@VectorStyler I think it's best to use this opportunity and strike a more positive tone. Clearly, everyone is interested in the best quality and the fewest bugs.
I doubt that anyone has any misconceptions about the difficulties and complexities of maintaining such a complex software product. At the same time, users invest time and money and expect a certain level of carefree functionality.
As it currently stands, users upgrade to a new build, go about their usual business, and randomly stumble into bugs. Speaking for myself, I have come across too many bugs to continue using VS. Paying customers should be entitled to expressions of dissatisfaction.
Perhaps some form of organizational structure could better test potential releases before distribution. The entire program's functionality could be broken into function areas for individuals to test. One person would test all aspects of the pen tool, another would test all the shapes, etc.
Each tool category would have a list of tasks to accomplish. For example, the instructions would read, create a rectangle, apply a red fill, apply stroke, change stroke width, and so on. As such, there would be bite-sized tests to performed repetitively by the same individuals, who would become proficient at the task, and expand the tests if needed based on results and features.
Setting this up, of course, would be a major headache, but with enough testers and effort, it could prove invaluable. Or perhaps even such a structure already exists, but could be improved. Correct me if I am wrong, but based on my experience, It does not appear that there currently exist mechanisms for adequate testing here, especially when there is so much user interaction involved.
