On 04:32 PM 23/07/2002 -0700, JaMi Smith said:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ian Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>snip
>
> > 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
>my
> > 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.

JaMi, who maintains the User Bug database?  Don't waffle on about me not 
thinking that there are no bugs in Protel.  Of course there are bugs. In 
the past we have found that the way to get them fixed is to identify them, 
discuss them and then make lots of complaints about them. Similarly for 
feature changes.  The voice of the group has much more weight than one 
loner's rant.

Your method of engaging people is totally counter productive.  You seem to 
think your are some all-encompassing authority and will refuse to accept 
that others have valid viewpoints, that make something you originally 
thought of as a bug as a simply your preference. If you made a bigger 
effort to engage others then you would probably find that you get a much 
better reception.

You may think there are many apologists for Altium on this forum.

Advice that you will probably swear over: By calming down and recognizing 
the difference between missing features (complex pads, lack of shorting 
entities etc), real bugs (poly pours violating clearance errors, list index 
out-of-bounds), and things you would prefer to be different (zooming), and 
discussing each in an appropriate manner you would find you get a better 
discussion going and you may well begin to influence the software.

I note your comments in the thread on microstrips stating that people will 
jump on you if you call something a bug.  Only if it is *not* a bug, and 
even then only if you are being obnoxious about it.

My toaster doesn't know how to defrost bread.  I want to use it to defrost 
bread.  My toaster has a bug or a missing feature?

Protel doesn't support ties (shorting entities).  I want to use 
ties.  Protel has a bug or a missing feature?

A few physicists start to think the atomic-scale world is 
probablistic.  Many others think they are wrong (including very well known 
and respected ones like Einstein).  The few are proved correct and we have 
jobs in this field because of this.  The few are right, the many are wrong.

Protel zooms differently from other CAD packages.  Maybe the many are wrong 
and the few are right?  Just stop calling it a bug will you.


> >
> > >Granted, you and some others may have actually grown accustomed to the
>weird
> > >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.
> >
>snip
> >
> > 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
>protel
> > 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 simply made an assertion and did not back it up with any physiological 
or bio-mechanical justification.  That is not an argument it is example of 
you attempting to argue by shrill unjustified statements.

"In reality, you have to completely "re-focus" on the "new image" after a
zoom in or out irregardless of where the cursor is. Sorry, I wont buy this
one."

I don't - I am looking at the location I am working in.  PgUp and that area 
expands.  I have not moved my eyes.  The screen distance has not 
changed.  My eyes do not need to refocus.  I have not had to move my head 
to look at a different portion of the screen, so I have not had the problem 
of refinding the section of the image I was working in.  That is a 
physiological justification for my argument.  May be right maybe not - but 
it feels right to me.  I am not even saying that it is right for you.  But 
I wish you would stop telling others that they are wrong.

I am not saying that this is correct for everyone, just me (and others it 
seems).  I would support you if you said that this is a feature you would 
like as a user option.  Just stop calling it a bug.



> > >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
>have
> > 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
>break!

Why are you confusing your discussion on "re-centre after zoom" with your 
problem with mouse drivers?


> >
> > >Where again do I go to get the little drivers / servers you wrote to fix
>the
> > >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
>that
> > >you like it the way it is, they should offer the "standard" zoom in and
>out
> > >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"?

It is not a bug, it is by design!  You just don't like the design.  Bugs 
are unintended operation, as in, contrary to the design.  Zooming works 
exactly as the Protel engineers wanted it to.

I like the design of zooming in P99SE.  I dislike the zoom in my other CAD 
packages that re-centre.  I am mis-guided am I?


> >
> > >Is this what happens when you write software applications "down under"
>when
> > >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.

Of course Altium knows about MSDN.  You have evidence they don't do 
you?  Or by making your statement (that they don't) it suddenly becomes 
fact does it?  Sort of the politicians method of repeating something often 
enough so gullible people start to believe it.

If you look through the MDSN library you will find many instances of bugs 
in the OS and many bugs in software released by MS.  As an example have a 
look at:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;Q231465

Even MS has problems with their own mouse drivers.

><..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.

You're right - my mistake.  Sorry.


>snip
> > >
> > >This really is a bad sign, isn't it. What you're really telling me is
>that
> > >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
>doing
> > 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
>in
> > 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.

No, this was my mistake.


>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
>clue.

Shouldn't as nothing I have written is based on anything in DXP.  I am 
quite practised at keeping things separate.  I am simply commenting on your 
loud assertions that things you dislike qualify as bugs.  It comes across 
as arrogant.  maybe that is not what you intend but that is the impression 
I take away.

End of the thread for me, you can have free reign from here on in as far as 
I am concerned.

Bye for now,
Ian Wilson



************************************************************************
* Tracking #: 597FACA377E897468EF0ADDEF0C16E67830E3303
*
************************************************************************

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