Eh, I'm sorry, I tend to overreact when someone start throwind statements like "bloated M$ crap." I do agree that installer should ask about it, and I also agree that I don't see a point in using .NET for an application that clearly doesn't need it.

You can use one of the multiplatform gog downloaders made by users in the meantime, I just hope they still work after the site redesign. I can pretty much guarantee you that most of them don't use .NET or any other additional dependencies.

And lastly, the downloader is still in beta, it just doesn't really state so anywhere.
No you don't. OP clearly talks about older games.

.NET happens to be the only practical way to use some of the most valuable, practical, productivity efficient, and non error prone programming language on the planet. Languages that are used every day, all over the place for all kinds of reasons. And that framework is automatically installed on modern systems. Even XP SP2 has a version pre-installed, and its could be argued that its is practically a vital organ in programming you can no longer live with out.

If you think everyone should be using C++ for everything, then you don't know how hard it can be to work with for non-lazy everyday programmers. My suggestion is you lean to live with .NET, because you will be a lot happier not fighting it.

That said it should warn you. That said, it is a perfectly reasonable requirement.

Well of course it's easier, C#'s becomming something of a construction set for windows. Which is precisely why I'll never support it, platform dependent programming is probably the worst willing decision you can make. Saying that C# with .NET is the future is saying that Microsoft's monopoly is the future. Granted, it would be harder to create a C++ application, but hell, gog users managed to code those in their spare time, and not one hyperactive, several of them have made several different downloaders!

Actually, XP, even SP3 doesn't come with any version of .NET pre-installed.

Due much to the efforts of the Mono project, and GTK, it isn't nailed down to just windows. There are many C#, compatibility people out there doing neat stuff that is all way over my head.

Really? Then where did that thing keep coming from? I get the impression you are a much higher authority on such things, so I will assume I was gravely mistaken, and retract my inaccuracy.

Really? Then where did that thing keep coming from? I get the impression you are a much higher authority on such things, so I will assume I was gravely mistaken, and retract my inaccuracy ;-)

Seriously thou, I might as well pick up a few books and start studying that along with C++. It sure as hell won't hurt me.

Um. Hobbyist ignoramus here.

Main starting points
http://monodevelop.com/
http://www.gtk.org/

for graphics and sound http://www.opentk.com/

Fair warning if you ever mess with GTK, its a bit weird and unintuitive at times. Its grown on me a bit.

It's ... More of me pretty much ignoring .NET developement for some time now, I'm used to only take note of very narrow area of expertise and ignore everything else. Yea I know that's not good. That's just how my brain works.

Anyway, thanks for the links :-)

Dude I was NOT calling you a hobbyist ignoramus! I was calling ME a hobbyist ignoramus! 90% of my programming was learned off and on over the course of my life. I have lots of gaps and faults and what little I do is in random spurts when I feel in the mood for such things.

Having installed? No. But its installation process? Yes. If you still think "no" then I must be "the lucky one" as .NET messed my system once when some application tried to install older version of it than I've already had without my permission.

In general, I have nothing against .NET as it seems to be kind of standard today - I just do not like silent installs. I like having control during every process of installation.

Actually, you are a little wrong here. Windows XP since SP1 could have early versions of .NET (1.0 / 1.1) preinstalled. They are in additional components on system CD ready to install during normal process of system installation. Also in Media Edition and Tablet Edition they were installed by default.

I don't recall it ever being preinstalled. I could be wrong though. Maybe that is true for specific versions / installations of XP only?

As far as I know, Windows Update (Microsoft Update in XP), has always offered to install the full package of .NET 1.1, no where mentioning that it would be an upgrade for a previous version (which I think replaces 1.0 and that one isn't available anymore anywhere?).

EDIT: I don't have a Microsoft.NET folder in Windows on my XP virtual machine. So I guess .NET comes only with specific versions of XP?

The one I installed is a clean, untouched ISO file that comes with SP3, coming from MSDN (to insure it hasn't been tampered with).

My system installs were done by using original XP release + installations of next SPs and .NET appears after installations of SPs. Later it was required .NET SPs to be downloaded.