i fought against it (DDB) and came to like it (like some others here) but i am reasonably certain you can kiss it goodbye in DXP and the future this was a calculated decision on their part and they probably have some good reasons, reducing dependency on microsoft among them
i haven't figured out their whole project approach (linked files) yet it may be a reasonable compromise i think this was one of those tough love decisions Dennis Saputelli Fabian Hartery wrote: > > I hope I am not dillusional here. I bought in an additional copy of 99SE and > picked up DXP due to the free ATS. Picking at this package like a crow, I > present a tale of woe. > > I did not like 99's original release and it took up to service pack 3 to > convince me this EDA tool would be useful. It also took some time for Protel > to convince myself that having a complete design travel within it's own data > base would be useful. Since I have no drafting office to keep me > disciplined, I have to maintain my own library support everywhere. The DDB > architecture meant that I knew what libraires affected a given design, as > they were all inclusive. > > With a cautious if, if what I see within DXP is evident, the DDB archiecture > is being thrown away for a data base linker of externally saved files. This > is a *complete* reversal of what otherwise was a great way for a small shop > to operate without ISO 9000 overhead haunting the designer into insoberity. > > There seems to be an forced arm to syncronize/integrate legacy libraires by > in DXP. While watching Ma and Pa unite is not a bad thing (symbol and > footprint), I will predict that anyone who has the least bit of sloppy > library control will empty the liquor store before I can get there. > > I am discovering some nice feature with DXP, like extended attributes SPICE > enhancements. However, when I imported a DDB file with sheet heirarchy and > saw the linkages disappear, I became concerned. I have not found a way to > get the compliation work to reintroduce the paint by numbers attachments as > of yet. > > I hope someone will dispell what I am seeing though just my few hours of > inexperience. I liked the DDB format option and I would not like to see this > format disappear. > > Fabian Hartery > Research Engineer, B. Eng (Electrical) > > Guigne International Limited > 63 Thorburn Road > St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada > A1B3M2 > tel: 709-738-4070 > fax: 709-738-4093 > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > website: www.guigne.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Karavidas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 5:00 PM > To: 'Protel EDA Forum' > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > I basically agree with you. > > BTW, the speed problem is not just your system. I think DXP is much > slower too and I want it fixed. There is one area which compounds the > problem: screen redraws are done after the screen data has been > computed. So even if the speed were the same, there is a visible delay > that wasn't there before. In 99SE, we can 'watch' the screen repaint. In > DXP it does the work in the background without visual feedback and then > BAM, the screen updated in a flash. The new process also seems to affect > panning. I sort of prefer the old way, but if the new way were faster, I > wouldn't care. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rob Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 12:06 PM > > To: Protel EDA Forum > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > > > > Tony, > > > > This is entirely a personal preference issue from a long time > > Protel user. My comments with the new dialogs is a very small > > issue and would not prevent me from upgrading to DXP, but I > > liked the idea of having all data in one column that I could > > just quickly scan down for pads, tracks, text etc and all > > were pretty much consistent in how they looked. While I like > > the new look, I am not yet sure I will like visually scanning > > through the graphics versus the P99SE list for relevant > > information. Considering the tab key function, it may not > > slow a user down too much, but the quick glance at attributes > > between different dialogs in DXP will take some getting used > > to. In my opinion, it will take longer to focus on the > > desired attribute, but this could be resolved with DXP > > experience as you mentioned. Unfortunately, being > > experienced with DXP will take some time for me since I will > > not upgrade until several more pressing issues are worked out > > and my demo is now over. Speed of the app being one of them > > and being compatible with P99SE designs another. Perhaps it > > is just my system, but P99SE runs much quicker and smoother > > than DXP in my case. I have several designs loaded with > > split planes that currently do not import properly to DXP > > along with all the CAM and print settings being wiped out. > > DXP needs a lot more work yet, I am just frustrated that we > > are going through this again after the same thing happened > > with the first P99 release. The addition of ATS just makes > > it much worse. > > > > Rob > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 2:15 PM > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > > > > > Why is that? Once you're experienced with DXP (or any app) you know > > > where to find stuff. The glitz doesn't slow me down. The > > speed of the > > > app (or lack of speed) slows me down. > > > > > > What would be the most proficient would be