This problem only manifests itself after long usage for you. Then it may be
related to the way it uses memory, i refer to it a memory leakage and does
occur to some people. The problem was very obvious when the early Windows
versions were release. I suspect that whatever the implemented fix was it
was manily a bandaid or leak control as we used to call it. Personally I
have not seen it as of late and my sessions never run that long, I haven't
seen any of this especially in Win2K.

Judging on the creation dates of many of the files in DXP i would surmize
that the issue could still be there as the files are from the early versions
and loaded into the new DXP front end GUI.

I think it would take a bigger redo than the fron end to fix it. I believe
that the release of DXP was very rushed to keep up with the competition as
one of the major competitors was releasing a new version at the same time.


----- Original Message -----
From: "JaMi Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "JaMi Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 4:40 AM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 9:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
> > Jami,
> >
> > Do you have the ability to install P99SE on a different machine? (I
> > can't remember if you've indicated that before). I think your frequent
> > crashes are pretty unusual.
> >
> Tony,
> Over the past year, most of my problems have been on either a Dell Model
> 4100 1GHz Pentium III or once that was upgraded, on a Dell Model 535
> Pentium 4, at work.
> I then purchased my own license, and now have my own copy of Protel 99 SE
> SP6 installed on my own IBM Model 6648 NetVista 866 MHz Pentium III at
> I actually just think that the crashes are just a matter of usage, and the
> reason it has been so high in the past several weeks is that the total
> has been an average of about 12 hours a day, with occasions reaching up to
> 18 hours straight.
> When I push Protel, it crashes!
> When Protel crashes, I scream and yell!
> I don't think that I am having more crashes than some others out there, I
> just think that I may have a slightly higher usage, and be much much more
> vocal and much much less tolerant about the crashes.
> I really really think that is as simple as that.
> I think that far far too many people out there have become accustomed to
> their systems crashing on them from time to time for one reason or
> and actually think nothing of it. Many accept it as the "cost of doing
> business" as it were, and in some cases actually blame it on themselves
> thinking that it was something that they might have done wrong, or that
> some reason the hardware or software combination that they have just does
> not live up to Protel's requirements and expectations.
> I have heard some people insist that their system is rock solid, and never
> crashes, and yet these are the very same people who admit that they have
> occasionally seen "hidden processes" or "phantom copies" of Protel still
> running when they go to shut their system down.
> This is not normal.
> This is not how software is supposed to run.
> Especially when that software is currently costing $8,000.00 a copy.
> It is not simply a fluke.
> It is not something that you did wrong.
> It is not that you have a flaky system.
> It is simply inexcusable blunders and oversights in programming.
> It really and truly is that Protel really and truly is flaky software.
> If nothing else, what we have learned today is that Protel can't even
> perform the simplest of functions of terminating its own program correctly
> and returning control and resources to the operating system, without
> an error.
> This is fundamental.
> This is an obvious blunder.
> And this problem has been there all of the time.
> I know that there may be some in this forum who would take issue and try
> say that this is not a big problem, and my answer to them is simply that
> really do not know how big the problem is since we do not have the source
> code and can therefore not really understand what is or is not happening,
> and I don't think that that is really the issue here anyway.
> I think the issue here is that this "KLUNK!" problem proves beyond any
> shadow of a doubt that there are in fact some very basic software bugs and
> problems in Protel 99 SE, and that Protel / Altium has really never looked
> at the software from a stability and reliability standpoint to see whether
> or not there really are problems there when people have complained of
> crashes.
> Do you realize the magnitude of this blunder!
> What we have found out here today is something as basic and fundamental as
> writing your very first "hello world!" program in C, and having it crash
> exiting "main".
> Whether or not it causes other problems is secondary to the fact that it
> a programming blunder of monumental proportions, and the jury is not
