Jackson: Perhaps I am more cynical than most, but I was under the impression that the CL crew working on P5 was largely the same crew that worked on P4, so it didn't surprise me that some of the things that bug me about P4 (some of which I would classify as bugs, some not) reappeared in the first P5 release, whether they reused code or just the coders. I would agree with you as far as stability issues go. Reusing code in itself wouldn't bother me in the slightest...to the extent that it works. I am not (and have not been) sure what you mean about an "outdated" interface; klunky I understand as meaning not easy to work with, and that can be a matter of taste. I also have a hard time reconciling the "pretty blanket" metaphor with the complaints about the interface, unless you're referring to the box art. However, the complaints you mention are only a part of what Jack was driving at, which was a broad critique of CL's business plan. And it is that sort of critique, absent any detailed knowledge of the situation, to which my original post was addressed. In thinking about the recent tumult, it occurred to me that if CL had called ProPack Poser 4.5, they could have decreased the anticipation level for P5 and increased CL's profits. With additional bucks from P4.5, they could have spent more time on P5. I'll bet just about every CL employee has had that thought in the last month or two...but now I'm the one second guessing CL's business strategy. Must be catching;-)