to have the tab key jump > > > between the editable fields in the order of most used which could > > > easily be determined by a survey on these lists. > > > > > > For example on a component pad, the first field highlighted is > > > Designator. I think that makes sense. However, if you press > > tab a few > > > times you get this order: > > > > > > Hole Size > > > Layer > > > Rotation > > > Xlocation > > > etc... > > > > > > After a while you get to X size and Ysize. I don't know > > about you, but > > > I find myself tweaking those two things way more often than the > > > location of the pad. I personally would like to see it more > > like this, > > > where the plated status is brought to the first tab instead > > of the 3rd > > > tab. I usually never mess with the net association because the > > > schematic drives that. > > > > > > Here is a mockup: http://www.encoreelectronics.com/padedit.jpg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Rob Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 6:31 AM > > > > To: Protel EDA Forum > > > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ian, > > > > > 7) Dialogs are not as easily navigated as in P99SE - > > they may look > > > > > nicer but I find it harder to find the editable elements. > > > > I am in complete agreement with you on the dialogs. I > > forgot to add > > > > that to my list of issues with DXP. I find it much > > easier to find > > > > relevant attributes in a well organized list like P99SE has, not > > > > with them all haphazardly placed among "glitz" and > > "glamour". These > > > > new dialogs may help the new user, but once you are > > proficient with > > > > Protel, I think it tends to slow the user down. Rob > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Ian Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 10:35 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 02:48 AM 5/09/02 +0100, you wrote: > > > > > ><..snip..> > > > > > >As the title said Cruch time - do I spend any more > > time looking > > > > > >at the > > > > DXP > > > > > >demo and upcoming SP1 re-learning how to use it or do I > > > > spend my time > > > > > >looking at other packages? > > > > > > > > > > > >What do you guys think? > > > > > > > > > > My feelings are very mixed. I have not tried all of the > > > > features and > > > > > have not done much after the beta program finished. I am > > > > waiting for > > > > > the first service pack before I see what has changed since > > > > the beta. > > > > > So when I say what I like or dislike it may be that I have > > > > not tried > > > > > your favorite feature or tested your favorite(!) bug. > > > > > > > > > > Likes: > > > > > 1) query language and reltaed to that the much more powerful > > > > > design rules > > > > > 2) Sim post processing is improved > > > > > 3) New ERC options > > > > > 4) Integrated libraries should help configuration control > > > > > > > > > > Dislikes: > > > > > 1) speed > > > > > 2) globals are slower and some things very much harder to > > > > work out how > > > > > to do (but see Likes point 1). > > > > > 3) Router is very disappointing - I was hoping for a > > break through > > > > > here. > > > > > 4) No SDK released (yet) > > > > > 5) I think the spreadsheet view should *not* be on the same > > > > panel as the > > > > > filter. > > > > > 6) ATS > > > > > 7) Dialogs are not as easily navigated as in P99SE - they > > > > may look nicer > > > > > but I find it harder to find the editable elements. > > > > > 8) Greater reliance on mouse compared to P99SE - this > > > > affects productivity > > > > > 9) loss of Selected vs Focussed feature in P99SE and no > > > > provision for a > > > > > workable replacement (simply making the system more like > > > > other Windows > > > > apps > > > > > is a retrograde step IMO) > > > > > > > > > > There are others but these are the major ones I can think > > > > of just now. > > > > > > > > > > As an indicator - I have started a few new designs in the > > > > last week or > > > > > so. All of these are being done in P99SE. I have a > > rather "down" > > > > > feeling about it. Lots to like but ATS really makes the > > > > equation more > > > > > complex > > > > than > > > > > it used to be. > > > > > > > > > > I will re-evaluate after SP1. > > > > > > > > > > Ian Wilson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ******************************************************************** > > > > ** > > > > > ** > > > > > * Tracking #: F798CC54297D2F409329F8E4E9D6CD6A24CD0BED > > > > > * > > > > > > > > > ************************************************************** > > > > ********** > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged > information and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to > which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify > the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy > any copies from your system; you should not copy the message or disclose > its contents to anyone. Any dissemination, distribution or use of this > information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized > and may be illegal. We cannot accept liability for any damage sustained > as a result of software viruses and advise you to carry out your own virus > checks before opening any attachment. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ___________________________________________________________________________ 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/[email protected] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
