I agree, also BOMs are much better as is database linking.  The new
schematic wiring modes are excellent and real time savers, The new scripting
stuff is very cool, easily add functions that are not present for obscure
things. Simulation is now usable and quite good.

The whole package 'feels' together and finished where as IMHO 99SE didn't.
You do NEED two monitors though.  


-----Original Message-----
-the mouse scroll for panning and zooming as well in the
  schematic as in the pcb. I don't have to add the panning
  in the schematic with the right mouse. That was overdue.
-When exiting with a lot of files open, I'm asked which
  I want to have saved.
-renaming copper that is already there, due to a net that
  was renamed. IN 99SE you could select the connected copper
  and rename the net, but that left the vias, as the vias
  were somehow not counted connected copper(!). This sort
  of stuff works like a charm and even much better.
-The global search & replace I like better in DXP2004 than
  in 99SE.
-The schematic library displays not only the symbol but
  also the possible footprints as graphic. No, the integrated
  libraries are not necessary. I'm still working with my
  99SE libraries. Any new component is still made in 99SE
  and then pulled over to DXP2004.
-DXP2004 would allow more that the 4 footprints that 99SE
  did for a schematic component.
-It allows importing and saving files and projects in the
  99SE format
-Dimensions for example decayed into drawing primitives
  in 99SE. They are solved much nicer in DXP2004.
-When something is selected, the rest is dimmed.
-plus much more ...

I'm only doing schematic and manual routing, nothing else.

One drawback: DXP2004 takes a lot more memory. 512Mega are not sufficient
when running a few more applications.
And yes the many panels require a second screen. It is definitely not
comfortable with even a 1600x1200. Meaning I have a new system on the list,
when the finances permit, perhaps next year.


Jim Monroe wrote:

> Rene- I wish I could enjoy using DXP as much as I've enjoyed 99se. 
> Maybe you could elaborate about the features "you wouldn't want to 
> miss", because I haven't found them yet.
> JM
> At 01:02 PM 7/16/2004, Rene wrote:
>> Steve Wiseman wrote:
>>>  I've got a project coming up which I'd like to run through DXP as a 
>>> learning project, since it's not too urgent. While I do have a huge 
>>> archive of DXP emails from [EMAIL PROTECTED], which I could no 
>>> doubt work my way through, are there any other resources out there 
>>> to help the transition? Altium seem to have completely disowned DXP 
>>> on their website - is 2004 the same thing?
>>> I guess what I'm really hoping for is a list of really obvious 
>>> things that I'll otherwise have to learn the hard way...
>>> Thanks for any hints, pointers, warnings, whatever :)
>> I recently made the transition too.
>> I also took a project that wasn't in a hurry.
>> I admit DXP2004 is great. There are many features that I wouldn't 
>> want to miss anymore. The menues are untidy as in 99SE, meaning there 
>> are a multiple times the same pages as we were used to.
>> Most important: before tryinging something for hours, post a question 
>> to a newsgroup, here or at altium and get the problem solved before 
>> the motivation is gone.
>> Rene
>> --
>> Ing.Buro R.Tschaggelar http://www.ibrtses.com Your newsgroups @  
>> http://www.talkto.net

Ing.Buro R.Tschaggelar http://www.ibrtses.com Your newsgroups @

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