Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
I am Situs of Borg. Routing is futile. Your nets will be meandered. No need to say anything more :-) Michael * Tracking #: 056C2ECE57509844BA603E4D43E2096A38AF92EA * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
results were worse than my results in some cases. Perhaps I am too picky but I see no reason for 5 or six power vias near each other all connected by short traces on various layers to tie one pin to the power buss when just one via would have done the job. Several acid traps and traces exiting pads at oddball angles with stairstepping. After reviewing the sample boards, I This is behavior exhibited by the 99SE AR and Advanced Route 3.1 also. It seems Situs is no improvement. If you use the AR, you must resign yourself to manually cleaning up these crazy routes. It is part of my manual post-processing to consolidate power vias and delete stairstep tracks. I say again: Route all your critical nets manually, lock 'em down, and then let AR do the rest. Then clean up after it. My guess is they are still using the Neurorouter code and just don't know how it works, so they cannot improve upon it. But they can give it a new name. I am Situs of Borg. Routing is futile. Your nets will be meandered. Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com - Original Message - From: Rob Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 8:57 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues I am not experienced in using the new Situs router but I have tried it with disastrous results. Since I thought I might have been doing something wrong, I loaded the sample boards routed at Altium by what I would have thought to be an experienced Situs user. I posted a list of sample areas to look at on these boards a while ago on the DXP forum. From what I saw, the results were worse than my results in some cases. Perhaps I am too picky but I see no reason for 5 or six power vias near each other all connected by short traces on various layers to tie one pin to the power buss when just one via would have done the job. Several acid traps and traces exiting pads at oddball angles with stairstepping. After reviewing the sample boards, I decided not to mess with Situs again until a few service packs have come out. Overall, I did not see anything in the sample boards to indicate that Situs is an improvement. Rob - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 4:57 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues At 04:23 PM 8/30/2002 -0400, Michael Reagan (EDSI) wrote: I probably would pay for SP7 with as long as they met the long list of our requirements also. I too have been put off by the complexities introduced with DXP. If it had been, say, a bug fix for 99SE, at a corresponding price, there is no doubt that I'd be using it. If the additional features had come without greatly confusing the user interface (for one used to 99SE), I'd be wanting them too. We were long awaiting an improved autorouter, and I had heard rumors about how good it was going to be, rivalling Specctra, etc. I haven't seen any comments on the DXP list on Situs except for some information about the design rules it follows, which have not been much improved, i.e., there are apparently still plenty of rules which are ignored. Something is wrong. The unfortunate thing about the DXP release is that the work was invested, it would seem, in advance of a true marketing study, at least of one involving a sufficient number of existing users. Programming for a service pack is one thing, programming for feature improvements may be something else. It is difficult, I'd think, to go back, but it might not be impossible. The theory behind the Client/Server architecture was that the individual modules were separately maintainable. How much the Advanced PCB server was modified to make it into the DXP PCB server, I don't know. I would think that solid software management for a product like Protel would involve continuously fixing bugs, as soon as possible, releasing service packs regularly, and sometimes including feature improvements -- gradually -- as part of the process. A maintenance model allows this, which is probably one reason why Altium has gone that way. The transition, however, has not been handled well. There should never have been such a dead time with no service pack. SP7 should have been released long ago. I can understand the argument that was probably put forth: since we are going to make all these major changes, we need to put all our effort into them instead of fooling around with code that is going to become obsolete anyway. Yet this argument is one that keeps software buggy on into eternity. There is a reason why organisms only change a little DNA at a time! Make too many changes at once, nothing works well any more. So then you have to do all kinds of new software testing, etc., to try to find the bugs that have been introduced with the changes. Plus
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
At 12:31 PM 9/4/2002 -0400, Bagotronix Tech Support wrote: I say again: Route all your critical nets manually, lock 'em down, and then let AR do the rest. Then clean up after it. My guess is they are still using the Neurorouter code and just don't know how it works, so they cannot improve upon it. But they can give it a new name. I am Situs of Borg. Routing is futile. Your nets will be meandered. It's a mystery to me. It was well over a year ago that Protel people told me they had seen the new router, it was new code, and it was good. So if the reports are correct that the DXP router is essentially similar to the old, and perhaps the same, I would suspect that for reasons unknown to us the new router has not yet been released. If so, the upgrade cost seems a tad excessive. In any case, I'll take the opportunity in another post under an appropriate subject header to mention a tip that can ease the pain of cleaning up after the autorouter, sometimes overlooked by designers (though it has been described a number of times on this list). (Use Loop Removal). * Tracking #: C04A6BD7084601469667A32909C5397A92A4799F * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
Mike, I truly believe if you did take a real hard look at other programs and truly look at all of the expense involved, you may actually wonder how these lower end systems can claim they are a fraction of the cost. I really mean each feature and how long it takes between CAD systems etc. If you look at Protel itself being about 9K now and Mentor Expedition and Cadence Allegro have a seat about 11-12k. Yes that is about 2-3k more but when you really look at what capabilities you are getting for that extra 2-3k I believe you would have to spend another 10K on top of Protel to even think about getting the same capability and productivity, for PCB design itself. You really can't just compare feature to feature between CAD systems, IMHO you really need to compare how each feature functions between CAD systems. I'm not saying I can't get a design done with Protel, but quite simply I see too many things that are much easier and less time consuming in other systems. At this point I will be using 99SE for a bit longer but I too am very seroiusly looking back to the other less expensive seats of the major players. I plan on really looking at how the functions really work and how many steps are invloved in each function to make something happen properly. Altium actually asked if I could shorten the evaluation process, I mentioned I was pressed for time at the moment, by looking at their movie about DXP. I basically told them I need to see first hand HOW and IF all the functions I need actually work, not some movie telling me this is how it works. That of course would also go for any other system I look at. A prime example would be their Matched Length capability as it stands in my mind is absolutely useless and WAY too many steps involved in getting it to work, should be a one shot process. Bob Wolfe - Original Message - From: Michael Reagan (EDSI) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 1:40 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues What Rob Young stated is what I have been saying for since Accel was acquired. Just Like some of you, I am taking a very hard look at other programs. A very hard lookMy future depends on having the right software for my requirements not someone dictating what my requirements are. Mike Reagan - Original Message - From: Rob Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 10:56 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues Speaking of the Beta program, I asked to be part of the Beta program for DXP and was not selected. I have been using Protel since version 1.12 back in 1993 I believe, so I would have thought that my input would have been worth something to them. For whatever reason, they chose not to include me. That was fine as I have too much work to do anyway. The reason I have recently stepped up and began using the DXP demo, is that I have a great interest in seeing that our beloved Protel continues as it has. While Protel has never been perfect, in my opinion, it has been the best value on the market for manual PCB layout and schematic capture. But now, just as they have been gaining ground they decide to make this ATS policy along with a repeat of the P99 release. I nearly severed my Protel relationship over the bugs in P99 and continued to use P98 until P99SE came out. I was encouraged in that the P99SE release directly addressed many of the concerns on this group. It is quite upsetting to see them repeat that mistake again, but this time, they expect us to pay for it as well. Also it just occurred to me as why I am not getting any responses from Altium on the many issues I asked about in the demo I am not a current ATS subscriber! So I am now being shunned for previewing their new release. Not a great way to treat a long time user and supporter of Protel in my opinion. As a consultant, I have been responsible for many more seats of Protel than just my seat. With Altium's current attitude, I will recommend to all of my clients that they wait to see what the outcome of the ATS policy will really be and until DXP has matured enough to be a usable package. Unless Altium intends to be more aggressive with service packs on ATS, that will be at least a year and maybe more based upon past experience. As much as I would like to see SP7, I don't think Altium will provide one as it is not in their new company model to continue with P99SE. They want to move everyone over to DXP and start to collect ATS fees for what is currently an inferior product. Perhaps if they would provide SP7 under the ATS program, it would make the ATS worth something. Then a user could continue to use P99SE with new features and bug fixes and feel like they got something for their money while DXP was getting refined. Plus the user would be able
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
Right on... Mentor Expedition and Cadence Allegro have a seat about 11-12k. Yes that is about 2-3k more This caught my attention. I just received approval from money management to upgrade to DXP. I am not sure what type of brochure they received from Protel, but I never expected the approval to come so soon right after summer vacation. I now believe that it is time to either stick with P99se as-is, or, wait a little more, move on to a higher end cad system. Brian Guralnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice (514) 624-4003 Fax (514) 624-3631 - Original Message - From: Robert M. Wolfe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 1:17 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues Mike, I truly believe if you did take a real hard look at other programs and truly look at all of the expense involved, you may actually wonder how these lower end systems can claim they are a fraction of the cost. I really mean each feature and how long it takes between CAD systems etc. If you look at Protel itself being about 9K now and but when you really look at what capabilities you are getting for that extra 2-3k I believe you would have to spend another 10K on top of Protel to even think about getting the same capability and productivity, for PCB design itself. You really can't just compare feature to feature between CAD systems, IMHO you really need to compare how each feature functions between CAD systems. I'm not saying I can't get a design done with Protel, but quite simply I see too many things that are much easier and less time consuming in other systems. At this point I will be using 99SE for a bit longer but I too am very seroiusly looking back to the other less expensive seats of the major players. I plan on really looking at how the functions really work and how many steps are invloved in each function to make something happen properly. Altium actually asked if I could shorten the evaluation process, I mentioned I was pressed for time at the moment, by looking at their movie about DXP. I basically told them I need to see first hand HOW and IF all the functions I need actually work, not some movie telling me this is how it works. That of course would also go for any other system I look at. A prime example would be their Matched Length capability as it stands in my mind is absolutely useless and WAY too many steps involved in getting it to work, should be a one shot process. Bob Wolfe * Tracking #: FE228FEBEB81D046B455D661422B1CD6683CBA7F * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
