Or perhaps the amble number of Windows testers weren't good about providing feedback.
Testing multi platform software is never going to be an easy task.
Macs present less of a challenge as there are far less hardware variables that might give problems, especially if as X-Rite have done they’ve limited the specifications to just two very recent variants of the operating system (10.5.8 august 2009 & 10.6).
PCs on the other hand have massively more variables and X-Rite are supporting it on three different versions of Windows, XP going back nearly ten years now, each of which can be either 32 or 64 bit. A massively bigger potential customer base.
Given that, the Windows versions really ought to be far more widely tested than the Mac versions.
Then comes a particular difficulty for X-Rite, most of the people who have really long standing, in-depth knowledge of colour management are the veterans of the very early days of digital imaging when Macs were really the only choice and they have stuck with Apple over the years. So we end up with all the influential, trusted ‘experts’ (who are likely to be the people most wanted for feedback and testing) mainly running Macs. Every review I’ve seen so far by those given early review copies has been on a Mac.
So I’d hazard a guess that testing wasn’t sufficiently widespread on PCs. Unfortunately for X-Rite the world has now moved on and probably the majority of potential purchasers are running Windows.
Obviously only a few people in X-Rite know how the testing was carried out and whether there was enough variety in testers to really drill down and sort out the major bugs. It goes without saying they’ll never admit they didn’t get that testing phase right.
It’s doesn’t bode well that even with the tiny number of users here so far (have a dozen purchasers commented here yet ?), two us have been unable to measure some Epson x800 output despite this being a very, very popular series of printers.(OK I got the fix for that last week, but why wasn't it spotted and sorted before release ?)
Perhaps the company was looking for bug reports, not feature suggestions.
Back at alpha stage feature omissions ought to have been sought and evaluated. X-Rite will admit that the gamut graphing module isn’t much use until it can handle comparisons, was this never mentioned ? and if it was, why wasn’t it implemented ? They have the code to do it available from PMP.
Surely testers like Andrew and Jeff must have complained about the lack of batch processing ?
I’ll bet they did, I’d also guess they’re tied with on-going NDAs that forbid commenting on the testing process too. That just leaves us real purchasers free to comment on what we’re experiencing. Then there’s the EULA mess…..
Perhaps a lot of the work put in will show in a future release.
Profiler 1 could/should be great, but there are just too many silly little errors, (along with dirty great big ones too) and the more obvious omissions right now to even consider it good.
It’s not impossible to get version 1 software right, look at Lightroom or Gamutvision for software that worked well from day 1.