Rate This ProjectLogin To Rate This Project
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.
The installer is the most unusable piece of junk I've ever seen!
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.)