Tony, I meant to add to my last post that my observations on the sample boards were from the Altium SMT versions. One is a rather mediocre board that was done with 8 layers and no planes so the power and ground were routed in with the signals. This could account for the poor power and ground routes. The other board was the benchmark board and while it did look better, it still had some problems as well. I have copied my previous post to the DXP forum below for reference. As more people who have used Situs post their comments on their experiences as you did, it will be helpful in understanding if Situs is better or not on large SMT boards. You mentioned that your board was a simple two layer board. Was it surface mount or through hole? My autorouting experience with through-hole designs has always been good, but that is not where the majority of the work is these days for me. Most of the boards I get these days are double sided surface mount designs that are fairly dense. The autorouter just doesn't do a good enough job for me on such projects. With all the fanfare from Altium about Situs, I was looking forward to something better than what I saw. --- Previous message posted to DXP forum: I admit I have only tried the autorouter with minimal training with disastrous results but I thought that was probably my ignorance in setting it up properly. I then went to load the demo boards that came with DXP and viewed the surface mount designs autorouted by Altium to see what someone who knows how to use Situs could produce. Rather than describe what I found, I will just point to a few areas out of several: Project: C:\Program Files\Altium\Examples\PCB Auto-Routing\PCB Auto-Routing.PrjPCB (open the SMT board) 1. GND routing on bottom layer between R288 R31 2. VDD routing on bottom layer at C140 3. 8 layers and no power planes? 4. GND routing near U2 pin 34 5. U94 pin 27 takes an unnecessarily long path to it's destination. 6. VDD routing near C60 7. Numerous acid traps throughout the design. Project: C:\Program Files\Altium\Examples\PCB Benchmark\PCB Benchmark.pcbdoc 8. routing of R435 pin 2 9. routing of U16 pins 38 40 to R336 pin 2. 10. U59 pin 13 pin 12. In general PCB Benchmark.pcbdoc is better than the PCB Auto-Routing.PrjPCB but there are still several areas that need improvement. If this is the best that a trained Situs user can produce, I am not impressed at all. I wonder what the yields of these designs would be in a real production environment. --- - Original Message - From: Tony Karavidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Protel EDA Forum' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 10:15 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues I have one contrary experience. I re-did a simple two layer board I did by hand years ago, and Situs did better than any previous version. In fact it looks pretty damn good...close to hand routing. All previous routers could manage 100%, but they looked like hell. Situs did not. The problem is I can do little boards by hand anytime. I'm hoping for Situs to step up to the plate for the LARGE boards that I don't want to do by hand anymore. Tony -Original Message- From: Rob Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 5:58 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues I am not experienced in using the new Situs router but I have tried it with disastrous results. Since I thought I might have been doing something wrong, I loaded the sample boards routed at Altium by what I would have thought to be an experienced Situs user. I posted a list of sample areas to look at on these boards a while ago on the DXP forum. From what I saw, the results were worse than my results in some cases. Perhaps I am too picky but I see no reason for 5 or six power vias near each other all connected by short traces on various layers to tie one pin to the power buss when just one via would have done the job. Several acid traps and traces exiting pads at oddball angles with stairstepping. After reviewing the sample boards, I decided not to mess with Situs again until a few service packs have come out. Overall, I did not see anything in the sample boards to indicate that Situs is an improvement. Rob - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 4:57 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues At 04:23 PM 8/30/2002 -0400, Michael Reagan (EDSI) wrote: I probably would pay for SP7 with as long as they met the long list of our requirements also. I too have been put off by the complexities introduced with DXP. If it had been, say, a bug fix for 99SE, at a corresponding price, there is no doubt that I'd be using it. If the additional features had
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
From: Brad Velander [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Protel EDA Forum' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues Rob, could you explain your comments about the Cam Manager in DXP a little better. Do you mean to say that every time you want to generate Gerber/Drill output, you have to reconfigure your output formats manually each time? If what I think you are saying is true, who is the rocket scientist at Protel that blew that one. You know how many mistakes are made generating gerber/drill formats on an initial configuration, saving and tweaking those configurations is only the minimal acceptable feature for the past 10 years (some packages longer than that). Aaaarghhh, Protel/Altium just don't know what the f#$% they are doing, incompetent, completely incompetent. Brad You have to generate the ouptuts in the individual groups (gerber, drill etc). Pre Cam-Manager style. So we have ANOTHER step backwards, productivity wise. Pay more (ATS) do less! Dont figure with me. The features in DXP that I would have welcomed (productivity increase) might not have been so easy to get into a SP7 in 99SE as a database change was needed to accomodate them. BUT, a gradual change into DXP from 99SE enviroment (SP7) would have been less of a shock than it stands now. I got my 'ATS' copy of DXP as I bought a new 99SE license Q2 this year. But after using the trial version first, I would say I would rather have seen a SP7 than DXP. For now the 'good' in DXP (and there is some) so far does not justify the amount of missed features and reduced productivity for me as compared to 99SE. Although I would not say Altium were completely incompetent with DXP, what I would say is that whovever did the market/user research on what changes features should be added into DXP, well, they simply asked the wrong people or did not ask in the first place, just skimmed the user lists and made a few notes. The beta program obviously did not take in a big enough cross section of users (not just loyal experts) to yeild accurate information on what the 'average user' would like or need, and of course those that did beta test, have their gag order to contend with, so we will never know. I would have thought after the 99-99SE experience, the situation would not have occurred again, oh my :-( John Sincerely, Brad Velander. Lead PCB Designer Norsat International Inc. Microwave Products Tel (604) 292-9089 (direct line) Fax (604) 292-9010 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.norsat.com Norsat's Microwave Products Division has now achieved ISO 9001:2000 certification -Original Message- From: Rob Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 6:48 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues If there were a service pack 7 that also included some long requested new features that are now included in DXP, I would be much more inclined to pay for SP7 than for DXP. DXP is promising in some areas, but completely useless for me in it's current state. I fail to understand why Altium had to so drastically change the interface that long time Protel users will now have to retrain themselves. Features that I would pay for in SP7 that are currently in DXP would be items such as: 1. Layer Pairing in PCB 2. Associative Dimensions 3. Break wire with part in Schematic 4. Right-click panning in schematic like in PCB now. 5. Better padstack control in PCB 6. Part editing in Schematic like in PCB now. 7. Multi-channel capability in Sch and PCB. 8. Automatic edge pullback on PCB planes. 9. Query ability (but please leave existing global options alone!) 10. Ability to exclude certain components from the BOM. SNIP 5. Cam manager is gone from PCB. Instead of hitting F9 to process all your cam outputs in one keystroke, you will now have to process gerbers, nc drill files, pick place and testpoint data individually. SNIP Rob * Tracking #: BA77E5364D6AD9448C59DC2067018139B233CB65 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
Speaking of the Beta program, I asked to be part of the Beta program for DXP and was not selected. I have been using Protel since version 1.12 back in 1993 I believe, so I would have thought that my input would have been worth something to them. For whatever reason, they chose not to include me. That was fine as I have too much work to do anyway. The reason I have recently stepped up and began using the DXP demo, is that I have a great interest in seeing that our beloved Protel continues as it has. While Protel has never been perfect, in my opinion, it has been the best value on the market for manual PCB layout and schematic capture. But now, just as they have been gaining ground they decide to make this ATS policy along with a repeat of the P99 release. I nearly severed my Protel relationship over the bugs in P99 and continued to use P98 until P99SE came out. I was encouraged in that the P99SE release directly addressed many of the concerns on this group. It is quite upsetting to see them repeat that mistake again, but this time, they expect us to pay for it as well. Also it just occurred to me as why I am not getting any responses from Altium on the many issues I asked about in the demo I am not a current ATS subscriber! So I am now being shunned for previewing their new release. Not a great way to treat a long time user and supporter of Protel in my opinion. As a consultant, I have been responsible for many more seats of Protel than just my seat. With Altium's current attitude, I will recommend to all of my clients that they wait to see what the outcome of the ATS policy will really be and until DXP has matured enough to be a usable package. Unless Altium intends to be more aggressive with service packs on ATS, that will be at least a year and maybe more based upon past experience. As much as I would like to see SP7, I don't think Altium will provide one as it is not in their new company model to continue with P99SE. They want to move everyone over to DXP and start to collect ATS fees for what is currently an inferior product. Perhaps if they would provide SP7 under the ATS program, it would make the ATS worth something. Then a user could continue to use P99SE with new features and bug fixes and feel like they got something for their money while DXP was getting refined. Plus the user would be able to test DXP and provide valuable feedback to Altium. I just don't agree with paying ATS for bug fixes. New features, yes... telephone tech support for those that need it, yes... fixing buggy software, absolutely not! Is it just me or does it seem like Accel was the one who bought Protel? Ever since Protel purchased Accel and changed their name to Atium, it seems that most people at Altium are former Accel people and the new policies seem to be old Accel policies. I fear that the Protel us long time users have come to know and respect is no longer in existence. Rob - Original Message - From: John A. Ross [Design] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues From: Brad Velander [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Protel EDA Forum' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues Rob, could you explain your comments about the Cam Manager in DXP a little better. Do you mean to say that every time you want to generate Gerber/Drill output, you have to reconfigure your output formats manually each time? If what I think you are saying is true, who is the rocket scientist at Protel that blew that one. You know how many mistakes are made generating gerber/drill formats on an initial configuration, saving and tweaking those configurations is only the minimal acceptable feature for the past 10 years (some packages longer than that). Aaaarghhh, Protel/Altium just don't know what the f#$% they are doing, incompetent, completely incompetent. Brad You have to generate the ouptuts in the individual groups (gerber, drill etc). Pre Cam-Manager style. So we have ANOTHER step backwards, productivity wise. Pay more (ATS) do less! Dont figure with me. The features in DXP that I would have welcomed (productivity increase) might not have been so easy to get into a SP7 in 99SE as a database change was needed to accomodate them. BUT, a gradual change into DXP from 99SE enviroment (SP7) would have been less of a shock than it stands now. I got my 'ATS' copy of DXP as I bought a new 99SE license Q2 this year. But after using the trial version first, I would say I would rather have seen a SP7 than DXP. For now the 'good' in DXP (and there is some) so far does not justify the amount of missed features and reduced productivity for me as compared to 99SE. Although I would not say Altium were completely incompetent with DXP, what I would say is that whovever did the market/user research on what changes
