I was thinking about this a bit more today. This evening Terry Creer discovered a 'new' bug. Subsequently, a few of us confirmed it in DXP. Here's an interesting perspective: It's probably clear that DXP has some if not a lot of code reuse from 99SE. If we find a bug in DXP, you know it will have very high priority. If it turns out that a bug is fixed in a module that was reused, that would be a FREE fix for the 99SE code base. A service pack might move forward for 99SE without them even trying!
Neat huh? > -----Original Message----- > From: JaMi Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 12:20 AM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Cc: JaMi Smith > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Shazam Gollie! - SP7 Committe > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > ~ ~ ~ > > > Not to jump all over you, but how do you suppose Altium is > supposed to > > fix bugs if we don't report them? > > > Excellent point Tony, > > But I think that there are actually some other priorities too! > > I think that the first thing we have to do is pull together > as a group, and "poll" the major players out there on just > what we want to do, and how we can effectively go about doing it. > > I think that it really is clear that we want and need a > Protel 99 SE SP7. > > I also think that we all must realize that Altiums priorities > are with DXP now, and we are not going to get very far if we > attempt to draw resources away from DXP, which I do not > believe that we have to do. > > I think that we have crossed the major hurdle that was in > place in that most people out there now appear that they are > really ready to admit that Protel 99 SE is if fact a software > package that has some real serious bugs out there which are > causing some real stability issues and problems, and is in > fact flaky, and that Protel / Altium has never appeared > willing to admit to any of this, nor have some of it's > staunchest supporters. > > But the facts appear to speak for themselves. > > Protel / Altium will just have to face the facts. > > I think that if Protel /Altium are faced with a unified front > from their customers and users, I think that we actually can > get a lot of things done. > > I think that another major issue and hurdle is also about to > fall into place, or actually out of the way, and that is the > issue of DXP. Many are ready to abandon Protel 99 SE in order > to jump on the DXP band wagon, thinking that all of their > software problems and shortcommings will go away once we get > past DXP SP1 and learn how to operate DXP. > > What many of those people do not understand is that even if > all of the code was rewritten, by an entirely new team of > programmers, the environment and mentality that allowed this > to happen with Protel 99 SE is still very much entrenched at > Protel / Altium, and that means that the same thing will > happen with DXP, unless the customers and users confront > Protel / Altium and let them know that this type of > programming and lack of support cannot be allowed to continue. > > I don't think that it is going to take much to convince most > people out there that unless we as a group demand more from > Protel / Altium, we are simply not going to get it. > > Many of those people will soon find that the current > attentiveness of Protel / Altium management in the DXP forum > and their willingness in trying to get things worked out with > DXP, is only a temporary situation brought about by the need > to start collecting annual renewals for ATS in just a little > over 2 weeks now, in an attempt to head off a PR and > Financial Disaster, not to mention potential legal issues. > > As soon as they can convince enough people that DXP is really > working, so that they can start collecting revenue from ATS > as well as new DXP sales, we will see that support in the > forum evaporate, and we will be in exactly in the same > position that we have been in with Protel 99 SE for the past > however many years. > > And it is not even as simple as that, not only since any new > code base not only has its own new problems, but not every > thing in DXP is in fact new, which means that there may be > some old problems sneaking into the mix. > > So as I was saying, I think that we need to organize > ourselves and come to a consensus as to our direction, and if > we cannot get everyone's support, we can at least request > that everyone ackwiess [sic?] to not interfere with an > otherwise unified attempt to get things done. > > I then think that we need to sort out just exactly what it is > that we think we want to accomplish, and go from there. > > Then I would say then comes the compilation of the real bug list. > > One of the things that I have tried to make very clear, but I > am not too sure that I have been able to do, is to let > everyone know that I do not expect Protel / Altium to have to > continue to support Protel 99 SE. > > I am not asking for that. > > What I am asking for is to have Protel / Altium make an > effort co meet its customers and users in the middle ground > somewhere, and make one last effort to fix some of the > remaining problems with Protel 99 SE so that it can continue > to be used, without some of its current problems, by all of > its current customers and users, at least up and to the point > that DXP is in fact a real and viable product. > > Then if Protel / Altium wants to abandon Protel 99 SE, since > they obviously appear to feel that they cannot develop it any > further, then so be it. > > But actually, I really I believe that with one more Service > Pack, Protel 99 SE could be transformed into a very stable, > useable, middle of the road product that they could continue > to sell just as is, for many years to come, just as it is, > with out any new development. > > More importantly, those customers and users who have bought > into Protel 99 SE relatively recently, but are just not ready > for whatever reason to step up to DXP, will be able to > continue using a much more stable version of the Protel 99 SE > product they paid good money for, rather than being totally > abandoned by Protel / Altium with Protel 99 SE left in it's > current unstable condition. > > At a very minimum, a concerted effort at this time by all > customers and users to really attempt to get to the bottom of > some of these bugs, now that we have gotten past our first > hurdle above, will at the very least leave those people who > continue to use Protel 99 SE with a fairly well researched > bug list and understanding of pitfalls and things not to do > if you do not want it to crash. > > First and foremost, most of us have jobs to do, and projects > that must get finished, so I think that one of the important > things that we must do is to respect each other's time constraints. > > This means nothing will happen overnight. > > But it also means that if we all do a little, then we really > can get things accomplished. > > That said, I nominate you all for the SP7 committee, and I > will now go to bed. > > JaMi > > > > > > > > ************************************************************** > ********** > * Tracking #: F11BB67F7999E64DA64E25752BE42D35403D8DC6 > * > ************************************************************** > ********** > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/[email protected] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