> in on whether or not it causes any other problems.
> These are the same people who are now trying to sell you another "can of
> worms" called DXP.
> I apologize for my little soap box oratory here,  and it is certainly not
> intention to offend anyone or start another battle of words, but this is
> Problem Number One in Introduction to Fundamental Programming 101, on How
> Properly Terminate any Program, and Protel / Altium has flunked the
> I believe that this problem needs to be widely publicized, and Protel /
> Altium needs to be pressured into "stepping up to the plate" and taking
> responsibility for the problem, and promising to do something about it,
> all current Protel 99 SE users and customers.
> There are many Protel 99 SE customers out there that have a monumental
> investment in Protel 99 SE software, and simply cannot afford to "upgrade"
> to DXP to solve the existing problems and shortcomings with Protel 99 SE.
> Don't you find it a little ironic that all of the Altium "Management" from
> the CEO on down is scrambling to pacify every whim of the users in the DXP
> Forum so that they can convince everyone that they have a real viable
> product and that they have real viable technical support, so that everyone
> will think that they should buy into DXP and ATS so that they can make
> money.
> The primary problem with that scenario is that they have not delivered the
> technical support on Protel 99 SE, and the company has undergone a
> noticeable shift from people  of technical expertise to people who are
> managers and dream salesmen.
> These are the same people who want you to believe that they now know how
> program all of your dreams come true into a software package called DXP,
> further, that once they have your money, they will continue to have their
> CEO and all of their Managers answer all of your questions and provide you
> with technical support.
> I believe that Protel / Altium needs to support their current customers
> their current products before they can expect their current customers to
> support them with any new products.
> I have previously stated here in this forum that I believe that Protel /
> Altium needs to do many things to reach out to their customers, such as
> "toll" the time limit on ATS until they have a viable DXP Product, and let
> everyone's "1 year of ATS" start from that point in time, and
> create and issue a Service Pack 7 for Protel 99 SE free of charge to those
> customers who bought into Protel 99 SE at either a Service Pack 5 or 6
> level, and charge a reasonable fee to older customers.
> Most of all, I believe that the Protel / Altium customers need to take
> advantage of the current "problems" with both Protel 99 SE and DXP, and
> current "attentiveness" of the "CEO and Management" (at least in the DXP
> Forum) and use it to "leverage" Protel / Altium out of their  current
> the money and the stock market" mode and get them into a "deliver and
> maintain a technically sound product" mode.
> I made the statement above that "this problem has been there all of the
> time", and it has.
> Just how long is that?
> Well let me put it this way. If you have a copy of Protel 98 up and
> somewhere, you might want to perform the "KLUNK!" test on that.
> Yes boys and girls, at least that long.
> Maybe longer.
> The real point here is that it is a fundamental bug, and it is eminently
> provable to be just that, a basic, fundamental, programming 101 type bug,
> and it is probably one of the primary reasons that Protel is, and always
> been, "flaky", in some installations, in spite of the fact that others
> "swear by it" and say that they never have seen the system crash.
> Yes, "flaky".
> As in "unstable".
> Yes, Protel 99 SE is in fact "flaky".
> Is there any reason to think that Protel / Altium can and will do any
> in programming and supporting DXP than they have Protel 98, Protel 99, and
> Protel 99 SE.
> My Sincere apologies if I have offended anybody, for any reason, by this
> post, and it is not my intent to argue over the "finer points" of whether
> not "KLUNK!" is responsible for all of the years of instability in Protel
> Products, because we will never truly know the answer to that question
> Protel / Altium fixes the problem with Service Pack 7, and we are allowed
> test drive it for ourselves.
> The bottom line is this:
> No one can insist that any software application is "stable" when it
> such a fundamental programming error as "KLUNK!" for such a long period of
> time.
> Respectfully submitted,
> JaMi Smith
> ************************************************************************
> * Tracking #: 1CA90CE5BD5DDF4F91DF9520748770B2536FD240
> *
> ************************************************************************

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
* Contact the list manager:
* 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