Re: [PEDA] DXP Discussion
-Original Message- From: Rene Tschaggelar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] You're wrong. The NDA applies for afterwards too. The NDA covers the NDA too, I guess. The beta was a lot of tiring work, so let's forget about the beta and focus on the release. You do your purchase decision on the release and not on the beta. Not if the release is a beta. aj * Tracking #: 541D12CB1599CE4FA9E4170599E6696227A707AD * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 discussion
A software company trying to cover up its bugs Invoking both the controversial 1998 DMCA and computer crime laws, HP has threatened to sue a team of researchers who publicized a vulnerability in the company's Tru64 Unix operating system. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-947325.html I will stick with this user forum. The Protel moderated forum may have been suitable for those who volunteered to non-disclosure terms, but not for a released product. Duane Foster -Original Message- From: Bagotronix Tech Support [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 2:09 PM The problem is that if Altium moderates the list, they can remove anything they don't like. I agree with Darryl, open discussion and criticism is very important. I am amazed at the efforts some companies are taking to squelch criticism. Not like, by fixing the product, but by other means. I suggest we keep the DXP discussion here. They can't make us take it to their list. Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. * Tracking #: DA46B7F44E60CA46BE1483368DA3E08E957BFB9B * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 Discussion
And it looks like beta v2 to me. Igor -Original Message- From: Andrew Jenkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 31 July 2002 10:01 PM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP Discussion -Original Message- From: Rene Tschaggelar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] You're wrong. The NDA applies for afterwards too. The NDA covers the NDA too, I guess. The beta was a lot of tiring work, so let's forget about the beta and focus on the release. You do your purchase decision on the release and not on the beta. Not if the release is a beta. aj * Tracking #: 541D12CB1599CE4FA9E4170599E6696227A707AD * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 Discussion
Ian wrote, Just a brief comment before the discussion really hots up. My comments: Ian,follow the context of the messages on this forum from release of 99 to present. The earlier tone from these discussions was nothing but frustration. Some of us were mad as hell at simple things not working like INSTALL. There is no reason for mature software to take a 3 year step backwards for simple tasks like copy, select, install, etc.I think the tone of the feedback to follow in the next few months will reflect the same tone that was discussed in 99 early years. Contructive input is years away Lets try to make the discussion constructive. Altium do watch this list and I would guess they would be watching this as one of their prime sources of feedback. I disagree,This is expensive software. I purchase $49.00 software and complain to store managers if my $49.00 package doesnt work, why shouldnt ALTIUM receive heat from us about not correcting bugs and not meeting our expectations. We are the paying customer. SIMPLE AS THAT If I take ALTIUMS attitude with my customers, I would be out of business. We can bag DXP - that is really easy. Can we do the harder stuff of being constructive? We can bag DXP? I too participated in the BETA program, but unlike some who choose to invest 100 hours debugging a program that wasn't ready for prime time, I looked at for the features I wanted and they weren't there. I evaluated the program for my requirements in less than 5 minutes. PROTEL programs no longer meets my design requirements, simple as that. I would expect the current program is finally ready for Beta testing by all the users who wish to pay for it. I just spent the last several years figuring out how 99SE works, what makes it crash, how not to make it crash and how to get around long compilations that send my computer to PLUTO. I wont spend the same time this time with a program that offers no clear advantage to upgrading. How is that for constructive? I will sit back and read all of the DXP input now Mike Reagan EDSI * Tracking #: 8F71C4C0EBD99A44A6DCA9CE6224F55C32D84C88 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 Discussion
Just downloaded DXP demo yesterday and rejoined the forum (missed any earlier discussion). My initial impressions: To compare the product I choose an 8-channel amplifier board that is one of six identical cards used in a 48 transducer system. Of course this was very tedious to do (or tedious to maintain, take your pick) with 99SE methods for handling multiple channels and the even the auto routing of a single two-sided card was ridiculously complex and loaded with vias. The interesting thing about the test is that the card layout by hand is actually quite simple and can be routed by someone with minimal experience (me) with no vias and nice trace hugging. To facilitate comparison, I created the auto routing test PCB from my hand layout by locking those traces that clearly reflected choices that I was making to influence the layout, both design and aesthetic, (like power rails and initial signal fanouts from connectors). DXP routes the card