We've banned use of multiple users as it seems the semantics round it are

Under SP6:
If use A opens the file, followed by user B, the file it not locked by
default, user A must lock it
manually (I'm sure unlike earlier versions)

If user A forgets to lock it, B can open it, change it and save, when A
later saves, B's changes are lost.

Protel's muli-user controls are next to useless (and not integrated with
windows users).

Considering that this is one of the major selling points of P99, its a bit
of a shame.

Lets hope that this is one of the things that Protel 'fix' in Phoenix.


-----Original Message-----
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 29 January 2002 12:35
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Multiple database users

At 09:35 PM 1/28/2002 -0500, Darryl Newberry wrote:
>Side note on OS's: "sch_user" running Windows 2000 Pro, "pcb_user" running
>Windows XP Pro.

Side note on side note: that *might* be the crux of the problem. Protel 
99SE was NOT written and tested for compatibility with WXP....

I'll repeat, also, one of my standard comments: where you are doing 
something that nearly everyone else does, you will almost always find that 
the program works either perfectly or very well. Off the beaten path there 
are more bugs and quirks. It's fairly obvious why, and one may scream and 
rail at Protel, but, if the software continues to develop new features -- 
and it must -- it will always be true that, relatively speaking, oft-used 
features are more reliable and stable.

At some point we should run a good survey, but I'd guess that the large 
majority of us never have multi-user access to a single .ddb. So, even 
though it works (maybe), I'd hate to bet my company on it.... back up early 
and often. And squawk here if any aspect of it does not work, and to Protel 
if you want to frost the cake. That way, succeeding versions are more 
likely to be stable in this aspect.

We are told we are getting at least one new storage option in Phoenix, 
lousy name but it's all we've got, plus the claim is that we will be able 
to work freely with bare files, no more obligatory .ddb.
Abdulrahman Lomax
Easthampton, Massachusetts USA

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
* Contact the list manager:
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to