Talk:Comparison of download managers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Merge 2 Comments 3 "malware" line 4 Replace "runs on" columns with a single "platform" column 5 Can they be set to follow links? 6 aria2 on Mac and Windows? 7 Additional column 8 More protocols ??? 9 Speed Limit in IDM 10 Wget / GWGET?

[edit] Merge

• Agree. This should be merged, though all entries in here that are not there should have their pros and cons listed. --SheeEttin 19:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Merge to? Since the list has been rebuilt to be feature compare rather than Advertising, I don't think it'll need to merge now. -- 29dupe 12:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Merge to download managers? I disagree, both articles have different audiences. I'll remove the merge tag since no one has agreed to your suggestion in more than 6 months. --Stephanbim 10:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I disagree. Many types of programs have "list of..." and "comparison" articles. Dmitry Bukhalov 22:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I disagree. A list and a comparison are two different things - one may need the one and not the other - a bad article should not be merged, deleted , etc but amended - are you really willing to compare all the programs listed ? Wouldn't this make the comparison page too cluttered ? The Ubik 15:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Needs a lot more entries... adding the one I use Ace of Risk 14:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

and Urlgfe (http://urlget.sourceforge.net/) and others too

As a general Wikipedia improvement, pages with tables like this should at the very least be able to be sorted dynamically - i.e. the user should be able to sort by column (list all linux DMs together etc). In a more advanced method, it would be good to be able to restrict and change the view of the data ala SQL, possibly with ajax or similar.

[edit] "malware" line

This is POV. adware is mentioned in the license field. I'm rather more interested in other comparions, such as which programming language each app is developed in. Chris Cunningham 13:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the two offending fields and wikified the licences a bit. Still needs more work. Chris Cunningham 13:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the decision to remove the adware/maware line a adware is a major concern for anywone considering using this type of software.

I agree, adware-malware is very important information to know. Call it "Require bundled software" or something if you think "malware" is POV --Guillaume777 04:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with the above two comments, considering that adware and malware is generally unwanted (by the end users, at least) yet seems common in free download managers (closed source, at least). Laogeodritt ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 20:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Since everybody except the original poster agree that it would be very usefull information (I agree as well), why has it not been added back in? Esn 21:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replace "runs on" columns with a single "platform" column

I'd recommend merging the columns to be more descriptive. Some programs may be multiplatform but require libraries, applications or virtual machines.

Disagree, makes it much harder to sort if you pull the data out into a spreadsheet app.

[edit] Can they be set to follow links?

One more thing I'd like to know about these download managers before I select one is whether they can be set to follow (x)html/xlink links recursively to download linked pages. Edit: I tried 2 download managers listed here (wxDownload Fast and Truedownloader) and neither of them do what I wanted. I think I'm going to have to go with the commandline tool wGet.

Also, the 5.1 build of wxDownload Fast doesn't seem that stable (it keeps crashing for me, and according to the bug reports I'm not the only one it's happened to). If this seems to be the concensus somebody should update the chart to reflect that. --Logomachist 21:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Recursive downloading is an important feature. Would you consider making it into the chart? --Tunheim 13:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Recursive downloading is different beast about different protocols. For example, ReGet had it for ages for FTP, and only recently added for HTML (and it is not stable to my experience) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.176.32.19 (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] aria2 on Mac and Windows?

aria2 now runs on Windows. See http://smithii.com/aria2 for details. Ross.smith 09:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, aria2 runs on Linux, Mac (see darwinports) and Windows. See above. Will people stop changing it so it only says Linux? Antini 18:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The aria2 web page states "Please note that MinGW/Cygwin port is extremely alpha stage, so don't use it other than testing purpose". There is a major difference between managing to get something to run under Cygwin and having a program supporting the Windows platform. If you think my point here is invalid, please revert my change, I will not touch it anymore. But please consider your actions: If any program that can be tweaked to run on a OS or platform by using any kind of emulators or third-party libraries ahould be considered native to that platform, we might end up with a HUGE list. --Tunheim 13:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I second Tunheim's opinion above (that aria2 can't be considered Windows native). Though I might add that the Macports version of aria2 is at version 0.7.1 while the current official build is v0.10.1 (as of today). I also nominate Wget for inclusion in this list (see below) (even though Wget 'only' supports HTTP, HTTPS and FTP) --Lemi4 17:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Strange that you link to a revision from 5 mos ago instead of the current one. See Macports version of aria2 for version 0.10.1 (latest version). Antini 00:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional column

How about adding a new column: Segmented downloading (from Mirrors)? --213.47.53.102 19:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More protocols ???

Can there be more columns in protocols ? Say: ftps (FTP over SSL), SCP (SSH copy), File (copying from disk/LAN, for example unreliable CD-R or LAN share when bad link)?

Also perhaps TFTP, NetBEUI (Windows/SAMBA protocol, direct support apart from File)?

And WebDAV (for recursive download it is different from HTTP)

SSL/TLS should be listed rather than HTTPS, FTPS. the way HTTP, FTP, and for example, IMAP, SMTP and POP are wrapped under SSL/TLS are about the same. if one developer adds support for SSL and already supports HTTP and FTP, then he should be able to use SSL for both procols

exclusion to this is SFTP (SSH), SCP (SSH) and other SSH powered techniques, like FTP over SSH. however, as the market becomes more diverse, SSH eventually could me made a split field like SSL/TLS and have SCP and other protocols tagged to it. after all, SCP is dependant on it, likewise HTTPS is dependant on SSL/TLS

better yet, maybe have the "mother fields" unencrypted/plain-text, SSH and SSL, with the "child fields" SFTP, SCP, FTPS, HTTPS, etc listed bellow?

WebDAV should be a split field too, next to HTTP

it could have some other P2P protocols that are getting more common, such as Kad and eDonkey

as for TFTP... thats kind of old protocol. not really widely used, asides by network boot loaders and MS IIS. alas with SFTP. both protocols are bad for internet usage anyways, and a security risk even LAN-wise

NetBEUI and other protocols... i dont see the point here. not bash anyone, but i never saw any download manager or any app outside the LAN realm (tools, diagnosers, etc). so its kinda pointless to add it, unless there are actually many programas that support it

--LPCA 21:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

take a look at this - Comparison of e-mail clients. i helped the writters reach some layout upon visiting the SSL/TLS fields. they did quite a nice job. and they keep improving it, far better than i suggested ;)

--LPCA 03:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speed Limit in IDM

There is no Speed Limit feature in IDM and that's too bad. I'll correct that.

There is a possible limitation of the amount of data downloaded though, but this can't be used as a speed limitation, as it stops the downloads once the limit is reached. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.176.140.199 (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Wget / GWGET?

Just thinking of what I personally would consider the GNOME-based equivalent of what a typical Windows user would consider a "download manager" / "download accelerator": Wget.

Keep in mind though, that Wget for Windows is a CLI utility (though it is officially recognised by the FSF maintainers). And although Wget has at least one GUI wrapper I can think of, wGetGUI is... confusing, to put it mildly (at least in comparison to the Gnome / Linux only GWGET). "Mere mortal" Ubuntu / Gnome users might be better off using GWGET.

BTW, can anybody think of a Free Software download manager for Windows?

--Lemi4 17:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

See wxDownload Fast for a Free Software download manager on Windows. Antini 00:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

--- Is there a set of tests somewhere that was carried on each of these dload managers ? Still a few miss, for instance the winner (spyware-free sense) in the SpyBot 2003 comparison, which is leechget.