Hi, just a note under the assumption that you are unaware. Like stated in post #29 above mine, there are possible alternative clients or feasible workarounds, so here is another for your consideration. If you insist on wishing to use GOG Galaxy and should it be to your liking, you could manually install an older version that still functions on Windows 7. It may not have all features when compared to the most recent version and some functionality may not work (i.e. achievements), but perhaps it will suit your needs.
For instance:
-1.2.67.58
(associated post);
-or 2.0.42.21
(associated post.)
p.s. sorry for the awkward formatting, this seemed to be the easiest to get this forum to comply.

Thanks for the TL;DR. But I must say, most venerable of fellows... you didn't utilise it to summarise your position, so I still have to read the whole bloody thing! Thankfully, it isn't that long.

As you have stated above, to a certain and very unsatisfactory degree (specially from your position), this is a service which GOG currently offers; so access is probably the more correct term. There would be an amount of labour involved in producing the required installers, hosting the files on the appropriate server, classifying them, maintaining them, and what have you. Judging by your lamentations this would suit you splendidly, but whether or not its worthwhile or if GOG can be bothered... eh.
If GOG still retain and could reasonable grant public access to these files without additional prohibitive costs... my instinctual and therefore likely flawed thought is simply that they should. Supposing it is as you have outlined and a small percentage of GOG (potential) users, say ~3-5%, use something other than Windows 10/11. Would that not allow GOG, if it were at little to no expense, to have the ability to more effectively retain these customers' loyalty; where prior they were unable due to the uncertainty of not offering this? But perhaps there are still better options on the table for customer acquisition and retention for GOG at this juncture.

Speaking of strawmen...

Is that what your avatar is? A pumpkin-headed scarecrow?

Heathen, not recognising a character from the greatest game ever made. It is a fish, not even a vegetable. FREEDOM!

Looks a bit like Glottis from Grim Fandango.

It's from Psychonauts.

I'll give it a try when I have a moment. Thanks!

If those older game versions still exist on GOG's servers and haven't been permanently deleted, then there shouldn't really be an issue. Whether I download the Windows 7 version or the Windows 11 version, the amount of data transferred is more or less the same. Unless, of course, GOG no longer keeps those older versions at all.

I feel the same way. They’d probably just need to include a short note like that in GOG’s terms of service.

Exactly.

I installed GOG Galaxy 2.0.42.21 (beta) on Windows 7 and yes, that older version does work. I wasn’t aware it was still available for download. I disabled automatic updates for games in the settings, and I can see older versions listed during installation setup — but I can't select them. The checkboxes are greyed out. I’ll keep experimenting with it. Thanks for the info and the link to the digitally signed version — I’ll definitely keep using it. It’ll come in handy.

Well, we don't know for sure that they do exist and in what capacity.

If GOG have indeed been cost cutting, then something like old files could well be something they got rid of early. It would be about saving costs for server space. I would argue, that the fact Galaxy is limited to five versions probably says it all, especially as those of us who don't use Galaxy have no access to older Offline Installers at all.

If GOG had an unlimited archive resource, then why wouldn't Galaxy be able to use that, what would the reason be not to?

In any case, perhaps they do have them but only in a limited local server scenario, so not spread across servers that we can access. There would certainly be sizable costs to change that, as they have a lot of games.

Or perhaps the game providers are in charge of what GOG can continue to make available.

I know some mistakenly think the cost would be small etc. But you only have to look at what most music sites do, with much smaller files generally. We currently don't have to make sure we download our games from GOG within 14 days.

Storage can be costly, especially when dealing with the size some games can be.

P.S. I have experienced updates changing many times while downloading. So they can't even keep a prior version over for a few days. Updates, patches aside, are generally an instant replacement scenario ... a new version becomes available, and when it is uploaded, the previous version becomes instantly unavailable ... you can even be partway through downloading it, if many files for the game, but GOG don't care .. you have to start over and replace what you just got. The download links are identical, no matter the version, so you have to pay attention to the file names themselves ... luckily I use a program that does that for me. Your Offline Installer update for a game is redundant if you have some files from one version and some from another, and haven't realized that.

Because they thought that four consecutive previous versions should be more than enough for at least one of them is stable enough to work on most modern systems while customers wait for a new patch that fixes whatever issues the latest version had caused?

In fact, I would actually argue against the idea of GOG needing to increase the number of older versions available via the rollback feature, because:

1. To obtain some old, but relevant version one would first have to install that game's latest version before they could rollback to the version they were actually looking for
2. If that older version was needed because it still works with WinXP for example, it was likely and hopefully installed from using a more modern OS and thus the game may not even work on WinXP without the customer learning how to export and import registry keys
3. Even if GOG was willing to allow us to rollback to any past version that was once available through the Galaxy client, that would just destroy even the last pretenses of that client being "optional"
4. There might be some games with old, yet relevant GOG versions that were gone before the client was introduced

And as we are painfully aware that GOG doesn't even seem to have time to test if their games launch offline anymore or without the Galaxy client being installed, I wouldn't even ask them to spend any time testing which older versions for each game should have their offline installers added to that game's unsupported installers section, when we could just have a stickied thread where the community can curate a list that specifies what makes each version in it so special that as long as it is still possible to buy any given game on that list, one should be given the option to download these select few older versions of it if they are at all interested to do so.

Some people spend a small fortune just to be able to drive around with decades old motor vehicles on summer weekends, while others might wish to spend their money on building computers from old parts and then play games with them. And while they may prefer to get those games in physical form, a much more retroPC gaming friendly GOG might be able to sell them quite a lot of games while they try to decide which old physical game in CIB condition they are going to buy next from eBay.

Even more of a reason for why I would wish to be able to run a download script only once or twice per year and have it set it to only download files from each game's unsupported installers section, while having another configuration that would grab any new extras for may games and a third one for downloading very seldomly the latest version for each game that might still be receiving actual bug fixes rather than GOG just trying to get those games to work on later versions of Windows than what I am ever going to use for playing my games.

i thing game versioning should be basic and fundamental feature

It avoids contorverises when ashole publishers criple game with stupid updates or just break compatibility some important mods (sometime is better play older build of game with mod that add much more value to game then newest version that sometimes fix some bugs but introduces new ones , or improvements ar eneglible, or they add just some stupid unnecesary addware lacuncher...)

I like what they did with witcher 3 steam releae , you can pick from game instalation menu older build or new one (where they added some visual updates but fps tanks down...)

So proper versioning is very important.

(it dont nned to be every build -even that is easly posible just you nned apply right technology , like software that download as one big file blocks that have not changed and then downlaod separately differential block that pply just changes to files existing files... (i know it takes little longer to instal but it is wort it) )

Define proper versioning.
Is AY87-492-498 a proper version number? Is 4447f a proper version number? Is going from 1.0 to 2.0 over a minor patch proper versioning?

I’ve already seen a game going from 1.2e to 1.0 (then 1.0l, 1.0p, …) during an upgrade.
Nothing can surprise when it comes to games developers and version strings (I won’t even use the word "number" here).

I haven't experimented with version 2.0.xx much, I just have 1.2.67.58 installed for reference, though I don't use it any longer. But pertinently, please see the attached image, just to demonstrate that it is possible to install older versions using an older GOG Galaxy version on Windows 7.

We seem to have some form of this discussion every few weeks.
Bottom line is GOG is a business; it needs to make a profit or it goes under.
Sad fact of the matter is OS;s get old an die, and I don't see why GOG has to support dead systems. Resources and money are l imited, and GoG is going to spent them on making it's games playable on moderen systems.
It is not that GoG is above criticism..I have plnety of complaints but I can' fault GOG here.