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 03:46:51 -0400, you wrote: I meant to add to my last post that my observations on the sample boards were from the Altium SMT versions. One is a rather mediocre board that was done with 8 layers and no planes so the power and ground were routed in with the signals. I threw Situs at a couple of the supplied examples also. First thing to notice is how slow it is compared to the 99SE router. I ran them side by side on 99SE examples so they would be using the same rules and Situs was at least 4 times (maybe it was 8 times I didn't bother recording results) slower. Protel had thier own router then bought out neuroroute? Or whatever it was called. Neuroute was a clever shape base router with diagonal routing layers and Protel had trouble integrating it and then I suspect trouble understanding it to make it any better. Watching Situs I get the impression it is a development of the old Protel router, or perhaps a merging of the two. Anyone else think so? Cheers, Terry. * Tracking #: B97BBDA3607ED54B864A8682AD4FEE14BAB04E92 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
Terry, After the bad results on my own boards, and as I am not yet fully familiar with DXP and the Situs settings, I didn't actually run Situs on the supplied unrouted samples, rather I looked over the layouts that Altium provided as completed by Situs. It is quite shocking to see what how bad the results are for what Altium is praising as such a big improvement. I have yet to hear or see any positive results from anyone who has used Situs on complex surface mount designs. Perhaps the decreased speed is due to more rules being followed? Following more rules is a good thing. Speed didn't concern me as much as what the board actually looked like. Although your experience of 4 - 8 times longer is not encouraging at all. Rob - Original Message - From: Terry Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 11:19 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 03:46:51 -0400, you wrote: I meant to add to my last post that my observations on the sample boards were from the Altium SMT versions. One is a rather mediocre board that was done with 8 layers and no planes so the power and ground were routed in with the signals. I threw Situs at a couple of the supplied examples also. First thing to notice is how slow it is compared to the 99SE router. I ran them side by side on 99SE examples so they would be using the same rules and Situs was at least 4 times (maybe it was 8 times I didn't bother recording results) slower. Protel had thier own router then bought out neuroroute? Or whatever it was called. Neuroute was a clever shape base router with diagonal routing layers and Protel had trouble integrating it and then I suspect trouble understanding it to make it any better. Watching Situs I get the impression it is a development of the old Protel router, or perhaps a merging of the two. Anyone else think so? Cheers, Terry. * Tracking #: B97BBDA3607ED54B864A8682AD4FEE14BAB04E92 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
as i understand the general development process BETA is way too late for user feature input and wish lists at that point major decisions and directions have already been set BETA is to shake out problems, new features and wishes at that stage would only add new problems my take on this is that they have their own vision of the direction they want to go with the software and as far as i can tell they didn't give a hoot about what we have been clamoring for now such arrogance can actually be ok if they are truly visionary and much smarter than we are (which is something i would hope to be the case) users, myself included, have a way of clinging to a pair of comfortable old shoes, when in fact a new pair may be more appropriate witness autocad, trapped by its own success it's really a total mess but they can't change anything core because of all the third party apps and recalcitrant users now solidworks comes along and starts with a clean slate autocad is hanging on by it's fingernails and only that because of the huge user base having said all of this, the question now at hand is whether they have met the above criteria regrettably, i don't think so there is time enough to prove me wrong, and i certainly would hope to be proven wrong regarding Rob's comment about getting no response because he is not on ATS not so! i have ATS and have gotten ZERO response to more than several questions which i have posted on the DXP list and also repeated there (they may not have been questions they wanted to hear about) i have been using protel since autotrax (DOS) i went through all the cycles, i, like Rob, have been directly responsible for AT LEAST 5 companies adopting protel, often under protest would i do that now? no way, in fact being a protel advocate is a bit of an embarrassment at the moment what is the current value of ATS ? (in my humble opinion) NOTHING - ZERO - NADA in short it is worthless i think at this point the only way they can resurrect some good will from ATS owners is to issue the long overdue SP7 for 99SE since this would have the effect of making people even less motivated to move to DXP then they would then have redouble their efforts to improve DXP enough to seduce us to make the move in other words actually earn their keep, offer real value in exchange for money Dennis Saputelli John A. Ross [Design] wrote: From: Brad Velander [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Protel EDA Forum' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues Rob, could you explain your comments about the Cam Manager in DXP a little better. Do you mean to say that every time you want to generate Gerber/Drill output, you have to reconfigure your output formats manually each time? If what I think you are saying is true, who is the rocket scientist at Protel that blew that one. You know how many mistakes are made generating gerber/drill formats on an initial configuration, saving and tweaking those configurations is only the minimal acceptable feature for the past 10 years (some packages longer than that). Aaaarghhh, Protel/Altium just don't know what the f#$% they are doing, incompetent, completely incompetent. Brad You have to generate the ouptuts in the individual groups (gerber, drill etc). Pre Cam-Manager style. So we have ANOTHER step backwards, productivity wise. Pay more (ATS) do less! Dont figure with me. The features in DXP that I would have welcomed (productivity increase) might not have been so easy to get into a SP7 in 99SE as a database change was needed to accomodate them. BUT, a gradual change into DXP from 99SE enviroment (SP7) would have been less of a shock than it stands now. I got my 'ATS' copy of DXP as I bought a new 99SE license Q2 this year. But after using the trial version first, I would say I would rather have seen a SP7 than DXP. For now the 'good' in DXP (and there is some) so far does not justify the amount of missed features and reduced productivity for me as compared to 99SE. Although I would not say Altium were completely incompetent with DXP, what I would say is that whovever did the market/user research on what changes features should be added into DXP, well, they simply asked the wrong people or did not ask in the first place, just skimmed the user lists and made a few notes. The beta program obviously did not take in a big enough cross section of users (not just loyal experts) to yeild accurate information on what the 'average user' would like or need, and of course those that did beta test, have their gag order to contend with, so we will never know. I would have thought after the 99-99SE experience, the situation would not have occurred again, oh my :-( John Sincerely, Brad Velander. Lead PCB Designer Norsat International Inc. Microwave Products Tel (604) 292-9089 (direct line) Fax (604) 292-9010 email: [EMAIL
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
What Rob Young stated is what I have been saying for since Accel was acquired. Just Like some of you, I am taking a very hard look at other programs. A very hard lookMy future depends on having the right software for my requirements not someone dictating what my requirements are. Mike Reagan - Original Message - From: Rob Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 10:56 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues Speaking of the Beta program, I asked to be part of the Beta program for DXP and was not selected. I have been using Protel since version 1.12 back in 1993 I believe, so I would have thought that my input would have been worth something to them. For whatever reason, they chose not to include me. That was fine as I have too much work to do anyway. The reason I have recently stepped up and began using the DXP demo, is that I have a great interest in seeing that our beloved Protel continues as it has. While Protel has never been perfect, in my opinion, it has been the best value on the market for manual PCB layout and schematic capture. But now, just as they have been gaining ground they decide to make this ATS policy along with a repeat of the P99 release. I nearly severed my Protel relationship over the bugs in P99 and continued to use P98 until P99SE came out. I was encouraged in that the P99SE release directly addressed many of the concerns on this group. It is quite upsetting to see them repeat that mistake again, but this time, they expect us to pay for it as well. Also it just occurred to me as why I am not getting any responses from Altium on the many issues I asked about in the demo I am not a current ATS subscriber! So I am now being shunned for previewing their new release. Not a great way to treat a long time user and supporter of Protel in my opinion. As a consultant, I have been responsible for many more seats of Protel than just my seat. With Altium's current attitude, I will recommend to all of my clients that they wait to see what the outcome of the ATS policy will really be and until DXP has matured enough to be a usable package. Unless Altium intends to be more aggressive with service packs on ATS, that will be at least a year and maybe more based upon past experience. As much as I would like to see SP7, I don't think Altium will provide one as it is not in their new company model to continue with P99SE. They want to move everyone over to DXP and start to collect ATS fees for what is currently an inferior product. Perhaps if they would provide SP7 under the ATS program, it would make the ATS worth something. Then a user could continue to use P99SE with new features and bug fixes and feel like they got something for their money while DXP was getting refined. Plus the user would be able to test DXP and provide valuable feedback to Altium. I just don't agree with paying ATS for bug fixes. New features, yes... telephone tech support for those that need it, yes... fixing buggy software, absolutely not! Is it just me or does it seem like Accel was the one who bought Protel? Ever since Protel purchased Accel and changed their name to Atium, it seems that most people at Altium are former Accel people and the new policies seem to be old Accel policies. I fear that the Protel us long time users have come to know and respect is no longer in existence. Rob - Original Message - From: John A. Ross [Design] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues From: Brad Velander [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Protel EDA Forum' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues Rob, could you explain your comments about the Cam Manager in DXP a little better. Do you mean to say that every time you want to generate Gerber/Drill output, you have to reconfigure your output formats manually each time? If what I think you are saying is true, who is the rocket scientist at Protel that blew that one. You know how many mistakes are made generating gerber/drill formats on an initial configuration, saving and tweaking those configurations is only the minimal acceptable feature for the past 10 years (some packages longer than that). Aaaarghhh, Protel/Altium just don't know what the f#$% they are doing, incompetent, completely incompetent. Brad You have to generate the ouptuts in the individual groups (gerber, drill etc). Pre Cam-Manager style. So we have ANOTHER step backwards, productivity wise. Pay more (ATS) do less! Dont figure with me. The features in DXP that I would have welcomed (productivity increase) might not have been so easy to get into a SP7 in 99SE as a database change was needed to accomodate them
