I wouldn't disagree with you much, but to add a few other thoughts:

Did P98 "KLUNK!" back in 1998 on Win98? Maybe a service pack to windows,
or win2k or winXP changed somehow and caused the "KLUNK!" to start. The
reason I ask that is because I have a simple app I purchased and it was
running fine one win98, then on win2k. At some point I tried it on winXP
and the minimize button no longer worked! How could a simple, ubiquitous
task as minimize stop working?? I have no idea, but I asked the vendor
that supports the app and they say they are aware of it and will release
a fix at some point. Does the lack of a date mean they aren't sure why
it broke?

I know you do PCB layout, but do you design software also?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: JaMi Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 1:41 AM
> To: Protel EDA Forum
> Cc: JaMi Smith
> 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:
* 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