On 12:31 AM 27/06/2003, Pat Nystrom said:
<..snip..I may comment on the substance of the message when I think about it..>

Longish and the paranoid androids may need to take their pills first.

Why would Altium do this in DXP when users have coped with this behavior

Pat, I think maybe your are not aware of the changes in DXP during its life and the extent users have been involved in shaping these changes and priorities. There are quite a few changes that have been introduced in DXP, on the suggestion of users, that repair/improve/fix behavior that is present in P99SE.

So given a good argument and a number of users requesting a change I have total faith that Altium would firstly at least consider it and, secondly, if they thought the problem was sufficiently important, or the new feature sufficiently hot, they would implement it.

Some examples of user induced changes:
1) The selection regime in DXP has under gone very significant changes due to user comments (Click Clears Selection option and others) - though this was largely to fix something DXP did a lot worse that P99SE IMO
2) Queries functions have been added due to user requests (IsSelected and others)
3) ERC offers the ability to check for unplaced Sch parts on multi-part Sch symbols
4) DXP originally did not have any alternate representation for Sch symbols - user pressure restored this on steriods (there are now 255?? possible alternate representations compare to P99SE three)
5) It was user pressure, I'd guess, maybe from comments on this forum, that got the version control stuff in there - and the consequent loss of the ddb.
6) Right-click and drag panning is in DXP. My guess would be that the comments in this forum about consistency are responsible in part.
7) DXP users were not happy about the loss of Cam Manager, we complained and along came the Output Job File.
8) Database linking - improvements in there have been user requests.
9) Updating from Sch libraries - there are improvements there that users have requested and discussed that radically improve on the simplistic update in P99SE. These were added to DXP by DXP users requesting and discussing.

There are many others.

My experience with DXP is very great changes during its life, often driven by the users. Some may argue that this is a sign of a premature product release or an immature product. I may well agree, but what it has allowed is unprecedented input by users in the development path and process - at least in my experience.

Pat, are you a member of the DXP forum? 10 of the last 50 posts have been from personally identified Altium employees. This is pretty typical. I really think this discussion will have much more weight there - or at least a summary of any discussion here.

I really do think that if you have a problem with the program you should post something to the DXP forum as this will have much higher chance of getting Alitum's attention. I know that Altium were not big on PEDA recently when it degenerated into a chat room. Maybe the recent increase in SNR in PEDA will change that a little - but I would doubt there would ever be much public Altium involvement here. The DXP forum's SNR is buckets higher than here.

Yes, the more paranoid amongst us will no doubt claim that the DXP forum being under Altium's control is a *serious problem*. In practice I know of only one instance of any temporary black listing - and that was for repeated downright rudeness to Altium employees, I think.

I am somewhat at a loss when I hear people complaining about something but not mucking in and trying to do something about it. I think playing in the same sandpit as the developers is part of doing something about it. These are general comments - not specific to anyone.

On the real issue of sheet entries I will post another email (and cross post to DXP, something I know is poor form). I would prefer to have the discussion on DXP forum to minimise my time. As far as I can see there is little chance of any changes to P99SE and lots to DXP.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to