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
I should also point out that early on in the DXP forum, Altium did respond to questions and comments which was very encouraging, but as time has progressed, they seem to have clammed up on some issues. Rob Young - Original Message - From: Rob Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 2:11 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues What's even worse than not responding to my requests on the DXP forum, is that I sent them a copy of a file in question and was given an ID number 5211. After not hearing about what Altium thought of the issue on split planes, I emailed them directly to find out where things stood and made it clear I would like to know if the demo version was different from the production version. Also since my demo was running out in 9 days, I would like to have had the opportunity to try some workarounds. My demo ran out a couple of days ago and I have not had any responses to my direct emails to Altium. Perhaps they are on vacation or their email servers are having problems. I understand they may have been busy and the issue may be one that requires more than just a quick look, but a response to my email with a progress report would have been appropriate. I just assumed I am now blacklisted since I am not an ATS subscriber, but based on Dennis's experience who is an ATS subscriber, it would seem that Altium is not living up to their promise on improved support with ATS. I personally only use the PCB and Schematic tools and really don't care to support all these other tools that I will never use. If this new direction that Altium is taking continues, there will be a tremendous opportunity for some bright software people who want to duplicate what Protel did so many years ago. If I'm not mistaken, I think it was the old Tango developers that created Protel after Accel bought Tango. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember such a story. I truly hope I am wrong in my impressions of where Altium is going, but I fear that based on events since the release of DXP that may not be the case. Rob Young - Original Message - From: Dennis Saputelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 1:22 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues regarding Rob's comment about getting no response because he is not on ATS not so! i have ATS and have gotten ZERO response to more than several questions which i have posted on the DXP list and also repeated there (they may not have been questions they wanted to hear about) i have been using protel since autotrax (DOS) i went through all the cycles, i, like Rob, have been directly responsible for AT LEAST 5 companies adopting protel, often under protest would i do that now? no way, in fact being a protel advocate is a bit of an embarrassment at the moment what is the current value of ATS ? (in my humble opinion) NOTHING - ZERO - NADA in short it is worthless i think at this point the only way they can resurrect some good will from ATS owners is to issue the long overdue SP7 for 99SE since this would have the effect of making people even less motivated to move to DXP then they would then have redouble their efforts to improve DXP enough to seduce us to make the move in other words actually earn their keep, offer real value in exchange for money Dennis Saputelli John A. Ross [Design] wrote: From: Brad Velander [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Protel EDA Forum' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues Rob, could you explain your comments about the Cam Manager in DXP a little better. Do you mean to say that every time you want to generate Gerber/Drill output, you have to reconfigure your output formats manually each time? If what I think you are saying is true, who is the rocket scientist at Protel that blew that one. You know how many mistakes are made generating gerber/drill formats on an initial configuration, saving and tweaking those configurations is only the minimal acceptable feature for the past 10 years (some packages longer than that). Aaaarghhh, Protel/Altium just don't know what the f#$% they are doing, incompetent, completely incompetent. Brad You have to generate the ouptuts in the individual groups (gerber, drill etc). Pre Cam-Manager style. So we have ANOTHER step backwards, productivity wise. Pay more (ATS) do less! Dont figure with me. The features in DXP that I would have welcomed (productivity increase) might not have been so easy to get into a SP7 in 99SE as a database change was needed to accomodate them. BUT, a gradual change into DXP from 99SE enviroment (SP7) would have been less of a shock than it stands now. I got my 'ATS
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
Dennis wrote: now such arrogance can actually be ok if they are truly visionary and much smarter than we are (which is something i would hope to be the case) Well I thought they were prophets until they decided to drop ddb format after cramming it down my throat in the first place. I was the first on this forum to condemn it using very a harsh language several years ago. OK I got used to it, and it has some advantages, ie I can keep all of my files together. But now the winds of Microsoft have changed the direction of the sails of Protel and they embark on another path. Am I to believe the hype two years ago in favor of ddb or is someone pulling my leg this time because they really don't know what direction they are headed. That is not the sight of a visionary. This is hindsight. Mike Reagan EDSI * Tracking #: 86C2B3D325C5DD429CDEB6D65ACA3CED8A3A54D7 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
I too hated the ddb format when it was first introduced. But Protel convinced me otherwise of it's value. Unlike others on this forum, I have never experienced problems with my ddb files so I can't comment on their downsides. But now Protel has abandoned the ddb format and has introduced bugs or omitted more P99SE features in the process. With this new direction, I would almost feel like a fool for following Protel's lead on the ddb format in the first place except for the fact that the ddb format means less work for me. Rob Young - Original Message - From: Michael Reagan (EDSI) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues Dennis wrote: now such arrogance can actually be ok if they are truly visionary and much smarter than we are (which is something i would hope to be the case) Well I thought they were prophets until they decided to drop ddb format after cramming it down my throat in the first place. I was the first on this forum to condemn it using very a harsh language several years ago. OK I got used to it, and it has some advantages, ie I can keep all of my files together. But now the winds of Microsoft have changed the direction of the sails of Protel and they embark on another path. Am I to believe the hype two years ago in favor of ddb or is someone pulling my leg this time because they really don't know what direction they are headed. That is not the sight of a visionary. This is hindsight. Mike Reagan EDSI * Tracking #: 86C2B3D325C5DD429CDEB6D65ACA3CED8A3A54D7 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
Maybe with all the issues that have been pointed out to them since the 'official' release, they are swamped with prioritizing and fixing issues. This may leave little time for email replies. -Original Message- From: Rob Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 11:29 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues I should also point out that early on in the DXP forum, Altium did respond to questions and comments which was very encouraging, but as time has progressed, they seem to have clammed up on some issues. Rob Young - Original Message - From: Rob Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 2:11 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues What's even worse than not responding to my requests on the DXP forum, is that I sent them a copy of a file in question and was given an ID number 5211. After not hearing about what Altium thought of the issue on split planes, I emailed them directly to find out where things stood and made it clear I would like to know if the demo version was different from the production version. Also since my demo was running out in 9 days, I would like to have had the opportunity to try some workarounds. My demo ran out a couple of days ago and I have not had any responses to my direct emails to Altium. Perhaps they are on vacation or their email servers are having problems. I understand they may have been busy and the issue may be one that requires more than just a quick look, but a response to my email with a progress report would have been appropriate. I just assumed I am now blacklisted since I am not an ATS subscriber, but based on Dennis's experience who is an ATS subscriber, it would seem that Altium is not living up to their promise on improved support with ATS. I personally only use the PCB and Schematic tools and really don't care to support all these other tools that I will never use. If this new direction that Altium is taking continues, there will be a tremendous opportunity for some bright software people who want to duplicate what Protel did so many years ago. If I'm not mistaken, I think it was the old Tango developers that created Protel after Accel bought Tango. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember such a story. I truly hope I am wrong in my impressions of where Altium is going, but I fear that based on events since the release of DXP that may not be the case. Rob Young - Original Message - From: Dennis Saputelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 1:22 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues regarding Rob's comment about getting no response because he is not on ATS not so! i have ATS and have gotten ZERO response to more than several questions which i have posted on the DXP list and also repeated there (they may not have been questions they wanted to hear about) i have been using protel since autotrax (DOS) i went through all the cycles, i, like Rob, have been directly responsible for AT LEAST 5 companies adopting protel, often under protest would i do that now? no way, in fact being a protel advocate is a bit of an embarrassment at the moment what is the current value of ATS ? (in my humble opinion) NOTHING - ZERO - NADA in short it is worthless i think at this point the only way they can resurrect some good will from ATS owners is to issue the long overdue SP7 for 99SE since this would have the effect of making people even less motivated to move to DXP then they would then have redouble their efforts to improve DXP enough to seduce us to make the move in other words actually earn their keep, offer real value in exchange for money Dennis Saputelli John A. Ross [Design] wrote: From: Brad Velander [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Protel EDA Forum' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues Rob, could you explain your comments about the Cam Manager in DXP a little better. Do you mean to say that every time you want to generate Gerber/Drill output, you have to reconfigure your output formats manually each time? If what I think you are saying is true, who is the rocket scientist at Protel that blew that one. You know how many mistakes are made generating gerber/drill formats on an initial configuration, saving and tweaking those configurations is only the minimal acceptable feature for the past 10 years (some packages longer than that). Aaaarghhh, Protel/Altium just don't know what the f
