well established and I probably averaged around 320kB/s the entire time -- start-up was amazingly rapid. This is rare for my connexion particulars. The second download was on a very small swarm with only 4 seeds and a couple peers. Despite, I probably averaged around 100-130kB/s, which is generally what I average on a well established torrent. Not bad.

The one drawback that I've seen so far is that it is very spare when uploading. It probably just uploads the minimum required for a maximum download rate. This is fine, it means I get the download quicker, but it does mean that I have to (at least in the karma sense) keep the file seeding a long time after the initial download. It appears to be typical to finish a download with a ratio of only .05 or so, where as stock Azureus usually finishes with close to 1.0 for me.

I haven't put a stopwatch to it or anything, but I wouldn't be surprised if the total download+seed time is similar to Azureus in the end -- you just get your download way faster.  
(Version 1.0)

BACK STABBATH  whats the difference between this and azereus?  
(Version 1.0)