Well, I can't see the insides of it. So it's hard to tell how big the fiasco really is. I don't think of it as a problem to say settings are made localy, and you can use profiles to spread them across machines quickly. Not too useful to crunchers with only a single machine, but pretty nice when having more, or migrating. It is important to make it clear in documentation, and preferably in the interfaces for setting the settings. And I think this topic has helped a bit with that.

My personal preference is to have local settings. Gives me a bigger feeling of being in control, and a better way to tune a particular configuration to work at its best.

I have some idea how it is working on a system that grows. The main product I am working on myself has been doing that for about 15 years. And it has been doing so with an ever changing crew. If you think this settings thing is ugly, well, I at it.
I hope version 6 will get its chance to improve. When working on our products I have learned that in the long run it often pays to make something beautiful. It may cost a bit more now to do it well. But if it is made well, it will cost less to maintain, and need less maintenance. In software beauty isn't just useful because it pleases the eye.

Back on topic, all seems well now. And with the virtual memory set properly, I might actualy try going back to using both cores.