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
Mike, would you be kind enough to keep us posted on what you find? thanks Dennis Saputelli Michael Reagan (EDSI) wrote: What Rob Young stated is what I have been saying for since Accel was acquired. Just Like some of you, I am taking a very hard look at other programs. A very hard lookMy future depends on having the right software for my requirements not someone dictating what my requirements are. Mike Reagan * Tracking #: 3006412E15FFCD49A4AC0A460A0C13A0F8835E13 * -- ___ www.integratedcontrolsinc.comIntegrated Controls, Inc. tel: 415-647-04802851 21st Street fax: 415-647-3003San Francisco, CA 94110 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
If there were a service pack 7 that also included some long requested new features that are now included in DXP, I would be much more inclined to pay for SP7 than for DXP. DXP is promising in some areas, but completely useless for me in it's current state. I fail to understand why Altium had to so drastically change the interface that long time Protel users will now have to retrain themselves. Features that I would pay for in SP7 that are currently in DXP would be items such as: 1. Layer Pairing in PCB 2. Associative Dimensions 3. Break wire with part in Schematic 4. Right-click panning in schematic like in PCB now. 5. Better padstack control in PCB 6. Part editing in Schematic like in PCB now. 7. Multi-channel capability in Sch and PCB. 8. Automatic edge pullback on PCB planes. 9. Query ability (but please leave existing global options alone!) 10. Ability to exclude certain components from the BOM. Items I could do without and which are preventing me from upgrading to DXP are: 1. Upon opening a P99SE board with over 20 complicated split planes on two plane layers, DXP assigns them to one net and completely disregards their individual net assignments. (Altium has my file and is looking into this but I have not heard anything back them yet despite my numerous requests. My demo is now over, so I give up anyway.) 2. Global editing still needs some work as in some cases, it does not work as intended. (Altium has refused my numerous requests to confirm that the DXP demo is the same as the production DXP so perhaps the demo version is flawed) example: I enter IsComponent and OnBottomLayer in the List Panel query box and apply. This selects all components on the bottom layer. I then go to the Inspect Panel and uncheck the Lock Primitives checkbox. DXP then goes through time consuming analyze nets process and upon completion, changes my selection from components to various tracks which of course eliminates the possibility for any additional component edits without clearing the new selection set and reselecting the components again. This all happens after I change any component property with no further action on my part. Also, I don't understand why if you happen to globally change the text height on the silkscreen does DXP have to go through and analyze the nets again. No copper was changed so why the analyze nets process? This can be time consuming on a very large design, although this was never an issue in P99SE. 3. I wish they would have added the query ability and left the old global editing in place. The query method is much more powerful, but takes longer to make some simple global edits that were just a few clicks in P99SE. example: (change via diameters in P99SE) 1. Double-click on any via 2. change the hole diameter 3. click the Global button 4. click OK button 5. confirm number of edits and you are done. Attempting this in DXP requires more steps and time, but perhaps I just still need to learn how to use DXP. The same holds true with global track edits, text edits and pad edits. These are all very simple edits and in my opinion don't require such a powerful query system although the new query system will have advantages in other areas. 4. Demorgan alternatives are gone in schematic. 5. Cam manager is gone from PCB. Instead of hitting F9 to process all your cam outputs in one keystroke, you will now have to process gerbers, nc drill files, pick place and testpoint data individually. 6. Metric coordinates still do not work properly in DXP. 7. New method of zooming is slower than in P99SE. 8. Panning is choppy in DXP where in P99SE, it was smooth. 9. Netlist loading from other capture packages has changed and is now more involved. 10. Creating netlist formats from schematic for other PCB packages is gone. 11. Manual track editing with old grab points is different. 12. Plot quality in PDF format is not even close to what it was in P99SE. There are many more bad items in DXP and many other good items, but this message is already getting a bit long. I have posted several issues on the DXP forum, but now that my DXP days are over, I will only monitor the DXP list and wait for either SP7 for P99SE or an SE version of DXP before upgrading. I say SE because if past experience with P99 proves true, DXP SP1 might not be ready either, but that remains to be seen. Rob --- Rob Young Design Engineering Consultant Tel: 352-799-7977 Fax: 352-799-8977 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- * Tracking #: BB9B82FACC9AF841873474B289A0C9B0D4D271EF * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: *
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
Rob, you have expressed my feelings exactly. Following the postings in the DXP forum, upgrading is not something that I will be doing for a long time. I would readily pay for a SP7 for P99SE if it fixes our concerns and bugs contained in our Yahoo buglist. I will not pay to upgrade to their less than releasable DXP. I want fixes for the existing bugs in PCB not a bunch of new ones and features that I will never use, I don't use PLD, Simulation, 3D viewer and I won't pay to be their Beta tester with DXP. Rob, could you explain your comments about the Cam Manager in DXP a little better. Do you mean to say that every time you want to generate Gerber/Drill output, you have to reconfigure your output formats manually each time? If what I think you are saying is true, who is the rocket scientist at Protel that blew that one. You know how many mistakes are made generating gerber/drill formats on an initial configuration, saving and tweaking those configurations is only the minimal acceptable feature for the past 10 years (some packages longer than that). Aaaarghhh, Protel/Altium just don't know what the f#$% they are doing, incompetent, completely incompetent. Sincerely, Brad Velander. Lead PCB Designer Norsat International Inc. Microwave Products Tel (604) 292-9089 (direct line) Fax (604) 292-9010 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.norsat.com Norsat's Microwave Products Division has now achieved ISO 9001:2000 certification -Original Message- From: Rob Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 6:48 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues If there were a service pack 7 that also included some long requested new features that are now included in DXP, I would be much more inclined to pay for SP7 than for DXP. DXP is promising in some areas, but completely useless for me in it's current state. I fail to understand why Altium had to so drastically change the interface that long time Protel users will now have to retrain themselves. Features that I would pay for in SP7 that are currently in DXP would be items such as: 1. Layer Pairing in PCB 2. Associative Dimensions 3. Break wire with part in Schematic 4. Right-click panning in schematic like in PCB now. 5. Better padstack control in PCB 6. Part editing in Schematic like in PCB now. 7. Multi-channel capability in Sch and PCB. 8. Automatic edge pullback on PCB planes. 9. Query ability (but please leave existing global options alone!) 10. Ability to exclude certain components from the BOM. SNIP 5. Cam manager is gone from PCB. Instead of hitting F9 to process all your cam outputs in one keystroke, you will now have to process gerbers, nc drill files, pick place and testpoint data individually. SNIP Rob * Tracking #: BA77E5364D6AD9448C59DC2067018139B233CB65 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
Brad, Here is a copy of my post to the DXP forum concerning the Cam Manager: --- It seems to me that the old F9 to generate all fab outputs is now gone and we are back to the old way of generating each output individually. This is a step backwards in my opinion unless I just haven't figured out how to do it in the new DXP yet. This was a great timesaver in P99SE as whenever mods were needed to a board, I just made my changes and having the confidence that all gerber, drill, test and pick--place settings were saved, I just needed to hit F9 and all manufacturing data was processed. Now it seems that I must run the gerbers, run the drill data, run the test data, run the pick--place all independent of each other. Am I missing something or have we been sent back to the old way of processing files? Also, since DXP does not recognize any *.ppc (print files) or *.cam (cam manager) files, it would have been nice if DXP would have at least imported the settings contained in those files. Now one must reconfigure all those settings over again for every older design if brought into DXP. --- I have found out that it does not remember gerber output settings from P99SE. Plus even within DXP if you used File Fabrication Outputs Gerber Files, the settings are not remembered the next time you start DXP. On the other hand, if you use Project Output Jobs, the settings are in fact remembered. Still no group fabrication output though. In Altium's defense, they have posted to the DXP forum that there are plans on introducing a batch output process again. I just wonder if it will work like the process currently in P99SE and if it will import the settings from P99SE designs. I don't understand why this option was removed in the first place. Rob --- Rob Young Design Engineering Consultant Tel: 352-799-7977 Fax: 352-799-8977 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- - Original Message - From: Brad Velander [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Protel EDA Forum' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues Rob, you have expressed my feelings exactly. Following the postings in the DXP forum, upgrading is not something that I will be doing for a long time. I would readily pay for a SP7 for P99SE if it fixes our concerns and bugs contained in our Yahoo buglist. I will not pay to upgrade to their less than releasable DXP. I want fixes for the existing bugs in PCB not a bunch of new ones and features that I will never use, I don't use PLD, Simulation, 3D viewer and I won't pay to be their Beta tester with DXP. Rob, could you explain your comments about the Cam Manager in DXP a little better. Do you mean to say that every time you want to generate Gerber/Drill output, you have to reconfigure your output formats manually each time? If what I think you are saying is true, who is the rocket scientist at Protel that blew that one. You know how many mistakes are made generating gerber/drill formats on an initial configuration, saving and tweaking those configurations is only the minimal acceptable feature for the past 10 years (some packages longer than that). Aaaarghhh, Protel/Altium just don't know what the f#$% they are doing, incompetent, completely incompetent. Sincerely, Brad Velander. Lead PCB Designer Norsat International Inc. Microwave Products Tel (604) 292-9089 (direct line) Fax (604) 292-9010 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.norsat.com Norsat's Microwave Products Division has now achieved ISO 9001:2000 certification -Original Message- From: Rob Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 6:48 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues If there were a service pack 7 that also included some long requested new features that are now included in DXP, I would be much more inclined to pay for SP7 than for DXP. DXP is promising in some areas, but completely useless for me in it's current state. I fail to understand why Altium had to so drastically change the interface that long time Protel users will now have to retrain themselves. Features that I would pay for in SP7 that are currently in DXP would be items such as: 1. Layer Pairing in PCB 2. Associative Dimensions 3. Break wire with part in Schematic 4. Right-click panning in schematic like in PCB now. 5. Better padstack control in PCB 6. Part editing in Schematic like in PCB now. 7. Multi-channel capability in Sch and PCB. 8. Automatic edge pullback on PCB planes. 9. Query ability (but please leave existing global options alone!) 10. Ability to exclude certain components from the BOM. SNIP 5. Cam manager is gone from PCB. Instead of hitting F9 to process all your cam outputs in one keystroke, you will now have
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
i also never use PLD, Simulation or 3D non-viewer i spent about 4 hours on DXP and felt stupid and robbed of my time i am very skeptical about the fading thing which i think is driving the performance degradation brad you are right that the cam configuration details are very tedious to check and set every time i am not sure they blew that one in DXP as badly as indicated here (but they might have, i will look into it) they certainly did a nice job of it in 99, hit F9 and away you go copy the .CAM file to another DDB and you're all set ... i wouldn't describe protel as incompetent, arrogant perhaps i think Ivan's idea about giving schematic away is good one not that they will ever do it, but something along those lines may popularize it enough that we will not be penalized for using protel schematic as we are now did i ever mention that i thought protel should export schematics to orcad DSN files? (only kidding - i keep hammering this but they will not respond to me about it) 99SE SP7 item add export to Orcad sch DSN files Dennis Saputelli Brad Velander wrote: Rob, you have expressed my feelings exactly. Following the postings in the DXP forum, upgrading is not something that I will be doing for a long time. I would readily pay for a SP7 for P99SE if it fixes our concerns and bugs contained in our Yahoo buglist. I will not pay to upgrade to their less than releasable DXP. I want fixes for the existing bugs in PCB not a bunch of new ones and features that I will never use, I don't use PLD, Simulation, 3D viewer and I won't pay to be their Beta tester with DXP. Rob, could you explain your comments about the Cam Manager in DXP a little better. Do you mean to say that every time you want to generate Gerber/Drill output, you have to reconfigure your output formats manually each time? If what I think you are saying is true, who is the rocket scientist at Protel that blew that one. You know how many mistakes are made generating gerber/drill formats on an initial configuration, saving and tweaking those configurations is only the minimal acceptable feature for the past 10 years (some packages longer than that). Aaaarghhh, Protel/Altium just don't know what the f#$% they are doing, incompetent, completely incompetent. Sincerely, Brad Velander. Lead PCB Designer Norsat International Inc. Microwave Products Tel (604) 292-9089 (direct line) Fax (604) 292-9010 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.norsat.com Norsat's Microwave Products Division has now achieved ISO 9001:2000 certification -Original Message- From: Rob Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 6:48 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues If there were a service pack 7 that also included some long requested new features that are now included in DXP, I would be much more inclined to pay for SP7 than for DXP. DXP is promising in some areas, but completely useless for me in it's current state. I fail to understand why Altium had to so drastically change the interface that long time Protel users will now have to retrain themselves. Features that I would pay for in SP7 that are currently in DXP would be items such as: 1. Layer Pairing in PCB 2. Associative Dimensions 3. Break wire with part in Schematic 4. Right-click panning in schematic like in PCB now. 5. Better padstack control in PCB 6. Part editing in Schematic like in PCB now. 7. Multi-channel capability in Sch and PCB. 8. Automatic edge pullback on PCB planes. 9. Query ability (but please leave existing global options alone!) 10. Ability to exclude certain components from the BOM. SNIP 5. Cam manager is gone from PCB. Instead of hitting F9 to process all your cam outputs in one keystroke, you will now have to process gerbers, nc drill files, pick place and testpoint data individually. SNIP Rob * Tracking #: BA77E5364D6AD9448C59DC2067018139B233CB65 * -- ___ www.integratedcontrolsinc.comIntegrated Controls, Inc. tel: 415-647-04802851 21st Street fax: 415-647-3003San Francisco, CA 94110 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
Dennis Saputelli wrote: i am very skeptical about the fading thing which i think is driving the performance degradation It is unfortunate, but seems to be the consistent testimony of many Protel users that the new DXP software is not improving the ability of pcb designs to do their work better and more effeciently, and should this not be the goal of the software vendor ? Is this not the reason we use any tool - to make our lives easier, to get the job done quicker, to do the best job possible ? It is one of the sad paradoxes or life that the overall objective is frequently lost sight of during the implementation of the process. Here is the ideal: Buy a software tool to perform a task (It works but is cumbersome is some areas) The user suggests to those provding the software (It would be great if the software did this!) The software provider fixes the software according to the need of the user. The process cycles until the product has enough change to warrent a new release (price reflects improvement). Everyone is happy. The vendor sells lots of software. The user has a great product. The end customer gets good product fast. Present scenario: User buys software with great anticipation and at great expense, but finds a few weaknesses in the tool. He pleads his cause with the software company, who smiles politely and says, Ah but we have a whole new product that you are sure to love. It costs substantially more money to have the new software, and the user thinks well it must be better if it cost all this more money. After further investigation, the user discovers the new software is completely different and much more difficult to use, however he consoles himself with that assurance that the software does offer some new features. He feels trapped inside the vortex of the upgrade to stay current market monster. The monster licks his lips and rubs his hands togehter as he counts up all his money drained from the users in bondage. On a more serious note, I will stay with Protel 99SE (SP6) as long as possible, and wait for Service Pack 7, but expect to be waiting a very long time. It would fit our company very well to have several schematic licences and just one or two pcb licences. As it is, we have 10 full licences of P99SE. A bit pricy when most in our company only use the software for schematic design. Daniel * Tracking #: 1C2A299CC77188429EFCA1B602B46A1F2C122B6D * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
I am amazed at the number of items that are apparently missing from DXP according to the forum messages. Nick keeps coming in and stating that it is coming. Why wasn't it there at release, it was an existing feature/function in P99SE? This is what I mean by incompetent, they release a new package that is in a number of ways less functional than the old version. That is real incompetence, releasing a down-grade. It's called marketing. It's also called ATS. They don't want to release everything in DXP up front, because then they will have nothing to add in later, and you will feel robbed of your ATS fees. This stuff happens elsewhere too. Windows XP Home doesn't log into domains. W9X does. M$ removed that feature and makes you pay for it by upgrading XP Home to XP Pro. Luckily, I don't have XP on any machines around here or at my home...won't be getting it either, unless I buy a new laptop (not anytime soon). Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com - Original Message - From: Brad Velander [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Protel EDA Forum' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 1:02 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues Dennis, hahahahaha, you just had to stick that export in again didn't you? I agree with the concept of giving away schematic, a near giveaway program worked for OrCAD for so many years. I have even spoke with a couple Protel NA employees who think similarly, seems it is never going to happen though from the comments they fed back to me. As for DXP, all I have done is monitor the DXP forum and I feel robbed of my time! We didn't list the new VHDL functions/features that they have added to DXP, another non-feature to me. I am amazed at the number of items that are apparently missing from DXP according to the forum messages. Nick keeps coming in and stating that it is coming. Why wasn't it there at release, it was an existing feature/function in P99SE? This is what I mean by incompetent, they release a new package that is in a number of ways less functional than the old version. That is real incompetence, releasing a down-grade. I think that some of the smart investors are monitoring this listserver or the DXP group periodically, I think it is reflected in Altium's stock price. Sincerely, Brad Velander. Lead PCB Designer Norsat International Inc. Microwave Products Tel (604) 292-9089 (direct line) Fax (604) 292-9010 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.norsat.com Norsat's Microwave Products Division has now achieved ISO 9001:2000 certification -Original Message- From: Dennis Saputelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 9:24 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues i also never use PLD, Simulation or 3D non-viewer i spent about 4 hours on DXP and felt stupid and robbed of my time SNIP i think Ivan's idea about giving schematic away is good one not that they will ever do it, but something along those lines may popularize it enough that we will not be penalized for using protel schematic as we are now did i ever mention that i thought protel should export schematics to orcad DSN files? (only kidding - i keep hammering this but they will not respond to me about it) 99SE SP7 item add export to Orcad sch DSN files Dennis Saputelli * Tracking #: F3F7EF1DADC3D045B99DA6621B8660296D1A1BC8 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
My biggest complaint with DXP is that the interface has changed so much it appears that P99SE was just scrapped and they started all over with a similar look and feel. The problem with this is that many features of P99SE we have all come to rely upon have been removed or missed in DXP. I would rather have seen P99SE improved upon which probably would have meant less work and a much sooner release date on Altium's part. Plus from the feeling I'm getting from other users, it seems that Altium would have more revenue from people wanting to upgrade. Now they have much fewer people willing to upgrade because of all the issues they have created with redesigning the interface. Plus with ATS, why would I want to pay $1995.00 now for something I can't use right now and then pay $1495.00 a year later for something that still might not be fixed? I have always been one to upgrade as soon as the new release is out. I got burned with that approach when P99 came out but then P99SE came out and I was once again a happy Protel user. But at least I did not have to pay again to get P99SE which had the stability that I should have received with my P99 upgrade. The only thing Altium has done with ATS in my case is caused me to move away from my early upgrade policy as I suspect many other users have done as well. Rob --- Rob Young Design Engineering Consultant Tel: 352-799-7977 Fax: 352-799-8977 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- - Original Message - From: Brad Velander [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Protel EDA Forum' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 1:02 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues Dennis, hahahahaha, you just had to stick that export in again didn't you? I agree with the concept of giving away schematic, a near giveaway program worked for OrCAD for so many years. I have even spoke with a couple Protel NA employees who think similarly, seems it is never going to happen though from the comments they fed back to me. As for DXP, all I have done is monitor the DXP forum and I feel robbed of my time! We didn't list the new VHDL functions/features that they have added to DXP, another non-feature to me. I am amazed at the number of items that are apparently missing from DXP according to the forum messages. Nick keeps coming in and stating that it is coming. Why wasn't it there at release, it was an existing feature/function in P99SE? This is what I mean by incompetent, they release a new package that is in a number of ways less functional than the old version. That is real incompetence, releasing a down-grade. I think that some of the smart investors are monitoring this listserver or the DXP group periodically, I think it is reflected in Altium's stock price. Sincerely, Brad Velander. Lead PCB Designer Norsat International Inc. Microwave Products Tel (604) 292-9089 (direct line) Fax (604) 292-9010 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.norsat.com Norsat's Microwave Products Division has now achieved ISO 9001:2000 certification -Original Message- From: Dennis Saputelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 9:24 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues i also never use PLD, Simulation or 3D non-viewer i spent about 4 hours on DXP and felt stupid and robbed of my time SNIP i think Ivan's idea about giving schematic away is good one not that they will ever do it, but something along those lines may popularize it enough that we will not be penalized for using protel schematic as we are now did i ever mention that i thought protel should export schematics to orcad DSN files? (only kidding - i keep hammering this but they will not respond to me about it) 99SE SP7 item add export to Orcad sch DSN files Dennis Saputelli * Tracking #: F3F7EF1DADC3D045B99DA6621B8660296D1A1BC8 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
