Talk:BitLord

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 February 2015 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

Suspect the original entry was just an ad for Bitlord

Source of article text[edit]

The discussion below took place before this article was re-written.

The full text of this article was taken directly from the homepage of the BitLord program (http://www.bitlord.com/) so it might be considered biased.

Not to sound particularly pedantic, but shouldn't there be some sort of information on the potential problems Bitlord has had with filesharing in general? I seem to recall many different mods being made for it that effectively turned it into a leeching program, with very, very limited upload. As far as I know these have been incorporated into the basic program from the getgo. Any more information on this?

I downloaded BitLord while searching for a better client a few days ago. It doesn't seem to have any such capabilities included in the default install. JulesH 09:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These mods exist for many BitTorrent programs. I assume the main motivation behind BitLord are the buttons which send you to XXX and Games sites, with them as a referrer. With so many people using this software that may pull in a nice revenue. The rest of the software is an exact copy of BitComet .59.

Actually, I think it's based on an older version of BitComet. I installed BitComet 0.59.C after trying it, and that version of BitComet has a feature (the favourites bar) that is not found in BitLord 1.1. JulesH 09:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute?[edit]

I don't see any accuracy dispute here, so I'm going to remove the tag. Any objections, feel free to revert me... JulesH 09:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Seems some disgruntled user decided bitcomet too deserved a dispute tag, but instead wrote the text out, and put it in the talk page instead of article. :D --x1987x 02:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting itself as BitComet 1.01[edit]

Does anyone have evidence for this? It seems a little strange, as I see clients in my peer list at the moment reported as BitLord 1.01 and have never seen one as BitComet 1.01. Perhaps an early release neglected to change the client id and this has now been rectified? JulesH 19:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, It's been several days and nobody has justified the claim. I've removed it, because I'm pretty sure it's innacurate. Anyone with evidence, e.g. link to a web page with screen shots, please post it here and reinstate the sentence I just deleted. JulesH 19:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed some outdated stuff about BitComet slowing torrents down! That was only the old version, but BitComet is now updated several times and has got rid of the problem!

Ok I have proof that there is a client showing as bitcomet 1.01 LINK: http://www.3gpxtreme.co.uk/bitcomet_101.jpg [GameFusion]

Here is a screenshot that I took of "bitcomet 1.01" LINK: http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/3692/evidence6eh.png [cXbX]

Here is further proof of a client reporting itself as "BitComet 1.01" LINK: http://img173.imageshack.us/img173/6298/bitcomet1019wo.png

I too have seen this 1.01. Ugh, people should read wikipedia, and find out BitLord is a adware bitcomet :'(. Please!?! --x1987x 02:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully those IPs pictured are dynamic :D --x1987x 02:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's call it for what it is[edit]

I just rewrote the intro to be much more harsh on BitLord. BitLord is just a scam trying to cash in on BitComet and everyone agrees on this. I think that the earlier versions of this article tried to be nice to BitLord for the sake of "NPOV", but this is quite unnecessary: everyone with any BitTorrent knowledge thinks that BitLord is garbage. There isn't any opposing point of view that we need to respect! (The only people who would claim otherwise are the BitLord people themselves, and they obviously don't count.) Redquark 19:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to decide whos opinion 'matters'? I feel the same way about BitLord as you, however Wikipedia is not a place for opinions. Criticism, of course, is great, so long as it is truthful and balanced. --Intimidated^talk 23:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with talk what spyware comes with BitLord. I have used it for ages and have had no problems with it! (and I am not affiliated or partnered or owning or creating or anything to do with bitlord!)

Apparently false claim removed[edit]

Removed the following text:

The bitlord.exe, when opened with an icon editor contains the BitSpirit .torrent file icon, revealing traces of BitSpirit

I opened this application in a resource hacker, i could see no BitSpirit icon present. --195.137.35.18 01:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BitLord is based on version 0.56 of the BitComet core[edit]

Is there proof of this claim? I know it seems obvious, but more information and/or sources is needed. Did they steal the source code? Did BitComet give someone the source code to make BitLord? Is it some type of hack job? Both the BitLord and BitComet developers seem oddly quiet about the issue.

Potential HDD damage????[edit]

"Decreases the potential damage to the hard disk when downloading above 500KB/s, at the expense of extra memory usage." i removed that claim because it makes absolutely no sense at all. 66.36.145.239 22:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does.

It is called caching.

