----- Original Message -----
From: "Wojciech Oborski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:22 AM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Warning to DXP Users re P99SE files

> File extensions assotiation is a Windows thing, not Protel!

This is true, but I never changed the association myself, and the thought
never occurred to me that DXP did it automatically at installation.

That is the purpose of the post - to warn others who may not realize it.


> How do you think Protel/Altium could manage this?

I am wondering what DXP was trying to do to my P99SE file, and why?

Also, Altuim has a few bad habits in Protel 99 SE, such as doing strange
things to a file (like updating it's time and date stamp when you simply
open a file and never touch it or save it, and appearently working off of
the original copy of a file unlike the rest of the world which renames it as
the backup (for example only - please do not digress into a discussion on
this issue)), and I have not had the time to see if some of these things are
carried over to DXP. I would also like them (Altium) let us (P99SE users)
know if there are any things that DXP may do to a file by opening it (such
as making changes as I thought it was doing) that would cause problems with
that file then being used again with P99SE. I think this is a reasonable
question, and I would still like to know the answer. I would think that you
and every other Protel 99 SE user out here would like to know the answer t
othat also.

I personally cannot afford to have DXP make some small change and do some
"small thing" to a file that was mistakenly opened by it instead of P99SE,
and find out that it permanantly changed the file (like the "time and date"
stamp issue above), and find out a week later that that "small thing"
somehow "corrupted" the file and made it unusable.

> Please, do not blame Altium for every possible problem or difficulty
> happening in your professional activity - maybe it's just my personal
> impression, but it's some of your recent posts that made that impression.

Yes, recently I have been pushing my computer systems and Protel 99 SE to
the limits, as we all do from time to time in a crunch, which is all the
more reason why we all need a rock solid "professional" computer systems and
rock solid "professional" computer software to use as "professional" tools
to do our "professional" job. And that is why you may hear me be a little
bit "unprofessional" about some of the unacceptable and "unprofessional"
things that Protel 99 SE does at times.

Please remember that the very first time that I really used Protel 99 SE in
a full blown "professional" application and atmosphere (not my own trial
version at home), baxk in July 2001, it crashed on me.

It has crashed on a continual and regular basis ever since.

It continues to "crash" on me to this day, inspite of my upgrading systems
and installing in on a brand new Dell 535 Workstation Pentium 4 (at work)
and a brand new IBM Netvista 6648 Pentium III (at home with my personal

This is why I have said in other posts that I believe that the single most
important thing we need in SP7 is to have the "stability issues" resolved.

Sometimes, when I try most to be "professional", and do my job and design
boards, Protel 99 SE lets me down in a very "unprofessional" manner, which
sometimes causes me to react in a like manner.

The point here is that the purpose of my original post was to warn other
users so that the same thing doesn't happen to them. Please don't read
anything into it beyond that.


Yes Altuim, as you can see, I really really not only want, but really really
do need my SP7!

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