1.7.0.305 Menu Glitch, Autosave, and Involuntary Transition

[betzalel@project314.org]

After just a couple of weeks of using affinity-publisher-beta-1.7.0.283, I've come to like it (hoping that it will overtake AdobeID some day), even though it has crashed a few times.  It seems that the autosave has worked well in general, but today after I tried to restart it after it crashed I was forced into an update 1.7.0.305, which didn't want to install correctly (it seemed to take but only after uninstalling the old version and rebooting my system), and it didn't seem to give me any indication that it was recovering from a crash (or that it had saved my file).  

Fortunately, I learned that it saved an autorecover file like other Affinity software, with an .autosave file extension, which I found in C:\Users\User\AppData\Roaming\Affinity\Publisher\1.0 (Beta)\x_randomnumber_x.autosave.  I was surprised to see the autorecover file was sized at 3+GB, especially as earlier files were only 80-700MB, which seem large seeing that the document is based upon only 4 or 5 images (well under 20MB total) and some simple tables.  Nevertheless, I was able to open the file perfectly, otherwise I would have lost an afternoon's worth of work.  

After getting the file recovery issue squared away, I was surprised to find that the newer version was far more unstable, plus it had some sort of menu glitch (see photo below) which wouldn't go away, even when I minimized the Publisher window.  It seemed to remain active after minimizing the main Affiniity window.  After I restarted Publisher, it seems the glitch went away, at least for now.  

Also, for the record, I really don't mind being a lab rat in software testing if it's a product and a company that I believe in, and feel happy to give useful feedback in exchange for software trial.  However, I don't like this mandatory-update-hold-a-gun-to-your-head-and-never-let-you-go-back-to-the-old-platform policy.  It stinks like the gestapo-esque Windows auto update policy, and it's something cruel that a company like Adobe would do.  I was forced into an older version of Adobe CC a few months back and it cost me a half day of rework just because their rev control policy isn't squared away (I created the file in a newer version [version control was not an option at the normal consumer level] with formatting features that were not fully backwards compatible).  I'm saying all this because I cannot afford to invest time into developing content on an experimental platform/product only to be left stranded because someone from afar decides to terminate the platform's utility in a blink of an eye with barely any notice.  Yeah, I'm sure that you have such a point and policy covered in your EULA that I agreed to, but some things are just a simple matter of professional courtesy.  It's just bad business to cripple or blind somebody and then feel justified in so doing simply because of the legaleze and fine print.  If you take away user control over what version they want or choose to run, I think you're violating the "public trust" and you leave me feeling powerless and betrayed, and with a loss of confidence in your platforms and policies.  Please consider that this is no way to begin a courtship.