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

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:
* 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