![]() some clients feel like they were made by people that don't do any torrenting at all. qbit is comparable, but in transmission for instance it feels like youre totally in the dark at all times. Not only sustained speeds and peer discovery but the situational awareness u get by using it is much higher than in any other client. Only if they open-sourced utorrent so that people could do stuff with it, like fixing the few bugs, porting to other platforms, and so on. such wasted time and effort developing incomplete and/or buggy clients. ![]() all these open source projects have to do is copy utorrent but they seem unable to copy even 1/10th of its feature-set. this situation kinda pisses me off, because I want to use an open-source client. it baffles me how people think qbittorrent, a bug-ridden excuse of a client is something even remotely comparable to utorrent. I can hardly think of anything to change about it. The interface, the connectivity, the feature-set - it even has a built-in, in-depth user manual. what impresses me the most is that utorrent's setup file is less than half a megabyte, and I'm yet to find a client that consumes as little memory. ![]() all other torrent clients absolutely suck in comparison. I was thinking, how is it possible that no other client, after more than one decade, managed to come even close to the feature-set, performance and (extremely small) size of utorrent (2.2.1)? it's wild if you think about it. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |