Run vs. save

circusboy01

Posts: 757   +16
I've wanted to ask this question for a long time. But. I mostly think of it when I'm away from my computer.
When downloading something and given a choice between run or save. Which one is the better choice? Or does it depend on the download? Ray
 
I always save when downloading things. Sometimes i find that "run" can have problems with certain files.
 
Save

Save it to your desktop, and then run it from there. I found that when I do this it downloads faster, and I am able to install it faster. I also agree that you can have trouble if you ONLY run things.

Thanks!
 
The two terms are more or less self-explanatory and CAMusing’s link covers them, but omits to stress a difference that could make a lot of difference.

If the file happens to be infected, by running it you've activated the malware. But if instead you save it, you can first scan it before running it, or even run it in a protected environment if you are particularly suspicious. And before the holier-than-thous jump on me, I'm not talking about piracy. Lots of freeware is infected, some very potently, e.g. free bogus anti-malware or error scanners.
 
I would always save. My reasoning is, if you save everything you install (particularly to a different drive or partition) you can always have quick access to it again, and it serves as a list of program installs that you thought were important to have at some point.

Also, you'll begin building a version library of the programs you have installed, so if one is buggy you can revert back to an old one. I know you can often find older versions of programs online, but sometimes it takes a while of searching.

And what bobcat said was good too.
 
Back