I'm tired of talking to you about this. I understand it's a problem for you
and it's terrible that's it causing you so much grief. But as easily as you
say "IT IS PROTEL'S FAULT AND IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO FIX THE BUG!!!!"
why can't you seem to grasp your own words when you tell us changing your
mouse fixes the problem?

Don't you think this sentence could be true: "IT IS MICROSOFT'S MOUSE DRIVER
FAULT AND IT IS THEIR(MS) RESPONSIBILITY TO FIX THE BUG!!!!"

Microsoft Mouse = Bug
Logitech Mouse != Bug
MS Mouse on Jami's system = Bug
MS Mouse on Tony's system != Bug

You admit that PROTEL WORKS with a Logitech mouse.
You hear from me that PROTEL WORKS with a Microsoft Mouse (on MY system)

Why do you insist it's Protel's fault? Maybe they could be generous and find
a 'workaround' for your screwed up mouse, but I certainly don't blame them
for it.

I'm done!

Tony




> -----Original Message-----
> From: JaMi Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 12:58 PM
> To: Protel EDA Forum
> Cc: JaMi Smith
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] Speaking of Protel Bugs.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> snip
>
> > > The real issue is that statements like:
> > > > No it's not unstable. (Not for me at least) That is exactly
> > > what I'm using
> > > > for a mouse.
> > > > I'm using whatever driver that came with Win2000.
> > > gloss over the problem. The operative phrase is "(Not for me at
> > > least)", and
> > > that is a primary indication that could in fact be a Protel
> > > problem, simply
> > > by virtue of the fact that it is so inconsistant. (In
> reality, the very
> > > nature of the problem itself points the finger at Protel).
> >
> > What!? You have examples of people that use the MS wheel mouse just fine
> > with P99SE.
> >
>
> That is exactly what I was responding to here - someone saying that they
> were using a Microsoft Wheel Mouse and the software delivered with Windowa
> 2000 (which is Intellimouse), and he was saying that it worked just fine.
> Ask him.
>
> > Next, you state you GOT RID of your MS mouse and purchased a Logitech
> mouse
> > and all your problems went away and you STILL blame Protel?
> Man, I do not
> > understand your thinking...
> > It could be a Dell problem, who knows. Yeah it could be
> Protel's problem,
> > but the evidence would point in many other places.
> > (I bet you think OJ didn't do it either.)
> >
>
> You are correct!
>
> Protel crashed regulary with the Microsoft wheel mouse and Microsoft
> Intellimouse software that was delivered with the Microsoft Windows 2000
> Professional Operating System on a brand new Dell Deminsion 4100. Protel
> lost the Keboard Shortcuts instantly after touching the "wheel" every time
> Protel was run. By this I mean that when you ran Protel, the keyboard
> shortcuts operated perfectly right up to the instant that you rotated the
> wheel 1 click. This identical behavior caused identical crashes on 3
> identical Dell Dimension 4100 machines.
>
> I corrected the bug which caused the crashes and the loss of the Keyboard
> Shortcuts by installing a Logitech wheel mouse and Logitech Mouseware
> software.
>
> Protel 99 SE with SP 6 would not operate without crashing on a brand new
> unmodified out of the box system from a major computer manufacturer.
>
> This is a known problem which has been in the "knowledge base" ever since
> Protel 98.
>
> This is why I call it a BUG.
>
> What about this do you not understand?
>
> Of course he did it. Everybody knows he did it including the jury.
>
>
> >
> > > I would almost be willing to bet that if all of the Logitech
> > > Mouse users out
> > > there were to reinstall their operating systems fresh and not
> reinstall
> > > their "Mouseware", and scrounged another mouse with a wheel for a
> > > test (did
> > > not use the Logitech mouse) that 50% of them would find out that they
> have
> > > the problem.
> >
> > I'd like to see that. If protel could get a grip on the problem
> maybe they
> > could fix it.
>
> Why do you think I have been screeming and yelling about it!
>
> >
> > How about a poll?? EVERYONE ON THIS LIST THAT HAS THIS PROBLEM SHOULD
> EMAIL
> > THE LIST SO 'WE' CAN COUNT THEM.
>
> What!
>
> If only 10 people have the Bug it's not a Bug?
>
> There have been ample complaints directly to Protel to establist to Protel
> that it is a Bug! This is why it has been in Protel's own
> Knowledge Base for
> so long.
>
> PROTEL KNOWS IT'S A BUG!
>
> THATS WHY I'M BITCHING SO MUCH!
>
> PROTEL KNOWS IT'S A BUG!
>
> PROTEL HAS KNOWN THAT THIS IS A BUG EVER SINCE PROTEL 98!
>
> PROTEL KNOWS IT'S A BUG!
>
> PROTEL EITHER WON'T FIX IT,  OR CAN'T FIX IT!
>
> IF THEY WONT FIX IT, I BELIEVE THAT ALL OF THEIR CUSTOMERS AND
> POTENTIAL NEW
