Talk:BT clients: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Why is '''Shareza''' not suggested? I know that there is a false Shareza V4 which is bundled with adware but the real V2 doesn't have that. --[[User:Deimon|Deimon]] 12:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC) | Why is '''Shareza''' not suggested? I know that there is a false Shareza V4 which is bundled with adware but the real V2 doesn't have that. --[[User:Deimon|Deimon]] 12:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
Moved Vuze (Azureus) from Acceptable to Good, since it's one of the two only recommended clients. Also corrected it's title and added a short desc. about it's community part. --[[User:Deimon|Deimon]] 14:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:34, 24 August 2008
Could use more descriptive editing and formatting. --Tsikura 08:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Still needs a lot of information. I like how its organized now. i wish i could say the same about the Windows playback page, but thats under hot debate right now. --MarchHare 08:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to order it from Good -> Bad instead of Bad/Good/Acceptable as it's now? And maybe undercategories within each section by OS...? --Deimon 11:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've changed it, looks better now. --Deimon 12:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Why is Shareza not suggested? I know that there is a false Shareza V4 which is bundled with adware but the real V2 doesn't have that. --Deimon 12:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Moved Vuze (Azureus) from Acceptable to Good, since it's one of the two only recommended clients. Also corrected it's title and added a short desc. about it's community part. --Deimon 14:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)