Reliability of download sites

[Anupam]

Many of us check the download sites like MajorGeeks, FreewareFile, BetaForum... for software updates. Do you download from the download sites, or from the software's main site?

I watch the download sites for the updates, but I follow a practice of downloading from the program's home site. Now, with some experiences, I think I had been following the right route.

I first noticed this with TotalMounter. The current version on TotalMounter's home site is 1.32. Some days ago, many of the download sites started showing version 1.33 of the program. I kept on checking TotalMounter's site, but it still remains as 1.32.

Then it happened with Miro. Many of the download sites showed version 2.5 as latest version of Miro. I kept checking Miro's site for days, but it showed as 2.4. After a few days, Miro's site had the news of version 2.5 as release candidate! Miro 2.5 was released just a few days ago. Now, the download sites show the version as 2.5.1, but it still remains as 2.5 on the main site.

I have observed this trend with CPU-Z and Any Video Converter recently.

So, now I make sure to keep watch on the updates from the download sites, but I always check the main site before actually downloading the program.

What's your take on this?

[mr6n8]

I have always had that habit. I wanted to check the website for the software anyways before I downloaded to make sure there was some decent support. As long as I was at the site already, might as well get it there.

Now it seems more and more that softwares are not offering a download at their site, instead directing to a download site. There was a post about it here as this helps the software get big numbers on downloads to give the impression it is the most popular in their category.

I know about a year or so ago, one of the bittorrent clients warned at their site that the download at one of the major download sites (I can not remember which) was damaged and should not be downloaded.

[Anupam]

Yes, now the general trend is that the software is first released on the mirror download sites, and then on the main site maybe a day later. This helps in decreasing load on their servers, and also their product gets attention.

I have seen many products recently, like TeamViewer... even the main download on their site now holds the link to CNet.
That's another thing that they updated the version to the latest one 3 days after the announcement of the new release... grrrr. The updated client version of TeamViewer was available on the main site 3 days ago.

But, even if the vendors released their products on the download sites, they should still update it on their main sites, after a day or two. Otherwise, its a discrepancy.

Some vendor sites don't even hold the version number of the software, and I find that quite annoying. For instance, Avira... they don't have the current version number on their site anywhere.

[J_L]

I check for updates using RSS feeds from download sites and SUMo + Update Notifier, but always double-check and download from the main website. That's how I always do it, right from the beginning.

[miskairal]

I too check for updates and new programmes using RSS feeds from download sites. If I see something I might like I go to the download site. Mostly I check out the site of the author and download from there but often the download links from the author's sites are either obscure or lead to multiple files and I'm not sure which to download in which case I return to the download site to get it. More and more often lately I find myself checking portablefreeware.com to see if there is a portable version to try first.

[Anupam]

Have experienced more of this recently.

Miro 2.5.1 was said to be released by the download sites. It was never updated on the Miro site. Now, a few days later, Miro 2.5.2 is out, and is duly updated on the site.

JRE 6 update 15, is said to be out on the download sites some days ago. It has yet to be updated on the java sun site.

CPU-Z 2.52.1 was said to be out on download sites, many days ago. Not been updated on cpuid site yet.

Have been seeing this trend a lot lately.

[Anupam]

JRE 6 update 15 was released today on the Sun Java site, but the download sites had started showing it days ago. FileHippo updated it today.

[danjmilos]

Most of the free ware I use tells me when a new version is available and that is when I'll get the new one. Some are notices when the program is opened, a few are e-mails sent to me as a registered user. Occasionlly I'll look at their sites to see if they're doing anything in new areas.

Dan

[Anupam]

I have again come across several more instances now, where the reliability of the download sites is decreasing for me. Some days ago, several download sites started showing version 1436 of KMPlayer as the final release. When I checked upon KMPlayer site, version 1436 is still in beta. I posted this issue on the KMPlayer forum, and the moderators replied that they have no association with the download sites, and its a fault of the download sites to show 1436 as the final release. Only one download site had shown correctly that the version was in beta.

Many days ago, all of the sites showed version 9.0.0.408 of Avira as new version. Even after couple of months, the version still remains as 407 on the main site of Avira.

I always check and download from the home site of the software. Looking at the present trend, its advisable to download only from the home site.

[BukkWilldd1]

I use MajorGeeks and CNet to check for updates, then download from the home site. One gripe I had with MajorGeeks is not flagging some of their downloads as beta software. I went through a period of installing beta graphics drivers. That's when I started checking the home site against what they had. MajorGeeks seems to be better about this now, and I still like that site.