Ivan, I understand what you are saying and I can completely agree if this was a mass marketed product. It isn't so I have a problem with pushing off such things as marketing. I keep wondering what other feature did they strip out that I would sorely miss? I'm not paying them to find it out for myself, after they have cashed the cheque! Sincerely, Brad Velander. Lead PCB Designer Norsat International Inc. Microwave Products Tel (604) 292-9089 (direct line) Fax (604) 292-9010 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.norsat.com Norsat's Microwave Products Division has now achieved ISO 9001:2000 certification -Original Message- From: Bagotronix Tech Support [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 10:24 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues SNIP It's called marketing. It's also called ATS. They don't want to release everything in DXP up front, because then they will have nothing to add in later, and you will feel robbed of your ATS fees. SNIP Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com * Tracking #: 3CCD55F5760B414681E958372CEAD21763079BB0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:26:22 -0700, Daniel wrote: Dennis Saputelli wrote: i am very skeptical about the fading thing which i think is driving the performance degradation It is unfortunate, but seems to be the consistent testimony of many Protel users that the new DXP software is not improving the ability of pcb designs to do their work better and more effeciently. I don't (yet) agree about the 'fading thing'. A mechanism to let you see what you are currently interested in amongst the confusing mess of a modern high density PCB would be a great productivity aid. I don't think I have heard any existing user praising the DXP user interface, it seems to be more a case of reluctantly learning and putting up with the gratuitious changes to take advantage of new and improved features. At least this 'fading thing' is a genuinely new feature. I am hopeful it will be a very useful but haven't used DXP enough to know. Cheers, Terry. * Tracking #: 5B6A53688E3A9D44A5290D03B23FCC52067E416A * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
i hope that my skepticism is misplaced regarding this development Dennis Saputelli Terry Harris wrote: On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:26:22 -0700, Daniel wrote: Dennis Saputelli wrote: i am very skeptical about the fading thing which i think is driving the performance degradation It is unfortunate, but seems to be the consistent testimony of many Protel users that the new DXP software is not improving the ability of pcb designs to do their work better and more effeciently. I don't (yet) agree about the 'fading thing'. A mechanism to let you see what you are currently interested in amongst the confusing mess of a modern high density PCB would be a great productivity aid. I don't think I have heard any existing user praising the DXP user interface, it seems to be more a case of reluctantly learning and putting up with the gratuitious changes to take advantage of new and improved features. At least this 'fading thing' is a genuinely new feature. I am hopeful it will be a very useful but haven't used DXP enough to know. Cheers, Terry. * Tracking #: BD27DB0D336FB942B798DB161CB2D1D5B163DFE1 * -- ___ www.integratedcontrolsinc.comIntegrated Controls, Inc. tel: 415-647-04802851 21st Street fax: 415-647-3003San Francisco, CA 94110 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
I probably would pay for SP7 with as long as they met the long list of our requirements also. Mike Reagan - Original Message - From: Dennis Saputelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 3:00 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues i hope that my skepticism is misplaced regarding this development Dennis Saputelli Terry Harris wrote: On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:26:22 -0700, Daniel wrote: Dennis Saputelli wrote: i am very skeptical about the fading thing which i think is driving the performance degradation It is unfortunate, but seems to be the consistent testimony of many Protel users that the new DXP software is not improving the ability of pcb designs to do their work better and more effeciently. I don't (yet) agree about the 'fading thing'. A mechanism to let you see what you are currently interested in amongst the confusing mess of a modern high density PCB would be a great productivity aid. I don't think I have heard any existing user praising the DXP user interface, it seems to be more a case of reluctantly learning and putting up with the gratuitious changes to take advantage of new and improved features. At least this 'fading thing' is a genuinely new feature. I am hopeful it will be a very useful but haven't used DXP enough to know. Cheers, Terry. * Tracking #: BD27DB0D336FB942B798DB161CB2D1D5B163DFE1 * -- ___ www.integratedcontrolsinc.comIntegrated Controls, Inc. tel: 415-647-04802851 21st Street fax: 415-647-3003San Francisco, CA 94110 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
At 04:23 PM 8/30/2002 -0400, Michael Reagan (EDSI) wrote: I probably would pay for SP7 with as long as they met the long list of our requirements also. I too have been put off by the complexities introduced with DXP. If it had been, say, a bug fix for 99SE, at a corresponding price, there is no doubt that I'd be using it. If the additional features had come without greatly confusing the user interface (for one used to 99SE), I'd be wanting them too. We were long awaiting an improved autorouter, and I had heard rumors about how good it was going to be, rivalling Specctra, etc. I haven't seen any comments on the DXP list on Situs except for some information about the design rules it follows, which have not been much improved, i.e., there are apparently still plenty of rules which are ignored. Something is wrong. The unfortunate thing about the DXP release is that the work was invested, it would seem, in advance of a true marketing study, at least of one involving a sufficient number of existing users. Programming for a service pack is one thing, programming for feature improvements may be something else. It is difficult, I'd think, to go back, but it might not be impossible. The theory behind the Client/Server architecture was that the individual modules were separately maintainable. How much the Advanced PCB server was modified to make it into the DXP PCB server, I don't know. I would think that solid software management for a product like Protel would involve continuously fixing bugs, as soon as possible, releasing service packs regularly, and sometimes including feature improvements -- gradually -- as part of the process. A maintenance model allows this, which is probably one reason why Altium has gone that way. The transition, however, has not been handled well. There should never have been such a dead time with no service pack. SP7 should have been released long ago. I can understand the argument that was probably put forth: since we are going to make all these major changes, we need to put all our effort into them instead of fooling around with code that is going to become obsolete anyway. Yet this argument is one that keeps software buggy on into eternity. There is a reason why organisms only change a little DNA at a time! Make too many changes at once, nothing works well any more. So then you have to do all kinds of new software testing, etc., to try to find the bugs that have been introduced with the changes. Plus, a crucial part of the organism is the user. Confuse the user, and the best software becomes next to useless. But it might not be impossible to put together an SP7, perhaps much of the coding has already been done and even tested to some degree. I'd suggest a price of, say, $1K for it, fully appliable to DXP (or, perhaps, to ATS) when the user decides to go that way. Enough 99SE users might pay for an SP7 to make it worthwhile; it would generate good will among the users -- except for those who insist that anything short of feature improvement should be free, period. As far as $2000 for the DXP upgrade, the fact is that a truly improved autorouter would be worth $2K just by itself. Problem is, in order to get it -- assuming that Situs is actually greatly improved now or in the near future -- we have to move into a user interface that is sufficiently different to put many of us off. Unless Altium does something about this. Remember, the whole point of Client/Server was to modularize the programs while permitting interaction. (While I was a Beta tester for DXP, events in my own life prevented me, and thus far have continued to prevent me, from investing much time in DXP either during Beta or subsequently. Perhaps the autorouter is truly magic, and it has simply escaped comment on the DXP list; in that event, I presume that someone who knows better will enlighten us.) * Tracking #: 80B2D86297784D429EB1D3578C179B77B45AEA09 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
maybe there are no comments about the autorouter because nobody has gotten that far into the process for all of the reasons stated here (programm too different and slow) the few things that i have seen on the DXP list are not encouraging running new stringers to pads already fanned out to power being one of them Dennis Saputelli Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 04:23 PM 8/30/2002 -0400, Michael Reagan (EDSI) wrote: I probably would pay for SP7 with as long as they met the long list of our requirements also. I too have been put off by the complexities introduced with DXP. If it had been, say, a bug fix for 99SE, at a corresponding price, there is no doubt that I'd be using it. If the additional features had come without greatly confusing the user interface (for one used to 99SE), I'd be wanting them too. We were long awaiting an improved autorouter, and I had heard rumors about how good it was going to be, rivalling Specctra, etc. I haven't seen any comments on the DXP list on Situs except for some information about the design rules it follows, which have not been much improved, i.e., there are apparently still plenty of rules which are ignored. Something is wrong. The unfortunate thing about the DXP release is that the work was invested, it would seem, in advance of a true marketing study, at least of one involving a sufficient number of existing users. Programming for a service pack is one thing, programming for feature improvements may be something else. It is difficult, I'd think, to go back, but it might not be impossible. The theory behind the Client/Server architecture was that the individual modules were separately maintainable. How much the Advanced PCB server was modified to make it into the DXP PCB server, I don't know. I would think that solid software management for a product like Protel would involve continuously fixing bugs, as soon as possible, releasing service packs regularly, and sometimes including feature improvements -- gradually -- as part of the process. A maintenance model allows this, which is probably one reason why Altium has gone that way. The transition, however, has not been handled well. There should never have been such a dead time with no service pack. SP7 should have been released long ago. I can understand the argument that was probably put forth: since we are going to make all these major changes, we need to put all our effort into them instead of fooling around with code that is going to become obsolete anyway. Yet this argument is one that keeps software buggy on into eternity. There is a reason why organisms only change a little DNA at a time! Make too many changes at once, nothing works well any more. So then you have to do all kinds of new software testing, etc., to try to find the bugs that have been introduced with the changes. Plus, a crucial part of the organism is the user. Confuse the user, and the best software becomes next to useless. But it might not be impossible to put together an SP7, perhaps much of the coding has already been done and even tested to some degree. I'd suggest a price of, say, $1K for it, fully appliable to DXP (or, perhaps, to ATS) when the user decides to go that way. Enough 99SE users might pay for an SP7 to make it worthwhile; it would generate good will among the users -- except for those who insist that anything short of feature improvement should be free, period. As far as $2000 for the DXP upgrade, the fact is that a truly improved autorouter would be worth $2K just by itself. Problem is, in order to get it -- assuming that Situs is actually greatly improved now or in the near future -- we have to move into a user interface that is sufficiently different to put many of us off. Unless Altium does something about this. Remember, the whole point of Client/Server was to modularize the programs while permitting interaction. (While I was a Beta tester for DXP, events in my own life prevented me, and thus far have continued to prevent me, from investing much time in DXP either during Beta or subsequently. Perhaps the autorouter is truly magic, and it has simply escaped comment on the DXP list; in that event, I presume that someone who knows better will enlighten us.) * Tracking #: 050A15B2BB0BFC45BD950B7DECA240CBB44DE7C9 * -- ___ www.integratedcontrolsinc.comIntegrated Controls, Inc. tel: 415-647-04802851 21st Street fax: 415-647-3003San Francisco, CA 94110 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
