Talk:ΜTorrent/Archive 3

Criticism 16 April 2008
Some people believe that µTorrent downloading speed degraded noticeably in new versions published after µTorrent was purchased by BitTorrent, Inc..
 * The following was moved to Talk :

µTorrent built-in RSS feed reader received some criticism when it was discovered that this reader does not obey XML specifications. Namely it accepts malformed RSS XML feeds with unescaped characters, such as «&» instead of «&amp;amp;». When asked to correct this behaviour, Greg "alus" Hazel refused to do so: "The fact that this is not valid XML is not a fault of uTorrent. In fact, it's quite common, so uTorrent parses it either way.", and admitted that µTorrent "indulges web developers breaking the Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 specification by implementing non-standard XML parsing behaviour"
 * The first part about Speeds is vague (Some People believe) and fails to provide any sources. The second bit about RSS criticism simply fails WP:SPS: User:L.R.N who added this section uses the same nickname as the one used by the sole criticizer in the µtorrent forum thread used as citation. The time of posting there and the time of the editing here further correlates that this is the same person. In addition here is only a single criticizer, employing a XML technique similar to Quirks mode is arguably a violation of a standard and this incident is about the development of the new Beta and not about the latest stable. This doesn't seem significant enough to justify adding it as criticism to the wikipedia article. --Lord Alderaan (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

uTorrent tries to send emails?
My firewall software regularly reports that uTorrent is trying to send an email message. Is anyone else experiencing this? Alex.angelov (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It´s a false positive - you´re connected to some peer who is using a port generally meant for mail protocols. For whatever reason your firewall simply checks the number, not the data that actually flows through that port, and thus concludes that the program must be sending a mail.


 * In newer versions this behaviour can be disabled in the "advanced settings" screen (but you´ll most likely loose those using such ports as usable peers). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.113.51 (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion page is for discussing improvements to the article. I suggest asking this question on a message board, or help forum. 21:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But the question is relevant. If uTorrent had started sending out emails that could indicate the media industry had managed to subvert the application, and it would be paramount that Wikipedia no longer presented an article saying uTorrent is a fit-for-function application. (To be clear: I don't believe it is; this is just a belated response to the "no tech support on wiki talkies" argument)

RIAA/MPAA Ownership...sketchiness with 1.8 release
There was a "critical vulnerability" found in older versions of utorrent that supposedly is just a scam to get users to update to the new 1.8 release which apparently is rigged with RIAA/MPAA sketchiness and torrents now seem to be monitored...should this be mentioned in the article that utorrent 1.6 was the last version of utorrent before it was "corrupted" by the new ownership? Here's the Source Link for more info... Doshindude (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Supposedly a scam? Secunia is a widely known and trusted source of these kind of vulnerabilities. The link you named 'just a scam' links to a diggit page that refers back to the torrentfreak article and neither sources have any mention at all of it possibly being a scam.
 * And µtorrent 1.8 apparently is rigged with RIAA/MPAA sketchiness? The source you provide mentions nothing of the sort, it only mentions the BitTorrent.com search engine. Not only do I believe there is no truth in your claim, but adding anything of the sort you suggest comes close to what is considered FUD. When I have the time I might consider monitoring µTorrent through Wireshark to confirm the falseness or truth of your claims and when I do so I'm prepared to provide instructions for you to do this yourself. Besides Wikipedia has high standards before adding such accusations. Thus even with proof at hand it would be hard to add such an accusation to the wikipedia article. Take BitComet and their dialing home with hash and torrent names for example. You'd need an accepted expert in the field with a written article as source.
 * Mentioning 1.6 as the last version by Ludde and/or 1.6.1 being the first version released by BitTorrent, Inc. are the only verifiable encyclopedic facts you have brought forward that might be included. Although I don't see the added worth over the current message of similar effect in the introduction of the article except for implying FUD. --Lord Alderaan (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Significant Changes
The Significant Changes column was removed from the Release history table because it only contained one entry. If you want to add such information you should do the research and fill it up. But even then it will be very subjective. If the devs stated certain improvements as more significant then others these could be used as references, but I'm not aware of such statements. Opinions of other people on what is significant will be diverse and a NPOV stance will be difficult. --Lord Alderaan (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Mac OS X official beta release
I added in some information in this part of the article. It's in the parentheses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by False Ego (talk • contribs) 03:48, 29 November 2008

