I am not sure if you have been monitoring the various DXP Forums, or not, so I am
not sure if you actually have the whole story.

I actually bought DXP on ATS, which was really a promise by Altium to deliver a
functional Protel 99 SE replacement.

Altuim has consistently and continually promised all of its DXP Customers every step
of the way that they would "fix" DXP, regardless of when and under what
circumstances they bought DXP.

This "drama" has unfolded in the various DXP Forums over the past 2 years, and only
within the last 2 months has there been any indication that Altium is now apparently
trying to step away from all of those promises.

For example, if you have not been monitoring the DXP Forums, you may not be aware
that the DXP Situs Autorouter has never been able to route even a moderate design to
completion. Virtually everyone acknowledges this, and DXP Customers that needed to
use an Autorouter had to export the Design back to Protel 99 SE to get it done.
Altium has repeatedly promised to fix the Situs Autorouter, and up until just a few
months ago was promising that it was undergoing an entire overhaul.

This is why loyal Altium Customers who have purchased DXP have been hanging on for
up to a year and a half (two years in my case) waiting for Altium to fulfil those
promises, are now a little upset when it appears that Altium may now be trying to
sneak out of the commitment and promises that they made to those customers

Respecting your assertion that the DXP Product could have been returned for a full
refund, I am afraid that it is not as simple as that, either ethically, morally, or

DXP is not a simple Word Processor or Accounting program that you can purchase for a
couple of hundred bucks, learn within a week or two, and then return for a refund
when you find that it doesn't do what it says it will.

DXP is an expensive program with a list price of $8,000 US. But notwithstanding the
initial price tag, virtually everyone that has bought it has spent at least that
much in addition to the purchase price, in terms of time and energy invested in
training, to learn how to use DXP, even to get up to the point that they could
realistically make the decision that it was unusable at the point that it was
initially delivered. Simply returning the product at that point in time would not
have paid for the losses incurred in learning DXP, and would not in and of itself
been a realistic option for too many of those DXP Customers (and I will not digress
into what would have been realistic options along this line, but I am sure that many
can guess (and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it may actually have
happened in some cases)).

There is additionally the problem of being "locked into DXP" from a "design"
perspective. By the time that many DXP Customers came to the conclusion that DXP
could not perform as expected, many had created several, if not numerous designs in
DXP, and could not replace DXP without having to re-create all of those designs with
yet another product. This is compounded yet further for those who may have used DXP
to create designs not only for themselves, but additionally for their own customers,
which designs they still need to be able to support and update yet into the future.
Simply returning the DXP Product for a refund does not even begin to scratch the
surface of the expenses involved and the amount of direct revenues that would be
lost by DXP Customers in this scenario. Once again this too does not appear to be a
realistic option unless one is willing to try and additionally recover those
additional losses (again, I will not digress into that option here).

In other words, realistically it is impossible to return it and be able to get a
"FULL refund", as you call it, once you have actually begun really using DXP.

As an interesting side note to this discussion of the above two issues, I am willing
to bet that if someone were able to come up with a reliable low cost (or no cost)
design "translator", so as to be able to reliably directly translate a current
design from DXP directly into say Mentor Expedition, or Mentor PADs, that you would
see a whole lot of people with their box in their hands lining up to get their money
back for DXP, losses on training notwithstanding.

Respecting your final alternative, of going back to Protel 99 SE. This is just
exactly what many, if not most DXP Customers have actually done. Notice how many
have said that they put it back in the box to wait until DXP got fixed? But there
are a couple of problems here, even with this option, and the primary one is the
fact that Protel 99 SE still has many problems and even a few bugs of its own, and
Altium has refused to solve any of those problems, which is why many of those people
have turned to DXP in the first place.

But did you notice that even those that put DXP back in the box to wait for it to
get fixed, and who temporarily went back to Protel 99 SE, did not ask Altium for a
refund, bur rather chose to wait. Why? Because Altium promised them that it would
deliver a fully operational and fully functional DXP Product.

Now they are just calling in that promise, and I believe that ethically, and
morally, and yes even legally, that they actually have a right to call in that
promise, and additionally expect Altium to honor that promise.

No, it really is not just a simple case of asking for your money back or falling
back on an obsolete and unsupported program (Protel 99 SE), even though that program
may at this very point in time still be superior to DXP or Protel 2004 or whatever
you may wish to call it.

Thanks for your input.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Melvin Steven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Quit Complaining!!! ( 2004 DXP Looks Great)

> I am going to be as brief as possible.  JaMi, your argument does not work!!
> Here is why.
> 1. You purchase DXP (Well you purchased ATS but for those who outright
> purchased DXP and are still complaining...)
> 2. You found that it did not work.
> 3. Choose an option - a. Keep it and limp along, keeping in mind that you
> could get a copy of 99SE on request. Or b. Return it for a FULL refund.
> Why did you not return the product for a full refund?
> Again, JaMi, after I started writing this I recalled that you got your copy
> through ATS so you are a special case; but all others who are complaining
> should just give it a break.
> Melvin Stevens

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To leave this list visit:
* Contact the list manager:
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to