Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time?
On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 02:48:33 +0100, I wrote: >I like the PCB printer in 99SE, so I decide to find out what DXP has got >instead. And as you read some time ago found not much that I liked. Playing some more today - investigating the inconsistent and irrational user interface I stumbled across an "Output Jobs" item in the project menu. Another long story I won't bother going into (also I don't really understand how it is supposed to work) but, it looks like a PCB Project does store a few pre-defined print outputs equivilent to 99SE's PCB Printer documents. If you configure the print job from the project | output jobs dialog then it does prompt to save the project before closing and the configuration is retained. If you configure the print job from the file menu while a PCB document is open then you are not prompted to save the project and the configuration is lost. Maybe configuration in the project is changed without the project being flagged as being modified, but then you can change (and loose) these configurations with only a PCB file (no project) loaded. It looks like most of the functionality of 99SE's cam output documents is provided the same way. Cheers, Terry. * Tracking #: 4388D7CA1E73CE46B5334EE6D5A565562D3A0B0A * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] DXP - Crunch time?
> 5. SP7 for 99SE has once again emerged as a topic of interest. The current > SP6 is not perfect, but it is certainly functional. Some serious cleanup and > a few finishing touches could turn 99SE into a splendid, first-class > program. I wholeheartedly support the idea, and hope that a strong thrust in > this direction can be generated. Hey, Abdul, I know Fred wasn't directing his statements at you, but he did remind me of some things you said in an e-mail about a year or so ago. If I recall correctly, you said you had seen a demo of something that at the time you thought was SP7 for 99SE. You said it was going to be awesome, with improvements in the AR and such. Fast forward to the present, and the fact that SP7 never materialized, and DXP was foisted upon us. Abdul, did you receive disinformation, or did Altium change their mind after they showed you the awesome pre-SP7 ? I ask because I would like to know what happened to the SP7 effort, if there ever was one. If there was, maybe Altium could dust off the code archives and restart it to keep the angry mob (us 99SE users) at bay. Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com - Original Message - From: "Fred A Rupinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 1:17 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > Tony, > > Before leaving this thread, I would like to recap a few final points: > > 1. This thread addresses the current practical value of DXP. Your comment, > "The overall spin of DXP has been so bad, I think it's scary from their > point of view and if it were me running the show I'd be listening very > closely to this group.", along with comments from other contributors who > echo a similar sentiment, provides us all some insight as to the current > status of DXP. Consequently, I will wait until user reports indicate that > DXP has become a quality product capable of addressing my needs before I > personally evaluate it. 99SE will suffice until DXP demonstrably performs to > my advantage. > > 2. We all have been deceived by certain vendors who ship RELEASED software > with known bugs and subsequently have been bitten by these very same bugs. > We cope with the situation because, as you say, it may be in our better > interest to use the buggy software. Software vendors know this, and some of > them unscrupulously exploit the situation. I resent this practice with the > utmost conviction. It is unethical and I will always speak against it. A > lawsuit is folly, but I won't side with those who are apathetic. > > 3. I did not invent the "sliding scale" concept you so disparage, but I > would be happy to take credit if I did; it's a creative marketing idea > successfully used by other companies faced with a DXP-like situation. By the > way, 10,000 times $1,600 = $16,000,000. But let's try some alternative > arithmetic. If Altium were lucky enough to find 500 buyers who would pay > $8000 for bug-ridden software, that would yield $4,000,000, definitely not > the better return. The THRIFTY buyers would no doubt migrate towards the > $400/$1600 PRE-DISTRIBUTION discount, as you claim. They, of course, would > be aware that they would pay in other ways, not the least of which is > exposure to the risk of unproven software. But the SMART money would wait > for the "proven" final release. Reduced risk justifies greater financial > exposure, plus minimum liaison required with Altium, far fewer bug episodes, > reduced expense due to wasted time, enhanced probability of meeting project > schedules, higher quality board layouts..think about it. > Notwithstanding our lack of Altium CEO status, we can certainly relate our > thoughts, but alas, it's not for us to tell Altium how to run their > business. > > 4. Altera, Xilinx, and Visual DSP are irrelevant. I don't need them, so why > should I care? I have a core group of software tools I use in my work. I > rank each one on its own merit. Likewise, DXP must stand on its own merit. > The fact that other software may be faulty does not make DXP a better > program. > > 5. SP7 for 99SE has once again emerged as a topic of interest. The current > SP6 is not perfect, but it is certainly functional. Some serious cleanup and > a few finishing touches could turn 99SE into a splendid, first-class > program. I wholeheartedly support the idea, and hope that a strong thrust in > this direction can be generated. > > Thanks for a challenging and constructive dialog. > > Regards, > Fred A Rupinski * Tracking #: 6CD82D3D406AE841BB83D257C39AFA303A1F5B99 * *
Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time?
Tony, Before leaving this thread, I would like to recap a few final points: 1. This thread addresses the current practical value of DXP. Your comment, "The overall spin of DXP has been so bad, I think it's scary from their point of view and if it were me running the show I'd be listening very closely to this group.", along with comments from other contributors who echo a similar sentiment, provides us all some insight as to the current status of DXP. Consequently, I will wait until user reports indicate that DXP has become a quality product capable of addressing my needs before I personally evaluate it. 99SE will suffice until DXP demonstrably performs to my advantage. 2. We all have been deceived by certain vendors who ship RELEASED software with known bugs and subsequently have been bitten by these very same bugs. We cope with the situation because, as you say, it may be in our better interest to use the buggy software. Software vendors know this, and some of them unscrupulously exploit the situation. I resent this practice with the utmost conviction. It is unethical and I will always speak against it. A lawsuit is folly, but I won't side with those who are apathetic. 3. I did not invent the "sliding scale" concept you so disparage, but I would be happy to take credit if I did; it's a creative marketing idea successfully used by other companies faced with a DXP-like situation. By the way, 10,000 times $1,600 = $16,000,000. But let's try some alternative arithmetic. If Altium were lucky enough to find 500 buyers who would pay $8000 for bug-ridden software, that would yield $4,000,000, definitely not the better return. The THRIFTY buyers would no doubt migrate towards the $400/$1600 PRE-DISTRIBUTION discount, as you claim. They, of course, would be aware that they would pay in other ways, not the least of which is exposure to the risk of unproven software. But the SMART money would wait for the "proven" final release. Reduced risk justifies greater financial exposure, plus minimum liaison required with Altium, far fewer bug episodes, reduced expense due to wasted time, enhanced probability of meeting project schedules, higher quality board layouts..think about it. Notwithstanding our lack of Altium CEO status, we can certainly relate our thoughts, but alas, it's not for us to tell Altium how to run their business. 4. Altera, Xilinx, and Visual DSP are irrelevant. I don't need them, so why should I care? I have a core group of software tools I use in my work. I rank each one on its own merit. Likewise, DXP must stand on its own merit. The fact that other software may be faulty does not make DXP a better program. 5. SP7 for 99SE has once again emerged as a topic of interest. The current SP6 is not perfect, but it is certainly functional. Some serious cleanup and a few finishing touches could turn 99SE into a splendid, first-class program. I wholeheartedly support the idea, and hope that a strong thrust in this direction can be generated. Thanks for a challenging and constructive dialog. Regards, Fred A Rupinski * Tracking #: 2F8410F75943394888BADB16457E6AAF268B1E3B * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] DXP - Crunch time?
you said it all Igor -Original Message- From: Fabian Hartery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, 7 September 2002 1:51 AM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? Dennis, The only thing I could relate to with demolishing a DDB architecture is that there is alot of data management under this regime. Thus, there is associated software complexity and design risk. For the end user, the corruption of a DDB has the potential to destroy an entire project. To counter this complaint, I have personally not had any significant DDB problems. Within DXP, there seems to have been hell of a swerve in the direction of PCAD. Having an Accel/Tango/PCAD origin within this company, I have seen the forces of good and evil do battle. The thing about swerves is that there is often a chance for over recovery. Killing the DDB format and not using it as a 'Save As' feature is one of them. This does present the opportunity for 'a dark horse' to come out of the pack and steal Altium's entire user base. A company just needs to offer adequate import capabilties and service its clients basis. If I were an Altium product line manager, I would seriously consider gathering a small team of programmers together to offer ATS support to those that wish to continue on using 99SE. Call it legacy support, for that matter. Asking for service pack 7 for nothing is asking alot for a very mature product. To put it bluntly, there seems to be alot of pissed off people within this forum and alot of windows are opening up to go elsewhere. Fabian Hartery Research Engineer, B. Eng (Electrical) Guigne International Limited 63 Thorburn Road St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada A1B3M2 tel: 709-738-4070 fax: 709-738-4093 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.guigne.com This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies from your system; you should not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone. Any dissemination, distribution or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. We cannot accept liability for any damage sustained as a result of software viruses and advise you to carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. * Tracking #: 55441536B6429B41AC330E61A9C1CC8AC038F4D9 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] DXP - Crunch time?
Fred, I wasn't defending the practice of people shipping buggy software. I was merely pointing out it happens a lot and I don't think it merits the talk about "...violates the ethic of..." What, are you going to sue them? Read the EULA. Read any EULA. The most you'll get is your money back for the product, but you'd probably have a hard time with that if you've worked with it for years and have successfully churned out boards. They are criticized, pretty harshly at times on this forum. It's probably worse for here (as opposed to an individual calling in with a problem report) because if you or I find a problem, we ALL learn about it and possibly get upset about it. They can see how severe the problem is by the noise it generates. We did get 6 service packs out of them, right? Yes, I suppose we could use a 7th, and that might be a good reason for Altium to hire an entry level programmer to study the 99SE code base and try to fix problems. This person would be basically in isolation and not dealing with the new, changing DXP code base. I think it would be a fairly inexpensive way to get a SP7. (Especially with the glut of engineers and programmers who are currently out of work right now) Ah, you're an embedded designer and yeah that's a completely different thing. I have released several embedded designs with firmware and they stay on for months and years without problems. Windows programming is another story. Your code is extremely dependant on many other people's code and their code is changing right underneath you. I'm surprised it works at all sometimes. I have device programmers that work on some machines and not others. I have a soundcard that works in one PC and it has distortion in a different PC, but the motherboards and CPUs are identical. They have different video cards, but why should that make a difference? It shouldn't. Why does Protel work well for me and not Jami? Hell, I don't know. I accept buggy software (to a point) because I need to get work accomplished AND buggy software is better than no software. Yeah like I want to hand tape a PCB. No bugs there, right? Slow as hell though and no DRC. No thanks. See why I accept some bugs? The bugs in Protel are not great enough of a problem to get me to either: 1)change vendors (cause I've been there and other stuff has bugs too, just a new set I'm not used to yet, 2) hand tape boards. Shipping software with bugs: "IT'S WRONG!" There are you happy? Yes I know it's wrong, you know it's wrong, and I bet Altium knows it's wrong, but they have to balance the bugs they know and the ability to survive and come to a decision every time they want to ship something. How many years did it take for Protel to get from P99 to P99SE-SP6? Was it 3 years? Let's see if you were the CEO of Protel at the time and decide to implement your grand-canyon-sliding-scale. Say for this example they had 1 customers and we were all thrifty folks so we all decide to buy the app early full of bugs for $1600. That's $1.6 million. So they collect 1.6 mil, and their programmers grind away for 3 years getting it to SP6. I'm not sure where you live or work or how much you make, but around here (prior to dotbomb) that wouldn't cover an engineering team of 10 for even 1 year. (with all the standard business overhead, not just salaries) Your dev team would have outrageous turnover, no one would have a grip on the code and even with the paltry $400 'ATS' which I haven't even added, you would still have revenue so low it wouldn't sustain the operation to get to SP6. Nice job driving that company into the ground. Hey but at least your customers love you. Have you used tools from Altera, Xilinx, etc? Besides for device support, have you ever wondered why there are so many releases? I was tearing my hair out with the Visual DSP tools by Analog devices last year. They crashed several times a day, until I learned what procedures to avoid. I'm glad they had a service pack, but regardless, I NEEDED that buggy code to get my DSP work done and debugged. Yes, I have an embedded DSP that has run for over a year without a crash. Yes, bugs are bad, but not surviving is worse. I'm not being an advocate for Protel or any other vendor that has bugs. I'm just willing to accept them if I know in good faith they are trying to fix them. > -----Original Message- > From: Fred A Rupinski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 11:18 AM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > Tony, I sense you are trying to be fair-minded to Altium, who > appears to be mired in a difficult situation regarding DXP. > Nevertheless, you may want to consider that you are doing us > all a disservice by defending the practice (which I consider &g
Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time?
Tony, I sense you are trying to be fair-minded to Altium, who appears to be mired in a difficult situation regarding DXP. Nevertheless, you may want to consider that you are doing us all a disservice by defending the practice (which I consider unethical) of developers foisting buggy software on their customers. Altium/Protel has been (and should be) praised for their good work; on the other hand, they must be held to account, and criticized, for burdening their customers with onerous software difficulties. Of course, the user information in this Forum is of great value, especially to me, since I am not a PCB specialist, but a development engineer who uses 99SE to provide clients with prototypes and developmental PCB designs. I contribute to the Forum when I can. My comments are meant to drive home the point that I expect quality software from Altium. To quote you, "The overall spin of DXP has been so bad, I think it's scary from their point of view and if it were me running the show I'd be listening very closely to this group." In response to your questions and comments, I've inserted some additional dialog below. Regards, Fred A Rupinski - Original Message - From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 6:16 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > Fred, have you ever developed s/w? Every company I know releases known > bugs into code with exception of anything that would cause death or > destruction. They are categorized and prioritized and weighted against > quarterly statements, product announcements, etc. I've been developing software for many years in an engineering context, mostly for equipment, industrial processes, medical electronics, controllers, etc.. I always thoroughly test my work and remove all the bugs I find. Contrary to your experiences, I've had dealings with no client that accepts "known bugs" for use in his products. A few of my clients were genuinely desperate to eliminate such bugs as they became known. > I don't think ANY engineer wants to release with known bugs, but they > are forced to do it. Sometimes troublesome functions are cut out to meet > a ship date, and in the process of cutting them out, something else > *might* get corrupted. I perceive a mindset here that I don't subscribe to and that I can't fathom, namely, the predisposition of so many people who tolerate (sometimes even defend) the status quo regarding acceptance of RELEASED software with known bugs. Of course, the vendors' "lobby" is strong, as is evidenced even in this Forum. But, thankfully, customers who value their integrity and finances resist. I recall some contributors suggesting that the Forum collectively could write a substantially bug-free package superior to 99SE. Bless them, even though they dream. > I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it happens a lot. Perhaps you should stand tall and loudly proclaim, "IT'S WRONG!". > Your suggestion to sell DXP for $1600 to new customers is almost absurd. > Sure, it would be nice to buy it for $1600, but do you realistically > think the company could survive? We'd all be screwed. With the exception > of ATS going away (I doubt that will happen), I think the other idea > floating about ATS being extended until a reasonably bug free version of > DXP is released would be decent possibility. You miss the point. Consider the following hypothetical schedule: Pre-release ... $400/$1600 (Full of bugs) Pre-release, SP1... $400/$1600 Pre-release, SP2... $800/$3500 Pre-release, SP3... $1200/$5400 Pre-release, SP4... $1600/$6600 Release.. $1900/$7800 (Proven, substantially bug-free) Only the PRE-RELEASE software is sold discounted to customers who are made fully aware of "known bugs". The price increases as the product improves. The final "proven" package is sold at market price. Those who bear the burden of early financial exposure plus helping test and develop buggy software benefit by getting the "proven" package at no additional cost. The ethics issue becomes moot. Altium maintains a cash flow that increases as the product is improved. Those who wait for the final release and buy at market price get a "proven" package. I think Altium would be motivated and is up to delivering the goods. Win-win-win-win! So far as being "screwed", many of us have had that experience via 99 and 99SE. Why do you think, "The overall spin of DXP has been so bad"? If Altium goes under because of inability to deliver solid, professional software, I would not be screwed, because I won't buy it. But anyone who pays $7800+ for buggy software would be screwed royally. ATS
Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time?
Fred, have you ever developed s/w? Every company I know releases known bugs into code with exception of anything that would cause death or destruction. They are categorized and prioritized and weighted against quarterly statements, product announcements, etc. I don't think ANY engineer wants to release with known bugs, but they are forced to do it. Sometimes troublesome functions are cut out to meet a ship date, and in the process of cutting them out, something else *might* get corrupted. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it happens a lot. Your suggestion to sell DXP for $1600 to new customers is almost absurd. Sure, it would be nice to buy it for $1600, but do you realistically think the company could survive? We'd all be screwed. With the exception of ATS going away (I doubt that will happen), I think the other idea floating about ATS being extended until a reasonably bug free version of DXP is released would be decent possibility. > -Original Message- > From: Fred A Rupinski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 10:19 AM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > Based on the reports submitted to the Forum (see TK below), > the DXP Demo is not ready for formal release, but seems meant > to serve as an extension of the Beta Cycle. I wonder if this > violates the ethic of not exploiting customers by allowing > known bugs into a formally released package. At the very > least, Altium should recognize customer exploitation not as > creative, but rather, destructive marketing. > > I know of a CAD developer who offered the PRE-RELEASE version > of his latest 3-D software (probably at the same development > stage as the current DXP) at a DEEP DISCOUNT. Everyone knew > they were, in effect, not only helping to finish the > development of the software, but also providing the developer > with needed cash flow. Their reward at the end of the line > was the final solid full RELEASED PACKAGE at no additional > cost. It seems to me that this is a win-win situation. > > Now I wonder what would happen if the DXP package currently > under development were offered at $400 to current users and > $1600 to new users who buy it now with full knowledge of > existing bugs and who are guaranteed the solid, fully > debugged "final" package at no additional cost. The price > would increase with each SUCCESSFUL "service pack" until the > package was deemed SOLID, and then it would be sold at full price. > > So far as ATS goes, well. ATS should simply go. away! > > Regards, > Fred A Rupinski > > - Original Message - > From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 3:03 PM > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > > I personally have a hunch that they will address all these > complaints > > very quickly. They overall spin of DXP has been so bad, I > think it's > > scary from their point of view and if it were me running > the show I'd > > be listening very closely to this group. > > > > I see lots of great ideas in DXP mixed with several areas of poor > > implementation. I think a lot of the complaints here are generated > > because DXP was released too early. If they had waited until SP1 or > > SP2 (whatever changes and fixes those will bring) I think > the initial > > comments would have been much more positive. > > . > > > > ** > ** > * Tracking #: FF8586B6CB32604DBB9C52187908D78045D4C9AF > * > ** > ** > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] DXP - Crunch time?
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 13:20:39 -0230, Fabian Hartery wrote: >The only thing I could relate to with demolishing a DDB architecture is that >there is alot of data management under this regime. Thus, there is >associated software complexity and design risk. For the end user, the >corruption of a DDB has the potential to destroy an entire project. I really don't know what you see in the 'DDB architecture'. The *only* advantage of storing designs in a Jet (Access) database is that it gives access control in multi-user environments (a pretty much unused feature). Storing your design in one file or one file system directory? what's the big deal. If you chose to use a windows file system database the *only* thing you lost was the access control (and file system permissions can give you some anyway). . If you chose to use a Jet database then you only have access to design files from within design explorer, that rules out use of (none OLE, and the OLE interfaces are buggy anyway) 3rd party tools like version control and the now 1st party Camtastic, Tasking, and Accolade tools - I suggest that is why the Jet databases got scrapped and IMO about time too. What I am seriously annoyed about in DXP is they didn't just scrap the Jet databases but the scrapped design explorer. It is now only an explorer for certain Altium tools and you can't even explore half the files they generate. I use the (flakey) design OLE object storage in 99SE extensively. I keep PDF files for datasheets, word processor documents, mechanical drawings, I would even keep photographs of prototypes or problems if the OLE storage of images was not so horrendously inefficient. I want to be able to store, explore and open all files associated with a design from Design Explorer. DXP makes that history and there is no conversion, if I open one of my design databases in DXP it attempts to open .PDF datasheets with the PCB editor for example. I remember the marketing blurb on DXP (wish I had taken a copy) something about "new design storage options allowing engineers to work the way they want to", what DXP actually gave is one design storage option forcing you to work the way Altium says. What I actually expected from DXP was backward compatibility with Jet Databases and an improvement of the file system database making Design Explorer work like an enhanced Windows Explorer allowing files to be manipulated based on file system associations not forcing the use of OLE for 'alien' files. Cheers, Terry. * Tracking #: 27DAD27966DB4A46AB40D5F6FB462B4DFF10ED92 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] DXP - Crunch time?
