From what I can gather reading these various threads - and not having P5: Assuming the people who say they are having few or no problems are not lying. Assuming the people who can't get anything to work aren't lying. I find both to reasonably credible. The only logical answer is that P5 is a program that is particularly sensitive to its environment, software and possibly hardware. OS versions, service packs, DLL loaded, runninf processes, memory and a dozen other things, any combination of which might cause problems in any unique configuration. One person see a reasonably stable, useable application, another person sees a piece of crap, the two are not mutually exclusive. So, did CL knowingly release a fatally buggy product, hoping to get some cash and skate by 'til they could get it fixed? Possible. More likely, they got generally good beta reports, a few bad ones and hoped that this ratio would be the same in the real world. Would they have held off release or had a larger beta test program if they'd had more money or if the clamor for P5 hadn't reached deafening levels? Probably. Do they need better tools, better QA or even better programmers? Definitely. Will endless public reports of problems (as opposed to informative bug reports to them), accusations ane people afraid to even install the patches help them fix the problems? No. Will public reports from people having no problems help? No, it will only make the people having problems angrier. Will CL even survive to fix P5, much less create a P6? I hope so.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken