Maybe a simple name change would help. Not from Construct, just getting rid of the 2. C2 doesn't feel like a follow up to C1, it seems more like a 1.5 "upgrade" to the UI and a 0.1 "reverse-grade" to the run-time.
Granted, if there truly IS exe export with shaders and all, then it makes more sense to call it Construct 2, it's just that we are a ways off from that point.
I've gone back to MMF2 until EXE shows up, as while I like HTML5 as a feature, I don't much care for it as a focus. Still like Construct a lot, and will hopefully be using C2 someday.
Construct 2 doesn't need a name change, I think the whole "Pre-Alpha" tag does a great job explaining to users that this program is in the very early stages of development. Imagine when they first started filming The Godfather II, if somebody on the set kept saying "well technically, we should really refer to this movie as The Godfather 1.5 until it's finished."
As far as going back to MMF2 until there is EXE support , even if they added an EXE port tomorrow, I assume you would still use MMF2. You can't really create a game with C2 yet..
Construct 1 was my favorite game development tool, with that said, it needed to be shelved to start something new and fresh for a long time now. Having no portability, an optional Directx update required, and various bugs might sound like minor hindrances, but to the average indie developer who needs his game to be accessible as possible they are almost complete deal breakers.
Construct 2 seems to be coming along nicely and faster than expected. With the ease of testing Construct 2 games being as simple as clicking a link, I feel as if I've almost tested more C2 games in one month than I have C1 in all its years.