It is a great aid AND I don't think it's the cause of the crappy panning and redraw speed. Try this: remove all floating menus from the workspace (in DXP) and then pan...it still is worse than 99SE. I see great potential in DXP's interface, but they need some serious optimizations for the GUI speed. Tony -Original Message- From: Terry Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 11:00 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 10:26:22 -0700, Daniel wrote: Dennis Saputelli wrote: i am very skeptical about the fading thing which i think is driving the performance degradation It is unfortunate, but seems to be the consistent testimony of many Protel users that the new DXP software is not improving the ability of pcb designs to do their work better and more effeciently. I don't (yet) agree about the 'fading thing'. A mechanism to let you see what you are currently interested in amongst the confusing mess of a modern high density PCB would be a great productivity aid. I don't think I have heard any existing user praising the DXP user interface, it seems to be more a case of reluctantly learning and putting up with the gratuitious changes to take advantage of new and improved features. At least this 'fading thing' is a genuinely new feature. I am hopeful it will be a very useful but haven't used DXP enough to know. Cheers, Terry. ** ** * Tracking #: 5B6A53688E3A9D44A5290D03B23FCC52067E416A * ** ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
I am not experienced in using the new Situs router but I have tried it with disastrous results. Since I thought I might have been doing something wrong, I loaded the sample boards routed at Altium by what I would have thought to be an experienced Situs user. I posted a list of sample areas to look at on these boards a while ago on the DXP forum. From what I saw, the results were worse than my results in some cases. Perhaps I am too picky but I see no reason for 5 or six power vias near each other all connected by short traces on various layers to tie one pin to the power buss when just one via would have done the job. Several acid traps and traces exiting pads at oddball angles with stairstepping. After reviewing the sample boards, I decided not to mess with Situs again until a few service packs have come out. Overall, I did not see anything in the sample boards to indicate that Situs is an improvement. Rob - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 4:57 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues At 04:23 PM 8/30/2002 -0400, Michael Reagan (EDSI) wrote: I probably would pay for SP7 with as long as they met the long list of our requirements also. I too have been put off by the complexities introduced with DXP. If it had been, say, a bug fix for 99SE, at a corresponding price, there is no doubt that I'd be using it. If the additional features had come without greatly confusing the user interface (for one used to 99SE), I'd be wanting them too. We were long awaiting an improved autorouter, and I had heard rumors about how good it was going to be, rivalling Specctra, etc. I haven't seen any comments on the DXP list on Situs except for some information about the design rules it follows, which have not been much improved, i.e., there are apparently still plenty of rules which are ignored. Something is wrong. The unfortunate thing about the DXP release is that the work was invested, it would seem, in advance of a true marketing study, at least of one involving a sufficient number of existing users. Programming for a service pack is one thing, programming for feature improvements may be something else. It is difficult, I'd think, to go back, but it might not be impossible. The theory behind the Client/Server architecture was that the individual modules were separately maintainable. How much the Advanced PCB server was modified to make it into the DXP PCB server, I don't know. I would think that solid software management for a product like Protel would involve continuously fixing bugs, as soon as possible, releasing service packs regularly, and sometimes including feature improvements -- gradually -- as part of the process. A maintenance model allows this, which is probably one reason why Altium has gone that way. The transition, however, has not been handled well. There should never have been such a dead time with no service pack. SP7 should have been released long ago. I can understand the argument that was probably put forth: since we are going to make all these major changes, we need to put all our effort into them instead of fooling around with code that is going to become obsolete anyway. Yet this argument is one that keeps software buggy on into eternity. There is a reason why organisms only change a little DNA at a time! Make too many changes at once, nothing works well any more. So then you have to do all kinds of new software testing, etc., to try to find the bugs that have been introduced with the changes. Plus, a crucial part of the organism is the user. Confuse the user, and the best software becomes next to useless. But it might not be impossible to put together an SP7, perhaps much of the coding has already been done and even tested to some degree. I'd suggest a price of, say, $1K for it, fully appliable to DXP (or, perhaps, to ATS) when the user decides to go that way. Enough 99SE users might pay for an SP7 to make it worthwhile; it would generate good will among the users -- except for those who insist that anything short of feature improvement should be free, period. As far as $2000 for the DXP upgrade, the fact is that a truly improved autorouter would be worth $2K just by itself. Problem is, in order to get it -- assuming that Situs is actually greatly improved now or in the near future -- we have to move into a user interface that is sufficiently different to put many of us off. Unless Altium does something about this. Remember, the whole point of Client/Server was to modularize the programs while permitting interaction. (While I was a Beta tester for DXP, events in my own life prevented me, and thus far have continued to prevent me, from investing much time in DXP either during Beta or subsequently. Perhaps the autorouter is truly magic, and it has simply escaped comment on the DXP list; in that event, I
Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues
I have one contrary experience. I re-did a simple two layer board I did by hand years ago, and Situs did better than any previous version. In fact it looks pretty damn good...close to hand routing. All previous routers could manage 100%, but they looked like hell. Situs did not. The problem is I can do little boards by hand anytime. I'm hoping for Situs to step up to the plate for the LARGE boards that I don't want to do by hand anymore. Tony -Original Message- From: Rob Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 5:58 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues I am not experienced in using the new Situs router but I have tried it with disastrous results. Since I thought I might have been doing something wrong, I loaded the sample boards routed at Altium by what I would have thought to be an experienced Situs user. I posted a list of sample areas to look at on these boards a while ago on the DXP forum. From what I saw, the results were worse than my results in some cases. Perhaps I am too picky but I see no reason for 5 or six power vias near each other all connected by short traces on various layers to tie one pin to the power buss when just one via would have done the job. Several acid traps and traces exiting pads at oddball angles with stairstepping. After reviewing the sample boards, I decided not to mess with Situs again until a few service packs have come out. Overall, I did not see anything in the sample boards to indicate that Situs is an improvement. Rob - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 4:57 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues At 04:23 PM 8/30/2002 -0400, Michael Reagan (EDSI) wrote: I probably would pay for SP7 with as long as they met the long list of our requirements also. I too have been put off by the complexities introduced with DXP. If it had been, say, a bug fix for 99SE, at a corresponding price, there is no doubt that I'd be using it. If the additional features had come without greatly confusing the user interface (for one used to 99SE), I'd be wanting them too. We were long awaiting an improved autorouter, and I had heard rumors about how good it was going to be, rivalling Specctra, etc. I haven't seen any comments on the DXP list on Situs except for some information about the design rules it follows, which have not been much improved, i.e., there are apparently still plenty of rules which are ignored. Something is wrong. The unfortunate thing about the DXP release is that the work was invested, it would seem, in advance of a true marketing study, at least of one involving a sufficient number of existing users. Programming for a service pack is one thing, programming for feature improvements may be something else. It is difficult, I'd think, to go back, but it might not be impossible. The theory behind the Client/Server architecture was that the individual modules were separately maintainable. How much the Advanced PCB server was modified to make it into the DXP PCB server, I don't know. I would think that solid software management for a product like Protel would involve continuously fixing bugs, as soon as possible, releasing service packs regularly, and sometimes including feature improvements -- gradually -- as part of the process. A maintenance model allows this, which is probably one reason why Altium has gone that way. The transition, however, has not been handled well. There should never have been such a dead time with no service pack. SP7 should have been released long ago. I can understand the argument that was probably put forth: since we are going to make all these major changes, we need to put all our effort into them instead of fooling around with code that is going to become obsolete anyway. Yet this argument is one that keeps software buggy on into eternity. There is a reason why organisms only change a little DNA at a time! Make too many changes at once, nothing works well any more. So then you have to do all kinds of new software testing, etc., to try to find the bugs that have been introduced with the changes. Plus, a crucial part of the organism is the user. Confuse the user, and the best software becomes next to useless. But it might not be impossible to put together an SP7, perhaps much of the coding has already been done and even tested to some degree. I'd suggest a price of, say, $1K for it, fully appliable to DXP (or, perhaps, to ATS) when the user decides to go that way. Enough 99SE users might pay for an SP7 to make it worthwhile; it would generate good will among the users -- except for those who
