[mustmuck]

Well, I can't comment on those networks because I haven't played on them. However, I think you'll agree that you generally want to compare with the best rather than the worst. The thing is that most of this stuff is pretty minor in the scheme of things, so there's no good reason not to have excellent software. I can only assume that the main reason for bad software in the industry is prioritization.

I wouldn't expect the network to contact me directly, but I would like to see them participating in forums such as this one. I think this would benefit both sides. I dislike the fact that you have to talk to the skins, who have no direct power over the network. However, this may be much less of an issue than I'm making out.

Regarding bugs, there are some in this thread and others, but I'm more talking about past bugs that have been dealt with. The idea behind testing is obviously that bugs don't get to the production system, but they often do with MG. It really seems to me that the extensive testing in this case is really just an excuse for why things take so long.

MG software often angers me. This is usually because it's as if nobody at MG actually bothered to use the software before it got released. The covering of the stack sizes in miniview is a good example. Another would be the new in-hand reload option. This was a good addition, but it had some really obvious flaws that most players noticed as soon as it came out. Other things are just weird, like not having a pot option preflop in NL games.

Anyway, as I said I still have high hopes for the software, as I think most of the problems are easily solved if MG have the will. I also realize I'm concentrating on the negatives, whereas the software does have some positives (biggest one I can think of vs other sites is giving you the chance to reload before the next hand starts if you get stacked) and of course the speed.