I have been using Protel 99SE with windows XP Professional for about 5 months. I started out with the beta evaluation version of XP. My impression is that it is more stable than Windows 2000, and many times better than Win98. I have done some crude testing, such as opening 6 instances of Protel at once, performing one or two basic operations in each instance, then closing all instances of Protel. Then, I go in to the task manager and check for any lingering signs of Protel. So far, Windows XP has done an excellent job of keeping Protel in check. Performing the same test in Windows 2000 resulted in one or more instances of Client99SE.exe lingering in the task manager, hogging resources. Also, I have seen a reduction in crashes or system lock-up. I would see an average of 1 system crash or lock up each day. I define a crash or lockup as any situation that requires a re-boot of the system. With Windows XP, I have had to re-boot less than one time per week. Although I am uneasy with the licensing scheme of Windows XP, for me it has proven to be a more stable and robust platform for Protel than Windows 2000 or Windows 98.
I would really like to hear other experiences with Windows XP. Mark Richards CAD Designer Phone: 602.244.7267 Fax: 602.244.6716 Pager: 866.208.9913 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Trow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 1:54 PM Subject: [PEDA] Windows XP > Hi All > > Just wondering if anyone uses Protel99SE on WindowsXP ? > > Are there any problems? > > > Wayne Trow > PCB Design Technician > Gallagher Group LTD > Hamilton > New Zealand > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
