Fotland confirmed that I bought MFoG in 2012, so mine is now updated and current.
pnprog:
The key issue for me isn't whether LL can beat MFoG. The key issue is whether MFoG can beat ME, and usefully teach me, which it looks like it will be able to do for at least a few more months.
Yes, I would like a better UI than MFoG, but going from any existing UI to a different UI...even if a newer and better one...involves transition costs, which I don't have a lot of motivation to incur at the moment.
I continue to be concerned that LL can't be "dumbed down" enough to he helpful to me at my current level (now 8 kyu, nibbling at 7 kyu). Also, I have a larger (but fuzzier) concern about the rapid pace of automation of Go that appears to be happening. I'm not that interested in Go as a mathematical problem; I'm more interested in it as a form of HUMAN interaction.
Mike:
Good points all. I got on the internet around 1979, on the ARPA net (which was prior to the DARPA net). If I can get something for free rather than paying for it (all other things being equal (which they never are)), that's my general preference. But I have no religious objections to paying for software. Through this and other conversations, I'm starting to see a place for paid Go software rapidly emerging, which will involve programs that humanize the UIs, rather than making the engines more powerful.
Eventually I'll outgrow MFoG, but not soon. When I do, I'll get something better. But I would much prefer to PAY for SW that can at least pretend to pass the Turing Test, as opposed to free SW that can't. One of the things I like best about BWD is that I can VERY easily imagine that Bruce is TALKING to me. And I like that a LOT.
pnprog:
The font size issue persists, but isn't entirely insurmountable. For now I'm mostly using MFoG to review professional games. The font size issue barely impacts that function. When I move on to more heavily commented games, and playing against MFoG and wanting instruction from it, we'll see. But I'm not there yet.
Your biggest issue with MFoG is a topic which holds no interest for me. So, since we're trying to meet different objectives, it's not surprising that we would make different choices! "Better or Worse" can only be rationally evaluated in the context of known and shared objectives (this applies far beyond just Go).
When I was CIO for Nevada, I debated the CIO of California on a national stage regarding the issue of open source. As the manager of about $35M/yr of "IT Stuff", the LAST thing I wanted was code that would let the engineers tinker with it...with different engineers tinkering in different ways, producing incompatible versions. Ick!
On the other hand, Open STANDARDS (eg, SGF) was and remains an excellent idea.
TCS