Based on the reports submitted to the Forum (see TK below), the DXP Demo is not ready for formal release, but seems meant to serve as an extension of the Beta Cycle. I wonder if this violates the ethic of not exploiting customers by allowing known bugs into a formally released package. At the very least, Altium should recognize customer exploitation not as creative, but rather, destructive marketing. I know of a CAD developer who offered the PRE-RELEASE version of his latest 3-D software (probably at the same development stage as the current DXP) at a DEEP DISCOUNT. Everyone knew they were, in effect, not only helping to finish the development of the software, but also providing the developer with needed cash flow. Their reward at the end of the line was the final solid full RELEASED PACKAGE at no additional cost. It seems to me that this is a win-win situation. Now I wonder what would happen if the DXP package currently under development were offered at $400 to current users and $1600 to new users who buy it now with full knowledge of existing bugs and who are guaranteed the solid, fully debugged "final" package at no additional cost. The price would increase with each SUCCESSFUL "service pack" until the package was deemed SOLID, and then it would be sold at full price. So far as ATS goes, well. ATS should simply go. away! Regards, Fred A Rupinski - Original Message - From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 3:03 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > I personally have a hunch that they will address all these complaints > very quickly. They overall spin of DXP has been so bad, I think it's > scary from their point of view and if it were me running the show I'd be > listening very closely to this group. > > I see lots of great ideas in DXP mixed with several areas of poor > implementation. I think a lot of the complaints here are generated > because DXP was released too early. If they had waited until SP1 or SP2 > (whatever changes and fixes those will bring) I think the initial > comments would have been much more positive. > . * Tracking #: FF8586B6CB32604DBB9C52187908D78045D4C9AF * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] DXP - Crunch time?
Dennis, The only thing I could relate to with demolishing a DDB architecture is that there is alot of data management under this regime. Thus, there is associated software complexity and design risk. For the end user, the corruption of a DDB has the potential to destroy an entire project. To counter this complaint, I have personally not had any significant DDB problems. Within DXP, there seems to have been hell of a swerve in the direction of PCAD. Having an Accel/Tango/PCAD origin within this company, I have seen the forces of good and evil do battle. The thing about swerves is that there is often a chance for over recovery. Killing the DDB format and not using it as a 'Save As' feature is one of them. This does present the opportunity for 'a dark horse' to come out of the pack and steal Altium's entire user base. A company just needs to offer adequate import capabilties and service its clients basis. If I were an Altium product line manager, I would seriously consider gathering a small team of programmers together to offer ATS support to those that wish to continue on using 99SE. Call it legacy support, for that matter. Asking for service pack 7 for nothing is asking alot for a very mature product. To put it bluntly, there seems to be alot of pissed off people within this forum and alot of windows are opening up to go elsewhere. Fabian Hartery Research Engineer, B. Eng (Electrical) Guigne International Limited 63 Thorburn Road St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada A1B3M2 tel: 709-738-4070 fax: 709-738-4093 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.guigne.com This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies from your system; you should not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone. Any dissemination, distribution or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. We cannot accept liability for any damage sustained as a result of software viruses and advise you to carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. * Tracking #: 55441536B6429B41AC330E61A9C1CC8AC038F4D9 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] DXP - Crunch time?
On 03:02 PM 5/09/2002 -0700, Dennis Saputelli said: >i fought against it (DDB) and came to like it (like some others here) > >but i am reasonably certain you can kiss it goodbye in DXP and the >future >this was a calculated decision on their part and they probably >have some good reasons, reducing dependency on microsoft among them Interesting point - a Kylix version running on *nix maybe? I use the Access DDB in P99SE. I like it. But I value version control more and if the DDB has to go in order to get good version control so be it. Ian Wilson * Tracking #: 24D4F59A38DC4B4796E261A11F27DAB5E60E2FDC * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] DXP - Crunch time?
Tony, Sorry that came across wrong. I was not disputing that DXP ran slower. I was querying the root cause of the issue. Joe - Original Message - From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 6:08 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > So far on the consensus, there are 2 out of 2 saying "yeah, it's slow." > What not clear about that? ;) > > I'm sure just about everyone else that trys it says it's slower that > 99SE. > I have no idea if it's lame or that it uses extensive resources. Maybe > it's a combination. Maybe there are some key areas that could use some > optimization and it's coming in a service pack. Who know > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Joe Sapienza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 2:36 PM > > To: Protel EDA Forum > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > > > > So I'm not really totally clear on the consensus of this > > speed issue. Are you guys saying that the program itself is > > lame or that it uses extensive resources and these resources > > take more time to load? > > > > Personally MY OPINION which is worth not too much on this is > > that the software itself is architected in a slow and tedious > > manner and irregardless of what system (PC) you have will > > respond sluggishly. > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 3:29 PM > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > > > > > I basically agree with you. > > > > > > BTW, the speed problem is not just your system. I think DXP is much > > > slower too and I want it fixed. There is one area which > > compounds the > > > problem: screen redraws are done after the screen data has been > > > computed. So even if the speed were the same, there is a > > visible delay > > > that wasn't there before. In 99SE, we can 'watch' the > > screen repaint. > > > In DXP it does the work in the background without visual > > feedback and > > > then BAM, the screen updated in a flash. The new process > > also seems to > > > affect panning. I sort of prefer the old way, but if the > > new way were > > > faster, I wouldn't care. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Rob Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 12:06 PM > > > > To: Protel EDA Forum > > > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > > > > > > > > > > Tony, > > > > > > > > This is entirely a personal preference issue from a long > > time Protel > > > > user. My comments with the new dialogs is a very small issue and > > > > would not prevent me from upgrading to DXP, but I liked > > the idea of > > > > having all data in one column that I could just quickly scan down > > > > for pads, tracks, text etc and all were pretty much consistent in > > > > how they looked. While I like the new look, I am not yet sure I > > > > will like visually scanning through the graphics versus the P99SE > > > > list for relevant information. Considering the tab key > > function, it > > > > may not slow a user down too much, but the quick glance at > > > > attributes between different dialogs in DXP will take > > some getting > > > > used to. In my opinion, it will take longer to focus on the > > > > desired attribute, but this could be resolved with DXP > > > > experience as you mentioned. Unfortunately, being > > > > experienced with DXP will take some time for me since I will > > > > not upgrade until several more pressing issues are worked out > > > > and my demo is now over. Speed of the app being one of them > > > > and being compatible with P99SE designs another. Perhaps it > > > > is just my system, but P99SE runs much quicker and smoother > > > > than DXP in my case. I have several designs loaded with > > > > split planes that currently do not import properly to DXP > > > > along with all the CAM and print settings being wiped out. > > > > DXP need
Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time?
I would hope that the multi-channel rooms could be used with an external netlist from a different schematic capture package as well. A majority of my netlists come from Orcad and this feature could be a great value to me once it is debugged. I have been following Tim's posts but I'm not sure this can be set up independent of schematic. If so, that is very promising as it is quite tedious to maintain a multi-channel board. Rob - Original Message - From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 6:08 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > Well Tim Hutcheson is spending quite a bit of effort on rooms right now > (as by his recent posts) and I think his efforts in that particular area > will help it greatly. > > I think SP1 will say a lot for DXP. (in either case if you catch my > drift) > > > > > While I don't like ATS, it would certainly be easier to see a > > value in it if > > DXP would have been the revolutionary change Altium was > > claiming. While > > there are several interface changes and several new features > > (several omitted features too), basically it is still the > > same software just repackaged with a new interface. I guess > > one could argue that the multi-channel capability is a major > > improvement, but from I have been reading in PEDA posts, it > > is still quite buggy and not ready for prime-time. I have > > looked at Situs and I do not see the revolutionary > > improvement there either. Hopefully someone who can take > > more time to put it to the task will prove me wrong. I am > > finding it hard to see what value ATS will bring that we > > didn't have before. Just a major price increase is all I can > > see at the moment concerning PCB and SCH. > > > > Rob > > > > > > > > * Tracking #: 5E635ED61FDE2E4E89A9025E716F12CA3DAEA175 > * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] DXP - Crunch time?