essentially the same as my hand layout in about 1.5 minutes, but with about 6 vias. 99SE failed to complete the route and makes a mess of what it does complete, with about 40 vias left standing. BOTH PACKAGE WILL IDENTICALLY UNROUTE SOME OF THE LOCKED TRACES when cleaning the board between tests. Since they do this identically to some (not all) of the unconnected prerouted stubs I used to influence the layout, I assume this is the identical software still in place. If the multichannel features work at all, they will be a big win for me and huge step in the right direction. I will let you know. If the flat file project methods work reliably, that is also a plus as it reflects the way most programming IDE's work with complete independent access to files, the file dates, etc. My guess is: no more trips to PLUTO! So for moderate level projects like I have, DXP might be a big win. On the other hand it may not be as improved as I would like. Even a quick cursory test revealed that the old bugs are still there. But other problems with 99SE were more limiting than the few bugs I learned to tolerate. These things made 99SE largely unworkable (PLUTO effect and multichannel maintenance, etc). regards, Tim Hutcheson Institute for Human and Machine Cognition 40 S. Alcaniz St. Pensacola, FL 32503 805-202-4461 * Tracking #: 6C599303C0C24742B2C84717B879B55BD05BC46C * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 Discussion
Ian, This is really scarey, you beta'd the thing and you cant say anything more constructive yourself? Talk about George Orwellean 1984 doublespeak . . . JaMi - Original Message - From: Ian Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 11:26 PM Subject: [PEDA] DXP Discussion Hello all, Just a brief comment before the discussion really hots up. There is lots to like about DXP. There is lots to re-learn. There is lots that is the same. There is lots to dislike. Lets try to make the discussion constructive. Altium do watch this list and I would guess they would be watching this as one of their prime sources of feedback. We can bag DXP - that is really easy. Can we do the harder stuff of being constructive? All that said, I am ready to call something rubbish when I think it is. There are a number of us that will be somewhat circumspec as the NDA beta testers signed does cover some info we may have received. Also, IMO, I think it is well worthwhile letting fresh eyes pass comment without too much prompting. Ian Wilson * Tracking #: A153AA0099921341A1FD9A73CE937F13AA986D52 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 Discussion
Part of the beta agreement was to not disclose things that transpired during the beta period. That would seem to imply good or bad. The comments made on this list should be 'freshly formed' from the released demo that everyone has access to right now, not from what beta people saw in the past. -Original Message- From: JaMi Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 10:45 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Cc: JaMi Smith Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP Discussion Ian, This is really scarey, you beta'd the thing and you cant say anything more constructive yourself? Talk about George Orwellean 1984 doublespeak . . . JaMi - Original Message - From: Ian Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 11:26 PM Subject: [PEDA] DXP Discussion Hello all, Just a brief comment before the discussion really hots up. There is lots to like about DXP. There is lots to re-learn. There is lots that is the same. There is lots to dislike. Lets try to make the discussion constructive. Altium do watch this list and I would guess they would be watching this as one of their prime sources of feedback. We can bag DXP - that is really easy. Can we do the harder stuff of being constructive? All that said, I am ready to call something rubbish when I think it is. There are a number of us that will be somewhat circumspec as the NDA beta testers signed does cover some info we may have received. Also, IMO, I think it is well worthwhile letting fresh eyes pass comment without too much prompting. Ian Wilson * Tracking #: A153AA0099921341A1FD9A73CE937F13AA986D52 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 Discussion
Tony, Thank you for the reminder, I don't think I have disclosed anything other than reinforcing any commentary that I have posted here for the past year and long before dXP was a gleam in the Kangaroo's eye. I believe Andrew Jenkins past comments on here also reflect the poor response from Protel to fix bugs and make 99SE more usable.I wish they would sell me the old 99 code, let me hire some of their programmers to polish an already good program like 99SE. It is a very good program , it just could be better without having to write code from the floor up. Mike Reagan EDSI - Original Message - From: Tony Karavidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 10:54 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP Discussion Part of the beta agreement was to not disclose things that transpired during the beta period. That would seem to imply good or bad. The comments made on this list should be 'freshly formed' from the released demo that everyone has access to right now, not from what beta people saw in the past. -Original Message- From: JaMi Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 10:45 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Cc: JaMi