Hi Joe,

I looked at the dates because your comment sparked interest. The older
dates look to me like development tool DLLs, PLD stuff (the files from
1996), icons, pretty benign and uncontrollable stuff.

If you look at the meat of the code, the file are dated 2002. I would
disagree with you just because there are so many new problems with DXP.
Even some core functions that we were familiar with have changed.

I'm just guessing, but maybe the code base of P99SE was getting very
difficult to maintain, and they opted for a 'fresh start' in many ways.

In this article: http://www.embedded.com/story/OEG20020819S0056 the
author states: "To achieve the best long-term results, it is often
necessary to have the courage to discard bad code and rewrite it."

Maybe that is where P99 ended up. Like I said, I'm just guessing.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Sapienza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 3:39 AM
> To: Protel EDA Forum
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
> 
> 
> 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to