Shoutbox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hobbes
Now Download.com saved themselves a lot of space and bandwith

---

that has never been a problem for them

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hobbes
Basically the installer has the capability of carrying spyware which is what they are against.

---

as a helper you should know that the installer doesn't contain any spyware

Excellant.

face facts people. spy/adware slows down your computer, internet, and could make you be forced to wipe your pc.

Oh, Get spybot and adaware and all the other spyware removers, you say. Its not enough and it wont be.

Hey,

I like the move as well.

Now why can't there just be two version of Plus?

One with optional ad-ware like it is now and one without. Only give download.com the one without optional ad-aware.

Seems pretty simple solution to me. Think it's worth accommodating download.com on this issue for reasons already stated and a few others I'm sure most of us are aware of.

Take Care,
    Will

Im going to have to agree with Downoad.com's new policy.

Adware is very annonying and a message has to be send to the companies making it that it shouldnt be acceptable.

As for Msg Plus! I feel that a move to maybe some sort of internal ad in the program itself (maybe an ad displayed on install and in the options box or something) is the way to proceed.


I doubt contacting download.com will do anything though. The kind of language they are using like "NO EXCEPTIONS" and ZERO - TOLERANCE" I dont think they will budge.

their previous policy was only to allow programs that tell you its bundled (like msgplus) Allowing msgplus back would set a precedent that would allow all the other programs they removed back on.

Its not going to happen

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guido
I actually prefer this move. If users went to download.com and searched for MSN Messenger to find fun stuff, and met with ~70% negative comments in Messenger Plus! saying it fuxs up their computer, etc. (I know it doesn't, I just mean that the msgplus entry there was full of such comments), they will for sure not download it.

That's my view, at least: there's now one site less of those filled with misinformation about Messenger Plus.

---

totally agree with u Guido , nothing worse than seeing so many negative reviews about it really puts the User Down an think twice about downloading it again, so if its removed from download.com there gonna have to find it by going to google an locating the Main site an then Maybe Joiniung the Forums an actually hearing the good reviews about it 

quote:

---

Originally posted by war59312
Hey,

I like the move as well.

Now why can't there just be two version of Plus?

One with optional ad-ware like it is now and one without. Only give download.com the one without optional ad-aware.

Seems pretty simple solution to me. Think it's worth accommodating download.com on this issue for reasons already stated and a few others I'm sure most of us are aware of.

Take Care,
    Will

---

This sounds good in theory, but then Patchou has no income, without an income he cannot continue to build msgplus!

quote:

---

Originally posted by war59312
Now why can't there just be two version of Plus?

---

Would be a Waste of Patchou's time an prolly Money

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demz

quote:

---

Originally posted by war59312
Now why can't there just be two version of Plus?

---

Would be a Waste of Patchou's time an prolly Money

---

I support this move, it seems wise to make it so you don't get adware every time you get one of these free programs and have to clean it out, however sometimes they need to know where to draw the line, this time I believe they just went a little over by banning optional adware programs, to which the software and it's purpose couldn't be more clearly outlined.

No, it wouldn't be hard to do, just change the installer and remove the sponsor program from it. However if there are two versions (one with the sponsor and one without) it would confuse many people as to what version to get.
Also other sites would start only linking to the version without the sponsor program, and then if people look for the program there and think "Ok, I'll install the sponsor to support this project" they won't be able to without finding another version and getting that. It would just get to be a large carry on, because no one would give the link to the one with the sponsor program. Patchou's income would go down and then Patchou, looking for alternative sources of more income, wouldn't be able to keep Plus up to it's high standards.
If Traxor's e-mail doesn't persuade them, and tbh I doubt they will take much (if any) notice, I will send a similar e-mail to them, and I urge everyone else to. Not just to be a pain in the arse . But the site is a global download database that CNET made for the people, so if enough of the people object, they may take notice. But it may take a large amount of people to get them to do anything.

Look, im sure they are going to have alot more people happy with their new policy than there are against it. I just dont see them doing a backflip to their old policy. It would look bad for them, esp with the language they are using atm. Only 600 sites were removed out of thousands so i doubt they are going to take any notice

Now i would really support internal advertsing in the program itself.

Adware should not be supported.

MSN Users must have heard of Messenger Plus by the way. I mean all my friend know Plus. Download.com won't affect much I think.