So far on the consensus, there are 2 out of 2 saying "yeah, it's slow." What not clear about that? ;) I'm sure just about everyone else that trys it says it's slower that 99SE. I have no idea if it's lame or that it uses extensive resources. Maybe it's a combination. Maybe there are some key areas that could use some optimization and it's coming in a service pack. Who know > -Original Message- > From: Joe Sapienza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 2:36 PM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > So I'm not really totally clear on the consensus of this > speed issue. Are you guys saying that the program itself is > lame or that it uses extensive resources and these resources > take more time to load? > > Personally MY OPINION which is worth not too much on this is > that the software itself is architected in a slow and tedious > manner and irregardless of what system (PC) you have will > respond sluggishly. > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 3:29 PM > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > > I basically agree with you. > > > > BTW, the speed problem is not just your system. I think DXP is much > > slower too and I want it fixed. There is one area which > compounds the > > problem: screen redraws are done after the screen data has been > > computed. So even if the speed were the same, there is a > visible delay > > that wasn't there before. In 99SE, we can 'watch' the > screen repaint. > > In DXP it does the work in the background without visual > feedback and > > then BAM, the screen updated in a flash. The new process > also seems to > > affect panning. I sort of prefer the old way, but if the > new way were > > faster, I wouldn't care. > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Rob Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 12:06 PM > > > To: Protel EDA Forum > > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > > > > > > > Tony, > > > > > > This is entirely a personal preference issue from a long > time Protel > > > user. My comments with the new dialogs is a very small issue and > > > would not prevent me from upgrading to DXP, but I liked > the idea of > > > having all data in one column that I could just quickly scan down > > > for pads, tracks, text etc and all were pretty much consistent in > > > how they looked. While I like the new look, I am not yet sure I > > > will like visually scanning through the graphics versus the P99SE > > > list for relevant information. Considering the tab key > function, it > > > may not slow a user down too much, but the quick glance at > > > attributes between different dialogs in DXP will take > some getting > > > used to. In my opinion, it will take longer to focus on the > > > desired attribute, but this could be resolved with DXP > > > experience as you mentioned. Unfortunately, being > > > experienced with DXP will take some time for me since I will > > > not upgrade until several more pressing issues are worked out > > > and my demo is now over. Speed of the app being one of them > > > and being compatible with P99SE designs another. Perhaps it > > > is just my system, but P99SE runs much quicker and smoother > > > than DXP in my case. I have several designs loaded with > > > split planes that currently do not import properly to DXP > > > along with all the CAM and print settings being wiped out. > > > DXP needs a lot more work yet, I am just frustrated that we > > > are going through this again after the same thing happened > > > with the first P99 release. The addition of ATS just makes > > > it much worse. > > > > > > Rob > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 2:15 PM > > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > > > > > > > > Why is that? Once you're experienced with DXP (or any app) you > > > > know where to find stuff. The glitz doe
Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time?
Well Tim Hutcheson is spending quite a bit of effort on rooms right now (as by his recent posts) and I think his efforts in that particular area will help it greatly. I think SP1 will say a lot for DXP. (in either case if you catch my drift) > While I don't like ATS, it would certainly be easier to see a > value in it if > DXP would have been the revolutionary change Altium was > claiming. While > there are several interface changes and several new features > (several omitted features too), basically it is still the > same software just repackaged with a new interface. I guess > one could argue that the multi-channel capability is a major > improvement, but from I have been reading in PEDA posts, it > is still quite buggy and not ready for prime-time. I have > looked at Situs and I do not see the revolutionary > improvement there either. Hopefully someone who can take > more time to put it to the task will prove me wrong. I am > finding it hard to see what value ATS will bring that we > didn't have before. Just a major price increase is all I can > see at the moment concerning PCB and SCH. > > Rob > > * Tracking #: 5E635ED61FDE2E4E89A9025E716F12CA3DAEA175 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] DXP - Crunch time?
i fought against it (DDB) and came to like it (like some others here) but i am reasonably certain you can kiss it goodbye in DXP and the future this was a calculated decision on their part and they probably have some good reasons, reducing dependency on microsoft among them i haven't figured out their whole project approach (linked files) yet it may be a reasonable compromise i think this was one of those tough love decisions Dennis Saputelli Fabian Hartery wrote: > > I hope I am not dillusional here. I bought in an additional copy of 99SE and > picked up DXP due to the free ATS. Picking at this package like a crow, I > present a tale of woe. > > I did not like 99's original release and it took up to service pack 3 to > convince me this EDA tool would be useful. It also took some time for Protel > to convince myself that having a complete design travel within it's own data > base would be useful. Since I have no drafting office to keep me > disciplined, I have to maintain my own library support everywhere. The DDB > architecture meant that I knew what libraires affected a given design, as > they were all inclusive. > > With a cautious if, if what I see within DXP is evident, the DDB archiecture > is being thrown away for a data base linker of externally saved files. This > is a *complete* reversal of what otherwise was a great way for a small shop > to operate without ISO 9000 overhead haunting the designer into insoberity. > > There seems to be an forced arm to syncronize/integrate legacy libraires by > in DXP. While watching Ma and Pa unite is not a bad thing (symbol and > footprint), I will predict that anyone who has the least bit of sloppy > library control will empty the liquor store before I can get there. > > I am discovering some nice feature with DXP, like extended attributes SPICE > enhancements. However, when I imported a DDB file with sheet heirarchy and > saw the linkages disappear, I became concerned. I have not found a way to > get the compliation work to reintroduce the paint by numbers attachments as > of yet. > > I hope someone will dispell what I am seeing though just my few hours of > inexperience. I liked the DDB format option and I would not like to see this > format disappear. > > Fabian Hartery > Research Engineer, B. Eng (Electrical) > > Guigne International Limited > 63 Thorburn Road > St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada > A1B3M2 > tel: 709-738-4070 > fax: 709-738-4093 > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > website: www.guigne.com > > -Original Message----- > From: Tony Karavidas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 5:00 PM > To: 'Protel EDA Forum' > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > I basically agree with you. > > BTW, the speed problem is not just your system. I think DXP is much > slower too and I want it fixed. There is one area which compounds the > problem: screen redraws are done after the screen data has been > computed. So even if the speed were the same, there is a visible delay > that wasn't there before. In 99SE, we can 'watch' the screen repaint. In > DXP it does the work in the background without visual feedback and then > BAM, the screen updated in a flash. The new process also seems to affect > panning. I sort of prefer the old way, but if the new way were faster, I > wouldn't care. > > > -Original Message- > > From: Rob Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 12:06 PM > > To: Protel EDA Forum > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > > > > Tony, > > > > This is entirely a personal preference issue from a long time > > Protel user. My comments with the new dialogs is a very small > > issue and would not prevent me from upgrading to DXP, but I > > liked the idea of having all data in one column that I could > > just quickly scan down for pads, tracks, text etc and all > > were pretty much consistent in how they looked. While I like > > the new look, I am not yet sure I will like visually scanning > > through the graphics versus the P99SE list for relevant > > information. Considering the tab key function, it may not > > slow a user down too much, but the quick glance at attributes > > between different dialogs in DXP will take some getting used > > to. In my opinion, it will take longer to focus on the > > desired attribute, but this could be resolved with DXP > > experience as you mentioned. Unfortunately, being > > experienced with DXP will take some time for me since I will > > not upgrade until several more pressing issues are worked out > > and my demo is now over. Speed of t
Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time?
So I'm not really totally clear on the consensus of this speed issue. Are you guys saying that the program itself is lame or that it uses extensive resources and these resources take more time to load? Personally MY OPINION which is worth not too much on this is that the software itself is architected in a slow and tedious manner and irregardless of what system (PC) you have will respond sluggishly. - Original Message - From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 3:29 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > I basically agree with you. > > BTW, the speed problem is not just your system. I think DXP is much > slower too and I want it fixed. There is one area which compounds the > problem: screen redraws are done after the screen data has been > computed. So even if the speed were the same, there is a visible delay > that wasn't there before. In 99SE, we can 'watch' the screen repaint. In > DXP it does the work in the background without visual feedback and then > BAM, the screen updated in a flash. The new process also seems to affect > panning. I sort of prefer the old way, but if the new way were faster, I > wouldn't care. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Rob Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 12:06 PM > > To: Protel EDA Forum > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > > > > Tony, > > > > This is entirely a personal preference issue from a long time > > Protel user. My comments with the new dialogs is a very small > > issue and would not prevent me from upgrading to DXP, but I > > liked the idea of having all data in one column that I could > > just quickly scan down for pads, tracks, text etc and all > > were pretty much consistent in how they looked. While I like > > the new look, I am not yet sure I will like visually scanning > > through the graphics versus the P99SE list for relevant > > information. Considering the tab key function, it may not > > slow a user down too much, but the quick glance at attributes > > between different dialogs in DXP will take some getting used > > to. In my opinion, it will take longer to focus on the > > desired attribute, but this could be resolved with DXP > > experience as you mentioned. Unfortunately, being > > experienced with DXP will take some time for me since I will > > not upgrade until several more pressing issues are worked out > > and my demo is now over. Speed of the app being one of them > > and being compatible with P99SE designs another. Perhaps it > > is just my system, but P99SE runs much quicker and smoother > > than DXP in my case. I have several designs loaded with > > split planes that currently do not import properly to DXP > > along with all the CAM and print settings being wiped out. > > DXP needs a lot more work yet, I am just frustrated that we > > are going through this again after the same thing happened > > with the first P99 release. The addition of ATS just makes > > it much worse. > > > > Rob > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 2:15 PM > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > > > > > Why is that? Once you're experienced with DXP (or any app) you know > > > where to find stuff. The glitz doesn't slow me down. The > > speed of the > > > app (or lack of speed) slows me down. > > > > > > What would be the most proficient would be to have the tab key jump > > > between the editable fields in the order of most used which could > > > easily be determined by a survey on these lists. > > > > > > For example on a component pad, the first field highlighted is > > > Designator. I think that makes sense. However, if you press > > tab a few > > > times you get this order: > > > > > > Hole Size > > > Layer > > > Rotation > > > Xlocation > > > etc... > > > > > > After a while you get to X size and Ysize. I don't know > > about you, but > > > I find myself tweaking those two things way more often than the > > > location of the pad. I personally would like to see it more > > like this, > > > where the plated status is brought to the first tab instead > > of the 3rd > > > tab. I
Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time?
