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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to