I think it's more the lack of information visible, even with properties displayed you can't see the probe type, only scales:
ie probe used - inverted verse not for ignition, which type of amp clamp was used etc - sometimes important or critical to understand what you are seeing, or to spot an error (inverted verse not might show the wrong cylinder HT lead was being captured!)
So it just makes things harder and less clear. Not intuitive or user friendly ...
Given the choice as the software stands today, I'd rather lose the capturing scope model and gain the normal full featured screen. ... that's why I asked for the "capturing scope" data not to be lost ... the editing scope is clearly not relevant!! (someone/a coder writing the software clearly wrote the scope record information in the saving section, not the capture section ... an unintended future issue arises, no biggie, but lets fix it).
The inability to create a new template for further/future captures (refining or adding a trigger for example) can't be done ... I don't mind work around's, but surely a bug is a bug, or is it a purposeful and an intended design element?
There are 2 issues, both already reported here and on other forums
1. Double clicking a file when Pico is closed and no device is connected, gives a different result than if pico was open with a device (even demo) selected. We are in a double click world, this is not great, Pico created a double click association, it's not a hack!
2. The capture device is the critical information, not where it was edited, though if needed sure keep a record, but please can we preserve the capture device. To me this makes perfect sense! Have I missed something?
If you disagree with them please tell me why? Otherwise please add them to a feature request list/bug report.