Not every one has the time, skill and patience to do all this, nor should we need to. These programs are supposed to work properly in all of their supported operating environments. I think the top-level question is whether the O/P's problem is systematic/shared amongst many users, or unique to him (i.e. an Adobe problem or a user problem). The steps you are proposing would deal with purging possibly corrupted factors in his own computing set-up, but would not necessarily address this issue of whether this is an Adobe problem or a user problem. In light of recent experience this always remains a valid first-level of concern until it is dispelled. We would get to know that from the feedback of numerous users of the up-dated combo.
I agree that one can first try to find out if it's a generic problem, but sometimes it can take a while for a generic problem to surface on forums like this.
My personal preference: a quick Google to see if it's a known problem, then I would normally run down some of that check list I gave, as IMHO it doesn't take much time, effort or expertise.
I entirely agree that programs should just work.
In the real world, as a former software developer I know bug-free programs don't exist, and even extensive testing doesn't eliminate bugs, it merely reduces the number. Software is just too complex. There are various methodologies for creating "fault-free code", which doesn't prevent all bugs but eliminates some classes of bugs. Furthermore, for software developers much of the system is not under their control. Bugs often surface as a result of interactions between one's own code and third-party code (the operating system, libraries or whatever). Such bugs can't be designed out, and the number of combinations to test is near infinite.
The best one can hope is that in good software, bugs are uncommon. For that reason, I tend to assume that problems with one's own computer (including user error) are often a likely cause of mishaps.
