----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 2:45 AM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] 2004 DXP Looks Great,


> On 08:17 PM 10/03/2004, JaMi Smith said:
> <..snip..>
> >BS!
> >
> >Absolute BS!
> >
> >Nick, Altium - You are not "giving" me anything!
>
> Ladies and Gentlemen,
>
> This is the only person that I know that has been tossed off an Altium
> forum.  Some may say this is due to a conspiracy.  I suspect it is due to
> simple rudeness.  Make your point by all means but I suspect you will be
> better served with a degree of civility.
>

Actually Ian, you know better than that, because I have personally told you the
whole story directly offline from any of the Forums, and you have personally
directly verified it with your friends at Altium. I will ignore the fact that you
appear to be baiting me here, in view of these two facts.

The real "charge" against me, if you will, was that I instigated and lead the
"Revolt" against "ATS", and embarrassed Altium by asking questions both here in the
PEDA Forum and in the original Yahoo! DXP Forum that they couldn't answer, with the
result being that they kicked me out of that Forum at the same time that they issued
their humble public apology to their Protel and ATS Customers and supposedly
canceled ATS back in September of 2002. You also forgot to mention that they have
since reinstated me, which you are also well aware of.

But that's really a topic for the Protel OT Forum, and not this one, so I won't
continue that conversation here. If anyone wants to continue with this specific
issue, let's please do it there (I am a member of that Forum too), or contact me
directly.

Back on topic of the new DXP "THICK manual". I am, and have been, simply trying to
make the case that all of Altium's loyal DXP Customers should qualify to receive a
new printed "THICK manual", as Mike stated that he had received in the initial Post
to this subject.

Since there are many here in this Forum that have not additionally been monitoring
the DXP Technical Forum, and therefore may not know the whole story, I am
additionally trying to clarify the fact that Altium themselves originally stated
that "Protel 2004" is NOT a "New Product", and that DXP is still DXP. Yes I
understand that Altium has additionally released a new product, Nexar, and that it
is "compatible" with the "Protel 2004" Design Explorer, but Nexar is not DXP.

Altium has clearly stated it the DXP Forum that the name change was simply to
clarify the relationship of the different parts of the DXP Product, since they had
inadvertently originally applied the name DXP to both the Design Explorer Platform,
and the Schematic / PCB portions of the DXP Product, which had been a departure from
their previous practice, and that this had caused much confusion, and that they were
just changing the name to clear up the confusion and go back to the previous
practice of applying the product name of "Protel 2004" to the overall product and
retain the name of DXP as it relates only to the Schematic and PCB portions of the
product. Additionally, they have stated that they want to be able to place
additional products, such as Nexar, under the umbrella of the "Protel 2004" name.

This is what Altium has said as recently as a few months ago, and since "Protel
2004" was NOT going to be a "New Product", I repeat, NOT going to be a "New
Product", and since DXP was still going to be DXP, there should be no "Upgrade"
involved, but rather simply a formal release of the initial 2 "pre-releases" of
"Service Pack 3", with some additional corrections, and possibly a few more of the
issues that have been brought up in the DXP Forums (both Technical and Pre-Release)
resolved and implemented.

In other words, aside from the fact that the Design Explorer Platform has been
modified to support things such as Nexar, Altium themselves have made it clear that
DXP is still DXP, and that all DXP Customers would be receiving the finalized
release of "Service Pack 3", in spite of the fact of the name change.

This is why I have referred to "Protel 2004" as DXP with the finalized release of
"Service Pack 3", and this is in strict accord with what Altium themselves have
stated in the DXP Technical Forum.

The problem, and the confusion, arises only out of the fact that Altium seems to
have now at the last minute decided to change their mind regarding the DXP Product
still being the DXP Product, here within the last month or so.

Altium now appears to want to present "Protel 2004" as an entirely "New Product", as
opposed to just a long overdue finalization of a regular "Service Pack" for DXP that
was intentionally withheld for over 6 months.

If in fact "Protel 2004" is truly a "New Product", then receiving it truly would be
an "Upgrade". But in fact, it has only been in the last month or two that Altium
seems to have come up with this "New Product" and "Upgrade" idea. It is a nice
Marketing idea, and more obviously possibly even an attempt to distance themselves
from the miserable performance of DXP ever since it was introduced, but the attitude
that it fosters, which I believe has clearly been demonstrated recently both here
and especially in the DXP Technical Forum, is very denigrating to the loyal DXP
Customers that have stood by DXP and waited for it to be fixed, only to now be
treated as a charity cases to be given a "Free Upgrade".

If on the other hand, "Protel 2004" is only the finalized release of "Service Pack
3" of the original DXP Product with a "Name Change" for "clarification", then it is
not an "Upgrade" at all.

Is there any difference between an "Upgrade" and a "Service Pack" with a "Name
Change"?

Unfortunately, there could be, and I believe there is, depending on just how Altium
wants to handle it, and that is really what is scaring me here.

If this is a "DXP Service Pack", then I am entitled to ask for continuing "Service
Packs" to fix any problems that Altium has acknowledged and said that they would
fix, and that still haven't been resolved. If however, this is a totally "New
Product", then they can say that by giving me a "Free Upgrade" to the "New Product",
they have fulfilled any obligation that they may have had to me and to any other DXP
Customers, just exactly as they did when transitioning from Protel 99 SE to Protel
DXP under ATS. Unfortunately, due to the things that have been said recently by
people such as Nick and what is appearing both on Altiums website and in various
other "primotional" material, it appears that Altium in now posturing to take the
latter position.

The problem here for me, is that under such a circumstance, Altium could take the
position that it has no further obligation to provide any DXP Customers, such as me,
any further assistance or even any further "Service Packs", or even any "Service
Packs" to "Protel 2004" at all, unless I pay an additional fee for a further
"Subscription" or "Upgrade" service, as Altium now calls their "ATS" Program (no, it
never really was abandoned as they promised us that it would be).

I am sorry if this prospect bothers me, but as Ian pointed out above, I have been
"dumped" by Altium before, and I am just trying to prevent having that happen to me
again, and not only to me, but to all DXP Customers.

Since I have still have not received my copy of "Protel 2004", I can't really say
for sure what is inside the box, and what improvements have actually been made to
DXP, or even whether or not DXP is still even called DXP as Altium has said that it
would be. I truly do hope that it lives up to the advance reports which have been
circulating both here and in the DXP Technical Forum.

I apologize if my being blunt and standing up to what I precieve to be wrong, has
offended anyone. It certainly has not been my intention to be "rude" as Ian put it,
and in fact I would maintain that I actually exercised quite a bit of both restraint
and decorum in my previous post, considering what it appears is happening here. It
was and is however my intent to expose just what I believe is going on here, and ask
both Nick specifically, and Altium in general, for not only clarification, but an
apology for the way that I perceive they are attempting to abandon their loyal DXP
Customers and the manner that they have recently treated them.

Once again, I apologize if I have been "rude" in doing this.

Respectfully submitted,

JaMi Smith



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