My OperaThe My Opera forums have been replaced with forums.opera.com. Please head over there to discuss Opera's products and features
See the new ForumsYou need to be logged in to post in the forums. If you do not have an account, please sign up first.
Upgrade to 11.52 overwrites some user settings
Of the 5 machines in my office, I've just completed the upgrade installation from v11.51 directly to v11.52 as I've done on all of my various machines since I became a user with v4-something. In all of those update installations, the upgrade process has generally gone well and, more importantly, maintained intact user settings, passwords and bookmarks. So far my assessment of the latest such effort is "2 out of 3" -- the passwords and bookmarks came through okay, but at least some of the user settings (speed dial, for example) got changed pretty radically.I'm not pleased with that outcome, and so will hold off on doing the other 3 machines. Yes, I know many of the wizards strongly discourage a direct upgrade installation and recommend installing to new drive locations for overcoming garbling and and improving stability issues, but that step must be followed by tedious manual copying of a growing number of files from a diverse set of disk locations (which can, and probably do differ among every user). An incredible PITA, to say the least, and not one I'm that keen to do multiple times each and every time a newly updated release is pushed out.
No one inside or outside the official development team seems inclined to recognize an automated clone-and-(trans)port tool for the entire user settings database to be moved into a newly-minted locale just isn't that unlike the import-export features already built into versions going way back, so incorporating something like it within the installation upgrade process shouldn't be difficult. That sort of cloning feature should, in theory -- unless the wizards are just blowing smoke in their assessment of the beneficial effect -- make every user's installation far more stable every time new releases are issued and substantially enhance the browser's competitive stance in user-friendliness and -reliability. Sure couldn't hurt overall market share....
Yes, and one or two others, but NONE of them laid out a straightforward approach to resolve that specific issue, as well as multiple other potential issues across the user population from what should be a relatively simple programming modification to an existing subroutine or module in the overall code that would (or could, if used) significantly enhance the browser's stability, portability and user-friendliness. Figured it was worth its own thread, but guess you didn't...sorry.