Overclock.net banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,342 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
hi guys....

this short title hides some short questions as well.


- if you noticed this like me, that when you search for some programme on softpeida.com, you find a more recent version of it than it's on download.com.

- I just tried to check why Tuneup Utilities 2010 is tabled as specified to Windows 2K / XP / Vista / XP X64 / Vista64, and Windows 7 is missing
.

so I searched download.com for Tuneup utilities 2010, and found that it's labeled there as to be specified Windows XP/Vista/7, that while download.com is missing the Windows 2K, it is adding Window7 to be supported by Tuneup Utilities 2010, though the version of Tuneup Utilities 2010 on download.com is older than the one on softpedia.com, and I have been studying this case, that softpedia has always labeled Tuneup Utilities 2010 to not to work with Windows 7, since Tuneup Utilities 2010 has been released, though I tried it on Windows 7, and found it works with no problems, but I am still curious to know..., what would make a website label a programme to work with some systems, while another site will exclude some systems for the same programme ???

and here are the links for Tuneup Utilities 2010 (for example) on softpeida.com, and download.com.

http://download.cnet.com/TuneUp-Util...-10206416.html

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Tweak/S...tilities.shtml

can you guess why ???
 

·
Not new to Overclock.net
Joined
·
77,827 Posts
I guess that it's because they have hundreds upon hundreds of programs to list. So I suppose that after a while, these little anomalies get created.

Fortunately, it's not worth trying to figure out.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,110 Posts
I tried to read your post, twice actually... and I just can't get what you are trying to say.

Terrible grammar and run on sentences all over the place.
 

·
Not new to Overclock.net
Joined
·
77,827 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by Murlocke
View Post

I tried to read your post, twice actually... and I just can't get what you are trying to say.

Terrible grammar and run on sentences all over the place.

Wow. Then why did you even post a reply? Plus, he's from Syria! So I'd say he's doing very well at speaking English.
  1. He's trying to figure out why Download.com has newer versions of certain programs than Softpedia does and vice-versa.
  2. He said that Download.com lists Tuneup Utilities 2010 as being supported in XP/Vista/7, but it doesn't include 2000.
  3. He said that, in this circumstance, the version on Download.com appears to be older than the one on Softpedia.
  4. He said that, even though Softpedia's version seems to be newer, they don't have Windows 7 included in the list of supported operating systems. It just says 2000/XP/Vista (meaning, Win7 is not included).
  5. He downloaded the seemingly-older version from Download.com and it works just fine with Windows 7, so he's wondering why Softpedia doesn't include Windows 7 in the list of supported operating systems even though it looks like it's a slightly newer version.
  6. He's trying to figure out why some sites would list a program to work with 2000/XP/Vista while yet another site would list a slightly-older version of that program as working with XP/Vista/7.
Does it make sense now? This is why I said that this is fortunately something that is not worth trying to figure out.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: the magical me

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,342 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Quote:


Originally Posted by TwoCables
View Post

Wow. Then why did you even post a reply? Plus, he's from Syria! So I'd say he's doing very well at speaking English.
  1. He's trying to figure out why Download.com has newer versions of certain programs than Softpedia does and vice-versa.
  2. He said that Download.com lists Tuneup Utilities 2010 as being supported in XP/Vista/7, but it doesn't include 2000.
  3. He said that, in this circumstance, the version on Download.com appears to be older than the one on Softpedia.
  4. He said that, even though Softpedia's version seems to be newer, they don't have Windows 7 included in the list of supported operating systems. It just says 2000/XP/Vista (meaning, Win7 is not included).
  5. He downloaded the seemingly-older version from Download.com and it works just fine with Windows 7, so he's wondering why Softpedia doesn't include Windows 7 in the list of supported operating systems even though it looks like it's a slightly newer version.
  6. He's trying to figure out why some sites would list a program to work with 2000/XP/Vista while yet another site would list a slightly-older version of that program as working with XP/Vista/7.
Does it make sense now? This is why I said that this is fortunately something that is not worth trying to figure out.

@ TowCables, really... I don't know how to thank you for that, that you have really given the accurate answer, though I don't know what does he mean with "terrible grammar" ??? so I wish he pointed the "terrible grammar" he claimed, at least I don't make the same mistake again. so again.... thank you very much my friend TowCables .

