Quote - Well let me explain it for you then shall I? First off, I haven't "Ripped it apart"! I've pointed out three of the many instances where the software crashed on me repeatedly when I too bought it fresh out of the public release gates. All three of those instances and many others could have been avoided with proper error trapping routines. Things that should have been put in the program before a public release of the software. If proper beta testing had been done they would have caught most of those bugs and done so.

Eh, you ripped on the software. And you assume that it was the fault of the programmers for your shortcomings with the program. What you are referring to as "bugs" aren't necessarily that. A bug is consistently repeatable across multiple systems. As I've said, I've yet to experience ANY of the issues you've brought up. There goes the consistency.

Quote - Second, you ask what it doesn't do as advertised, well since I no longer own the most current program I can't speak to the current release, but as I've already stated, I was completely unable to "Move" dot's once placed on the mesh as advertised to make them work better with the first public release. The program crashed repeatedly on me when I tried. You just happen to be one of the lucky ones it didn't do that to I guess. This lack of use for one of the main advertised features that could and should have been avoided by having proper error trapping tells me the release was premature. Especially since it was complained about by so many others besides myself.

I wasn't discussing the newest release. I am aware you don't have the current version, since you've stated as much.

But now you're referring to me as "lucky," and expecting that catchall to make up for the fact that I'm not having, nor have had, the experience you have. So if I wrote off you and the few others that have complained about the software as "unlucky," I guess it would be all even, correct?

Quote - Thirdly they released it to the public KNOWING that there were bugs like the blackface issue and they said as much at the time of release! That was just inexcusable for a public release package! You don't do that to your customers if you expect to keep them! They released it with many faults that they were aware of and could have prevented if they had gone through proper beta testing phases instead of rushing it to market

I didn't scour the problem threads, so I have no idea whatsoever regarding this "blackface" issue.

"Many faults" is a pretty loose term. Microsoft Vista could be said to have "many faults," but nevertheless, it's on the market, and it has sold.

And there are many people who think it's wonderful.

Quote - My last point is that they advertised it's ability to also create textures to go with the morphs and we all know that what the program produced was crap that was unusable without serious postwork in a 3rd party application if you wanted to end up with a usable texture. I'm sure there are many other issues that other's had as they've all been posted about in the forums. These were my issues and my reasons for believing that they released what was essentially beta quality software on the public.

And therein is my issue with your ripping the software. You are pretending to represent the feelings of the majority, when in fact, you haven't the slightest clue what the majority thinks. "We all know" is a flat out lie, and you're putting words into my mouth. I've had no issues with the resulting textures so far. Any postwork I've done has been because that was my choice.

Quote - Since you experienced none of them while so many others did, consider yourself lucky for having a machine specced so closely to one of the few betatest machines where the problems sneaked by on. Many others were not so lucky.

Again, if you consider me "lucky," then I have to write off your experience as simply "unlucky."

Quote - You state you don't understand the "Opinion" that it doesn't perform as expected. Let me just point out to you that that wasn't an opinion at all. It was verifiable and repeatable FACT as publically shown by so many people who posted all the complaints and issues they had with the software's initial release!

Ummm, people "publicly" stating their opinion on the internet does not qualify something as fact. Actually, quite the contrary. Wikipedia has the ability to correct people's posting of misinformation. If you think a bunch of anger-filled posts on the internet allows something to be qualified as factual, perhaps you should take a hop over to MySpace and see just how much stupidity there is in this world.

Quote - My "opinion" was that they charged too much money for the betatest quality of their first public release, a different matter all together and just my opinion in the end. It is also my opinion that the program was released with too many known crash and inoperability issues to be anything other than a piece of software that should have remained in BetaTesting or fixed. I don't mind if you disagree with those two opinions, but the facts remain true regardless of it all.

Fair enough, now you're representing your opinion for what it is. Opinion only. You believe, that based on your own user experience, this software did not live up to your expectations. That's your opinion. Well, your experience sucked, and I'm sorry you had to go through that. However, it does not change the fact that there are at least as many people out there with wholly positive experiences as have had poor ones. The only difference is, those who are having a good time aren't sitting around the message boards complaining. That's why you didn't see us.