Maybe that is where P99 ended up. Like I said, I'm just guessing. without sitting down and doing an in depth lookse. I am not inclined nor do I have the free time.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > 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 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
