Talk:FlashGet

message: 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)
replies: text: way to bump dead conversations --1698 06:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spyware? Certainly

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ethic.. crack link !? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  not very encyclopedic... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Seems like Flashget is now Freeware. is it? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  about last revert 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mystery connections possible spyware 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "FlashGet 1.7.x are better than newer versions..." 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Versioning 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm unsure what you're referring to. The images in the article ,  have fair use rationales.--Gyrobo (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  FlashGet Support 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is FlashGet a BitTorrent free rider?