Ask toolbar really noteworthy?
I've seen a ton of programs that ask you to install additional software like a toolbar. If uTorrent does this, is it really necessary to point that out at all in the article? it seems unnecessary and not noteworthy... Frogg220 (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's noteworthy. The toolbar is a slightly intrusive addition in a program that used to come with no strings attached at all. Even though it is done properly (asked during install and completely optional) and the devs have a justification (covering costs of further development) that doesn't mean it shouldn't be publicly known. And the wikipedia section mentioning it is sufficiently NPOV in my opinion. --Lord Alderaan (talk) 11:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The toolbar is not 'done properly', in that if a user upgrades, there is no asking. Easily verifiable, but also mentioned all over the uTorrent forums (one example: http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=90382 ).  This is highly noteworthy: a client previously regarded as a 'clean', trustworthy, client is now installing 'spyware' - granted, this depends on the exact definition of spyware; but software installed without the users consent, that surreptitiously redirects their searches to a different search provider would generally meet the criteria.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.75.182 (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The utorrent support link you provide is highly probably only a case of a user failing to uncheck the third and crucial checkbox. There is no evidence of you not getting the opportunity to opt-out when upgrading. Your entry is at least unintentionally misleading. CapnZapp (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My entry is not intentionally misleading. The forum poster did not fail to uncheck a 'third and crucial checkbox' - no checkbox is presented. I have observed this behaviour myself. The forums show many people experiencing and describing the same behaviour.  I cannot find anyone that has written this up in a blog post, or a 'noteworthy' source. What about assuming good faith? Perhaps there is no checkbox, as I, and others, are saying?
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.75.182  (talk • contribs)  11:27, 10 January 2011

We will need reliable sources to support any kind of "controversy" (forum posts do not cut it), as it was it just seemed like an angry user's rant, which has no place on a Wikipedia article. However, in the above IP's defense, I believe I was subject to an unauthorized install of the toolbar et al and I clicked to allow uTorrent to update itself (rather than downloading and installing the installer from the website). But it took all of 10 seconds to remove both the installed components from Firefox so was hardly an inconvenience. Rehevkor ✉  12:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You did not manage to uninstall them. Its considerably harder than that to remove non cosmetically. See http://beforeitsnews.com/story/299/469/How_to_Remove_Conduit_Engine_Search_from_Firefox_3.x.html for details.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.75.182  (talk • contribs)  11:27, 10 January 2011

reference 5 is a deadlink
just thought I'd point that out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.222.0 (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Win9x support was dropped
Not quite sure which part of the article would be best for a one-line mention of this, but some other articles do mention a software's last version to support an older operating system.

http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?pid=439080

http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?pid=438332#p438332

Those two forum threads make mention of this. Support for anything before Win 2000 (95, 98, ME) was dropped in µTorrent 1.8.5 and the 2.x series. The last working version (and I checked it runs on my 98, pardon my original research) was evidently 1.8.5 beta build 17091.

95.132.15.203 (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"both" versions
From the introduction: "It is available for Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. Both versions are written in C++."

This seems like it wasn't updated once a third OS had support added; on the other hand, the Linux version is currently in alpha, with a GUI only available through the Windows version run with Wine.

Minor issue, but I'm not sure what to change. Change to "all versions", remove "Linux", or qualify the statement? 205.215.116.73 (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Mac version uses Cocoa so I think it's written in Objective-C, not sure, though. Wolfos1232 (talk)