I just visited the Altium website and can't seem to find any information on ATS costs or what the penalties will be if it is not continued. What I have concluded from posts here and sources at Protel, the current upgrade cost of $1995.00 and future ATS cost of $1495.00 per year, is that the penalty would seem to be $500.00. It also seems that all P99SE licenses purchased prior to October 1st, 2001 are being assessed this penalty as they weren't automatically converted into the ATS program. The following is what I read on Altium's website: - Current Protel 99 SE Customers: All Protel 99 SE customers who have purchased prior to October 1st, 2001 will continue to receive technical support, libraries, and any new service packs and add-ons for Protel 99 SE as part of their license. ATS membership cannot be purchased on existing Protel 99 SE licenses. - I think I understand this now. Not happy about it, but I think my assumptions are correct. While I don't like ATS, it would certainly be easier to see a value in it if DXP would have been the revolutionary change Altium was claiming. While there are several interface changes and several new features (several omitted features too), basically it is still the same software just repackaged with a new interface. I guess one could argue that the multi-channel capability is a major improvement, but from I have been reading in PEDA posts, it is still quite buggy and not ready for prime-time. I have looked at Situs and I do not see the revolutionary improvement there either. Hopefully someone who can take more time to put it to the task will prove me wrong. I am finding it hard to see what value ATS will bring that we didn't have before. Just a major price increase is all I can see at the moment concerning PCB and SCH. Rob - Original Message - From: "Rob Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 4:40 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > I feel that ATS has and will further damage the adoption of DXP even more > than the software bugs. While I would not be happy if I paid for the DXP > upgrade and couldn't use the software for some time, I would be assured that > it would eventually be fixed free of charge. That is no longer the case > with the new policy. So I will not have DXP running until it is fixed and > therefore will not be able to contribute to any further bug reports. I > think Altium should provide bug fixes free of charge outside of ATS and > perhaps only provide new features and direct tech support with ATS. If the > new features are worthwhile, it might prompt someone to activate ATS. I am > also not too happy with paying such a high ATS cost knowing it is supporting > other modules that I will never use. > > I have recently heard a rumor from a source at Protel (only a rumor at this > point) that a penalty might be assessed to those who don't keep their ATS up > to date. It seems that even people at Altium are unsure of what the future > of ATS is. I will have to visit the Altium website soon and see if there is > any information posted with regards to the ATS policy. My current > understanding has been that ATS is not mandatory, but without it, you will > not get any bug fixes after a year from the initial upgrade. Perhaps > someone in the know on this list could further clarify to avoid any > confusion on what will happen if ATS is not kept up to date. > > Rob > > - Original Message - > From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 3:03 PM > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > > I personally have a hunch that they will address all these complaints > > very quickly. They overall spin of DXP has been so bad, I think it's > > scary from their point of view and if it were me running the show I'd be > > listening very closely to this group. > > > > I see lots of great ideas in DXP mixed with several areas of poor > > implementation. I think a lot of the complaints here are generated > > because DXP was released too early. If they had waited until SP1 or SP2 > > (whatever changes and fixes those will bring) I think the initial > > comments would have been much more positive. > > > > Altium has the ability to make pretty big changes quickly. (as seen in > > recent times by many of us) Maybe their new development environment will > > allow them to address these complaints far faster than previously seen > > with P99SE. > > > > As far as Tsien's s/
Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time?
Yeah and we see what happened to Zilog recently > -Original Message- > From: Bagotronix Tech Support [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 1:03 PM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > > [About Tsien] Also, the support is almost void and the support page > > was > last updated > > over three years ago. Not a good sign. > > What is going to be Altium's support webpage policy with ATS? > Will there be searchable support FAQs, downloadable patches, > and such? Will they be available by ATS subscription only, > or to all website visitors? > > I have seen several examples of web-based support that was > only available if > you had an active annual support contract. Frankly, those sucked. A > credit card merchant software package comes to mind. > > Another example I have seen didn't require a support > contract, but you still had to have a login name and password > to submit a request to the support department. When they > felt like it (2 months later), they would respond with an > answer to a question you did not ask. And no bug fixes, > workarounds, or errata were viewable on the website - it was > just a browser form. You just crossed your fingers and hoped > they looked up the right issue for you. I am referring to > Zilog, of course. > > I think support issues should be posted free of charge on the > website for all to see. That's what we do. > > Best regards, > Ivan Baggett > Bagotronix Inc. > website: www.bagotronix.com > > > - Original Message - > From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 3:03 PM > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > > I personally have a hunch that they will address all these > complaints > > very quickly. They overall spin of DXP has been so bad, I > think it's > > scary from their point of view and if it were me running > the show I'd > > be listening very closely to this group. > > > > I see lots of great ideas in DXP mixed with several areas of poor > > implementation. I think a lot of the complaints here are generated > > because DXP was released too early. If they had waited until SP1 or > > SP2 (whatever changes and fixes those will bring) I think > the initial > > comments would have been much more positive. > > > > Altium has the ability to make pretty big changes quickly. > (as seen in > > recent times by many of us) Maybe their new development environment > > will allow them to address these complaints far faster than > previously > > seen with P99SE. > > > > As far as Tsien's s/w: It looked to me like you could only > lease it on > > an annual basis. Yes, it's cheap at roughly $400/year, but > if you stop > > paying, does the dongle (which I HATE) timeout? Probably. No thanks. > > > > Also, the support is almost void and the support page was > last updated > > over three years ago. Not a good sign. > > > > ** > ** > * Tracking #: 6BE03449B68DB149A85EDF29344A0BCE6C8B0ADB > * > ** > ** > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] DXP - Crunch time?
I feel that ATS has and will further damage the adoption of DXP even more than the software bugs. While I would not be happy if I paid for the DXP upgrade and couldn't use the software for some time, I would be assured that it would eventually be fixed free of charge. That is no longer the case with the new policy. So I will not have DXP running until it is fixed and therefore will not be able to contribute to any further bug reports. I think Altium should provide bug fixes free of charge outside of ATS and perhaps only provide new features and direct tech support with ATS. If the new features are worthwhile, it might prompt someone to activate ATS. I am also not too happy with paying such a high ATS cost knowing it is supporting other modules that I will never use. I have recently heard a rumor from a source at Protel (only a rumor at this point) that a penalty might be assessed to those who don't keep their ATS up to date. It seems that even people at Altium are unsure of what the future of ATS is. I will have to visit the Altium website soon and see if there is any information posted with regards to the ATS policy. My current understanding has been that ATS is not mandatory, but without it, you will not get any bug fixes after a year from the initial upgrade. Perhaps someone in the know on this list could further clarify to avoid any confusion on what will happen if ATS is not kept up to date. Rob - Original Message - From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 3:03 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > I personally have a hunch that they will address all these complaints > very quickly. They overall spin of DXP has been so bad, I think it's > scary from their point of view and if it were me running the show I'd be > listening very closely to this group. > > I see lots of great ideas in DXP mixed with several areas of poor > implementation. I think a lot of the complaints here are generated > because DXP was released too early. If they had waited until SP1 or SP2 > (whatever changes and fixes those will bring) I think the initial > comments would have been much more positive. > > Altium has the ability to make pretty big changes quickly. (as seen in > recent times by many of us) Maybe their new development environment will > allow them to address these complaints far faster than previously seen > with P99SE. > > As far as Tsien's s/w: It looked to me like you could only lease it on > an annual basis. Yes, it's cheap at roughly $400/year, but if you stop > paying, does the dongle (which I HATE) timeout? Probably. No thanks. > > Also, the support is almost void and the support page was last updated > over three years ago. Not a good sign. > > > > > * Tracking #: DD04B6DC559EC8479720DFC188D3B7CA2DB333D5 > * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] DXP - Crunch time?
> [About Tsien] Also, the support is almost void and the support page was last updated > over three years ago. Not a good sign. What is going to be Altium's support webpage policy with ATS? Will there be searchable support FAQs, downloadable patches, and such? Will they be available by ATS subscription only, or to all website visitors? I have seen several examples of web-based support that was only available if you had an active annual support contract. Frankly, those sucked. A credit card merchant software package comes to mind. Another example I have seen didn't require a support contract, but you still had to have a login name and password to submit a request to the support department. When they felt like it (2 months later), they would respond with an answer to a question you did not ask. And no bug fixes, workarounds, or errata were viewable on the website - it was just a browser form. You just crossed your fingers and hoped they looked up the right issue for you. I am referring to Zilog, of course. I think support issues should be posted free of charge on the website for all to see. That's what we do. Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com - Original Message - From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 3:03 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > I personally have a hunch that they will address all these complaints > very quickly. They overall spin of DXP has been so bad, I think it's > scary from their point of view and if it were me running the show I'd be > listening very closely to this group. > > I see lots of great ideas in DXP mixed with several areas of poor > implementation. I think a lot of the complaints here are generated > because DXP was released too early. If they had waited until SP1 or SP2 > (whatever changes and fixes those will bring) I think the initial > comments would have been much more positive. > > Altium has the ability to make pretty big changes quickly. (as seen in > recent times by many of us) Maybe their new development environment will > allow them to address these complaints far faster than previously seen > with P99SE. > > As far as Tsien's s/w: It looked to me like you could only lease it on > an annual basis. Yes, it's cheap at roughly $400/year, but if you stop > paying, does the dongle (which I HATE) timeout? Probably. No thanks. > > Also, the support is almost void and the support page was last updated > over three years ago. Not a good sign. * Tracking #: 6BE03449B68DB149A85EDF29344A0BCE6C8B0ADB * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] DXP - Crunch time?
