Jami, 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. Joe ----- 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 2.3Ghz > 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 home. > > 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 usage > 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 another, > 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 for > 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 making > 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 to > say that this is not a big problem, and my answer to them is simply that we > 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 on > exiting "main". > > Whether or not it causes other problems is secondary to the fact that it is > a programming blunder of monumental proportions, and the jury is not really > 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 my > intention to offend anyone or start another battle of words, but this is > Problem Number One in Introduction to Fundamental Programming 101, on How to > Properly Terminate any Program, and Protel / Altium has flunked the course. > > 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, for > 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 more > 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 money > managers and dream salesmen. > > These are the same people who want you to believe that they now know how to > program all of your dreams come true into a software package called DXP, and > 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 with > 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 additionally, > 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 the > current "attentiveness" of the "CEO and Management" (at least in the DXP > Forum) and use it to "leverage" Protel / Altium out of their current "chase > 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 running > 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 has > 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 better > 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 or > 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 until > Protel / Altium fixes the problem with Service Pack 7, and we are allowed to > test drive it for ourselves. > > The bottom line is this: > > No one can insist that any software application is "stable" when it exhibits > 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: * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
