> 5. SP7 for 99SE has once again emerged as a topic of interest. The current
> SP6 is not perfect, but it is certainly functional. Some serious cleanup
and
> a few finishing touches could turn 99SE into a splendid, first-class
> program. I wholeheartedly support the idea, and hope that a strong thrust
in
> this direction can be generated.

Hey, Abdul, I know Fred wasn't directing his statements at you, but he did
remind me of some things you said in an e-mail about a year or so ago.

If I recall correctly, you said you had seen a demo of something that at the
time you thought was SP7 for 99SE.  You said it was going to be awesome,
with improvements in the AR and such.

Fast forward to the present, and the fact that SP7 never materialized, and
DXP was foisted upon us.  Abdul, did you receive disinformation, or did
Altium change their mind after they showed you the awesome pre-SP7 ?  I ask
because I would like to know what happened to the SP7 effort, if there ever
was one.  If there was, maybe Altium could dust off the code archives and
restart it to keep the angry mob (us 99SE users) at bay.

Best regards,
Ivan Baggett
Bagotronix Inc.
website:  www.bagotronix.com


----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred A Rupinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time?


> Tony,
>
> Before leaving this thread, I would like to recap a few final points:
>
> 1. This thread addresses the current practical value of DXP. Your comment,
> "The overall spin of DXP has been so bad, I think it's scary from their
> point of view and if it were me running the show I'd be listening very
> closely to this group.", along with comments from other contributors who
> echo a similar sentiment, provides us all some insight as to the current
> status of DXP. Consequently, I will wait until user reports indicate that
> DXP has become a quality product capable of addressing my needs before I
> personally evaluate it. 99SE will suffice until DXP demonstrably performs
to
> my advantage.
>
> 2. We all have been deceived by certain vendors who ship RELEASED software
> with known bugs and subsequently have been bitten by these very same bugs.
> We cope with the situation because, as you say, it may be in our better
> interest to use the buggy software. Software vendors know this, and some
of
> them unscrupulously exploit the situation. I resent this practice with the
> utmost conviction. It is unethical and I will always speak against it. A
> lawsuit is folly, but I won't side with those who are apathetic.
>
> 3. I did not invent the "sliding scale" concept you so disparage, but I
> would be happy to take credit if I did;  it's a creative marketing idea
> successfully used by other companies faced with a DXP-like situation. By
the
> way, 10,000 times $1,600 = $16,000,000. But let's try some alternative
> arithmetic. If Altium were lucky enough to find 500 buyers who would pay
> $8000 for bug-ridden software, that would yield $4,000,000, definitely not
> the better return. The THRIFTY buyers would no doubt migrate towards the
> $400/$1600 PRE-DISTRIBUTION discount, as you claim. They, of course, would
> be aware that they would pay in other ways, not the least of which is
> exposure to the risk of unproven software. But the SMART money would wait
> for the "proven" final release. Reduced risk justifies greater financial
> exposure, plus minimum liaison required with Altium, far fewer bug
episodes,
> reduced expense due to wasted time, enhanced probability of meeting
project
> schedules, higher quality board layouts..........think about it.
> Notwithstanding our lack of Altium CEO status, we can certainly relate our
> thoughts, but alas, it's not for us to tell Altium how to run their
> business.
>
> 4. Altera, Xilinx, and Visual DSP are irrelevant. I don't need them, so
why
> should I care? I have a core group of software tools I use in my work. I
> rank each one on its own merit. Likewise, DXP must stand on its own merit.
> The fact that other software may be faulty does not make DXP a better
> program.
>
> 5. SP7 for 99SE has once again emerged as a topic of interest. The current
> SP6 is not perfect, but it is certainly functional. Some serious cleanup
and
> a few finishing touches could turn 99SE into a splendid, first-class
> program. I wholeheartedly support the idea, and hope that a strong thrust
in
> this direction can be generated.
>
> Thanks for a challenging and constructive dialog.
>
> Regards,
> Fred A Rupinski



************************************************************************
* Tracking #: 6CD82D3D406AE841BB83D257C39AFA303A1F5B99
*
************************************************************************

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