On 04:09 PM 1/08/2002 -0500, Matt Pobursky said: >On Thu, 1 Aug 2002 14:20:07 -0400, Watnoski, Michael wrote: > >Greetings all, > > > > Another two cents: > > > > Protel has been my biggest headache as far as crashes due to > >upgrades of other programs. I would expect that if Protel needed specific > >versions of .dlls to run, it should have written them and not used the > >Microsoft versions that are likely to be updated on a regular basis. I am > >Actually, they should just put ALL their ancillary config files, required >DLL's and such in the Protel owned and created directory. End of problem.
Actually it isn't - at least until Win XP came along. Pretty much only one DLL of a certain name can exist in memory pre-XP. Win XP now allows different versions of a DLL to exist in memory (I think). This is the MS solution to DLL hell. >Again, not very defensive programming practices. Somewhat forced by the OS in this case but I agree that, at least historically Protel products have not been very defensive. But do remember that the user community was split in 1999 as to whether the application should trade speed for stability. Ian ************************************************************************ * Tracking #: 359C05030908664CBC51CCEC9FEA08FC302B19E6 * ************************************************************************ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
