Talk:OldVersion.com

This is rediculous
That whole Advantages/disadvantages thing is BS to me. The site offers old programs, and people looking for old programs usually have old versions of Windows anyways. If you're running XP then either your computer is powerful enough or you need an older OS anyways. Not to mention Windows XP has that whole compatibility mode thing (I don't use XP so i don't know how it works or its effectiveness).

I'm gonna attempt a rewrite Mr toasty 20:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * well while that may be true, there are plenty of people who don't like the most recent editions of software. I, for example, had tried the AIM 6.0 for two months and soon began disliking it. So I went to Oldversion.com and downgraded to AIM 5.9 (which i think is better, much simpler). olversion was very helpful to me. Arc88 23:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * XD, I'm all for oldversion, it helped me as well. I just think the article casts a very negative spin on it. Mr toasty 00:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Other possible reasons why to visit OldVersion
I believe that the article (on 2007-03-03) had “insulted” my computer which I by no means call legacy hardware and yet it is running most of the software others would call obsolete. By writing these paragraphs I tried to show some other reasons why it would be beneficial to run older versions of software. Switching barriers at Wikipedia had some good reading, but it was more about technology in general. I feel in great debt to any people who have made available these previous versions for download, often disregarding the EULAs of specific products. Please don't delete this section from the Talk page. -- 83.99.184.75 18:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC) (J7n)

There are cases where software developers have turned away from their previous goals. So that users of older versions are not interested to move on to them (I'm deliberately disregarding the word “upgrade”), because these versions do not provide any additional needed features, but have increased in size.


 * Nero Burning ROM

The user interface of a software product might have been totally redesigned, so that it must be learnt anew by users who were already proficient with the previous version.


 * Foobar2000 starting at version 0.9.
 * Microsoft Office 2007

The software product might require its configuration in a specific format, not compatible with the latest versions. If the product in question would require installation (that is, the presence of some values in Registry), it would be impossible to transfer the software to a new machine without access to the installer (which might be lost already).


 * Sound Forge 4.5

The programmer might have been forced to remove certain features from his product.


 * Webshots support has been removed from IrfanView v3.85 (source)
 * Ability to disregard invalid Table of Contets was removed from EAC v0.95pb4(source)

Most commercial software vendors (citation needed) offer only the most recent version for download, partly because of circumvented copyright protection measures in previous versions (citation needed) or planned obsolescence. Therefore alternate download locations like P2P networks or unofficial webservers become the only sources of the discontinued or obsolete product.

Is it GUD
Old versions are very important bcz of many reasons. I need old version as security analyst & cyber expert. Its great to find legacy software. New releases don't allow certain codes & scripts which is very important for big companies where security is of primary concern. I just wonder is it free from spyware? Any update on malware infected downloads? At a first glance this seeems to be legit & free from malware to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.72.11.10 (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * You call yourself a « security analyst & cyber expert » and you're not sure if they're clean ? Feh. --Moira 142.113.73.240 (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

pecocious webmaster
Alex Levine (born about 1990) of Fayetteville, New York founded the site in 2001.

When he was 11? Any source? Flapdragon (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That caught my eye, too. I've removed the "Born about 1990" piece until we can et confirmation (which isn't likely, IMO). &mdash; EagleOne\Talk 18:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey all, this is Alex Levine checking in. I was actually born May 17, 1989. The site was founded in June 2001. So that makes me what, 11 or 12? Nonetheless, I got really into computers and making web sites. I am 19 now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.215.185 (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The 2006 WSJ cite lists Alex's age as 16, so the math works out. --Lexein (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC).