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: * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
