Jami,

I read this and I agree with some of it. Keeping in mind several reasons for
the timing of an Immature release, or a late release I understand the sales
and marketing side of the argument. As far as the user side It is
unacceptable to consume time sorting out the problems in a new tool that is
both expensive and allegedly an improvement of something already in place.
The real question is where threshold of diminishing short and longterm
returns are in each users individual organization.

With regard to the klunk issue i recommend just giving the system a shutdown
whenever you go to lunch or a meeting or whaever and that may help clear the
memory and residuals therein. That is provided you can afford the reboot
times with your particular conditions.

Joe



----- Original Message -----
From: "JaMi Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "JaMi Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.


> 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