Don’t just hope! The very last line in that report, by Campbell Barton: “I’d rather see a good proposal for how quad-view should work, unlocked views should work a bit nicer but since this is not default the issue you run into isn’t so common.” If you have a solid proposal, submit it. Link to it right there in the tracker, or or see link below. Otherwise it’d stay in that state indefinitely. But if you decide to go for it, please keep in mind that…
Secrop - thanks but this was a bit annoying to me so disabling it was among the first things that did in Blender. I’m sure some users find use for it but for my workflow I decided that I don’t need it.
…you’re being a bit hypocritical. You don’t find this particular setting (holding Alt snaps the view at certain angles, similar to ZBrush behavior, by the way) useful, but what makes you think then that “all professional artists” would find your reliance on quad view useful? Or the “global” toolshelf? Everybody works in their preferred way, in Max, in Blender, in Maya, in anything. And in the end, tools don’t make professionals, their work does.
Also, as I mentioned before, the Tool shelf and Properties panel are not “global” but tied to their viewports which is not the right way to do it in my opinion. The should be global, irrespective to the viewport you’re in.
First of all, why? “Just because it’s like that in Max” is not a good argument. Blender was designed that way: each area contains an “editor”, with its own set of tools, just as Max was designed with a global toolshelf. But what difference does it make in the end? It’s not like you’re simultaneously working in all viewports: you’re working in just one. And to me, it makes sense to see properties of the viewport in that viewport, not somewhere on the side. Moreover, say if one viewport is a 3D view, and another is a UV editor (uncommon for Max, since its UV editor is floating, but common thing in Blender): following you proposal, we would need to have two global sets of toolshelves and properties anyway, or clutter existing ones with more and more tools as more different viewports are opened.
Secondly, because it’s by design, it’s not as easy to change as you think, as it goes back to fundamental principles Blender is built on: many operators actually do depend on what area they’re being executed in. Changing that would mean changing a lot.
Stan Pancakes - there seems to be an issue with your script. If I delete a couple of objects and then I undo, the deleted objects reappear but two at a time, not one by one. Is there a way to fix this?
I’m not sure what’s wrong off the top of my head, I’ll look into it.
By the way, where do I make suggestions for improvements to Blender?
http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Doc/FAQ#Where_is_the_right_place_to_request_features_in_blender.3F
Regarding future UI and design specifically, there’s already quite a bit being done.
It’s already a great piece of 3D software but it’s these tiny issues (that I’m sure easy to fix) that’s chasing away professional 3D artists like me from picking up Blender, we should all admit it and put biases aside.
Exactly. Putting biases aside. Yet you’re approaching Blender as if it were Max. But it’s not, and no amount of tinkering, customizing and fiddling would change that. I’m just as perplexed that you can’t juggle viewports in Max as easily as you can in Blender, and at its floating windows, or that in Maya’s default setup you need to go through a menu to extrude something. Yet I see people use that software merrily, because they’re used to how it works (or perhaps because they’re not familiar with alternative approaches), just like people who’ve been using Blender for a while are used to it.
Don’t get me wrong, I too think that quad view in Blender is awkward. But I personally find it plain unnecessary (in Blender, not universally), considering viewport flexibility. Can it be made more useful? Yes, but it needs to be designed. Or toolshelves, they are big and clumsy (text buttons with no icons, no easy user-friendly way to customize them i.e. by dragging buttons, only scripting, which not everybody is prepared, able or willing to do). Luckily, they’re being worked on (see that google document I linked above). Moreover, future plans consider various advances regarding UI.
But you say it yourself: these hindrances are minute, compared to the overall flexibility and available toolset (there’s also that tiny little fact that Blender is free, though 
).
Yes, you can make-do without a working quad view but why do you need to? No professional artist would be inclined to work this way after they’ve been using 3d software with a working quad view for years and years.
Hm, the very first thread I linked you to was by Pior Oberson, who switched to Blender from Max, at least for his low-poly work. And honestly, from that thread I don’t remember him being scared away by Blender’s awkward quad view. Valve is also known to use Blender somewhere in their toolchain. But it’s all beside the point. People always yearn their comfort zone, something they’re used to. That’s what makes adopting new tools feel awkward, when these tools don’t meet certain assumptions or expectations.
Also, when I want to hide the side panels the viewports don’t resize to fill their space. I’m kind of desperate about Blender now. If I don’t find a way to make the quad view work I’m not sure if I’ll be interested enough to continue trying to learn it. Not working quad view is a big drawback to me and I’m very puzzled to find that such a basic functionality isn’t working. 
