Going back to the start...
@Maciejasjmj said:
Step 9: Run the installer for the downloader. Unless you're currently on Linux/BSD/whatever non-Windows, in which case - no soup for you, because apparently Microsoft thinks that even when downloading Windows, you must be on Windows, because there are no other operating systems, right? So here's your MSI installing an EXE refering to IE6. And if you're able to set wine up to digest this mess, why the hell do you need Windows, anyway?
There's an OS X version. If you launch it in a browser on OS X, you get offered the OS X installer.
@Maciejasjmj said:
Still, why? Why use a download manager anyway, why dub it "Secure Download Manager" when it doesn't improve security at all, why require the user to download a file that consists only of a link to a server, why doesn't it just work in IE when it works in the downloader?
You'd need to ask Kivuto that. If they did want to use a download manager, there's a number of decent ones they could use - for instance, the one on the Lenovo download site uses the Akamai NetInterface one and works in Chrome, IE and Firefox and has OS X support.
@Maciejasjmj said:
Also, I hate that approach. "Just take what they give you and be happy about it". I'm not, and I can imagine a lot of users saying "screw that, I'll just pirate it".
Fun fact, you don't have to. If you're downloading an OS, you can just order it, get the key and use whatever media you have (except for XP because it gets bitchy if you use the wrong key with the wrong media (and who uses XP these days)).
For applications like the Office ones (e.g. Visio), experience and anecdotal evidence shows that it's more painful to pirate it, mainly because it will work fine for a month and then nag you to activate it every launch, whereas with the Dreamspark one, you download the SDM once, you download the file (which is a text file containing a link - open one up with Notepad or whatever and take a look if you haven't), then download the installer.
@Maciejasjmj said:
Heck, I've actually expected this "downloader" to try to install a toolbar at some point. How is that a good user experience?
I'd call it good because it installed SDM and nothing else personally. I never expected it to install a toolbar.
@Maciejasjmj said:
I don't hate IE10, I've heard it's actually a decent browser, I just reserve myself the right to not like it.
Not liking something solely for the sake of not liking it (even though it's competent) is a poor reason to not like something. For instance, I don't like OS X because every time I use it the urge to stab someone in the face rises significantly.
@Maciejasjmj said:
And I'm certainly not going to appreciate MS forcing me to use it
What part of "Kivuto are the ones responsible for the SDM not Microsoft" do you not understand? It is not Microsoft forcing you to use it, it is Kivuto, an entirely separate entity to Microsoft. Proof.
@Maciejasjmj said:
with better download engines
Define "better download engines". Beyond the fact that Chrome's downloads appear at the bottom of the screen, Firefox's appear as a popup from a button on the toolbar and IE's appear in a separate window, I can't see much separating the same HTTP requests to the same server beyond that. And connection speeds, which are unrelated to browsers.
@Maciejasjmj said:
Just like I don't appreciate that even with N version of Windows installed, I still have to install Windows Media Player to test my performance index.
Well, that's your fault for using a stupid gimped version of Windows in the first place. Although it's not your fault that the EU felt that an awful media player should be removed from the OS. If only they could do the same for iTunes from OSX...
In any case, solution 1: install it, test, remove it. Solution 2: use a non-N version of Windows like the majority of the world does.
@Maciejasjmj said:
Besides, the problem with IE is not the features it doesn't have, it's the features it has - spawning sites that require you to use IE to see anything but a blank screen.
Unless the website in question hasn't been updated since, oh, 2004? You shouldn't run into any of them. In fact, in IE10 more problems arise from developers assuming it's incompetent and forcing it to use shims and whatever that were needed in older versions to work, which make the page look horribly wrong because IE10 actually complies with standards - it passes all the ACID tests and it gets a decent score on the HTML5 test (I think it only loses out on things that aren't finalized because last time Microsoft implemented non-finalized standards they got bitten in the ass because W3C went with Mozilla's or Webkit's implementation).