CompuServe Messages

<<do you think people would buy a periodical if it pointed out the flaws in a product?>> I think most reviewers take pleasure in sharing their findings regarding excellent software. Certainly, if I were a reviewer, that is where I would concentrate most of my efforts. However, if a reviewer finds serious flaws in a software, or even finds a software unworthy of the market place, that is not only a resposibility to report, but would not negatively impact the distribution of a periodical. Back to the issue of the AAS review. Running in anything other than very low resolution, this software demonstrates a host of problems. After loading and experiencing difficulties that made using this product prohibitive, I contacted several other animation shops, certain that the secret lay in configuration and it *MUST* be my fault. Well, turns out there are a whole slew of other bewildered users out there with the same problems. Software was deleted and I'll just keep my eye on the upgrade path, hoping the functionality is revamped and the bugs squished. I now understand that my history with this software has been shared by many. That's just the way it goes, and my best wishes go out to the developers hoping they can deliver a lean clean machine –we really need it–. But when you mention ethical journalism 101, I really did not expect to read a glowing review with a 9 rating. Perhaps an optimistic review, with a let's wait and see rating. I don't want to ramble on and on here, but do feel rather strongly on this one. Jeffrey