I am new to the market for this kind of software, but I tried jbidwatch for a week before deciding to look anew, when I found this piece of software.
Yes, I've had one minor problem Auction Hunter so far - non-fatal, no crash, easy to work around. I submitted a report, got back an answer within two hours with a link to a still private beta release that fixed the problem.
Later, I sent a suggestion for a minor feature change, and again got a response thanking me for the input within hours.
Lo and behold, the feature change and the bug fix are already integrated into 0.9.9.9, less than one week later.
The interface, while still being developed, blows jbid away. It's graphical, intuitive, easy to organize, feature rich. jbid, while certainly more refined from a programing perspective, is visually ugly, and looks very much like the java app it is.
I'd like to see a more user friendly way to list items in the "default folders," allowing the user to cross reference to the items already stored in user created folders. But I can see from one of the other 0.9.9.9 fixes that development is already going in that direction.
But then again, there are menu choices and buttons in jbid which are just as, if not more un-intuitive. Hell, you have to scroll accross using a cryptic button to even discover you are not even seeing all of the tabs in the option screen.
Don't get me wrong - I could tell jbid is powerful, and deserves it's loyal following. But from a quick, two week tour of the two, I saw little in jbid that wasn't in AH, and better presented at that. I'll take AH's beta glitches over jbid's butt ugly interface - at least I can tell the glitches will go away.
NOCKAMURA's comment seemed to imply Auction Hunter is not being updated... I found quite the contrary, as my explanation above showed. While I do not doubt graphxdave's experience, I'm guess ing he was on the unlucky end of a bad mix of beta software and otherwise innocuous conditions. My advice to all - beta is beta: if you want to use it, and have a problem, contact the vendor before telling the rest of the world. I've found the support - as well as the comments here - to be quite the opposite of smarmy. But that's just me, YMMV.
By the time the full feature is released, and assuming the underlying database is as robust and as stable as the developer says it is in the literature, I do not have any doubt it will be worth the nominal fee.