Dave-in-Decatur

Can you say more about this? Are you saying that when you open an existing note in the new program, it automatically converts the fonts in the note to the new, limited font selection?? That would be truly appalling.

See this thread in a different forum: There may be others as well--worth doing a search.

I voted it up!

These are all important issues. There are now forums related specifically to v. 10 for Windows: https://discussion.evernote.com/forums/forum/720-evernote-for-windows-issues-versions-100-and-above/; https://discussion.evernote.com/forums/forum/731-evernote-for-windows-requests-versions-100-and-above/. Many of these issues are listed and discussed there, so it might be more effective to proceed there.

@amartya, please take a look around in this forum and in the forum https://discussion.evernote.com/forums/forum/731-evernote-for-windows-requests-versions-100-and-above/. You can join in existing conversations on some of these topics.

This is an excellent and important point. Cross-platform similarity is good; cross-platform lowest common denominator functionality is sure loser.

Ah, thanks. I can't actually get the program yet, since I'm still on Windows 7. Strange how lack of communication seems to be seen as a customer relations strategy these days (not just Evernote).

There have been numerous reports of the Evernote Web client having various sorts of problems in Chrome. I don't recall seeing this specific one, but I suppose it's possible. Can you try it in a different browser to see if it works there?

I'm fortunate to still be on Windows 7, and therefore not even eligible to join in the update/downgrade catastrophe. But I do think that, to be fair, and no matter how annoyed one is, you might explain what it is about task #1 that seems simple to you (my highlighting)! OSes rather like to be special and inimitable, which tends to limit cross-platform uniformity. Evernote 10 for Windows is a fumble, that seems clear, but I don't necessarily think they fumbled something easy.

I guess, then, that for those who have been in the good habit of backing up their local Evernote DB, the answer will be to export it (notebook by notebook)?

Here's the list of working and no-longer-working keyboard shortcuts/hotkeys: https://help.evernote.com/hc/en-us/articles/209004807.

Yeah, Windows Vista (and don't forget Win ME). And New Coke. And a few of us (no need to raise your hand) are old enough to remember the Edsel.

I'm still using v. 6.25 under Windows 7, and I see 7 subprocesses--so good news, something they didn't remove!

On running the legacy version, see this post: https://help.evernote.com/hc/en-us/articles/360052560314-Install-an-older-version-of-Evernote.

With you all the way (I'm not able or willing to update yet, but just what I'm reading looks awful). Several of the beta testers have posted in the forums saying that many issues were flagged that were not released before development, including some of the most egregious, e.g., no preferences.

Developers with any sense (and that is being called into question, I'm aware) don't release dates/timelines for features. But I agree that a simple table of "coming soon / working on it / gone for good" would actually restore a sense of rational confidence in many users who have been severely shaken by this.

Several people who were beta testing it have posted in the forums that the problems were indeed flagged by testers, but not resolved before the release. Which really only makes it worse.

Let me be clear that I'm not trying to defend v. 10, which is clearly badly borked. But there are a few new things in the editor that people have requested for a long time: styles, more highlight colors, and dark mode come quickly to mind. IMO, these are trivial in comparison with what has been dropped or not yet implemented. But that was my point WRT "be careful what you ask for."

So all this explains the performance issues being reported in the other forum: No local/offline DB + constant syncing = sloooow perfromance. Of course, I don't see that in the Web client so they must have messed something else up to fully account for the slowness.

I'm not able (or willing) to update to the new version yet. Can you or someone else confirm whether it does in fact maintain a permanent local database (even if the user must request it to do so)?

Can you give a link to the release notes? All I've seen is the What's New post, which is lacking a lot of details.

@Shane D. or @Nick L., anything on this? It's a real show-stopper in the Web client.

WRT date format, in the previous version that was taken from a system-wide Windows setting. Hard to know if anything is still the same, but this might be.

See the What's New post. It shouldn't matter, but....