Speaking of the Beta program, I asked to be part of the Beta program for DXP
and was not selected.  I have been using Protel since version 1.12 back in
1993 I believe, so I would have thought that my input would have been worth
something to them.  For whatever reason, they chose not to include me.  That
was fine as I have too much work to do anyway.  The reason I have recently
stepped up and began using the DXP demo, is that I have a great interest in
seeing that our beloved Protel continues as it has.  While Protel has never
been perfect, in my opinion, it has been the best value on the market for
manual PCB layout and schematic capture.  But now, just as they have been
gaining ground they decide to make this ATS policy along with a repeat of
the P99 release.  I nearly severed my Protel relationship over the bugs in
P99 and continued to use P98 until P99SE came out.  I was encouraged in that
the P99SE release directly addressed many of the concerns on this group.  It
is quite upsetting to see them repeat that mistake again, but this time,
they expect us to pay for it as well.  Also it just occurred to me as why I
am not getting any responses from Altium on the many issues I asked about in
the demo........ I am not a current ATS subscriber!  So I am now being
shunned for previewing their new release.  Not a great way to treat a long
time user and supporter of Protel in my opinion.  As a consultant, I have
been responsible for many more seats of Protel than just my seat.  With
Altium's current attitude, I will recommend to all of my clients that they
wait to see what the outcome of the ATS policy will really be and until DXP
has matured enough to be a usable package.  Unless Altium intends to be more
aggressive with service packs on ATS, that will be at least a year and maybe
more based upon past experience.

As much as I would like to see SP7, I don't think Altium will provide one as
it is not in their new company model to continue with P99SE.  They want to
move everyone over to DXP and start to collect ATS fees for what is
currently an inferior product.  Perhaps if they would provide SP7 under the
ATS program, it would make the ATS worth something.  Then a user could
continue to use P99SE with new features and bug fixes and feel like they got
something for their money while DXP was getting refined.  Plus the user
would be able to test DXP and provide valuable feedback to Altium.  I just
don't agree with paying ATS for bug fixes.  New features, yes... telephone
tech support for those that need it, yes... fixing buggy software,
absolutely not!

Is it just me or does it seem like Accel was the one who bought Protel?
Ever since Protel purchased Accel and changed their name to Atium, it seems
that most people at Altium are former Accel people and the new policies seem
to be old Accel policies.  I fear that the Protel us long time users have
come to know and respect is no longer in existence.

Rob



----- Original Message -----
From: "John A. Ross [Design]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues


> From: "Brad Velander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 4:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
>
>
> > Rob, could you explain your comments about the Cam Manager in DXP a
> > little better. Do you mean to say that every time you want to generate
> > Gerber/Drill output, you have to reconfigure your output formats
manually
> > each time? If what I think you are saying is true, who is the rocket
> > scientist at Protel that blew that one. You know how many mistakes are
> made
> > generating gerber/drill formats on an initial configuration, saving and
> > tweaking those configurations is only the minimal acceptable feature for
> the
> > past 10 years (some packages longer than that). Aaaarghhh, Protel/Altium
> > just don't know what the f#$% they are doing, incompetent, completely
> > incompetent.
>
> Brad
>
> You have to generate the ouptuts in the individual groups (gerber, drill
> etc).
>
> Pre Cam-Manager style. So we have ANOTHER step backwards, productivity
wise.
> Pay more (ATS) do less! Dont figure with me.
>
> The features in DXP that I would have welcomed (productivity increase)
might
> not have been so easy to get into a SP7 in 99SE as a database change was
> needed to accomodate them. BUT, a gradual change into DXP from 99SE
> enviroment (SP7) would have been less of a shock than it stands now.
>
> I got my 'ATS' copy of DXP as I bought a new 99SE license Q2 this year.
But
> after using the trial version first, I would say I would rather have seen
a
> SP7 than DXP. For now the 'good' in DXP (and there is some) so far does
not
> justify the amount of missed features and reduced productivity for me as
> compared to 99SE.
>
> Although I would not say Altium were completely incompetent with DXP, what
I
> would say is that whovever did the market/user research on what changes &
> features should be added into DXP, well, they simply asked the wrong
people
> or did not ask in the first place, just skimmed the user lists and made a
> few notes. The beta program obviously did not take in a big enough cross
> section of users (not just loyal experts) to yeild accurate information on
> what the 'average user' would like or need, and of course those that did
> beta test, have their gag order to contend with, so we will never know. I
> would have thought after the 99->99SE experience, the situation would not
> have occurred again, oh my....
>
> :-(
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Brad Velander.
> >
> > Lead PCB Designer
> > Norsat International Inc.
> > Microwave Products
> > Tel   (604) 292-9089 (direct line)
> > Fax  (604) 292-9010
> > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.norsat.com
> > Norsat's Microwave Products Division has now achieved ISO 9001:2000
> > certification
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Rob Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 6:48 AM
> > > To: Protel EDA Forum
> > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
> > >
> > >
> > > If there were a service pack 7 that also included some long
> > > requested new
> > > features that are now included in DXP, I would be much more
> > > inclined to pay
> > > for SP7 than for DXP.  DXP is promising in some areas, but completely
> > > useless for me in it's current state.  I fail to understand
> > > why Altium had
> > > to so drastically change the interface that long time Protel
> > > users will now
> > > have to retrain themselves.  Features that I would pay for in
> > > SP7 that are
> > > currently in DXP would be items such as:
> > >
> > > 1.  Layer Pairing in PCB
> > > 2.  Associative Dimensions
> > > 3.  Break wire with part in Schematic
> > > 4.  Right-click panning in schematic like in PCB now.
> > > 5.  Better padstack control in PCB
> > > 6.  Part editing in Schematic like in PCB now.
> > > 7.  Multi-channel capability in Sch and PCB.
> > > 8.  Automatic edge pullback on PCB planes.
> > > 9.  Query ability (but please leave existing global options alone!)
> > > 10.  Ability to exclude certain components from the BOM.
> > >
> > <SNIP>
> > >
> > > 5.  Cam manager is gone from PCB.  Instead of hitting "F9" to
> > > process all
> > > your cam outputs in one keystroke, you will now have to
> > > process gerbers, nc
> > > drill files, pick & place and testpoint data individually.
> > >
> > <SNIP>
> > >
> > > Rob
> > >
> >
> > ************************************************************************
> > * Tracking #: BA77E5364D6AD9448C59DC2067018139B233CB65
> > *
> > ************************************************************************

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