Smith Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP Discussion Ian, This is really scarey, you beta'd the thing and you cant say anything more constructive yourself? Talk about George Orwellean 1984 doublespeak . . . JaMi - Original Message - From: Ian Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 11:26 PM Subject: [PEDA] DXP Discussion Hello all, Just a brief comment before the discussion really hots up. There is lots to like about DXP. There is lots to re-learn. There is lots that is the same. There is lots to dislike. Lets try to make the discussion constructive. Altium do watch this list and I would guess they would be watching this as one of their prime sources of feedback. We can bag DXP - that is really easy. Can we do the harder stuff of being constructive? All that said, I am ready to call something rubbish when I think it is. There are a number of us that will be somewhat circumspec as the NDA beta testers signed does cover some info we may have received. Also, IMO, I think it is well worthwhile letting fresh eyes pass comment without too much prompting. Ian Wilson * Tracking #: A153AA0099921341A1FD9A73CE937F13AA986D52 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 Discussion
Hi Mike, My comment was more focused on Jami's comment to Ian: This is really scarey, you beta'd the thing and you cant say anything more constructive yourself? I hinted that it might be possible for Ian to not say too much because of the NDA. Tony -Original Message- From: Michael Reagan (EDSI) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 2:36 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP Discussion Tony, Thank you for the reminder, I don't think I have disclosed anything other than reinforcing any commentary that I have posted here for the past year and long before dXP was a gleam in the Kangaroo's eye. I believe Andrew Jenkins past comments on here also reflect the poor response from Protel to fix bugs and make 99SE more usable.I wish they would sell me the old 99 code, let me hire some of their programmers to polish an already good program like 99SE. It is a very good program , it just could be better without having to write code from the floor up. Mike Reagan EDSI - Original Message - From: Tony Karavidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 10:54 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP Discussion Part of the beta agreement was to not disclose things that transpired during the beta period. That would seem to imply good or bad. The comments made on this list should be 'freshly formed' from the released demo that everyone has access to right now, not from what beta people saw in the past. -Original Message- From: JaMi Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 10:45 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Cc: JaMi Smith Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP Discussion Ian, This is really scarey, you beta'd the thing and you cant say anything more constructive yourself? Talk about George Orwellean 1984 doublespeak . . . JaMi - Original Message - From: Ian Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 11:26 PM Subject: [PEDA] DXP Discussion Hello all, Just a brief comment before the discussion really hots up. There is lots to like about DXP. There is lots to re-learn. There is lots that is the same. There is lots to dislike. Lets try to make the discussion constructive. Altium do watch this list and I would guess they would be watching this as one of their prime sources of feedback. We can bag DXP - that is really easy. Can we do the harder stuff of being constructive? All that said, I am ready to call something rubbish when I think it is. There are a number of us that will be somewhat circumspec as the NDA beta testers signed does cover some info we may have received. Also, IMO, I think it is well worthwhile letting fresh eyes pass comment without too much prompting. Ian Wilson * Tracking #: A153AA0099921341A1FD9A73CE937F13AA986D52 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 Discussion
From Alan Todd (Altium) when I asked for some clarification on the NDA: To make any comments about work arounds or techniques you have found is OK and I would encourage you to do so if you wish as this helps spread the collective knowledge of the application. The sort of topics that you should not discuss are details about issues that existed in earlier versions that were fixed. I don't personally see much that is of great concern with this project, but if in doubt, just ask yourself if it could have been discovered without having been involved in the Beta project, it should be OK. I hope this makes things a little bit clearer Frank At 02:35 PM 7/30/2002 -0700, Mike Reagan wrote: Tony, Thank you for the reminder, I don't think I have disclosed anything other than reinforcing any commentary that I have posted here for the past year and long before dXP was a gleam in the Kangaroo's eye. I believe Andrew Jenkins past comments on here also reflect the poor response from Protel to fix bugs and make 99SE more usable.I wish they would sell me the old 99 code, let me hire some of their programmers to polish an already good program like 99SE. It is a very good program , it just could be better without having to write code from the floor up. Mike Reagan EDSI - Original Message - From: Tony Karavidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 10:54 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP Discussion Part of