I’ll just add my voice to the above users who prefer the previous model. I really, really wish you would go back to it. I would pay for that version.
I’ve read your explanation and no, it is not any more secure “theoretically” than AxCrypt’s current one password model, but in practice, it can be many times more secure. Your explanation compares AxCrypt’s “sign-in” model to entering the same password over and over again. This is a false comparison. What made the old AxCrypt so useful was that you could encrypt files with different passwords. Now, if the AxCrypt password is compromised (setting aside the fact that it leave you logged in), your entire system is accessible. File by file encryption allowed you compartmentalize this access. Yes, in theory if one password can be compromised, they all can, but this is not how things work in reality. AxCrypt’s current model is like using one password for all of your internet-related accounts. It increases usability but it massively decreases security. It’s not about a “feeling”, it’s about real access.
You also say AxCrypt is not really about local device security and to use BitLocker, etc. for that. But AxCrypt’s new model has essentially only made it useful for local device security and not much different from BitLocker in terms of practical use. Thanks.