Thanks, I've corrected.

I like the downloader, but I'll adapt. Not really a big deal.

I totally agree ..... unless, as I fear, there is an agenda going down ... one beyond GOG Galaxy.

It seems to me, going by things I have noticed now and then, that they seem to be preparing for something big.

I hope I am wrong.

I'm hoping it too but, nowadays, GOG seems to me a parody reflex of Valve. A really ugly one. :\

I don't mind however the gog downloader was good to download larger games, so I hope they replace that with something. I'd also really like the option to delete games from my profile as you get in steam.

1. Nope, it isn't a client, but yes you have to login to your account .... naturally to access games in it. But of course that is automated so no big deal ... set and forget.

2. Last I heard, if you download the Windows version of games, space is wasted in each download, because Galaxy is built in. That may not seem much ... unless you have a lot of games. But maybe that is no longer the case?

3. Because it is bloated with unnecessary stuff for many of us. Has a much bigger footprint, hogs a lot of memory, even locks up or freezes for a while when trying to change screens. In short, you are running another memory hungry browser for a client. Of course, if you are running it on a powerful PC, it probably won't impact you much.

So the best things about the GOG Downloader, are its small size and memory footprint, its no fuss simple usage, and unlike the browser scenario, far easier to queue and resume downloads, and infinitely better visually ... unless you like a busy screen etc.

Even though Galaxy is more modern and fancier looking, in my view, unless you want that type of thing, it is a backward step compared to the GOG Downloader. Keep it simple, keep it practical has always been my belief.

I've briefly made a mention of that in a post on the other thread that gave birth to this one, and I haven't been able to shake off the idea that it could also be server related. As GOG Downloader's links are separate from the other ones via Galaxy and offline ones listed on that same page, I have no idea what the capacity of GOG's servers are but there could be the will to free up servers by deleting all the GOG downloader's links.

Pure speculation on my part I stress that, but besides wanting to get rid of the Downloader for a while now, this could be a -at best- factor.

Should they be preparing something big as you say, speaking for myself, It'd better not be making Galaxy mandatory for us who only want to download offline installers. Tried that and hated it, and if GOG goes towards getting rid of what has made it stand out from the rest to just do as and join the rest, for those of us who joined for the standing out part, then what's the point....

If you're gonna use a separate app to download files, other than a browser, why does it matter if it's the downloader or Galaxy? I don't really get it, and I'm not trying to be snarky.

This has been answer on the other Downoader thread but no problem answering here too.

For me: I do not want nor need to use Galaxy to download my offline installers because it is bloated and heavy, not really that reliable speed wise, plus occasional freezes.

The downloader on the other hand is really light and has consistently offered me and others reliability and constant speeds.

So when you ONLY want to grab your offline installers and don't necessarily want to do it via your browser, this downloader is just the perfect and light tool

Why does "bloated and heavy" matter? You use it to download the installers, then shut it down. Unless your hard drive is getting really full and installing Galaxy is getting too much?
Are you talking about 2.0? Yeah, it's not really made for 'older' computers... (I think that that's one of the best reasons to keep Downloader alive) I never had any reliability/freezing issues myself with Galaxy 1 on my old PC.

That said - I liked using GOG downloader, and I think it should stay!

I'd say it probably costs them way more than you imagine. Maintaining decade old software is ALWAYS costly. I had to do that with one product (it finally died this January), and it's major pain and time sink. Even when I wrote it myself, today I know much more and better practices, but can't apply them to such old codebase because the architecture just isn't built for it.

Here they didn't really maintain the client, but still had to maintain the server infrastructure for it. Login API (likely less secure than what we have now), download API, website integration (the downloader:// link). Test that neither broke after any change in their galaxy services or website changes. Doing all that for the 0.1% users who are simultaneously a) using downloader b) categorically opposed to use galaxy instead and c) too lazy to click individual installers on the website (or get browser extension that allows them to download all the files with one click)... I don't blame them for cutting it.

This is a good point :) Even with GOG I have way more games than time. So far I made very few exceptions. One to be exact. Three if I count oculus store (my excuse here is that DRM-free installer won't do me any good if I won't have the required hardware). If I own anything else outside of gog, it was free or coupon I got alongside my CPU.

I don't WANT a client. But I don't mind it either. The point of shopping here for me are the offline installers. I don't want to zip folders from steam installation, and hunt for required registry keys or MSCV runtimes or physx installers when I want to install it on another computer.

A bloated/heavy program does matter in terms of resources and whatever it does in the background. Then the speed isn't always constant, and all that has to do with the program and not my system. This apply to both the older and v2 Galaxy which can be easily handled by my system. For those using Galaxy for all its intents and purposes then great. For me its way overkill and the Downloader is way more suited for the task. If I had to make a comparison, the best I can think of is getting a smartphone when all you will be using it for is making phone calls, except it won't interfere with making call.

I'm actually using it right now to grab some games and it's just there doing its job unnoticed just the way I love it. Despite me using TCP over UDP to download (thus minimizing risks of corruption), installers download faster via GOG downloaded than Galaxy, this too has always been a constant, the fluctuation seen with Galaxy is practically non existent with that good old downloader.

But as you've used it and liked it, then you know its value ;-)
(Edit: not enough sleep way too many typos).

Have you considered the L? I suggest you take it soon, as this is not a battle in which you will be the victor.

Sometimes products get discontinued because the last person who knew how to work on them left the company 5 years ago.

Sometimes they get discontinued because the codebase that allowed them to run is getting sunset. (Flash, Python 2, etc.)

Sometimes they get discontinued because to maintain them would be taking time away from more important projects or are so disruptively unproductive as to be worthless.

If you're having trouble running Galaxy 2.0, you'd have trouble running a browser. And if your computer is that much a fossil, have you considered either dropping the biggest bloat (Windows), dropping in a few memory modules, or otherwise considering a nice refurbished/off lease machine? I promise you, IceWM only takes a mere fraction of CPU time and memory.

For me no, I do not have any trouble running any browser or anything else I have on my system, which is not a fossil in any way and I've always made sure my PC builds don't fall into that category anytime soon. The bloating, freezes and other issues are also experience by others whom I doubt are all using fossils. I understand what you are saying and why, but what you also need to understand is that we are talking about a software set specifically to only download installers and which will be scrapped, Galaxy was never meant to be just a downloaded but quite a bit besides that, hence me using the bloated term.