There are many factors in the same equation, but as I see it, they had to come up with 
something completely new so they could introduce the ATS. That, to me, is the most 
important factor in all this. They are fighting for revenue, as any other busines 
does. That they might lose in the end is a law of (business) nature.


-----Original Message-----
From: mariusrf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, 8 September 2002 4:06 AM
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.

----- 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: 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.

discarding bad code is one thing, changing top level GUI specs is another .
They decided to incorporate new "features" and discard old features based on
management perception rather than user feedback. Starting from scratch new
code doesn't mean discarding the old menus or feature set . All it needed
was some corrections and some additions to be a better EDa tool than 99se or
the competition . Then with the brand new enhanced spec software engineers
could've written code in any language of their choice and on any platform .
Altium should have correlated the feature set with the market segment
they're addressing. They should've made an effort to keep the familiar menus
regardless of the underlying code whenever possible. IT looks a lot like the
"not invented here" syndrome , new development team is brought in, old
people let go, new people badmouth old ones and then change everything
including what was good. This was terribly foolish because Altium was
somewhere up there on the learning curve in designing EDA tools . 99se was
the nth iteration with lots of incremental improvements over previous
versions. Giving up their functionality and replacing them with different
options/menus/features threw them years back on the evolution scale. They
could've rewritten the whole program from scratch but still maintain a top
level GUI familiar interface , instead I bet they rewrote the GUI and
probably patched the old underlying code. I'm sure it's still that Delphi
code BTW . An example of how not to develop software, or what happens to
shareholders money when management doesn't have a clue. They are currently
reinventing the wheel , unfortunately it's still square or octagonal at best

Matt Tudor , MSEE

p.s. in this day and age the PLD tool makes no sense whatsoever , Xilinx,
Actel, Atmel, Altera offer free tools with better funcionality , which have
the added advantage that they actually _work_ for a change .

* Tracking #: B583A16F9F0D87409C1CC56EB92C8E2B42E82B54

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To leave this list visit:
* Contact the list manager:
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to