Maybe with all the issues that have been pointed out to them since the
'official' release, they are swamped with prioritizing and fixing
issues. This may leave little time for email replies.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 11:29 AM
> To: Protel EDA Forum
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
> 
> 
> I should also point out that early on in the DXP forum, 
> Altium did respond to questions and comments which was very 
> encouraging, but as time has progressed, they seem to have 
> clammed up on some issues.
> 
> Rob Young
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rob Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 2:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
> 
> 
> > What's even worse than not responding to my requests on the 
> DXP forum, 
> > is that I sent them a copy of a file in question and was 
> given an ID 
> > number 5211.  After not hearing about what Altium thought 
> of the issue 
> > on split planes, I emailed them directly to find out where things 
> > stood and made it clear I would like to know if the demo 
> version was 
> > different from the production version.  Also since my demo 
> was running 
> > out in 9 days, I would like to have had the opportunity to try some 
> > workarounds.  My demo ran out
> a
> > couple of days ago and I have not had any responses to my direct 
> > emails to Altium.  Perhaps they are on vacation or their 
> email servers 
> > are having problems.  I understand they may have been busy and the 
> > issue may be one that requires more than just a quick look, but a 
> > response to my email with
> a
> > progress report would have been appropriate.  I just 
> assumed I am now 
> > blacklisted since I am not an ATS subscriber, but based on Dennis's 
> > experience who is an ATS subscriber, it would seem that 
> Altium is not
> living
> > up to their promise on improved support with ATS.
> >
> > I personally only use the PCB and Schematic tools and really don't 
> > care to support all these other tools that I will never 
> use.  If this 
> > new
> direction
> > that Altium is taking continues, there will be a tremendous 
> > opportunity
> for
> > some bright software people who want to duplicate what 
> Protel did so 
> > many years ago.  If I'm not mistaken, I think it was the old Tango 
> > developers that created Protel after Accel bought Tango.  I 
> could be 
> > wrong, but I
> seem
> > to remember such a story.
> >
> > I truly hope I am wrong in my impressions of where Altium is going, 
> > but I fear that based on events since the release of DXP 
> that may not 
> > be the
> case.
> >
> > Rob Young
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dennis Saputelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 1:22 PM
> > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
> >
> >
> > > ****
> > >
> > > regarding Rob's comment about getting no response because 
> he is not 
> > > on ATS
> > >
> > > not so!
> > > i have ATS and have gotten ZERO response to more than several 
> > > questions which i have posted on the DXP list and also repeated 
> > > there (they may not have been questions they wanted to hear about)
> > >
> > > i have been using protel since autotrax (DOS)
> > > i went through all the cycles, i, like Rob, have been directly 
> > > responsible for AT LEAST 5 companies adopting protel, often under 
> > > protest would i do that now?
> > > no way, in fact being a protel advocate is a bit of an 
> embarrassment at
> > > the moment
> > >
> > > what is the current value of ATS ? (in my humble opinion) 
> NOTHING - 
> > > ZERO - NADA in short it is worthless
> > >
> > > i think at this point the only way they can resurrect 
> some good will 
> > > from ATS owners is to issue the long overdue SP7 for 99SE
> > >
> > > since this would have the effect of making people even less 
> > > motivated to move to DXP then they would then have redouble their 
> > > efforts to improve DXP enough to seduce us to make the move
> > >
> > > in other words actually earn their keep, offer real value in 
> > > exchange for money
> > >
> > > Dennis Saputelli
> > >
> > >
> > > "John A. Ross [Design]" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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 #: 06DD5C4C586F0E4981A6E27A95B65660427F5D7E
> > > *
> > > 
> **************************************************************
> **********
> > > --
> > >
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> _____________
> > > www.integratedcontrolsinc.com            Integrated Controls, Inc.
> > >    tel: 415-647-0480                        2851 21st Street
> > >       fax: 415-647-3003                        San 
> Francisco, CA 94110
> 

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