User Ratings

★★★★★
★★★★
★★★
★★
129
3
5
3
26
ease 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5 2 / 5
features 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5 3 / 5
design 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5 3 / 5
support 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5 2 / 5

Rate This Project

Login To Rate This Project

User Reviews

  • SourceForge blocks mingw-get if running from a Windows XP environment. So from this OS is unusable.

  • .

  • Ok, so... The installer for the mingw manager isn't working right. It's having some trouble downloading from the sourceforge servers, there's something wrong with either the sourceforge servers or the files uploaded there. Actual review: It's a pretty good compiler, I use it because my college uses it. SO yeah. It's consistent and reliable. If you install it correctly. But sometimes that's not a decision you get to make.

    1 user found this review helpful.
  • It won't download files from installer! Fails at downloading and I've tried over 5 possible solutions, hardest thing to install I've ever seen!

    2 users found this review helpful.
  • Nice.

  • Nice.

  • الوووو

  • Awesome.

  • I am using MinGW as a build environment for certain programs. So far this one is the best for compiling 32-bit binaries in Windows.

  • I think many of the 1 star ratings ("Unusable!!!") are just dense people. This has worked for me for years without any problems at all. Does exactly what it's supposed to.

  • Installer is crashing quite often. There is some potential in development, but stability of like pre-alpha product.

  • The MinGW project doesn't seem to be well maintained. At the time of writing (2015), the package manager only seems to only have about 6 packages and all of them are from 2013. At this point in time, it is generally better to use MSYS2. Also, I agree that the installer is bad. The UI for the installer is trying to incorporate checkboxes and radio buttons into some big sentence/paragraph, which is weird. A good UI should try as much as possible to stick to elements that people are familiar with and understand. (If you are MinGW developer, this is not intended as a personal jab at you. You have no obligation to maintain this project and you don't owe the community anything. The work you did on this project was useful.)

    5 users found this review helpful.
  • Worst installer for anything ever.

    3 users found this review helpful.
  • "All of MinGW's software will execute on the 64bit Windows platforms" - so does it include 32 or 64 bit compilers?

  • The installer is so bad I can't be sure it even installed everything correctly. It definitely did not remove the program.

    2 users found this review helpful.
  • Before using the installer, disable your firewall.

  • Everything is ok, but the installer can be better.

  • it is a good thinks

  • Great tool .... of course. I manage to install it three weeks ago but now .... IMPOSSIBLE. I would like to agree with others unhappy with the installer. Or is it the sourceforge site ?

  • I've wanted this exact tool for a very long time -- and it is exactly what I was looking for. Behaves perfect and according to my expectations. KUDOS!

  • The installer is the most unusable piece of junk I've ever seen!

    4 users found this review helpful.
  • First, the other reviews are mostly pretty silly and unusable. "Thanks, nice app!" "Works great" etc. I guess if you want to give some stars, you have to write *something*. I started using MinGW at the request of a coworker. I work from home frequently, and use cloud-based file storage to make that easier. I installed MinGW at work, found it to be OK, and then a few weeks later, went back home to install it there. I got the graphic installer UI which seems rough and incomplete -- no select all function etc -- and on top of that, I got a different version of MinGW! So, right off the bat, I was dealing with the side effects of using a toolchain which is constantly rocking and rolling its changes. It would be NICER if there were a "long term support" vs. "bleeding edge" kind of distinction such as is made on projects like Ubuntu, so users can choose what is more important: stability or the latest features. Don't get me wrong, so far I have found the gcc toolchain implementation to be quite good. I have gotten my project running and don't have any severe gripes with the compiler itself. However, with Visual Studio Express 2010 available for free download, I don't quite understand why C/C++ developers *who do not need cross-compilation on Mac or Linux/BSD* would struggle with something so "minimalist". And, compared to the slick, easy, full-featured IDE provided with the Visual Studio *free* download -- easier to learn that, say, Eclipse -- hacking away on the command line or using _make_ just seems so .... primitive and unproductive. For those who need what MinGW can uniquely offer, I applaud the effort and thank the developers for their gift to the FSF-based community at large. I don't wish my critique of the project to in any way diminish my awe and astonishment at the time these folks put into _giving away_ some really useful software.

    1 user found this review helpful.
  • Thanks for providing this kit. Yet I have to say, the usability of the Installation Manager is terrible...why not provide a "select all" option as button or menu and let the user do hundred clicks?

  • Can NOT DL full Package as File(s) but need to DL via any obscure Getter-Tool! UNSERIOUS! (Ni Matter if Billions of Users are satisfied) Failed by Approach! What is your Problem to provide Images like Debian? Survey for Rating forced me to rate for Review ... took therefore 'Default'. Hint: Better make Rating optional!

Show next 25 reviews >