I think Mr/Ms/Mstr/Miss Protel Hell is using DXP.

I will make a few comments on what Abd ul-Rahman wrote that flashes out the DXP aspects.


On 09:56 AM 17/12/2003, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax said:
At 02:40 PM 12/16/2003, Protel Hell wrote:
so what's the excuse for pcb not matching schematic?

The history was two different DOS programs... Then there are differences in what is natural with schematics and what is natural with PCB design. In schematic, symbol representation is important but not electrically functional, in PCB, most everything creates a physical structure with important characteristics. It is clear that the programs were not originally designed to have a common way of doing things; sometimes this is appropriate, sometimes it is merely irritating.

Plenty of time to have consolidated now - I am so used to the programs that I no longer see the differences so it is dangerous to comment. There has been some consolidation between editors in DXP, but if Protel Hell is saying that as a new user there are inconsistencies then I assume there must be. I just don't notice them anymore - this is not unrelated to what Abd ul-Rahman was mentioning regarding OrCad.

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

Windows conventions were largely designed for use with documents; once you get outside of text documents, the "conventions" see a lot of variation. In PCB design, placement position is critical. Simple cut-and-paste doesn't cut it, so to speak.

I agree. If the M$ way of doing things is not up to scratch then don't be afraid to come up with a better way. But be prepared to have to justify and prove your differences. A case in point, P99SE, and predecessors, had the concept of selected and focused. The selection state of an object was persistent and didn't disappear when you clicked on something else (and was saved with the file). This is a powerful concept. The loss of this facility in DXP is, IMO, a significant issue. Many changes have been made to DXP to help minimise the productivity loss this caused, some of these are really nice features in themselves (selection memories for one). One reason for the loss of "selection vs focus" was to make the program like a standard Win32 program. I can work pretty well without the persistent selection state, however there are still times when I am building up an ad-hoc selection (ctrl-click) and loose it by clicking the wrong thing, or forgetting to save to a selection memory. P99SE was easier to use in this regard. Would I drop DXp to get this feature back, No. But it is an example of why departing from a pseudo-standard (the M$-way) can be good.

But there is no Panel display of the whole schematic and there is no grabbing the screen with the right-mouse and panning that way. How much of a loss is this? A little, not a lot.... The range of scales used on a schematic is not as great as on a PCB; the panel display is thus less important. But I don't use it a lot in PCB, simply because I'm quite accustomed to doing without such a thing, I just zoom in and out a lot.

DXP has right-click panning in Sch. It has got to the point where I now want right-click panning in text files. I am often editing a text file in DXP and go to try to pan with the right-click - it is becoming ingrained. The loss of Sch right-click panning when I go back to P99SE Sch is surprisingly irritating. I am now trying to right-click pan in other applications as well - doesn't work to well :-(

Another point while on DXP v P99SE - Steve Hendrix asked about zooming with mouse wheel. This is supported in 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