VisualWget - Wget for Windows

[lanux128]

yesterday, scancode posted a question on the IRC channel about non-installing (aka portable) download managers and wget quickly came to my mind. as an afterthought, i googled for the latest front-ends for wget and was pleasantly surprised to find VisualWget (open-source). This program is based on wget but also has features such as download queue. Upon running for the 1st time, the program prompts whether to be set as the default downloader for IE while Firefox users need to configure via FlashGot. btw, VisualWget requires .NET Framework 2.0..


[attach=#]
• http://khomsan.ph.googlepages.com/visualwget.home

[scancode]

Thanks for the link, but not everyone has .net
Btw... VisualWget is not Wget for windows. Wget for windows is a console mode app (which i love )

Wget for windows: http://pages.interlog.com/~tcharron/wgetwin.html

[lanux128]

Btw... VisualWget is not Wget for windows. Wget for windows is a console mode app (which i love )

Wget for windows: http://pages.interlog.com/~tcharron/wgetwin.html

i didn't realise that, i was just following the tag-line present on the author's web-site.

[scancode]

Btw... VisualWget is not Wget for windows. Wget for windows is a console mode app (which i love )

Wget for windows: http://pages.interlog.com/~tcharron/wgetwin.html

i didn't realise that, i was just following the tag-line present on the author's web-site.

Actually, he gives links to the proper commandline version http://khomsan.ph.googlepages.com/visualwget.wgetforwindows

This GUI Wrapper for Free Tool based on Another Free tool co... gets boring real quick

[lanux128]

This GUI Wrapper for Free Tool based on Another Free tool co... gets boring real quick

yes, that's true.. that's why even though i saw that page, i quickly assumed that it was instructions for those who want to compile the program themselves. so VisualWget is actually based on Wget for Windows instead of Wget itself?

[wilfrednilsen]

I do not really see the point in this GUI wrapper. What is wrong with the command line version of wget?

My recommendation to all PC users is to download cygwin and start learning how to use command line programs. Learn how to pipe and connect the various UNIX tools as you will find that your productivity will increase many times when you get used to these tools.

Common tasks can be assembled into a batch file or a bash shell script.

http://www.cygwin.com/

[f0dder]

Ugh, cygwin? No thanks, native ports please

Iirc the wget version I use is from unxutils.

[wilfrednilsen]

Native ports?

Cygwin is compiled for Windows, but the tools require the cygwin DLL. I see no problem with that.

The cygwin DLL is needed since Microsoft does not know how to make operating systems.

[mwb1100]

I do not really see the point in this GUI wrapper. What is wrong with the command line version of wget?

As with many things, there are different strokes for different folks.  I use wget a few times a year.  It takes me a half hour or so to get reacquainted with the options and which ones I need for a particular task.  The GUI front-end might make that pain point disappear (haven't tried it yet, so I don't know).

[lanux128]

just as mwb1100 noted, some are comfortable with command-line, others with GUI. i normally use a mixture of both.

[f0dder]

Native ports?

Yes, a native port instead of relying on a POSIX translation wrapper.

Cygwin is compiled for Windows, but the tools require the cygwin DLL. I see no problem with that.

The cygwin DLL is needed since Microsoft does not know how to make operating systems.

Sorry, but that's a bit of an ignorant statement

First of all, you can get a native POSIX subsystem for Windows, if you so desire - last time I checked, it was even free. Whether it's better or worse than cygwin I haven't tested, as I use neither (I prefer win32 tools offering the same functionality).

Second, NT is a very fine piece of operating system, and if you have any knowledge of it's internals, you would agree.

Third, the cygwin.dll has been pretty buggy in the versions I tried, and it's unnecessary extra baggage when you can do native builds instead.

[Edvard]

Agree- native builds work better.

Myself, I prefer the Gnuwin32 tools, which are built using MinGW.
Unxutils uses the standard msvcrt libraries which makes them even more native, but Gnuwin32 sports more tools (wget among them...)

[f0dder]

unxutils seems dead (haven't checked in a while, though) - is gnuwin32 more frequently updated?

Can't remember if unxutils uses msvcrt.dll (bad since it's old) or the libraries that come with Visual C++ (good). Gnu's LIBC isn't that bad, as long as you don't go cygwin with the awful DLL

[Edvard]

Gnuwin32's front page has updates from Jan 5, 2008. I guess that's pretty recent.
From the Unxutils page:

In this context, native means the executables do only depend on the Microsoft C-runtime (msvcrt.dll) and not an emulation layer like that provided by Cygwin  tools.

[f0dder]

Oh nice, last I looked it hadn't been updated for like half a year