Tony,

Sorry that came across wrong. I was not disputing that DXP ran slower. I was
querying the root cause of the issue.

Joe


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time?


> So far on the consensus, there are 2 out of 2 saying "yeah, it's slow."
> What not clear about that? ;)
>
> I'm sure just about everyone else that trys it says it's slower that
> 99SE.
> I have no idea if it's lame or that it uses extensive resources. Maybe
> it's a combination. Maybe there are some key areas that could use some
> optimization and it's coming in a service pack. Who know????
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe Sapienza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 2:36 PM
> > To: Protel EDA Forum
> > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time?
> >
> >
> > So I'm not really totally clear on the consensus of this
> > speed issue. Are you guys saying that the program itself is
> > lame or that it uses extensive resources and these resources
> > take more time to load?
> >
> > Personally MY OPINION which is worth not too much on this is
> > that the software itself is architected in a slow and tedious
> > manner and irregardless of what system (PC) you have will
> > respond sluggishly.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 3:29 PM
> > 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
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > **************************************************************
> > > > > > **********
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
>


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