I guarantee you this design would confuse a lot of people. Imagine you're not the computer savviest person around, how you'd read this.

- The large, bolded "Click to download" text isn't clickable, like pretty much every other "Click to..." prompt you've seen.

- After a moment of confusion you think oh okay, there'll be a list of links to places I can download it from then. But there isn't. There's just the product logo. Download the product from itself, maybe? But why is it written like there's supposed to be a list? Hm.

- Oh wait, after "Download the latest version" there's a separate section called "Downloads", that's where the downloads must be.

- Okay, down there after a while there's bold text that says "Download", but that's not clickable, nor is the text next to it that says "Sandboxie Installer." Keep reading.

- Ah, okay, here's a table with a single row for some reason, with a nice link "Download from this site."

- Wait, why did "Download from this site" take me to a completely different site? The address in the bar is totally different, the design is totally different, I've never heard of this new site before and it wants me to give them my job title, full name, company name, and zip code. Is this a popup ad? Is this a scam? I thought I was downloading it from that site I was just on.

Incidentally it doesn't matter as the form doesn't understand my country's zip code system and won't accept it.

Reading through your comment and looking back at the Download page, I think you're right. The linkified image is especially poor design (although, I think the intention becomes more obvious when there are multiple linkified images to common software-download destinations, e.g. SourceForge or FileHippo, as (IIRC) was previously the case).

I suppose it may just boil down to a fundamental difference of opinion; I don't really think it's necessary for every website to try to accommodate entirely non-tech savvy users — especially a site offering software that already assumes existing technical ability (if you can't negotiate an antiquated download page, you're probably going to struggle to use a lot of software of that era, including Sandboxie).

The topic of this thread is whether the website at question is “fast-loading, simple, information-dense and distinctively-styled yet still very readable” compared to today’s mainstream/recommended designs. My take is that information sprinkled in walls of text of dubious value instead of elements that naturally stand out is not readable or actionable at all. If your argument is tech-savvy people should be made to jump through hurdles to download this specific tool, then (1) I don’t agree with this pointless gatekeeping, time wasted is time wasted; (2) you’re not refuting my point.

Also, I can find the download link in maybe 5 seconds, but I bet my father who happens to be an aging software engineer, savvy enough to use this but getting slower, definitely can’t.

You're making the wrong assumption that getting as many users on board for an aging non-profitable non-core project is actually a goal.

I personally have a project that is in it's early stages and the worst thing that could happen right now is that it goes viral and then I won't be able to work on it at my own pace anymore. Having a user base of 3 people is already tiring enough as it is.

I’m saying “this is terribly designed.” You’re saying “terribly designed is exactly what they need.” What are you arguing against?

It feels like you're ignoring the fact that the people who will actually download sandboxie are quite a bit smarter, and quite a bit more familiar with "finding a download link" than the people you're describing?

A giant "download" button is perfect if your general audience is "everyone". Sandboxie is _nowhere near that level of popular_ nor could it be. Heck, that's literally why it's going open source right now: it's so niche, with such a narrow demographic, that there's isn't even any appreciable amount of money to be made from the people that DO use it.

Can we stop rating things in terms of what the stupidest user does? That thinking is a cancer upon the entire software community