> I would not accept this. 99SE is relatively mature and in a properly
> configured system is stable. Windows 98 has known resource problems that
> make 99SE less than satisfactory with W98 -- though usable, if one runs a
> resource monitor and takes care not to run out of resources -- but with
> W2000 it is fine. I can't remember the last crash, though I think I might
> be able to get it to crash by playing around with the spreadsheet editor
> and update from spreadsheet. Maybe.

You can run 99SE on a W98 machine.  My assistant used to run 99SE on a 64MB
Celeron 366, and it ran OK.  To avoid crashes and other problems, he had to
observe the following rules:

1) Run the Resource Meter to avoid running out of resources by surprise
2) Do not open Outlook Express, IE, any Office apps or any other apps when
99SE is open
3) Do not have any anti-virus software or other "background" software
running - it takes up resources too.
4) I don't think he did any autorouted jobs.  I did those on my W2K box.
5) His designs were all small to medium designs.  No big, complex boards.

Note that it doesn't matter how much RAM you have in the W98 machine - the
W98 "resources" are independent of the amount of RAM.  Of course, more RAM
avoids disk swaps, so in that respect more RAM is better.

Best regards,
Ivan Baggett
Bagotronix Inc.
website:  www.bagotronix.com


----- Original Message -----
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Unacceptable Bug in Protel 99 SE SP6..!





* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to