If there was one thing I could ask from PG (individually and collectively) it would be for transparency--especially on this subject. (Note that I am not asking, although I am very curious.)

My thinking is that there are very good reasons for what is and is not done with BIAB. I am sure that a lot of the advancements are driven by marketing, and that a lot of what doesn't happen is determined, first by what resources are left over after taking care of market-driven priorities, then by technical limitations. That's just a guess.

Offhand, I can't think of another company that is responsive to the degree that PG is. I know that we are taken seriously. If you have been around long enough you know that many suggestions made here are incorporated as new features. A lot of them. If you haven't been here that long, hand around and watch.

Apart from my rant about Rewire, I have probably been most vociferous in my call for a rework of what everyone in this discussion agrees is a cluttered interface. Specifically, I would like for users to be able to create a customized menu of Essential Features, and not have to wade through the rest.

That's nice. I buy a new version about once very three years (and use maybe 5% of the features available). How much attention should they pay to me, as opposed to a pool of institutions who are buying multiple multi-user licenses on a regular basis?

So I'm torn. I want "my" feature because it is important to me. On the other hand, I BIAB has wrought a revolution in my musical life and. PG have certainly never disappointed me. In fact, they have delighted me in some unexpected way with each iteration.

Patience, Grasshopper.

"My primary musical instrument is the personal computer."