Thanks Mike, I was afraid that there would be a few out there that wouldn't quite get the pun.
For those who still might not get it, here goes. A while back, here in this forum (or possibly one of the Yahoo! counterparts of this forum), I made some references to Protel 99 and Protel 99 SE as if they were two separate products, and I was soundly corrected, and told that they were in fact the same product, which had been originally released as Protel 99, which had a lot of problems and shortcomings (i.e.: didn't work), but which had undergone such radical changes that at the time that Service Pack 2 was released that it was actually renamed and became Protel 99 SE (for Second Edition (just as in Windows 98 SE)). This is what I was told. I can't vouch for it's accuracy, since I wasn't there. I am only going on what to me is "Protel Folk Lore", propagated by the Elders of the Protel World and the Keepers (or is it Makers) of Protel Legend. With this "Tradition" of releasing a product that has a lot of shortcomings and major problems (i.e.: doesn't work), and then finally getting things together and undergoing a radical change by the time of the Service Pack 2 level, I saw a direct parallel with the current Protel DXP situation where Protel / Altium even announced in advance to all of its Licensees that it would be issuing a new Protel DXP CD when it released Service Pack 2, due to the major changes and upgrades to the product. Hence, in reading the Letter that accompanied the Distribution of the new Protel DXP CD, which stated among other things (such as the addition of the nVisage capabilities) that Service Pack 2 provided "significant improvements to the system's PCB design capabilities", and went on to state that "This service pack constitutes a major update to the entire end-to-end product", I was totally overwhelmed with the epic proportions of the event in which history was actually repeating itself right before my eyes. It was in this sense of Ecstasy of the Moment that I posted my previous message wherein I proposed that WE (the Users and Licensees) should now rename Protel DXP as Protel DXP SE, in keeping with the Illustrious History, Folk Lore, and Tradition, that has brought us to this monumental and momentous point. Please note that I never said that Protel / Altium called it SE (Second Edition), but that I only said that WE (the Users and Licensees) should call it SE (Second Edition) in keeping with the fact that Protel / Altium seems to not be able to get it right the first time around, and only approaches a functional product by the time of the "Second Edition" at Service Pack 2. One only has to read Altium / Protel's own statements to realize that this truly is in fact a "Second Edition" of the Protel DXP Product. I hereby once again propose that WE (the Users and Licensees) proclaim the new Service Pack 2 release of Protel DXP as Protel DXP SE, in keeping with Tradition, Folk Lore, etc., unless of course there are those out there that believe that it isn't quite ready yet for the honors, and still needs a little more work. All kidding aside, since I personally am not only a User, but also a Licensee, I am personally very happy to see that the original Protel DXP has undergone this metamorphosis in to what even Altium / Protel virtually calls a new product, which now finally appears to be "ready for release". Now it appears that we can finally sit down and dig in and begin to use Protel DXP SE as a Functional Product which we can begin to productively use and rely on. This of course does not mean that unlike it's predecessor Protel 99 / Protel 99 SE, Protel DXP SE will not need it's own additional 5 (yes 5) Service Packs. My only question is, why did it take so much kicking and screaming to get us to this point. Actually, I really do have another question too, and that is: Do I have to re-install it (I currently have the original DXP installed with the full Service Pack 2 also installed)? JaMi By the way Ian, I know that you guys South of the Border down there really do consider everybody else in the world as Second Class Citizens so to speak (American Slang), but how come you got your CD "a couple of weeks ago", and we are only getting ours now? * * * * * * ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Reagan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 5:20 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP SE (Second Edition) > Ian > I think you missed Jamies humor. But I think Jamie may be wrong about > the 99 -99SE transition. 99 had several support packs maybe not called > service packs . 99SE was released as a "new" product. I am waiting for my > DXP to arrive any day now, I am glad Altium pressed a new CD. > > > Mike Reagan > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ian Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Protel EDA Forum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 4:03 AM > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP SE (Second Edition) > > > > On 11:37 AM 7/01/2003 -0800, JaMi Smith said: > > >Just got my DXP SE CD in the mail. > > > > > >While Altium doesn't call it "SE" for "Second Edition", they (and we also) > > >do consider the changes to be massive enough to "re-press" the CD and > > >re-issue it to every licensee, which if I understand correctly, is exactly > > >what happened to Protel 99 at SP2 (Service Pack 2), when it became Protel 99 > > >SE. > > > > > >I therefore propose that henceforth and forever more DXP shall be known as > > >DXP SE (or at least until the Third Edition (DXP TE) arrives which is due > > >out next month)! > > > > I don't get this - I have never seen nor heard of a DXP SE. Are you sure > > you are not talking about a CD-ROM with DXP service pack 2? I received one > > of these a couple of weeks ago. > > > > Ian * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