I hope I am not dillusional here. I bought in an additional copy of 99SE and picked up DXP due to the free ATS. Picking at this package like a crow, I present a tale of woe. I did not like 99's original release and it took up to service pack 3 to convince me this EDA tool would be useful. It also took some time for Protel to convince myself that having a complete design travel within it's own data base would be useful. Since I have no drafting office to keep me disciplined, I have to maintain my own library support everywhere. The DDB architecture meant that I knew what libraires affected a given design, as they were all inclusive. With a cautious if, if what I see within DXP is evident, the DDB archiecture is being thrown away for a data base linker of externally saved files. This is a *complete* reversal of what otherwise was a great way for a small shop to operate without ISO 9000 overhead haunting the designer into insoberity. There seems to be an forced arm to syncronize/integrate legacy libraires by in DXP. While watching Ma and Pa unite is not a bad thing (symbol and footprint), I will predict that anyone who has the least bit of sloppy library control will empty the liquor store before I can get there. I am discovering some nice feature with DXP, like extended attributes SPICE enhancements. However, when I imported a DDB file with sheet heirarchy and saw the linkages disappear, I became concerned. I have not found a way to get the compliation work to reintroduce the paint by numbers attachments as of yet. I hope someone will dispell what I am seeing though just my few hours of inexperience. I liked the DDB format option and I would not like to see this format disappear. Fabian Hartery Research Engineer, B. Eng (Electrical) Guigne International Limited 63 Thorburn Road St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada A1B3M2 tel: 709-738-4070 fax: 709-738-4093 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.guigne.com -Original Message- From: Tony Karavidas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 5:00 PM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? I basically agree with you. BTW, the speed problem is not just your system. I think DXP is much slower too and I want it fixed. There is one area which compounds the problem: screen redraws are done after the screen data has been computed. So even if the speed were the same, there is a visible delay that wasn't there before. In 99SE, we can 'watch' the screen repaint. In DXP it does the work in the background without visual feedback and then BAM, the screen updated in a flash. The new process also seems to affect panning. I sort of prefer the old way, but if the new way were faster, I wouldn't care. > -Original Message- > From: Rob Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 12:06 PM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > Tony, > > This is entirely a personal preference issue from a long time > Protel user. My comments with the new dialogs is a very small > issue and would not prevent me from upgrading to DXP, but I > liked the idea of having all data in one column that I could > just quickly scan down for pads, tracks, text etc and all > were pretty much consistent in how they looked. While I like > the new look, I am not yet sure I will like visually scanning > through the graphics versus the P99SE list for relevant > information. Considering the tab key function, it may not > slow a user down too much, but the quick glance at attributes > between different dialogs in DXP will take some getting used > to. In my opinion, it will take longer to focus on the > desired attribute, but this could be resolved with DXP > experience as you mentioned. Unfortunately, being > experienced with DXP will take some time for me since I will > not upgrade until several more pressing issues are worked out > and my demo is now over. Speed of the app being one of them > and being compatible with P99SE designs another. Perhaps it > is just my system, but P99SE runs much quicker and smoother > than DXP in my case. I have several designs loaded with > split planes that currently do not import properly to DXP > along with all the CAM and print settings being wiped out. > DXP needs a lot more work yet, I am just frustrated that we > are going through this again after the same thing happened > with the first P99 release. The addition of ATS just makes > it much worse. > > Rob > > > - Original Message ----- > From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 2:15 PM > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > > Why is that
Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time?
I personally have a hunch that they will address all these complaints very quickly. They overall spin of DXP has been so bad, I think it's scary from their point of view and if it were me running the show I'd be listening very closely to this group. I see lots of great ideas in DXP mixed with several areas of poor implementation. I think a lot of the complaints here are generated because DXP was released too early. If they had waited until SP1 or SP2 (whatever changes and fixes those will bring) I think the initial comments would have been much more positive. Altium has the ability to make pretty big changes quickly. (as seen in recent times by many of us) Maybe their new development environment will allow them to address these complaints far faster than previously seen with P99SE. As far as Tsien's s/w: It looked to me like you could only lease it on an annual basis. Yes, it's cheap at roughly $400/year, but if you stop paying, does the dongle (which I HATE) timeout? Probably. No thanks. Also, the support is almost void and the support page was last updated over three years ago. Not a good sign. * Tracking #: DD04B6DC559EC8479720DFC188D3B7CA2DB333D5 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] DXP - Crunch time?
I basically agree with you. BTW, the speed problem is not just your system. I think DXP is much slower too and I want it fixed. There is one area which compounds the problem: screen redraws are done after the screen data has been computed. So even if the speed were the same, there is a visible delay that wasn't there before. In 99SE, we can 'watch' the screen repaint. In DXP it does the work in the background without visual feedback and then BAM, the screen updated in a flash. The new process also seems to affect panning. I sort of prefer the old way, but if the new way were faster, I wouldn't care. > -Original Message- > From: Rob Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 12:06 PM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > Tony, > > This is entirely a personal preference issue from a long time > Protel user. My comments with the new dialogs is a very small > issue and would not prevent me from upgrading to DXP, but I > liked the idea of having all data in one column that I could > just quickly scan down for pads, tracks, text etc and all > were pretty much consistent in how they looked. While I like > the new look, I am not yet sure I will like visually scanning > through the graphics versus the P99SE list for relevant > information. Considering the tab key function, it may not > slow a user down too much, but the quick glance at attributes > between different dialogs in DXP will take some getting used > to. In my opinion, it will take longer to focus on the > desired attribute, but this could be resolved with DXP > experience as you mentioned. Unfortunately, being > experienced with DXP will take some time for me since I will > not upgrade until several more pressing issues are worked out > and my demo is now over. Speed of the app being one of them > and being compatible with P99SE designs another. Perhaps it > is just my system, but P99SE runs much quicker and smoother > than DXP in my case. I have several designs loaded with > split planes that currently do not import properly to DXP > along with all the CAM and print settings being wiped out. > DXP needs a lot more work yet, I am just frustrated that we > are going through this again after the same thing happened > with the first P99 release. The addition of ATS just makes > it much worse. > > Rob > > > - Original Message - > From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 2:15 PM > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > > Why is that? Once you're experienced with DXP (or any app) you know > > where to find stuff. The glitz doesn't slow me down. The > speed of the > > app (or lack of speed) slows me down. > > > > What would be the most proficient would be to have the tab key jump > > between the editable fields in the order of most used which could > > easily be determined by a survey on these lists. > > > > For example on a component pad, the first field highlighted is > > Designator. I think that makes sense. However, if you press > tab a few > > times you get this order: > > > > Hole Size > > Layer > > Rotation > > Xlocation > > etc... > > > > After a while you get to X size and Ysize. I don't know > about you, but > > I find myself tweaking those two things way more often than the > > location of the pad. I personally would like to see it more > like this, > > where the plated status is brought to the first tab instead > of the 3rd > > tab. I usually never mess with the net association because the > > schematic drives that. > > > > Here is a mockup: http://www.encoreelectronics.com/padedit.jpg > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Rob Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 6:31 AM > > > To: Protel EDA Forum > > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > > > > > > > Ian, > > > > 7) Dialogs are not as easily navigated as in P99SE - > they may look > > > > nicer but I find it harder to find the editable elements. > > > I am in complete agreement with you on the dialogs. I > forgot to add > > > that to my list of issues with DXP. I find it much > easier to find > > > relevant attributes in a well organized list like P99SE has, not > > > with them all haphazardly placed among "glitz" and > "glamour".
Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time?
Tony, This is entirely a personal preference issue from a long time Protel user. My comments with the new dialogs is a very small issue and would not prevent me from upgrading to DXP, but I liked the idea of having all data in one column that I could just quickly scan down for pads, tracks, text etc and all were pretty much consistent in how they looked. While I like the new look, I am not yet sure I will like visually scanning through the graphics versus the P99SE list for relevant information. Considering the tab key function, it may not slow a user down too much, but the quick glance at attributes between different dialogs in DXP will take some getting used to. In my opinion, it will take longer to focus on the desired attribute, but this could be resolved with DXP experience as you mentioned. Unfortunately, being experienced with DXP will take some time for me since I will not upgrade until several more pressing issues are worked out and my demo is now over. Speed of the app being one of them and being compatible with P99SE designs another. Perhaps it is just my system, but P99SE runs much quicker and smoother than DXP in my case. I have several designs loaded with split planes that currently do not import properly to DXP along with all the CAM and print settings being wiped out. DXP needs a lot more work yet, I am just frustrated that we are going through this again after the same thing happened with the first P99 release. The addition of ATS just makes it much worse. Rob - Original Message - From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 2:15 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > Why is that? Once you're experienced with DXP (or any app) you know > where to find stuff. The glitz doesn't slow me down. The speed of the > app (or lack of speed) slows me down. > > What would be the most proficient would be to have the tab key jump > between the editable fields in the order of most used which could easily > be determined by a survey on these lists. > > For example on a component pad, the first field highlighted is > Designator. I think that makes sense. However, if you press tab a few > times you get this order: > > Hole Size > Layer > Rotation > Xlocation > etc... > > After a while you get to X size and Ysize. I don't know about you, but I > find myself tweaking those two things way more often than the location > of the pad. I personally would like to see it more like this, where the > plated status is brought to the first tab instead of the 3rd tab. I > usually never mess with the net association because the schematic drives > that. > > Here is a mockup: http://www.encoreelectronics.com/padedit.jpg > > > > > > -Original Message----- > > From: Rob Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 6:31 AM > > To: Protel EDA Forum > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > > > > Ian, > > > 7) Dialogs are not as easily navigated as in P99SE - they may look > > > nicer but I find it harder to find the editable elements. > > I am in complete agreement with you on the dialogs. I forgot > > to add that to my list of issues with DXP. I find it much > > easier to find relevant attributes in a well organized list > > like P99SE has, not with them all haphazardly placed among > > "glitz" and "glamour". These new dialogs may help the new > > user, but once you are proficient with Protel, I think it > > tends to slow the user down. Rob > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Ian Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 10:35 PM > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > > > > > At 02:48 AM 5/09/02 +0100, you wrote: > > > ><..snip..> > > > >As the title said Cruch time - do I spend any more time looking at > > > >the > > DXP > > > >demo and upcoming SP1 re-learning how to use it or do I > > spend my time > > > >looking at other packages? > > > > > > > >What do you guys think? > > > > > > My feelings are very mixed. I have not tried all of the > > features and > > > have not done much after the beta program finished. I am > > waiting for > > > the first service pack before I see what has changed since > > the beta. > > > So when I say what I like or dislike it may be that I have > > not tried > > > your favorite feature or tested your favorite(!) bug. > &
Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time?
