Mike,
I truly believe if you did take a real hard look at other
programs and truly look at all of the expense involved,
you may actually wonder how these lower end systems
can claim they are a fraction of the cost.
I really mean each feature and how long it takes
between CAD  systems etc.
If you look at Protel itself being about 9K now and
Mentor Expedition and Cadence Allegro have
a seat about 11-12k. Yes that is about 2-3k more
but when you really look at what capabilities you are
getting for that extra 2-3k I believe you would have
to spend another 10K on top of Protel to even
think about getting the same capability and productivity,
for PCB design itself. You really can't just compare
feature to feature between CAD systems,
IMHO you really need to compare  "how each feature functions"
between CAD systems. I'm not saying I can't get a design done
with Protel, but quite simply I see too many things that
are much easier and less time consuming in other systems.
At this point I will be using 99SE for a bit longer but I too
am very seroiusly looking back to the other less expensive
seats of the major players. I plan on really looking at
how the functions really work and how many steps are invloved
in each function to make something happen properly.
Altium actually asked if I could shorten the evaluation
process, I mentioned I was pressed for time
at the moment, by looking at their movie about DXP. I basically
told them I need to see first hand HOW and IF all the functions
I need actually work, not some movie telling me this is how it works.
That of course would also go for any other system I look at.
A prime example would be their Matched Length capability
as it stands in my mind is absolutely useless and WAY too many
steps involved in getting it to work, should be a one shot process.

Bob Wolfe



----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Reagan (EDSI)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues


> What Rob  Young stated is what I have been saying for since Accel was
> acquired.  Just  Like some of you,   I am  taking  a very hard look at
other
> programs.  A very hard look....My future depends on having the right
> software for my requirements not someone dictating what my requirements
are.
>
> Mike Reagan
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rob Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Protel EDA Forum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 10:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
>
>
> > 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