Not only does caching cause increased access speed, which is what it is usually used for, but also since it decreases the otherwise repetitious reading of frequently read areas and unnecessarily frequent writing to disk of downloaded data; it does result in less wearing ("damage") to the disk.

Not that this is anything unique to BitLord of course, so it does not need to be mentioned really...

85.225.176.180 (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wtf caching = less wear when did this happen as im pretty sure that frequent reading and writing is a good thing as it stops the hdd from spinning up and down repeatedly Sparkler99 (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify conventional HDD mechanism workings in case you haven't heard yet, when a drive is constantly spinning, it usually generates heat via kinetic energy. Heat over time degrades a drive to the point it slows down or permanently crashes. This is why when a computer is idle, the HDD usually sleeps - to prevent excessive usage without need. HDDs are very fickle objects and should be respected highly. As for reading/writing, HDD sectors can only be written to a limited number of times before becoming unoperational. Should a downloader read/write constantly, it wears down the integrity of the drive much faster than with general computer usage - especially as fragmented files are constantly being moved around and joined with their respective parts to make them readable. As said previously, this isn't a significant feature though because prior to this discussion, read/write caching was already established among all popular clients. Grez868 (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XXX Chat?[edit]

I removes "XXX Chat" From the listed features because it is an embedded advertisment within the Bitlord program and not a "feature".

Minor Vandalism[edit]

At the end of the "criticisms" text, a vandal inserted the text "oh ya, spegetti monster" I removed it.

Adware?[edit]

Can someone confirm if BitLord truly IS an adware program? Because my antivirus software doesn't find any adwares from it. 15:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It is. Someone's already posted a link to the McAfee advisory on the article page and a quick google for bitlord whenu savenow will give you more examples. I'd be highly surprised if your antivirus software did find adware, since it's not a virus or macro. Spybot S&D/HijackThis will be of more use finding malware/adware than some virus scanner, most of the ones with built-in malware detection aren't worth a damn either. 203.213.7.130 19:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not, I just ran through everything listed on aforementioned link from the main page and I didn't find anything relating to that, the registry was untarnished and no user from Administrator to Default to myself had anything in reference to Save or Whenu Save now, no network connections to that site registered with my Kaspersky firewall on, I'm just not buying it, McAfee is notorious for balderdash, so until we get harder evidence I'm removing both referencing BitLord as adware and the siteadvisor link from the page. Revrant 19:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you already had Spybot S&D installed with the immunization on, the adware didn't even have a chance to be installed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mihai123 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Or maybe it's nonsense that has no basis in reality? I never had any problems with it, and though I've moved to uTorrent, I still use it, and I see this accusation has made it back into the article.Revrant 22:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use BitLord as well, and have no trouble with spyware/adware. The only annoying thing is the XXX Chat, my G/F didnt' like it when she first saw it, but other than that it's not that bad. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 17:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look,I use bitcomet and I don't like BitLord one bit(bcoz it's just bc's shadow and has a paid version which is usenext's shadow,in other words...it is no real program...) but still I don't like false accusitions so I really would like someone to change the license to commercial.

Reading the discussion so far, it seems that it's adware because of advertisements embedded in BitLord itself. Maybe it doesn't install any other adware programs, but that's not the point. Read our own article on Adware and you'll see that BitLord is so. 128.232.228.174 (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bitlord is basic a free movie downloaded you can download other things aswell such as music also if you get a account you get all the ads taken away unlike parite bay and other torrents — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.41.163 (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms Section[edit]

For whatever reason, this line is at the end of the criticisms section:

"BitComet is also being criticized for its "selfish behavior" and is blocked by some BitTorrent Trackers."

This is a very random comment, as the section was about criticisms of BitLord, not BitComet. However, I'm not sure if the paragraph was trying to say that since BitComet is flawed, and BitLord is based on it, then BitLord is flawed. I also figured that the writer could have meant to put BitLord instead of BitComet, or interjected an entirely random comment about BitComet that should not be in this article, because it has no direct impact on BitLord. If there is some impact, it should be clearly apparent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.84.175.16 (talk) 02:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spyware / Adware bundled[edit]

I recently decided that this might be an okay torrent client to use on my wife's new computer, in no small part due to the content of this article. I strongly suggest this article be reviewed by a security professional, then edit-locked, as I feel installing this software was easily the largest mistake I've made in the past 3 months. I even created this (non-anonymous) account just to post this here. John Reasoner (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conduit reference in criticisms[edit]

Needs a reference, or I may suggest it be removed entirely as there is no proof of conduit's involvement. Grez868 (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]