Joe,

Please see below,

Thanks,

JaMi


----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Sapienza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 3:38 AM
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.
>

Interesting point. I never thought of it as a question of how long a
"continuous session" was, or the duration of time between "boot" and
"shutdown". This is scary. I know that in the past I have worked at big
corporations where they have brought in job shoppers and worked people
"double shift" and "triple shift" people on the same "workstations" (such
Cadnetix, Mentor, CBDS, and CADAM) to keep the "resources" in use 16 or 24
hours a day to shorten the length of large project when things have really
gotten into a crunch. If what you say is true, can you imagine what would
happen in a design department with say 5 seats of Protel, if they tried to
fully utilize their resources in the same manner today?

All of my recent problems with 99 SE SP6 within the last year have been on
three different platforms, all running Win2K, where I am generally running
Protel all day, but the system is shut down every night.

Several years ago however, I was running Protel 98 on both Win 95 ORS2 and
NT4 SP3, and while using Protel was only a small part of my job there, it
did crash on a regular basis. What used to get me there was that when Protel
98 crashed, It would loose all trace of the file. I mean lost, except for
original backup which could have been  several hours or even days or weeks
old (if I remember correctly, it did not make a new backup until you saved
the file you were currently working on , so that if you crashed, you lost
the current copy). There may have been a way to recover it (similar to those
brought up here by Dennis), but I didn't know how. That was where I learned
that when it came to Protel, I needed to "SAVE" often, and also "SAVE AS" to
multiple files every time I saved, which was easy with the old file
structure since I just had to double click on each of the two different
names I would use for primary and reserve files.

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

This is what scares me.

This is what I am afraid of.

It is not that "KLUNK!" may or may not be a problem in DXP, since Tony
already has said that it is not.

My fear is that there are many other problems of a basic nature similar to
"KLUNK!", that have been programmed into existing modules, that are being
incorporated bodily into DXP, Band-Aid and all, waiting to do their thing.

I mean programmers as a lot are fairly "consistent" people. When you are
good, you are good on a regular basis. When you are sloppy, you are sloppy
on a regular basis. When you screw up, you don't just do it once. When you
do a big and obvious "KLUNK!", there are usually several more smaller ones
hiding in the wings.

You may have noticed how I am going out of my way not to mention other
Protel problems that have discussed here in the past, and I will not bring
them up here except to say that they are "consistent" with "KLUNK!".

I mean can you imagine if you cataloged each and every "exception error"
that has occurred with Protel, just how many different ones there would be,
and just how many of each you would have, and just how many of those will
still continue to happen in DXP.

Scary.

Very scary.

> 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.
>

Exactly, it was rushed by the new management that is more and more income
driven, and as it appears more and more as each day goes by, less
technically, shall we say, "oriented", to be nice.

It is very apparent to me that what is going on in the Official Altium
Monitored DXP Forum right now, is a continuation of the "rush" and
application of yet more Band-Aids, in an attempt to "redeem" DXP and ATS in
the mind of customers before October 1st.

And the real question is, when are they going to take the time to do the
real trouble shooting and real programming to make the product, and all of
its many components, some of which have been causing problems for years,
work properly?

Unfortunately, I do not think that Altium is willing to admit the problems,
much less fix them.

I think that Altiums real agenda for the future here is a bunch of smoke and
mirrors and press releases so that they can either buy into their
"salvation" by purchasing a better product (as they are trying with PCAD),
or on the other hand, obtain their "salvation" by really "hyping up" and
"inflating" the "status" and "image" of their DXP and ATS Products (oh yes,
don't kid yourself for a minute, ATS is a management conceived "Product") so
that some bigger fish will come along and buy them up for big big
superbucks.

Well guys and gals, if we as Protel /Altium customers and users make enough
noise about what is going on here in the real world, Altium will not be able
to get away with ignoring the problems any longer, and no bigger fish in his
right mind will consider buying into a bunch of "KLUNK!s" and Band-Aids and
unhappy customers.

As I have mentioned before, maybe it is time we "clued in" a couple if
"Stock Market Analyst" and also a couple if the journals in the industry
such as EDN or EE Times to name a few. I can see the headlines now, "Altium
Refuses to Fix Products and Customers and Users Revolt!"

DXP - Don't Xpect Performance - Do Xpect Problems

Respectfully submitted,

JaMi


************************************************************************
* Tracking #: DC5D0BBC40A5364BA5D400F34DAD40C54CE43031
*
************************************************************************

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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