Talk:Revo Uninstaller

Release History

I think the release history should be added back to the current article, and updated. It was removed on 8 February 2013‎... which was quite some time ago. But I feel like including information indicating when the software was first released is useful to the article. It also demonstrates their release schedule. Having said that, at the very least including an "Initial Release" in the right column of the article would be a good idea on its own; I assume that was June 23, 2007 given the information on their version history page (cite note 1). TiffyWiki (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Shame

It seems a shame (a very poor advertisement) if this is a better description of the product than is available from the vendor site.
--Wikidity (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Profit

I still want to know how this company makes a profit on this software? The developers have to get paid some kind of way.--195.226.227.100 (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted your statement; no reliable sources. No user opinion allowed in Wikipedia. -- unk deleter

Re: Profit; Like many comercial products with a 'Free' component, there is a 'better' version that is for profit. The 'Free' component is treated as a 'Loss Leader'. If the it popularizes the product or corporate name, or otherwise encourages enough business growth to cover the cost of it's development, it is usually considered successful.

Re:'Deleted your statement'; I believe that opinions or critiques of the Article or questions about the matters at hand are appropriate for, and in fact the purpose of, the Discussion page, but not the Article page.

Opinion and advertising (hyperbole and deceit) are not appropriate in Wikipedia Articles.
--Wikidity (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Citations

It seems to me that many of the citations are from the developers website does this suggest the article is slightly biased? 203.110.5.209 (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• No, because the information is presented objectively. If the article talked about how the program had a solid reputation, then yes, it would be biased, but it contains no such. For actual information about what a program does, the developer is one of the best sources. --24.9.46.67 (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I updated from 1.80 to 2.05 for latest free version available on cnet, but there is an error on references side. Can someone with the expertise help me to fix? Much appreciated.

Removed advertising complaint

I've rewritten the article from a neutral point-of-view. If you feel it still reads like an advertisement, feel free to discuss it on my talk page, or edit the article yourself. Soren121 (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

64-Bit support

It seems that RevoUninstaller since Version 2.0 supports the removal of 64-Bit-Applications See , if that is confirmed, then the statement in the article should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.153.96.24 (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

References