And I offered a perfectly logical explanation why it is so and why it makes sense, but you would rather stick to your theory how people are just whining.
Hey, I'm just saying... when everybody thinks the same, nobody thinks. And I, for one, think it's 90% whining and about 10% legitimate complaints. I chuckle to myself when I see posts by users who are intently staring at their core activity, practically jumping out of their chair to accuse Adobe of "not using all their cores to maximum capacity". C'mon guys... since when did you all become computer engineers? Or software engineers, for that matter?
It will until Adobe understand that optimisation of code and responsiveness of the user experience is important to people and get it right in version .0
What you want is unreasonable... as much as you seem to feel horribly violated by anything less. There are virtually infinite combinations of scenarios to potentially test for the release of a piece of software: operating systems, hardware, potentially conflicting software, the health and/or state of each individual operating system, the wide range of functions and the equally numerous ways in which the functions can be used in combination, etc, etc. If software developers held themselves to a standard of "getting it right in .0", then nothing would ever improve and nothing new would ever be released! By the time they homed in on every conceivable bug in a piece of software like LR4, for example, the underlying algorithms and processes would already be dated and behind the times.
Actually XP was excellent from day 1...
Yep... I bet it was. I don't remember too well, really, since I left that dinosaur in the dust a LONG time ago. But if XP users want to dial up Adobe (with their crank-operated telephone, no less... those always were the best phones... no bloat, y'know... no annoying numbers to dial... just talk to the operator) to complain that they are making a big mistake with LR4, that's certainly their prerogative. Just don't be surprised if Adobe isn't interested.