@Fabrice I agree that resorting to name calling is unacceptable and it is about as useful as asking the customer to de-install and re-install the software, which should be accompanied by appropriate guidance about backing up databases, the fact that any edits done with the new release do not have backwards compatible DOPs/'database etc.!
The classic cliché when “mocking” IT support is the “have you turned it off and back on again” sketch, which can indeed get the user back working again but may fail to recognise the potential “tip of the ice-berg”.
With issues like the one reported it is important not to eradicate the issue and lose the opportunity to gain an insight into a bug, be it transient or persistent as this one appears to be.
If the uninstall/re-install recommendation is on the support script please remove it or at least downgrade it from the first item on the list!
Front line support should be amongst the best not simply “canon fodder” and need to be able to get to the heart of the issue and not just repeat some script verbatim.
Use the newbies to go “play” with the software and attempt to reproduce some of the problems reported so that they can gain an insight and then move them to front line support.
The adage that “the customer is always right (until proven wrong)” should be the mantra of all support personnel and with DxO users it is essential or you will find more topics like this one cropping up.
I believe that the downloaded tools may be of value in this case but would suggest that it should be accompanied by a request to activate appropriate logging then reproduce the problem and then run the software to extract the logs that (hopefully) have captured additional data to aid further diagnostics.
@Fabrice-B this is not the first complaint about “lack lustre” responses from DxO support in the forum, lets hope that it is the last we see here and is replaced with topics that detail the problem experienced but either say nothing bad about DxO support or praise the support given, while complaining about the nature of the “bug”/“feature”, of course.