Why is that? Once you're experienced with DXP (or any app) you know where to find stuff. The glitz doesn't slow me down. The speed of the app (or lack of speed) slows me down. What would be the most proficient would be to have the tab key jump between the editable fields in the order of most used which could easily be determined by a survey on these lists. For example on a component pad, the first field highlighted is Designator. I think that makes sense. However, if you press tab a few times you get this order: Hole Size Layer Rotation Xlocation etc... After a while you get to X size and Ysize. I don't know about you, but I find myself tweaking those two things way more often than the location of the pad. I personally would like to see it more like this, where the plated status is brought to the first tab instead of the 3rd tab. I usually never mess with the net association because the schematic drives that. Here is a mockup: http://www.encoreelectronics.com/padedit.jpg > -Original Message- > From: Rob Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 6:31 AM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > Ian, > > 7) Dialogs are not as easily navigated as in P99SE - they may look > > nicer but I find it harder to find the editable elements. > I am in complete agreement with you on the dialogs. I forgot > to add that to my list of issues with DXP. I find it much > easier to find relevant attributes in a well organized list > like P99SE has, not with them all haphazardly placed among > "glitz" and "glamour". These new dialogs may help the new > user, but once you are proficient with Protel, I think it > tends to slow the user down. Rob > > - Original Message - > From: "Ian Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 10:35 PM > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > > At 02:48 AM 5/09/02 +0100, you wrote: > > ><..snip..> > > >As the title said Cruch time - do I spend any more time looking at > > >the > DXP > > >demo and upcoming SP1 re-learning how to use it or do I > spend my time > > >looking at other packages? > > > > > >What do you guys think? > > > > My feelings are very mixed. I have not tried all of the > features and > > have not done much after the beta program finished. I am > waiting for > > the first service pack before I see what has changed since > the beta. > > So when I say what I like or dislike it may be that I have > not tried > > your favorite feature or tested your favorite(!) bug. > > > > Likes: > > 1) query language and reltaed to that the much more powerful design > > rules > > 2) Sim post processing is improved > > 3) New ERC options > > 4) Integrated libraries should help configuration control > > > > Dislikes: > > 1) speed > > 2) globals are slower and some things very much harder to > work out how > > to do (but see Likes point 1). > > 3) Router is very disappointing - I was hoping for a break through > > here. > > 4) No SDK released (yet) > > 5) I think the spreadsheet view should *not* be on the same > panel as the > > filter. > > 6) ATS > > 7) Dialogs are not as easily navigated as in P99SE - they > may look nicer > > but I find it harder to find the editable elements. > > 8) Greater reliance on mouse compared to P99SE - this > affects productivity > > 9) loss of Selected vs Focussed feature in P99SE and no > provision for a > > workable replacement (simply making the system more like > other Windows > apps > > is a retrograde step IMO) > > > > There are others but these are the major ones I can think > of just now. > > > > As an indicator - I have started a few new designs in the > last week or > > so. All of these are being done in P99SE. I have a rather "down" > > feeling about it. Lots to like but ATS really makes the > equation more > > complex > than > > it used to be. > > > > I will re-evaluate after SP1. > > > > Ian Wilson > > > > > > > ** > > ** > > * Tracking #: F798CC54297D2F409329F8E4E9D6CD6A24CD0BED > > * > > > ** > ** > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] DXP - Crunch time?
Rob, I can't agree with you more. It is almost as if they are looking for new users rather trying to keep us experienced people around. If they want to chase me off DXP is a really good start. I'm here in conservative New England and it has been difficult enough getting people off of PADS. If I stay with a Protel Product this bew DXP version may be just another detriment to the effort. Joe - Original Message - From: "Rob Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 9:31 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > Ian, > > 7) Dialogs are not as easily navigated as in P99SE - they may look nicer > > but I find it harder to find the editable elements. > I am in complete agreement with you on the dialogs. I forgot to add that to > my list of issues with DXP. I find it much easier to find relevant > attributes in a well organized list like P99SE has, not with them all > haphazardly placed among "glitz" and "glamour". These new dialogs may help > the new user, but once you are proficient with Protel, I think it tends to > slow the user down. > Rob > > - Original Message - > From: "Ian Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 10:35 PM > Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > > > > At 02:48 AM 5/09/02 +0100, you wrote: > > ><..snip..> > > >As the title said Cruch time - do I spend any more time looking at the > DXP > > >demo and upcoming SP1 re-learning how to use it or do I spend my time > > >looking at other packages? > > > > > >What do you guys think? > > > > My feelings are very mixed. I have not tried all of the features and have > > not done much after the beta program finished. I am waiting for the first > > service pack before I see what has changed since the beta. So when I say > > what I like or dislike it may be that I have not tried your favorite > > feature or tested your favorite(!) bug. > > > > Likes: > > 1) query language and reltaed to that the much more powerful design rules > > 2) Sim post processing is improved > > 3) New ERC options > > 4) Integrated libraries should help configuration control > > > > Dislikes: > > 1) speed > > 2) globals are slower and some things very much harder to work out how to > > do (but see Likes point 1). > > 3) Router is very disappointing - I was hoping for a break through here. > > 4) No SDK released (yet) > > 5) I think the spreadsheet view should *not* be on the same panel as the > > filter. > > 6) ATS > > 7) Dialogs are not as easily navigated as in P99SE - they may look nicer > > but I find it harder to find the editable elements. > > 8) Greater reliance on mouse compared to P99SE - this affects productivity > > 9) loss of Selected vs Focussed feature in P99SE and no provision for a > > workable replacement (simply making the system more like other Windows > apps > > is a retrograde step IMO) > > > > There are others but these are the major ones I can think of just now. > > > > As an indicator - I have started a few new designs in the last week or > > so. All of these are being done in P99SE. I have a rather "down" feeling > > about it. Lots to like but ATS really makes the equation more complex > than > > it used to be. > > > > I will re-evaluate after SP1. > > > > Ian Wilson > > > > > > > > * Tracking #: F798CC54297D2F409329F8E4E9D6CD6A24CD0BED > > * > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] DXP - Crunch time?
Ian, > 7) Dialogs are not as easily navigated as in P99SE - they may look nicer > but I find it harder to find the editable elements. I am in complete agreement with you on the dialogs. I forgot to add that to my list of issues with DXP. I find it much easier to find relevant attributes in a well organized list like P99SE has, not with them all haphazardly placed among "glitz" and "glamour". These new dialogs may help the new user, but once you are proficient with Protel, I think it tends to slow the user down. Rob - Original Message - From: "Ian Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 10:35 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? > At 02:48 AM 5/09/02 +0100, you wrote: > ><..snip..> > >As the title said Cruch time - do I spend any more time looking at the DXP > >demo and upcoming SP1 re-learning how to use it or do I spend my time > >looking at other packages? > > > >What do you guys think? > > My feelings are very mixed. I have not tried all of the features and have > not done much after the beta program finished. I am waiting for the first > service pack before I see what has changed since the beta. So when I say > what I like or dislike it may be that I have not tried your favorite > feature or tested your favorite(!) bug. > > Likes: > 1) query language and reltaed to that the much more powerful design rules > 2) Sim post processing is improved > 3) New ERC options > 4) Integrated libraries should help configuration control > > Dislikes: > 1) speed > 2) globals are slower and some things very much harder to work out how to > do (but see Likes point 1). > 3) Router is very disappointing - I was hoping for a break through here. > 4) No SDK released (yet) > 5) I think the spreadsheet view should *not* be on the same panel as the > filter. > 6) ATS > 7) Dialogs are not as easily navigated as in P99SE - they may look nicer > but I find it harder to find the editable elements. > 8) Greater reliance on mouse compared to P99SE - this affects productivity > 9) loss of Selected vs Focussed feature in P99SE and no provision for a > workable replacement (simply making the system more like other Windows apps > is a retrograde step IMO) > > There are others but these are the major ones I can think of just now. > > As an indicator - I have started a few new designs in the last week or > so. All of these are being done in P99SE. I have a rather "down" feeling > about it. Lots to like but ATS really makes the equation more complex than > it used to be. > > I will re-evaluate after SP1. > > Ian Wilson > > > > * Tracking #: F798CC54297D2F409329F8E4E9D6CD6A24CD0BED > * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] DXP - Crunch time?
At 02:48 AM 5/09/02 +0100, you wrote: ><..snip..> >As the title said Cruch time - do I spend any more time looking at the DXP >demo and upcoming SP1 re-learning how to use it or do I spend my time >looking at other packages? > >What do you guys think? My feelings are very mixed. I have not tried all of the features and have not done much after the beta program finished. I am waiting for the first service pack before I see what has changed since the beta. So when I say what I like or dislike it may be that I have not tried your favorite feature or tested your favorite(!) bug. Likes: 1) query language and reltaed to that the much more powerful design rules 2) Sim post processing is improved 3) New ERC options 4) Integrated libraries should help configuration control Dislikes: 1) speed 2) globals are slower and some things very much harder to work out how to do (but see Likes point 1). 3) Router is very disappointing - I was hoping for a break through here. 4) No SDK released (yet) 5) I think the spreadsheet view should *not* be on the same panel as the filter. 6) ATS 7) Dialogs are not as easily navigated as in P99SE - they may look nicer but I find it harder to find the editable elements. 8) Greater reliance on mouse compared to P99SE - this affects productivity 9) loss of Selected vs Focussed feature in P99SE and no provision for a workable replacement (simply making the system more like other Windows apps is a retrograde step IMO) There are others but these are the major ones I can think of just now. As an indicator - I have started a few new designs in the last week or so. All of these are being done in P99SE. I have a rather "down" feeling about it. Lots to like but ATS really makes the equation more complex than it used to be. I will re-evaluate after SP1. Ian Wilson * Tracking #: F798CC54297D2F409329F8E4E9D6CD6A24CD0BED * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] DXP - Crunch time?