- and I totally agree with you TowCables, the matter is not worth considering, but it only occurred to me to let you guys pay some attention to this, if there might be something hidden that I am not aware about, which made download.com exclude some (newer) versions of specific programmes from their site, and list it as supporting all Windows versions, while softpedia.com doesn't do.(like for example they tested the newer versions and found out that they have some faults to work with windows 7 maybe ??).

best regards.
 

·
Not new to Overclock.net
Joined
·
77,827 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by the magical me
View Post

@ TowCables, really... I don't know how to thank you for that, that you really saved gave the accurate answer, though I don't know what does he mean with "terrible grammar" ???so I wish he pointed the "terrible grammar" he saw, so at least I don't make the same mistake again. so again.... thank you very much my friend TowCables .

Don't worry about it too much. I don't have any problems understanding you. I think others might have trouble understanding you because they're just way too impatient or lazy. So that's why I asked him why he even bothered replying. I mean, his post didn't do any good at all.

Anyway, you're very welcome.

Quote:


Originally Posted by the magical me
View Post

- and I totally agree with you TowCables, the matter is not worth considering, but it only occurred to me to let you pay some attention to this, if there might be something hidden that I am not aware about, which made download.com exclude some (newer) versions of specific programmes from their site (like for example they tested the newer versions and found out that they have some faults maybe ??).

best regards.

I think that the reason why some of these popular sites might have different versions from each other (as well as incorrect OS support information) is probably due to laziness. Or, it might be because these sites have way too much information to maintain and not enough people to maintain it. So I think the end result is what we see.

To everyone who is confused:

Compare these 2 pages. Compare the version number and compare the list of supported operating systems:
You'll see that the version on Softpedia is 9.0.4030.5 while the version on Download.com is 9.0.2000.16. The version on Softpedia lists "Windows 2K / XP / Vista / XP X64 / Vista64" while Download.com lists "Windows XP/Vista/7". Again, the version on Download.com is older.

Fortunately, with a name like Tuneup Utilities 2010, I think it's safe to assume that either of these 2 downloads work just fine in Windows 7. However, I would personally trust the newer version to work better in 7 than the older version.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: the magical me

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,342 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Quote:


Originally Posted by TwoCables
View Post

Don't worry about it too much. I don't have any problems understanding you. I think others might have trouble understanding you because they're just way too impatient or lazy. So that's why I asked him why he even bothered replying. I mean, his post didn't do any good at all.

Anyway, you're very welcome.

I think that the reason why some of these popular sites might have different versions from each other (as well as incorrect OS support information) is probably due to laziness. Or, it might be because these sites have way too much information to maintain and not enough people to maintain it. So I think the end result is what we see.

To everyone who is confused:

Compare these 2 pages. Compare the version number and compare the list of supported operating systems:
You'll see that the version on Softpedia is 9.0.4030.5 while the version on Download.com is 9.0.2000.16. The version on Softpedia lists "Windows 2K / XP / Vista / XP X64 / Vista64" while Download.com lists "Windows XP/Vista/7". Again, the version on Download.com is older.

Fortunately, with a name like Tuneup Utilities 2010, I think it's safe to assume that either of these 2 downloads work just fine in Windows 7. However, I would personally trust the newer version to work better in 7 than the older version.

I agree with you.

thank you again.
 

·
Not new to Overclock.net
Joined
·
77,827 Posts
Quote:


Originally Posted by the magical me
View Post

I agree with you.

thank you again.

It's all good. You're always welcome!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,273 Posts
so i downloaded both and installed the one from download.com and then uninstalled it and then installed the other. they both seemed to work fine, maybe they just didn't bother putting the information on? anyways they both worked for me and i am on windows 7 64 bit
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,342 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Quote:


Originally Posted by chinesethunda
View Post

so i downloaded both and installed the one from download.com and then uninstalled it and then installed the other. they both seemed to work fine, maybe they just didn't bother putting the information on? anyways they both worked for me and i am on windows 7 64 bit

thanks my friend, your effort is highly appreciated, though I already know they both work, but here you helped on confirming this for the others, so thank you again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,273 Posts
np, i was curious too, i had seen some similar discrepancies with other software too usually i dont pay much attention as they work, so i just tested it to make sure they were the same, or to see if they actually had different versions
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top