SirPrimalform: That's a pretty bad excuse. What you're saying is that you started using the downloader after it had been deprecated...
When I started using it, there was no sense it was deprecated, just that they wanted to promote Galaxy, which wasn't even out of beta at that point. So not an excuse at all.
SirPrimalform: It's fairly obvious that it's been a bit of a pain for them to keep supporting for years. My guess is that they've been monitoring use of the downloader and they've killed it fully now because the percentage of customers using it has dropped below some threshold. It could well be that the people complaining represent the nearly entirety of the GOG Downloader userbase. :P
Where is your proof for any of that?
SirPrimalform: It's not uncommon for software to be completely rewritten on major version updates, e.g. 1.9.4 to 2.0.0. Galaxy 1 was basically that.
Maybe i should have said, completely rewritten, and very obviously a different beast. That said, I have never actually run Galaxy 2, so I can only go by comparisons by others between that and Galaxy 1, which I am unhappily forced to use on occasion ... for Linux downloads.
SirPrimalform: Because it has some extra features you don't need? Or because 'client' is a dirty word?
I don't see it as a dirty word at all, and it is not the features that bother me, but the impact they have, and the many screens you need to jump through, so I prefer simpler. Like I have mentioned a few times already, I have no beef with Galaxy, unless I am forced to use it. I have even defended it existence in the past, and still do for those who want to use it.
SirPrimalform: You're partially right here, the old Downloader did use more resources.
I'm not even joking, I found it to be prone to memory leaks and Adobe AIR is slow as treacle in general.
I will just ignore those, because I have over 900 games that I used it for that say otherwise. And as PCs go, the one I use for downloading is quite low powered, and the difference between the GOG Downloader and GOG Galaxy is very stark, with Galaxy being absolutely terrible.
SirPrimalform: I could not say, but I'd guess it might be because we have different computers. It used to crash for me and suffer from weird memory leaks when left runnig for while (which is part of the job description of a downloader).
Well, I don't know what to say really, except to use my many years of experience and knowledge and say someone has a crap PC. There are many out there, that look good in the specs department but have mismatched or bad parts, and in fact they are where most issues with running games, come from, where so many people falsely blame GOG, when it is really some manufacturer or PC builder who is at fault. That said, things are generally better these days than they were 20 years ago ... technology is more forgiving now of imperfections.
SirPrimalform: Wow, it's almost as if that was my point!
I mean... not really? You can completely ignore all the bells and whistles and use Galaxy to download offline installers, same as the downloader.
Clearly you don't know much about software or hardware.
SirPrimalform: I certainly wouldn't be opposed to them doing a "Galaxy light" fork or something that uses the installer downloading code from Galaxy but it hardly seems worth it.
Finally something we can almost agree on.
SirPrimalform: Except it's just as good at downloading (if not better) than the GOG downloader was. So either you think that the GOG downloader was not very good at its
one job, or you accept that Galaxy is at least perfectly good at downloading even if you don't think it's good at anything else it does.
You misunderstood me entirely.
GD is better at its one job, than GG is at that same job or in any of its jobs in my estimation ... hence GG is the master of nothing, while GD is the master of downloading. That's not to say GD couldn't or shouldn't be improved, it could be.