I HATE that thing...luckily you can just turn it off. :)
On Topic however...(not sure if this has been mentioned anywhere else in the thread and dont have time to check) It could become a Digital Download type app like Steam where all the features of GOG.com are in the app and all downloads will take place inside the app. CD Projekts games could also appear in a different section of the store. The downside will be that its another Distribution app.

Actually both XP and Vista have indexing on by default, whereas Vista's is highly superior and doesn't impact performance.

I prefer .exe, but wouldn't mind the option to download a .zip. It seems unnecessary though.
I wouldn't like an official, required download manager. I'm not sure about an optional one, but, well, I can manage my own downloads. There are plenty of options for doing so, and I like the one I already use. It's just not that big a deal for me.

My vote (short version):
-Yes please to ARCHIVES, and archives only. Preferably 7z, which is awesome and open source
-No thank you to a separate download manager APP.
My quick reasons (slightly longer version):
-A single EXE satisfies my shallow obsessive compulsive "cleanliness" needs, but deep down I know the the benefits of archives. Practically, afaik the only advantage of the exe is simplicity but 1) an archive is not THAT much slower, 2) integrity checking, 3) better compression? (don't know about the last one).
The "extra hardspace" disadvantage of archives I think is moot considering how dirt cheap storage is. Seriously, who here is so strapped for HDD space that they can't afford a TEMP directory for unzipping a 1 Gig file?
-There are plenty of great download managers out there already, and having the end-user have to get yet another special "tailor made" one for a specific service is annoying. I suppose if it's a super-lite, on-demand app (no background services), then it's not an inconvenience, but still...
Why not just have a little warning link on download pages advising people to use a download manager if they don't have one already? You can even link to a recommended one.
Thanks for reading our feedback.

Agreed with Cliftor.

I'd like to see some method of being able to resume downloads, too. At the moment, no download managers work on the site (neither GetRight nor Firefox's built-in download resumer). Whether this comes in the form of an optional download manager, or by making the GOG servers support resuming, isn't much of a concern of mine. But getting 500+megs into a file only to have a small net-burp kill your entire download isn't too much fun right now.

I don't see why you can't just generate download urls that only allow a single download completion. Then people could throw the url into whatever download app they'd like and they couldn't share it since it would stop working as soon as the download completed successfully.
I personally tend to grab url's in my windows box at work, then cut and paste to an ssh session at home and download things with wget.
I don't care whether you use and .exe or .zip. It really doesn't matter to me.

I don't think any website using simple download urls would be able to recognize the condition in bold without using a download manager...

I don;t really care about EXE vs Archive.
I'd be super keen for a Downloader App. I'm really keen to get Freespace 2 with my free code, but can't as the file is 1.6gb. The max speed I can get is around 30kbp/s and form what I've heard and in my experience you can't start and stop GO downloads with a Download manager. I too live in NZ where I can get free after midnight, but obviously my connection is too slow for it to reasonable to get the game.

Actually, assuming they're using apache as their http server, I believe it would be relatively trivial to use one of the event hooks to code this behaviour. I know there are a number of sites that do this exact thing. None of them require a download manager.

What about offering multi-part downloads which can be used for slower speed connections? Instead of 1.6gb, four chunks of 400mb and you're done...
Less software running in the browser, the better it will be (ie no download manager).
Prefer EXE to archives personally.

I love the current system.

Well I think a download manager has become a must for me. I had downloaded Descent3 and was having a problem with mercenary not working. I saw the new "MD5" post by GOG, so I got it, checked my file, and low and behold, the check does NOT match. I am limited to 5GB per month, which means I get one game per month if I want to use the internet for the rest of the month at all. I can't afford to keep re-downloading a file, I just don't have the bandwidth. A download maager (like fileplanets) checks during the progress of the download and eliminates the need to re-download a HUGE file. I am now in favor of having to have a download manager for sure.

+1 for download manager

I for one am for the .exe because it makes it soo much easier to just move it on the fly without bothering about archiving software.
Regarding downloads, pausing/resuming is a must have (even though I have a more than decent connection); using bit torrent tech would be another option that might be interesting to implement as an alternative to the classic download scheme.