Talk:FlashGet

Spyware? Certainly

Isn't FlashGet spyware? -- Toytoy 11:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure that FlashGet is partly malware because Avast! detected the FlashGet toolbar used in Internet Explorer as adware. --Bruin_rrss23 (talk) 09:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

way to bump dead conversations --1698 06:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What they said "Optional" adware. I have never seen anything overthere about this option. Moreover, Lavasoft's adaware always detect it as a piece of malware.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.12.112 (talk) 05:47, 28 July 2006

Okay, I just installed the latest version and there's nothing optional about the 3 IE Add-in's the program installs. The wiki article is somewhat mislead in this regard, and I would not have installed this software if I knew it would automatically, without asking, install add-ins. Urbanriot 21:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethic.. crack link !?

Is it okay to link to a site that distributes crack/serial information? 2—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.202.172.138 (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2005

Of course it is NOT okay. --Anthony Ivanoff 15:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

advertisments

isn't it wrong to show a way to get rid of ads without paying a shareware software?It is not much different from giving crack method to get rid of ads

I've removed the "how to remove advertisements" section; it is unencyclopedic. [1] —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-15 03:22Z

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 23:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

not very encyclopedic...

Is it really "encyclopedic" to write sections about how to remove a piece of software, whatever it is? External links would've been more appropriated Omega Said 20:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems like Flashget is now Freeware. is it?

Version 1.72 (2006.5) whatsnew quote: "* All free !!! * Context menu add to Opera 8.x"

I am not 100% sure if it has gone free. The licence.txt file (found after installation) is dated back in 29/7/2005, and still states "The SOFTWARE isn't free". I did a clean uninstall, and installed the new version, then in the About box says "this copy is licenced to <my windows username>". I did not see any banners, and registration nags (forwarded my clock some years to the future :) ) Randomgrk 20:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

its really always been freeware... they just used to try to get some money from ppl who didnt know anything about software... they probably took it out cuz ppl complained --1698 19:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

screenshot

its a gif

whoever was brave (or stupid) enough to install this should retake it in png--Froth 01:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Cynical 22:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the screenshot, it should be updated to show off its new look. (Zero3K)

I've uploaded a newer screenshot. Matt489Talk 03:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

about last revert

the older versions of flashget is not more ad free the the current one, and the references was duplicate so i removed it. --1698 15:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

flashget website unavalible

There is a weird problem i cant access flashget website as of 29/12/2006, i am not sure when this as started but does anyone else experience this issue or know something about it?--88.153.65.18 16:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to access the website just now and it works. As of accessing the website yesterday, I don't know (since I switched over to Free Download Manager). You might have been affected by the international link failure in Taiwan or the website was taken down for maintenance... I don't know.--Bruin_rrss23 (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

well i think it is the link failure since i tryed pinging it and i just get the packets lost, so that means that the website isnt blocked but has connection trouble, well if you know a place where i can get updates on the link failure repair status then thanks (p.s: my ip changed because i restarted my router)--88.153.48.205 12:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

the ip adress has to be origional.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aladden (talk • contribs) 14:17, 30 December 2006

Mystery connections possible spyware

I can see in my firewall (comodo firewall 2.4) that flashget is connecting the internet even when its not active to various strange ip addresses can someone please use something like wireshark and analyze what is behing sent from this connection. --88.154.136.53 02:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent discussion about this on the FlashGet forums: http://bbs.flashget.com/viewthread.php?tid=8723&pid=30526&page=1&extra=page%3D1#pid30526 Cdean 17:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"FlashGet 1.7.x are better than newer versions..."

On 8 December 2007 200.120.100.48 added the comment "FlashGet 1.7.x are better than newer versions 1.8.x or 1.9.x as they have a lot of bugs and the downloads probably stop at 99%." Aside from being ungrammatical, I think the comment is untrue. I downloaded and used the latest version of FlashGet a week or so ago with no problems. So I'm going to revert (remove) 200.120.100.48's insertion.

200.120.100.48, if you disagree with this action, please explain here. NCdave (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This section appears to be endorsing the product as if affiliated to the company: "Take a note, FlashGets "adware" and "spyware" is both harmless and safe to use. AdWare frame could be easily disable in the View options of the program (view-(uncheck) Enable Recommend page)"

Is ths true? Is it still appropriate for this section to be in this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.173.178 (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Bugs: multiple downloads

I run a web server and have had repeated incidents whereby FlashGet-using clients have accidentally downloaded the same file multiple times: today one chap downloaded the same file 5,089 times (transferring 1.7TB before I noticed). I have a hard time believing I'm the only afflicted by this, and thus am wondering if there is other discussions/validation of potentially bugginess on the part of FlashGet that should be added to the article. 15:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachdms (talk • contribs)

You forgot to mention whether your web server and its content are really “cache-friendly”. If your server does not supply “Last-Modified” HTTP header, or if it supplies inadequate “Expires” header, no wonder that a client will re-download the same file again and again each time it checks for file modification. The same is especially true for script-served files, when document is given away by a server-side applet rather than by standard web server mechanism: applets often forget to provide “Last-Modified”, “ETag” and “Expires” headers.

Moreover, your server can implement other “anti-proxy / anti-cache” techniques without your implicit knowledge of it. For example, your web server (or script applet) can dishonor “ranged” downloads, when client request only a part of file (maybe for downloading in parallel threads), and your server always send the whole file, until one client thread manages to get it all in a single try. Again, this is especially true for self-made script applets which are often incompatible with HTTP protocol standards. 217.172.21.161 (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Versioning

While article states that the most recent stable version is 2.3, the official site itself is very unclear about it.

