Well it's like they have no concept of maintenance at all in their product management. Literally they produce some code and <i>never</i> touch it again. Witness the hundreds of various similar UI elements in any single piece of their software, all of which act essentially the same. Why not go back and retrofix the old stuff? Because they don't maintain anything they've previously built. If they could solve the registry bug messaged previously by simply piling on some new features, it would be done. But since that's not how one fixes registry bugs, it'll never be done.<p>It's like the Soviet model for building software. Build it once, build it shoddily, never maintain.