And different clas of other things what can make UX (user experiance about UI) better or worse but what are not bugs.
Yes, if a feature looks like a bug, then it is worth treating it like one, and not leave confused users behind.
Yes, but that is only if it looks like a bug to everybody (or at least many people).
If something is done so badly that it is unusable or there is obviously better way to do something, than improvement is in order...
We must be able to distinct between these categories:
1.- bugs (defects, when device calculate wrong or levels are not right)
2.- improvements (it works correctly i.e. gives proper results, but some part of it can be improved, be it improvements in how things are displayed, or even full workflow of some option)
3.- optimizations (this is similar to improvements but more specifically optimizing some parts that are not visible to user that result in faster performance, better accuracy, less memory used or so)
4.- new features (adding things that didn't exist previously, and are basically a gift from manufacturer that enhance value of instrument after the fact)
No
1 is hard responsibility of manufacturers. That one they owe to users. They take it seriously (Siglent, I mean) and have to put in the effort to fix them.
Instrument that has No 1. fixed (i.e. no bugs) is trusty and gives good results.
This category is only one manufacturer owes to you.
2 and
3 are things that makes things faster/ easier. Always good but those are optimizations. Sometimes important and sometimes not, more like nice to have. Manufacturers do care for these because if gains are visible and useful it enhances attractiveness of products. But it is not required or owed to anybody. Even if idea is not bad, but would require major rewrite and benefits only 5% of users it likely won't be implemented.
Engineering is solving real world problems with real world tools, within knowledge/economic/technical restraints. Not all combinations are possible.
It might get implemented for next generation though.
No
4. is, as I said, pure gift from manufacturer. Say thank you.
Sometimes somebody calls out for wish, and manufactures recognize good idea that is possible.
And they decide to implement it to make their products more attractive and competitive.
Users benefit from this, manufacturer too. Win-Win.
Confusing these categories makes it more confusing for everybody. It might make it look that there are many bugs (where in fact, there are not). But that is a problem for Siglent marketing. Not my concern here.
But it is dangerous because it clouds the issues, and creates confusion.
That confusion results in getting harder to "see the forest from the trees".
It makes it harder for manufacturer actually fix bugs (that are critical) and also harder to get proper message of 3 other categories.
If you want efficient solutions, you need well formed, well defined, questions and requirements.