• Quick “Download” link on the title page offers the last “pre-2.x” version (1.9.6).
• “Downloads” page leads to either the last “pre-2.x” or the last “classic” version (1.7.3).
• Only a side-banner on the title page advertises 2.0 (sic!), and the links to files are provided inside forum topic.

So it looks like if you want to get the latest 2.x version, you have to, at first, know of its existence, and, at second, to scroll through the mentioned forum topic, which already counts 32 pages of 10 messages each. I took a glance on some pages from the start and the end of this topic and was unsuccessful with finding any useful information, except massive unmoderated spam messages and off-topic discussions. Moreover, no official posting proves the existence of version 2.3 or alike.

But when I visited chinese version of official site, it had a big “Quick download” link for 3.0 and a side-banner for 2.4. Well, I remember some postings in the before-mentioned topic where users complained about being unable to “translate chinese FlashGet” and asked about where to get localization pack.

Maybe this is it: FlashGet is currently developed in Chinese primarily, and there are no official localized releases newer than 2.0. I think, this needs thorough clarification in the article by people who are familiar with the subject. 217.172.21.161 (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the article “Comparison of download managers” is much more clear on this than the “main” FlashGet article. But it would still be nice if someone explained the official position on releasing localized version. 217.172.21.161 (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The previous statement is no longer true: the article “Comparison of download managers” has also been wiped out of details about existence of separate version branches, and now lists 1.9.6 as the only available latest stable release. 213.234.235.82 (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

FlashGet Support

If destroy the image of company or of product what is protected of copyright is illegal, what is being written by you, I changed only the fake product image and if you have any complaints about the product write your opinion in "Discussion", but do not change in "Article".Stuff what says here is illegal and we will take legal action against you unless you stop to change the "Article".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Flore bv ro (talk • contribs) 02:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm unsure what you're referring to. The images in the article [2], [3] have fair use rationales.
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

For those that want to know the real problems of the program, solutions and updated information about the program, enter into the official website FlashGet http://www.flashget.com/index_en.htm , in international forum http://bbs.flashget.com/en/index.php , or the Chinese forum http://bbs.flashget.com/index.php . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.82.224 (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Flashget on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/flashget.manager — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.83.230 (talk) 05:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Updated information?

If you do not allow others to update information about this program, why do not do it you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.82.201 (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing that would prevent others from editing the article. DMacks (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe the poster is referring to this removal of content which I reverted. The poster's IP is almost identical to 95.16.83.97 (talk · contribs), who registered the account Flore bv ro (talk · contribs) last year for the express purpose of removing content in this article about malware concerns.
--Gyrobo (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This encyclopedia is a fake encyclopedia, almost nothing is truth here, and the information here is too old to be considered credible and is without arguments, to demonstrate what you say, with recent information. It seem that is made it by kids, sure, no one believes anything that is written here. Read the article and you, and you give me the reason, is made it with negligence and none encyclopedic. Almost all the information about the program is no longer true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.82.224 (talk • contribs)

If you have new information that is supported by reliable sources, you are free to add it to the article. However, you cannot simply remove sourced content you disagree with, or add unsourced content. And if you have any personal affiliation with this product, you are required to disclose it.
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I will not complicate my life with stupid things for free, is not my job, I come here just to see the details about this program, but maybe I'll see in other pages or forums, where is better detailed and renewed this information. My God, we are in 2011, and here the latest update, about the program, in the article, it was in 2010, in these 1 year have changed many things in the world and in the program, I tell you this, in case if you did not know. lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.82.224 (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Guys, calm down a bit :) 95.16.82.224, you are free to contribute in any manner you like to this project. However, if you would like to remove content that has a source somewhere else, you need at least to provide some sort of proof that what you changed is true. Else, everyone could come here and change articles just like they want it.

Just imagine for a moment I was an Al Quaida terrorist. Now there are lots of sources in the Al Quaida article stating it is a terrorist organization. If I were then allowed to change the article about that organizaion to tell that it is a worldwide free organization to protect human rights and to spread peace around the world, without having to source this, it wouldn't be very credible, right? And it is the same thing you do: Removing information that has a proof and replacing it with contradictory - and unproofed - information.

So if you would like for your content to stay, you will need to provide a (credible) source for that information.

mfg, OldDeath - 12:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You want source, use google, is very easy. If you read, you see that here, in this encyclopedia, is only lie! Source about the latest version international flashget: http://flashget.softonic.com/ , http://flashget.uptodown.com/ , http://www.filehippo.com/es/download_flashget/ , http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/Download-Managers/FlashGet.shtml , http://gratis.portalprogramas.com/FlashGet.html , http://bbs.flashget.com/en/ , and many more ... So this encyclopedia sucks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.82.118 (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, see Gyrobo's comment above. If you have information you would like to see in this article and you have a source that supports it, it can be added. But we're not here to do research at your command, we're all here to help each other, adding content as we find the time and interest. You obviously have interest in this article's topic and its content and claim to know something about it, so here's an opportunity for you spend 2 minutes of your time and help every other reader with a similar interest in seeing current, verifiable information about this topic. It's free because we all contribute what we know--there is no hidden endless source of "someone else with time and sourced information" to do it. I also note you haven't even ever explained what specific statements you want to see in this article. DMacks (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Is FlashGet a BitTorrent free rider?

It seems that FlashGet downloads through the BitTorrent protocol but does not upload. If this is indeed so, FlashGet should be shunned, and the article should clearly point out this anti-social behavior. Can anybody please confirm or refute this? Hgmichna (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)