Terry, you know what's best for you. To see what other people are doing, have a look at the topic 'SV: Hard Look at other Programms'. From what I have seen so far, your thoughts are in line with a lot of the people in this forum and are definitely in line with mine. Cheers, Igor -Original Message- From: Terry Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 5 September 2002 11:49 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time? Well, this is a bit long - skip to the bottom if you are busy.. I've been evaluating DXP a little more and I keep finding myself asking why the hell did they do that? I like the PCB printer in 99SE, so I decide to find out what DXP has got instead. I load up a demo PCB and find "Fabrication Outputs" and "Assembly Outputs" under the file menu. Under "Fabrication Outputs" there is "Final". Not very obvious what "Final" is (especially is there is no "Draft" option) but I click it and get a fancy kind of print preview window. The preview window shows 16 pages. It doesn't tell you what those 16 pages are or what they are called unless you can zoom into the previews and deduce what they are from what will be printed. I think what the hell told DXP to generate these 16 pages and what are they and where are they configured? This print preview window has 3 buttons to control zoom, and even an edit box where I can type in a zoom % (although typing something different into it has no effect on anything). Eventually I discover the only way to do anything but zoom and print in this preview window is from a right click context menu. The menu has a "Configuration" item, configure what? who knows till you try it. I try it and get this really crap dialog which is the equivalent of the 99SE PCB Printer tree view. It isn't a conventional tree and by default is displayed fully expanded meaning I have a lot of scrolling to do (at least the scroll bar is grey not the pale blue used randomly elsewhere in DXP). Sheesh this is dragging on but there is just so much wrong to describe The tree branches are the printed pages like "TopLayer" etc and these branches contain the PCB layers to be printed. If I left click on a PCB layer it gets highlighted - cool but the highlight doesn't do anything for you, no Del to delete, no Alt Enter for properties, All you can do is move the highlight up and down with cursor keys. If I click on a Page name I am suddenly editing the name. If I double click on a page name I am suddenly editing the name. If I click on the icon next to the page name nothing seems to happen but actually that name got highlighted without showing anything - maybe because page names are displayed with a different background colour. I know it is highlighted because cursoring up and down takes an extra step for the highlight to pass through the page name. I also know because when (and only when) these page names are invisibly highlighted I can hit + or - to expand or colapse their branch. I can also doubleclick on the icon next to the page name to expand or collapse the branch, however, that also brings up a properties dialog for the page. The properties dialog is pretty similar to the 99SE PCB printer. So I delete some of these pages, which is only possible from their context menu and click OK and click close on the preview and close the project. I open the project, open the PCB, select "Final" and the same 16 pages are back just like it was. I find this a bit incredible, compared to 99SE configuring and previewing prints is bloody awful and DXP doesn't even save one configuration in the project never mind multiple configurations in PCB printer documents. I believe CAM output is the same. Another gripe is these generated files don't appear in the project pane. Generate drill files and you have to leave DXP and find the report file in Windows. Sometimes the project pane does show "Generated text files" for some generated files but they simply dissapear the next time you open that project. I am coming to the conclusion that the D in DXP stands for disaster. I am annoyed at the lost of the design database and explorer, a great idea with a bad implimentation. It should have been improved not scrapped. None of my existing designs will convert to DXP without pain, especially for the embedded non-protel documents. I don't think problems like the above where something which worked well in 99SE being crippled by design are going to be fixed in a couple of service packs. I don't think DXP will reach the non-buggyness level of 99SE in a year. The new router seems unimpressive. I would have a lot of re-learning to do. I have to pay for it and pay for ongoing support. I've been using Protel since it was called Tango for DOS. The release of DXP and realiastaion that
Re: [PEDA] DXP - Crunch time?
have you posted this to the DXP group? if not, would you please? thanks i have the DXP demo on one machine, now expired a licensed version on another machine every time i open one to play with it i get so annoyed i stop within a fairly short time what are they doing and why, why? i think it just must be a whole new team and they just wanted to do it all their way and where does PCAD fit into to all this? Dennis Saputelli Terry Harris wrote: > > Well, this is a bit long - skip to the bottom if you are busy.. > > I've been evaluating DXP a little more and I keep finding myself asking why > the hell did they do that? > > I like the PCB printer in 99SE, so I decide to find out what DXP has got > instead. > > I load up a demo PCB and find "Fabrication Outputs" and "Assembly Outputs" > under the file menu. > > Under "Fabrication Outputs" there is "Final". Not very obvious what "Final" > is (especially is there is no "Draft" option) but I click it and get a > fancy kind of print preview window. > > The preview window shows 16 pages. It doesn't tell you what those 16 pages > are or what they are called unless you can zoom into the previews and > deduce what they are from what will be printed. > > I think what the hell told DXP to generate these 16 pages and what are they > and where are they configured? > > This print preview window has 3 buttons to control zoom, and even an edit > box where I can type in a zoom % (although typing something different into > it has no effect on anything). > > Eventually I discover the only way to do anything but zoom and print in > this preview window is from a right click context menu. The menu has a > "Configuration" item, configure what? who knows till you try it. > > I try it and get this really crap dialog which is the equivalent of the > 99SE PCB Printer tree view. It isn't a conventional tree and by default is > displayed fully expanded meaning I have a lot of scrolling to do (at least > the scroll bar is grey not the pale blue used randomly elsewhere in DXP). > > Sheesh this is dragging on but there is just so much wrong to describe > > The tree branches are the printed pages like "TopLayer" etc and these > branches contain the PCB layers to be printed. > > If I left click on a PCB layer it gets highlighted - cool but the highlight > doesn't do anything for you, no Del to delete, no Alt Enter for properties, > All you can do is move the highlight up and down with cursor keys. > > If I click on a Page name I am suddenly editing the name. If I double click > on a page name I am suddenly editing the name. If I click on the icon next > to the page name nothing seems to happen but actually that name got > highlighted without showing anything - maybe because page names are > displayed with a different background colour. > > I know it is highlighted because cursoring up and down takes an extra step > for the highlight to pass through the page name. I also know because when > (and only when) these page names are invisibly highlighted I can hit + or > - to expand or colapse their branch. > > I can also doubleclick on the icon next to the page name to expand or > collapse the branch, however, that also brings up a properties dialog for > the page. The properties dialog is pretty similar to the 99SE PCB printer. > > So I delete some of these pages, which is only possible from their context > menu and click OK and click close on the preview and close the project. > > I open the project, open the PCB, select "Final" and the same 16 pages are > back just like it was. > > I find this a bit incredible, compared to 99SE configuring and previewing > prints is bloody awful and DXP doesn't even save one configuration in the > project never mind multiple configurations in PCB printer documents. > > I believe CAM output is the same. > > Another gripe is these generated files don't appear in the project pane. > Generate drill files and you have to leave DXP and find the report file in > Windows. Sometimes the project pane does show "Generated text files" for > some generated files but they simply dissapear the next time you open that > project. > > I am coming to the conclusion that the D in DXP stands for disaster. > > I am annoyed at the lost of the design database and explorer, a great idea > with a bad implimentation. It should have been improved not scrapped. None > of my existing designs will convert to DXP without pain, especially for the > embedded non-protel documents. > > I don't think problems like the above where something which worked well in > 99SE being crippled by design are going to be fixed in a couple of service > packs. > > I don't think DXP will reach the non-buggyness level of 99SE in a year. > > The new router seems unimpressive. > > I would have a lot of re-learning to do. > > I have to pay for it and pay for ongoing support. > > I've been using Protel since it was called Tango for DOS. The release of > DXP and realiastaion that
[PEDA] DXP - Crunch time?
Well, this is a bit long - skip to the bottom if you are busy.. I've been evaluating DXP a little more and I keep finding myself asking why the hell did they do that? I like the PCB printer in 99SE, so I decide to find out what DXP has got instead. I load up a demo PCB and find "Fabrication Outputs" and "Assembly Outputs" under the file menu. Under "Fabrication Outputs" there is "Final". Not very obvious what "Final" is (especially is there is no "Draft" option) but I click it and get a fancy kind of print preview window. The preview window shows 16 pages. It doesn't tell you what those 16 pages are or what they are called unless you can zoom into the previews and deduce what they are from what will be printed. I think what the hell told DXP to generate these 16 pages and what are they and where are they configured? This print preview window has 3 buttons to control zoom, and even an edit box where I can type in a zoom % (although typing something different into it has no effect on anything). Eventually I discover the only way to do anything but zoom and print in this preview window is from a right click context menu. The menu has a "Configuration" item, configure what? who knows till you try it. I try it and get this really crap dialog which is the equivalent of the 99SE PCB Printer tree view. It isn't a conventional tree and by default is displayed fully expanded meaning I have a lot of scrolling to do (at least the scroll bar is grey not the pale blue used randomly elsewhere in DXP). Sheesh this is dragging on but there is just so much wrong to describe The tree branches are the printed pages like "TopLayer" etc and these branches contain the PCB layers to be printed. If I left click on a PCB layer it gets highlighted - cool but the highlight doesn't do anything for you, no Del to delete, no Alt Enter for properties, All you can do is move the highlight up and down with cursor keys. If I click on a Page name I am suddenly editing the name. If I double click on a page name I am suddenly editing the name. If I click on the icon next to the page name nothing seems to happen but actually that name got highlighted without showing anything - maybe because page names are displayed with a different background colour. I know it is highlighted because cursoring up and down takes an extra step for the highlight to pass through the page name. I also know because when (and only when) these page names are invisibly highlighted I can hit + or - to expand or colapse their branch. I can also doubleclick on the icon next to the page name to expand or collapse the branch, however, that also brings up a properties dialog for the page. The properties dialog is pretty similar to the 99SE PCB printer. So I delete some of these pages, which is only possible from their context menu and click OK and click close on the preview and close the project. I open the project, open the PCB, select "Final" and the same 16 pages are back just like it was. I find this a bit incredible, compared to 99SE configuring and previewing prints is bloody awful and DXP doesn't even save one configuration in the project never mind multiple configurations in PCB printer documents. I believe CAM output is the same. Another gripe is these generated files don't appear in the project pane. Generate drill files and you have to leave DXP and find the report file in Windows. Sometimes the project pane does show "Generated text files" for some generated files but they simply dissapear the next time you open that project. I am coming to the conclusion that the D in DXP stands for disaster. I am annoyed at the lost of the design database and explorer, a great idea with a bad implimentation. It should have been improved not scrapped. None of my existing designs will convert to DXP without pain, especially for the embedded non-protel documents. I don't think problems like the above where something which worked well in 99SE being crippled by design are going to be fixed in a couple of service packs. I don't think DXP will reach the non-buggyness level of 99SE in a year. The new router seems unimpressive. I would have a lot of re-learning to do. I have to pay for it and pay for ongoing support. I've been using Protel since it was called Tango for DOS. The release of DXP and realiastaion that 99SE is now an unsupported dead end means I have never had more insentive to switch to a different vendor. As the title said Cruch time - do I spend any more time looking at the DXP demo and upcoming SP1 re-learning how to use it or do I spend my time looking at other packages? What do you guys think? Cheers, Terry. * Tracking #: AF14BA9FD37F2E49B06417BA387EF98FCCBA26CE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMA
