----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> I got tired of you complaining about it when you first joined the forum
> (and began slagging the software and those of us with different points of
> view) and showed you that you can have it any way you like.  I don't use
> server and it is not a bug fix in my mind.

Not a "bug fix"? - semantics - not worth argueing over. Why can't you accept
that Protel actually has some "bugs", along with many many more "features"
or whatever you want to call them that need to be fixed.

> >Granted, you and some others may have actually grown accustomed to the
> >behaviour of Protel when it zooms in and out, and actually like or prefer
> >it, but that doesn't make it "intuitive" or "natural".
> Disagree. having to re-find and refocus on a new location is unnecessary
> and unnatural. At least I think I could come up with a legitimate argument
> to that effect.  Please stop imposing your preference on me and calling me
> non-intuitive or unnatural. Please recognise that it is just a simple
> little preference of yours.  Reentering on zoom is *not* a natural law.
> Coz - it is better - at least quite a number of us think so and there is a
> basis for this preference.  I may have a large screen or multiple
> screens.  I prefer the location I am dealing with remain in the same spot
> on the screen so I do not have to find it again and refocus.  It is all
> about speed.  I, think that the other CAD packages have it wrong and
> has it right from a speed and human computer interaction (HCI) point of
> view.  Having to find the edit point and re-focus is a slow down.  I am an
> expert user - I want the package to be as fast as possible.  This is one
> little example of how I think it is faster.
> Most of the time I am only paging up or down one step as I try to
> rout/place in a specific region.  On the rarer occasions that zoom in or
> out a long way an occasional "home" is not issue for me.

Please see my response to Tony on this issue. I think I make a very valid
point that your arguement re "re-find" and "refocus" actually works against
you, and I answer it there.

> >You may like it, but it is "non-standard" to say the least.
> The key to progress is questioning the status quo.  I am not interested in
> standards if there is a demonstrably better way of working.  Standards
> their place but generally for beginner users.  Expert users are almost
> always more interested in shortcuts and speed-ups.

Wait a minute here - "Expert users" want "shortcuts" and "speed-ups", but a
Mouse / Keyboard problem that trashes all of the "shortcut" keys and crashes
the system 7 or 8 times a day requiring reboot isnt a "bug"? Give me a

> >Where again do I go to get the little drivers / servers you wrote to fix
> >problem?
> >
> >The real problem here Ian is that I shouldn't have to ask you for your
> >drivers / servers, Protel should fix the problem, or even considering
> >you like it the way it is, they should offer the "standard" zoom in and
> >for us abnormal folks who learned on everyone elses systems.
> >
> >You may not condescend to calling it a bug, but it is unquestionably a
> >Protel "quirk".
> Yep - an example of the programmers considering how to speed our work
> maybe? Or maybe a historical artefact. A quirk, yep.  Bug, No.

Just what does Protel have to do before you will call something a "bug"?

> >Is this what happens when you write software applications "down under"
> >everyone at Microsoft in Belview Washington is at home in bed and cannot
> >answer your technical questions about the software?
> Stupid comment.

Actually not. Probably really closer to observable fact. It is painfully
obvious that Protel / Altium in Australia is not having very much
communication with Microsoft in Belville Washington. Snide comment? - yes -
but it offers them an excuse.

Again, please see my response to Tony, and specifically the part regarding
the Microsoft Development Network.

> ><..snip..>
> ><..snip..>
> As for Sch PCB command commonality...
> maybe there are some things that differ - but they do have to reflect the
> differences in the actual entities.  I would *hate* a package that tried
> be so common across the various editors that it sacrificed
> functionality.  But i do have a gripe about Sch and PCB differences - I
> want a J-C (Jump-Component) in Sch like in PCB. But that is about the only
> difference that I regularly hiccup on - oh, and right-click dragging in

Aside ftom the right click issue and the fact that I think that some things
are just plain implemented poorly, I gues that my real complaints here boil
down to incompatability of, or in some cases, inavailability of, shortcut
keys, as you point out.

The real problem here is that Schematic as a whole truely does appear to be
a "bastard child" married into the rest of the "Client Design Explorer" just
to complete the package. Not quite in the "marketing fluff" department as
you place the 3D Viewer, since schematic capture, netlist generation, etc.,
is a real "requirement" to a complete system, but nonetheless it is obvious
that it is a "foreign import" not developed by the same people who developed
PCB. Protel /Altium really needs to do a lot of cleanup and work in the
"integration" department here.

> <..snip..>

> >No, I really wasn't beta testing,
> Heh!  Are you saying you did not sign the NDA and you did not participate
> in the beta?

Thats right - NO NDA - NO BETA.

> >
> >This really is a bad sign, isn't it. What you're really telling me is
> >these and many other things have not been fixed.
> >
> >Thats just not what I really wanted to hear.
> I said nothing of the sort. Do you jump to conclusions so easily when
> engineering design? I would think not.  Please read what I wrote and not
> what you thought I wrote.  I simply said that you were in as good a
> position to know what has changed as anyone since you have been involved
> the beta program.  There is nothing in this statement about DXP or what is
> included/fixed or otherwise.  Simply a call for you to be a little more
> transparent.  The DXP NDA does not prohibit people admitting they are
> involved in the beta (I just re-read it), though for one reason or another
> most of us have not bellowed the fact.
> Ian Wilson

Don't get offended, I am not accusing you of violating any NDA, it's just
that the whole tone of your accusations gave away the fact that you assumed
that I already knew that none of these things had been fixed in DXP.

Fact is, I still don't know what has been fixed or what has not been fixed,
although your whole response to my original post gives me one giant sized

JaMi Smith

* Tracking #: 8A8504141315914DB9C506BEDA84CC5C61ACF9D6

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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