> CUSTOMERS NEED TO KNOW THAT THEY WON'T FIX IT. I BELIEVE THAT
> THIS POSITION
> IS UNACCEPTABLE.
>
> IF THEY CAN'T FIX IT, I QUESTION THEIR COMPETANCE AS PROGRAMMERS, AND THAT
> IS WHY I BELIEVE THAT THEY SHOUD SEEK ASSISTANCE FROM MICROSOFT.
>
> I ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIND THE
> PROBLEM AND HAVE
> CHOSEN TO IGNORE IT AND HOPE THAT IT WILL GO AWAY. I FOR ONE WILL
> NOT LET IT
> GO AWAY
>
> >
> > I did a design on an audio card that worked in all PCI
> Macintosh computers
> > except for this one guy. We wanted to be pro-active and try and
> solve the
> > problem just in case it was the 'tip of the iceberg' sort of thing. The
> > customer agreed to ship his computer to us for evaluation and
> we could NOT
> > figure it out in a reasonable time ( under 1 week) We purchased another
> > similarly configured system and it worked on that one.
> >
> > We probably could have found it with enough time, but it wasn't
> worth the
> > thousands of dollars the company was burning on it so we returned the
> > computer and issues the guy a full refund and some brownie points.
> > The problem YOU have may be hard for Protel to reproduce, period.
> >
>
> Not even comparable - This has been reported directly to Protel by enough
> different people that it has been in their Knowledge Base for
> years, not to
> mention the occurances reported in this forum.
>
> >
> >
> > > While companies such as Microsoft do there best to see that
> > > different pieces
> > > of hardware from different suppliers all work the same in their
> Operating
> > > Systems, we all know that the simple truth of the matter is that
> > > they don't.
> > > Part of this is Microsoft, and part of this is the different
> manufacturers
> > > who write the different drivers for their own products.
> >
> > I agree, but then again, look how many bugs are in MS code?
> TONS. Yes it's
> a
> > lot of code, but if you track driver updates, service packs,
> etc, you get
> > the idea of how many problems are lurking.
> >
>
> That is why they (Protel) need to join the Microsoft System Development
> Network, to be able to keep on top of the problems and get help from
> Microsoft.
>
> >
> > > I could accept some of the Microsoft Bashing and pointing the blame
> > > elsewhere if in fact Protel / Altium would specify a "Golden
> System" (a
> > > specific brand of hardware in a specific configuration) that
> > > their software
> > > was guarenteed to work perfectly with, but they haven't and apparently
> > > won't. I therefore maintain that Protel / Altium is responsible for
> making
> > > sure that there software will work properly with any relativey
> > > new "generic"
> > > hardware running "generic" installations of the Operating Systems
> software
> > > they "claim" Protel will "run on" (Windows 95, 98, 2000, and
> NT), using
> > > "generic" periferials (any somewhat "standard" mouse (as in
> Microsoft),
> or
> > > printer (as in HP)). We all demand this this for any other
> > > software we buy,
> > > why not Protel.
> >
> > I wasn't MS bashing; I was saying it's not cut and dry Protel's fault.
>
> Errrrgh!!! So Maybe it is the falt of the original programmer who Protel
> hired to do the code - Sheeeesh!!! IT IS PROTEL'S FAULT AND IT IS THEIR
> RESPONSIBILITY TO FIX THE BUG!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >
> > I completely agree!!! They should specify 1 or more systems
> that would be
> > 'perfect' for 99SE.
> > Shit, we spend $8000 on s/w, who cares what a system costs if it works
> > reliably.
> >
> >
> > > snip
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > >2. ) I am also betting that the anti-intuitave panning is
> > > still there
> > > snip
> > > >
> > > > I disagree completely. PADS PowerPCB does it the way you request and
> it
> > > > sucks. I keep having to find the area of interest because it jumped
> > > > somewhere on my screen. Yes, it's more or less in the center,
> > > but my eyes
> > > > weren't in the center before the jump so I have to focus in on it.
> That
> > > > isn't natural.
> > > >
> > > > I like the way Protel did it. It keeps the item in my original
> > > focus still
> > > > in focus after the zoom operation.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Funny that you mention your eyes and "original focus".
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > No I don't have to "re-focus." When I'm looking at something,
> somewhere on
> > my screen, I put the cursor THERE and press PageUP. Guess what?
> It zoomed
> in
> > exactly where my eyes were positioned, and I do not have to refocus or
> hunt
> > for position. BTW, there is no such word as irregardless. It is
> > "regardless."
> >
> Alright - I'm brain dead - I ment irrespective and wrote irregardless -
