No it's not stupid. While the assumption seems accurate, it's also
accurate to say there is lots of new code for underlying features. There
are massive changes to the GUI, but there are also lots of new features
to the underlying editors. 

The new GUI is very cool and has some great features. Once the problems
are fixed, it will be much nicer than P99SE.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: mariusrf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 8:04 AM
> To: Protel EDA Forum
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] Shazam Gollie! - SP7 Committe
> 
> 
> the fact that some bugs are common between DXP and 99se goes 
> a long way to showing that my assumption of a few days ago 
> was correct. DXP has some if not a lot of old code in it, 
> probably same simulator , autorouter and pcb edit problems , 
> but THE USER INTERFACE IS BRAND NEW . Now isn't that STUPID ?
> 
> Matt Tudor , MSEE
> http://www.gigahertzelectronics.com
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 3:38 AM
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] Shazam Gollie! - SP7 Committe
> 
> 
> > 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to