"I gave it a run for a couple of weeks and have to say it is the worst version of Opus i have ever used, it does not suit Windows at all and after using Magellan for the last few years it was a major disappointment seeing a newer version look so bad.
I would not recommend anyone at all use it."
It's modelled on explorer, how can it not suit Windows? Amiga users said Opus 5 was a major dissapointment after using Opus4. Can anyone see the pattern?
"However, on my XP pro machine , it becomes too unstable and most of the features are already provided with winXP..."
That's your XP installation, not Opus. I use the same combination with no problem, you need to go away and learn how to create a reliable XP installation. Start with the optional components, then the services, then the registry. Then you will be ready for the second phase, all of which takes a long time indeed. By the time you fully understand it MS will have replaced with Longhorn or whatever. Also, most of the features are NOT provided by Windows explorer, no ftp, no saving configurations, no integrated PDF/MP3 header/obscure image format viewers.
"nothing 100% suits my needs/wants", and never will. You have to learn to get along with what you have or learn to code.
I tried an early version of Windows Opus and registered immediately. The power and flexibility are NOT provided by any other file manager on this platform, the integrated FTP client handles every site I've come across, file commands such as split/join work better than commercial offering such as MasterSplitter.
When Opus 5.11 was released on the Amiga the documentation spoke of those who preferred V4 and referred to them as Luddites. I see nothing has changed...