Hello Ian,

I should probably elaborate. It's been out of the box, and is now back
in, - figuratively.
I have both 99SE and DXP on my machine. I'm just not using DXP for real
work yet...
I have tried it, and taken the 1 day transition course.

To be fair, I probably haven't spent long enough trying DXP, and I do
intend to change over to it once I know that P2004 is robust.
(Otherwise, I'll only be further behind for future upgrades)
I'm expecting my upgrade soon.
I would like to think that 1 year from now I'll be just as good with
P2004 as I am with 99SE.

My current work schedule won't allow the learning curve and adaption
time for me to 'jump' just yet. I currently use the .ddb files, and the
change to DXP will also involve me changing work instructions to deal
with the return to individual files. Company libraries and Templates
will also need to be transitioned to DXP.

I have customised mouse button functions in 99SE that help me quickly
perform many functions that I frequently use. I would like to replicate
that in DXP, but to me, it doesn't seem as easy.

From my point of view, global editing was far easier and faster in 99SE.
I find the method in DXP, although more powerful, is slower and less
intuitive for 90% of the editing that I would do. -I would like the
option to globally edit as in 99SE as well as the new 'programmer
friendly' way.
The script based editing is fine for complex and special global edits,
but these account for only a few percent of global edits.

The user interface is different enough that it's like working with a
whole new program. That will take time to get used to, and until I do, I
won't be as productive.
I need to deal with a different method of producing prints for the
assembly and master drawings for a data pack.

Everything appears to be too slow. (may just be debug code in the early
release). Noticeable delay in selection, and sometimes a few seconds
delay on closing dialogue boxes.

Have had problems with translation of split planes from 99SE - split
planes transferred ok, but the global layer net assignment lost the
plot. - this may be fixed in P2004?

There are good points - The multiple channel function looks good, the
ability to drop components onto wires in the schematic and have the
wires break and connect up correctly is also good.



-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 10 March 2004 12:19 PM
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] 2004 DXP Looks Great,

On 12:16 PM 10/03/2004, DUTTON Phil said:
>My DXP is still in
>the box.


>  There are some
>good things in DXP, but there are many features that really don't seem
>to help my productivity.

I am intrigued by this.  How do the people that haven't used something
it is not more (or less) productive than what they are using.  I guess
happens not to be the sort of statement I would make, so I am interested
the answer.  I tend to spend longer than others investigating tools to
what I like and dislike; I suspect I waste too much time on this sort of

thing. I can't see how one knows that something is no good until you try

It may very well be the case that the features and fixes are not worth
time and effort.  The trick with all this stuff is picking when, and 
*where*, to jump.

Some people are using DXP and P2004.  Do they have a competitive
or not? What about those using other CAE programs?  I don't know the
to this.

I have still not see a detailed comparison, done by real knowledgeable 
users, of a wide range of CAE programs.  The closest I have seen is the 
comments by John Ross (thanks, John). I do know what I prefer to use,
but I 
don't know if I am more or less productive than all the other options
there.  How does one know?

All the best,

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