Drawing a comparison between reporting bugs to MS and Aware, and their respective responsiveness in rectifying them, is irrelevant and meaningless, and a simple comparison which on face value conveniently supports your case.
It's the nature/type and sheer quantity of bugs and how severely they impair and adversely affect the end application which is the only important consideration.
Almost zero MS bugs really ever severely impair and adversely affect the end application.
However, Aware has contained a lot of simple as well as more complex OBVIOUS bugs and abnormalities which did severely impair and adversely affect the quality of the end application (and still contains others), WHICH ordinarily would not be in an application beyond beta version in the first place, because standard QC procedures would have picked them up, and they would have been rectified before release.
You buy a business shirt from me and I send it to you. You phone me and tell me the buttons are missing. I post them immediately. Gee, I'm 'responsive' aren't I?
Then you notice the winged collar stiffening inserts are also missing. You phone me and tell me. I post them immediately. Gee, I'm responsive aren't I?
But that is not correct. The point is that I should have supplied the buttons and collar inserts with the shirt in the first place.
So, 'responsiveness', has to be evaluated in context.
This is not meant to be offensive, disrespectful, or to seem ungrateful. It is just the way it is. And it's fine. And it isn't suggesting that Aware isn't a great product.
I think it's fair to say that everyone here 'gets it'. We all know Aware does not have 50 QC staff. And that's alright.
I think everyone here really appreciates that it's an affordable and innovative product, which it wouldn't be if Aware did have 50 QC staff to pay for.
And I would say that everyone is keen to collaborate and help/contribute towards the evolution of the product so as to be even better.
BUT, if it is going to be a collaborative effort between developer and users, then it has to be easy and time-efficient for users to communicate their contributions.
AND, especially, users need to receive feedback on the status/timing of rectifying/implementing their contributions, because it makes the user feel like it was worth the time they spent in finding/reporting them.
Thus, a better system to report bugs is definitely needed, especially for users who want to actively report bugs on a regular basis as and when they identify them/on the fly (rather than saving them up and reporting them in batches).
AND the 'better system'already exists..
The existing 'Problem Reports' forum is perfect for reporting bugs. All you (Support) have to do is to enable it to allow bsv file attachments.
Using the existing Problem Reports forum as a centralized bug reporting/tracking tool does away with all the emails flying all over the place.
A user creates a new topic whose Subject is a brief summary of the bug, the content of the post contains the steps to replicate, and the bsv is attached.
Support then posts in the topic indicating the rectification status/timing, and users know what's happening.
And it can easily be searched to see if the bug has already been reported, which if so would save users time by not duplicating unknowingly.
