Dennis: yes I have DXP and have tested it's various functions. Not all
basics have changed, but several well established ways of operating the
software have been changed, and it appears that these have not added
functionality, just made it harder to re-learn the functions of the
software, to accomplish the very same thing that we once did another way. A
prime example is how we select components in a pcb and then globally edit
them. I do not object to the new system of filtering, if they had just left
the old system intact. Now selecting objects is much more cumbersome than it
once was. The software should become increasingly easier and faster, with
added functionality, not more difficult to learn and master, and slower. 

do you know for a fact that the basics have all changed as you say here?

do you have DXP?

Dennis Saputelli

Daniel Webster wrote:
> 
> Regarding this discussion, I too will add my voice to those who feel
> upgrading to DXP and ATS is not a worthy investment at this point. I would
> have been much happier if the software had remained much the same as 99SE,
> but with greater functionality. Instead of building a whole new interface,
> it would be so much easier (and less expensive) if, for instance, Protel
> programmers had left the design rules dialogs as they were, but just
> increased the scope of filtering. Why we need to change all the basics of
> selecting objects, backing up files, global editing, etc. is beyond me.
This
> is not something the customers were asking for. Many of those features
that
> worked just fine in 99SE have been tampered with, altered, or outright
> destroyed in DXP. I smell a smoking gun, and see a Protel business manager
> jumping about frantically holding his wounded foot. I suggest Protel
> consider holding a customer think tank meeting, where several Protel
experts
> (customers) are gathered into one room for a day or two to hammer out
> details on how the software should best work for customer requirements.
The
> results would be a useful tool that captures ever greater portions of the
> EDA market share. On the other hand it appears as though some marketing
> managers and accountants at Protel met together and decided to give a new
> name to the company, mess up the product, and try and sell it to their
> unsuspecting customers for double the price. I for one, have advised my
> manager that we should hold off for another 12 months before considering
> upgrading. Hopefully by that time we shall see substantial improvements
and
> a reasonable price.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> Tom,
> 
> many of them will join us, they just keep it quiet. It would be probably
> better from our users' point of view if more people voiced their opinion.
> That would hopefully let them understand we are serious when we say 'We
are
> not buying this anymore'.
> 
> Igor
> 
> I've been told by my boss that for what Altium are offering with ATS it's
> just not going to happen here. DXP is way out of the question.
> 
> It's a pity that more people wont jump on this bandwagon. They'll just
keep
> forking out hard earned money for defective software.
> 
> Tom.
> 
> ************************************************************************
> * Tracking #: 5B367CDDE9318D4283BAB8267003C39AF07E5878
> *
> ************************************************************************

-- 
___________________________________________________________________________
www.integratedcontrolsinc.com            Integrated Controls, Inc.    
   tel: 415-647-0480                        2851 21st Street          
      fax: 415-647-3003                        San Francisco, CA 94110

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to