>
> I think we are all using the wrong term here when we say
> "re-focus" because
> we don't actually have to "re-focus" in any of the scenearios
> that have been
> mentioned here in this thread. I believe that it would be more correct to
> say that we have to "re-aquire" or "re-visualize" the new image.
> I will say
> more on this is another response to another parallel post.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > Most people "look around" at different points of an image such as that
> > > presented by the Protel display screen. and in fact usually zoom in or
> out
> > > so that they can observe either more of a certain portion of that
> > > image, or
> > > view a certain portion closer and in more detail.
> > >
> > > Forgive me. I believe your arguement is simply not realistic.
> > >
> > > I believe that your only valid arguement would be personal
> preferences.
> > > Personal preferences will vary from user to user. Personal
> > > preferences will
> > > also sometimes change within as short a time as a few days or
> > > weeks when the
> > > same user gets a new toy to play with, such as a  new version of the
> same
> > > software that might implement something differently. All said
> and done,
> > > Protel is still the odd man out in the industry.
> > >
> > > Why? I am beginning to boil it down to either one of two posibilities.
> > > Protel software programmers and developers either don't know what the
> rest
> > > of the world has been doing for the past 25 years, or they
> simply "don't
> > > care" and are going to do it their way anyway.
> >
> > And (I hate this phrase) 'thinking outside the box' is a bad thing? We
> > wouldn't have many features in P99 if Protel software programmers and
> > developers did it like "the rest of the world."
> >
>
> No one has said thinking outside the box or doing things differently is a
> bad thing.
>
> I am a fairly creative individual and have a patent and some published
> articles to prove it. I certainly am not against progress or looking for a
> better way to do things.
>
> Just because something is new or different does not make it good
> or better.
>
> Some things are done in certain ways because they happen to work.
>
> Some things are done in certain ways because they happen to
> always have been
> done that way. This is not necessarily good, but it is not necessarily bad
> either.
>
> Some things are just screwed up, plain and simple.
>
> Not liking something because it is different is not the same as resisting
> change.
>
> Not liking something that is different and also screwed up
> usually has more
> to do with the fact that it is screwed up rather than because it it
> different.
>
> >
> > > snip
> > >
> > > > Use the home key...it's 1 cm away from the page up key. I
> would think
> by
> > > now
> > > > you could find it without looking for it. If you dont like that,
> > > > right-mouse-button drag the screen.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why do I have to hit one more key?
> >
> > Why do I have to look around the screen needlessly?
> >
>
> As stated above - you have to "re-aquire" anyway, no matter what.
> why do you
> have to do any more than that (such as hitting another key). See parallel
> post.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > I am not as keyboard proficient as many other people out
> there are, and
> I
> > > usually have to "look" at the keyboard to find the Home key (which is
> > > actually almost 4 cm away (center to centrer)), and then "look"
> > > again to put
> > > my fingers back on the PgUp and PgDn keys to continue zooming
> in or out.
> >
> > The MS Natural keyboard has them right near each other. The END key is
> right
> > there too for quick redraws.
> >
>
> Like I said - call me stupid - I have to look at the keyboard.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > Thats the problem! Talk about loosing your "original focus" and
> > > then having
> > > to re-aquire it again! I believe your arguement regarding keeping
> > > things "in
> > > focus" (as it were) actually works in favor of having the zoomed image
> > > "center" about the cursor after a zoom, just like the rest of the
> > > world does
> > > it, rather than looking for and pressing another key.
> >
> > I don't need to look away to press the keys.
> >
> >
>
> Like I said - call me stupid - I have to look at the keyboard - and then I
> have to look back at the screen and "re-aquire" the image - and that is a
> waste of my time - that slows me down.
>
> JaMi Smith
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> * Tracking #: D0EF54A748B8D249B151A073040D1E101FA31BA4
> *
> ************************************************************************
>
>

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