Why is Rev's quality control going to hell? In my opinion, the 2.7.x series has been a huge step backwards in terms of reliability/stability and usability. And after five revisions it's still not ready for prime time. Here are some glaring, show-stopper problems that still persist in 2.7.4:
- The installer introduced in 2.7 is horrible. It installs desktop shortcuts that point nowhere. The file associations are busted. It doesn't perform uninstall correctly. The full program directory is present after uninstall, junk is still sprinkled through the registry, and Rev doesn't remove its entries in Add/Remove programs. While the 2.6.1 installer works perfectly under Vista, the 2.7.4 installer locks up and has to be forced-quit. Error handling within the installer is a joke. Install/Uninstall should be one thing that is bulletproof, but these apparently haven't even been "smoke tested." Please tell me ... Aside from copying bits to the Program Files folder, what does it do RIGHT? - Standalones created with 2.7.x are bigger, slower, consume more resources, and are highly unpredictable compared to standalones created with 2.6.1. Half the time, quitting the standalone leaves the process running in Task Manager -- when the exact same stack under 2.6.1 exits cleanly. We've had reports of libraries not being included even when explicitly added. And Bill V's recent post is not the first report of standalones being built incorrectly or bugs returning from the dead. - More often than I'd like, quitting Rev 2.7.x itself results in an application error upon exit. And that is if you're lucky and the process isn't simply "hidden" as it is in standalones that don't quit properly. When the Windows Error Reporting dialog comes up I click "Send Report" every time... do you guys even receive/read those reports? Because I haven't seen any decrease in their frequency from one release to the next. - The IDE is noticeably, painfully slow, and suffers from screen refresh problems and on-screen corruption. I've had the 2.7.x IDE (and my work product) simply disappear more than once. The sluggishness of the current script editor is simply unacceptable (as described previously). It makes me long for the days of editing on a ZX81 in SLOW mode. This is not "software at the speed of thought" -- it's software at the speed of "musing." - Geometry manager still is hit-or-miss. It works until it doesn't... then you have to rebuild everything from scratch. One prominent developer told me he never uses it, because of the peril to his work product. Just when are you going to get around to fixing that? - The XML library under 2.7.x seems to consume much more memory and not clean up after itself. Stacks that use XML work fine under 2.6.1, but have locked up with 2.7.x. - The Internet library has resulted in lockups in stacks that have run without incident under 2.6.1. In fact, the 2.7.x series is so awfully bug-ridden, its most welcome new feature is the ability to save in "legacy" format. Yes, Rev, it's really that bad. I wrote a long time ago that I planned to purchase every update to the product. That's because I genuinely want to see Rev succeed (not to mention continue to exist/pay the bills). But I have to take it back. No, not this time. Not with 2.7. See, your "subscription" approach to licensing scares me. I just don't think you'll be able to release a sufficiently bug-free version within the 12 months of the update pack duration. It's already been eight months since you released the first version of 2.7, and admit it -- it's really still not up-to-snuff. If I had purchased the pack in February, when my 2.6.1 updates expired. I'd have regretted it. In a traditional update/upgrade model I might have the expectation that you'll eventually get 2.7 "right" via free bug-fixes and you'd already have my $150/$199. But under this model I'm not giving you a single shilling until I see a release that installs correctly, builds correctly, keeps up with my typing, and doesn't crash half the time I use it. Bottom line is you haven't EARNED the update pack fee yet. Some of you will say, "Bill it would be much more productive if you filed all this in Bugzilla." Well, I'm all for contributing to the community. But it takes time and effort to file a decent bug report. You need to have something reproducible, supply sample files, write it up properly, etc. This is no trivial task. And I just don't feel that it's worthwhile. I haven't seen action on other serious bugs, and I haven't seen the kind of quality that suggests even casual inspection on the part of Rev's release team. If the steering wheel comes off in your hands, are you going to take the time to write about the radio not working? How could you NOT notice that your installer puts a generic icon (broken shortcut) on the Windows desktop? How could you release a script editor that is slower than molasses? Where is the pride in your work product? Besides, I don't even "own" this version. After every announcement I download the latest draft; I test it out by converting some working 2.6.1 stacks; I see the problems almost immediately; I "uninstall" (that is, I run the uninstaller, see it's still screwed up, and manually go through the files and the registry to clean up your mess); and go back to 2.6.1. I'm afraid 30 days of trial isn't enough time for me to thoroughly document all the things that are screwed up in this product. So, when YOU demonstrate some good faith -- releasing a reasonably robust product, and committing to free bug fixes -- then perhaps I will work as your unpaid Quality Assurance Engineer. Hoping 2.7.5 is the one that gets it right, Bill _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
