What I am getting at is that the vast majority of software produced commercially runs without the major hitches that P5 has seemingly caused. I have a theory as to what the problem really is: P5 seems to be "Frankenstein's Software", of sorts, between P4 code and the add-ons provided by "Pixels Digital, Inc., Singular Inversions, Inc., Size8 Software, Inc., Runtime DNA, and DAZ Productions", (direct from the EULA), add to that Interlok's security scheme and you have a lot of hands in the pot. What I suspect the real cause of the majority of the issues is stems from the way that all of those "parts" either have been put together and/or how they interact with one another. The general consensus seems to be that P5 and CL are not at fault, with minor exceptions. It seems like the finger is always pointed elsewhere in the majority of the cases. So far, I think we can rule out many of the hardware, software, and driver arguments due to the fact that so many affected systems are so varied. Also, user experience and intelligence seems to be ruled out, based on the varied number of users that have been adversely affected. There has not been any "common denominator" that I have noticed so far, other than P5. So, whether anyone likes it or not, Poser 5 seems to be the cause; either directly or indirectly. Now, the matter has to be sorted as to whether or not the problems are manifested in CL's, Pixels Digital's, Singular Inversions', Size8 Software's, Runtime DNA's, Interlok's, and/or DAZ Productions' portion of the P5 "Frankenstein", or any combination of the above. In fact, it could be certain combinations of steps that venture into the different parts of the "monster" that are to blame. I firmly believe that the software is the major culprit. Whether anyone else does is their right. However, to date, there is no logical connection to any commonality other than P5. At the end of the day, if P5 ever does get straightened out to the point the vast majority of users have no issues with it, I would be willing to bet that the software (or the combination of the parts thereof) is proven to be the main aggressor in these issues. Then, and only then, will the correct diagnostics, troubleshooting, and opinions be justified. My bet is also that CL will never divulge what the root cause was, because to do so would be a very bitter pill to swallow; considering it was their sole decision to meld these technologies together. As for the apparent "pissing matches" that seem to have cropped up, I will not participate in them because they are counter-productive and, IMHO, not even closely relevant to the discussion at hand. Think of me and/or my qualifications to formulate my opinions as you so desire.