so what's the excuse for pcb not matching schematic?

I hope they work on the productivity, it is obvious the system was designed more from the EE designers perspective, and that's great, but for the person that only does pcb design it is very slow, I hope I never have to do a large board with this, I'll use something else if it is up to me

like it or not, for beter or worse, MicroSoft rules the world, if you expect to suceed software must conform to Windows, it must be easy to learn in any case, DXP is the most unintuitive CAD I have ever seen, and I've been in CAD over 20 years

latest CAD I learned: SolidWorks, very intuitive, easy too learn, high productivity


From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [PEDA] What is the meaning of "DXP"
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:33:53 -0500

At 12:12 PM 12/15/2003, Protel Hell wrote:
ha, ha, ha! how about Don't eXpect Productivity?

DXP seems more like an 80's DOS program like Wordstar than a modern Windows application, the ctrl-alt-keyclicks are not even consistant between PCB-schematic-and CamTastic

This is not at all surprising. CAMtastic was developed by a different company and purchased by Altium. It looks like efforts are being made to improve the interface -- DXP automatically opens the CAM files when they are generated by PCB -- but there is still a long way to go.


Yes, the differences in interface are frustrating, but those would exist in any case until Altium truly integrates the programs. That will naturally take some time.

And yes, this kind of thing has a serious impact on productivity.

I've been starting to use DXP, and my first impressions are
        (1) DXP has some very nice features
        (2) As others have noted, there is a learning curve.

It should be realized and the point made to Altium programmers that there is a major retraining cost to the users when there are major changes made in the way users interact with the program. I do believe that it is possible to improve the program *without* making it a necessity for users who upgrade to immediately drop everything and retrain before they can get any serious work done.

Most users are busy, often *very* busy, and it can be difficult to set aside time to retrain. Further, if you are going to have to retrain, why not look at all the other CAD programs out there and see if it is time to switch? So I'd think it would be in Altium's interest to invest substantial resources toward minimizing necessary retraining!

One way of doing it, that occurs easily to me -- and which might not be worth much more than I've invested in it! -- would be to leave in old interfaces and procedures; i.e., when a user looks for the way a thing used to be done, it is still there. But when you try to use it,
(1) a message pops up explaining how to do the thing the new way
(2) maybe, if it does not do damage, the old way still works. I am yet to be convinced that something was gained by dropping the old Global Edits. Yes, something was gained by the new processes, but why was it necessary to lose the old, very quick to use and generally easy-to-understand process?


And then there might be options under, say, a new category of "Migration Options," that disable or re-enable the version migration explanatory pop-ups. Where there is a true conflict between methods of operation, perhaps it would be possible to allow the user to choose the new or old way.




_________________________________________________________________
Our best dial-up offer is back. Get MSN Dial-up Internet Service for 6 months @ $9.95/month now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup




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