the beta agreement was to not disclose things that transpired during the beta period. That would seem to imply good or bad. The comments made on this list should be 'freshly formed' from the released demo that everyone has access to right now, not from what beta people saw in the past. -Original Message- From: JaMi Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 10:45 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Cc: JaMi Smith Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP Discussion Ian, This is really scarey, you beta'd the thing and you cant say anything more constructive yourself? Talk about George Orwellean 1984 doublespeak . . . JaMi - Original Message - From: Ian Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 11:26 PM Subject: [PEDA] DXP Discussion Hello all, Just a brief comment before the discussion really hots up. There is lots to like about DXP. There is lots to re-learn. There is lots that is the same. There is lots to dislike. Lets try to make the discussion constructive. Altium do watch this list and I would guess they would be watching this as one of their prime sources of feedback. We can bag DXP - that is really easy. Can we do the harder stuff of being constructive? All that said, I am ready to call something rubbish when I think it is. There are a number of us that will be somewhat circumspec as the NDA beta testers signed does cover some info we may have received. Also, IMO, I think it is well worthwhile letting fresh eyes pass comment without too much prompting. Ian Wilson * Tracking #: A153AA0099921341A1FD9A73CE937F13AA986D52 * Frank Gilley Dell-Star Technologies (918) 838-1973 Phone (918) 838-8814 Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dellstar.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 Discussion
Hi, I didn't participate in the Beta test. However I may recall incorrectly that the Beta test NDA applied only during the term of the test and not after. I did the beta on 98 and I seem to recall that these were the terms. Maybe I'm wrong, does anyone have a copy of the DXP BETA NDA handy. Joe - Original Message - From: Tony Karavidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 2:49 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP Discussion Hi Mike, My comment was more focused on Jami's comment to Ian: This is really scarey, you beta'd the thing and you cant say anything more constructive yourself? I hinted that it might be possible for Ian to not say too much because of the NDA. Tony -Original Message- From: Michael Reagan (EDSI) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 2:36 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP Discussion Tony, Thank you for the reminder, I don't think I have disclosed anything other than reinforcing any commentary that I have posted here for the past year and long before dXP was a gleam in the Kangaroo's eye. I believe Andrew Jenkins past comments on here also reflect the poor response from Protel to fix bugs and make 99SE more usable.I wish they would sell me the old 99 code, let me hire some of their programmers to polish an already good program like 99SE. It is a very good program , it just could be better without having to write code from the floor up. Mike Reagan EDSI - Original Message - From: Tony Karavidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 10:54 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP Discussion Part of the beta agreement was to not disclose things that transpired during the beta period. That would seem to imply good or bad. The comments made on this list should be 'freshly formed' from the released demo that everyone has access to right now, not from what beta people saw in the past. -Original Message- From: JaMi Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 10:45 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Cc: JaMi Smith Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP Discussion Ian, This is really scarey, you beta'd the thing and you cant say anything more constructive yourself? Talk about George Orwellean 1984 doublespeak . . . JaMi - Original Message - From: Ian Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 11:26 PM Subject: [PEDA] DXP Discussion Hello all, Just a brief comment before the discussion really hots up. There is lots to like about DXP. There is lots to re-learn. There is lots that is the same. There is lots to dislike. Lets try to make the discussion constructive. Altium do watch this list and I would guess they would be watching this as one of their prime sources of feedback. We can bag DXP - that is really easy. Can we do the harder stuff of being constructive? All that said, I am ready to call something rubbish when I think it is. There are a number of us that will be somewhat circumspec as the NDA beta testers signed does cover some info we may have received. Also, IMO, I think it is well worthwhile letting fresh eyes pass comment without too much prompting. Ian Wilson * Tracking #: A153AA0099921341A1FD9A73CE937F13AA986D52 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 Discussion
This is really scarey, you beta'd the thing and you cant say anything more constructive yourself? Tony, I felt very strong that the platform (99SE) was and is superior to anything else in the price range. A few minor tweaks, a few lines of code taken out to optimize long compilations, and an autorouter, even if it meant a separate package to sell at additional costs would have done it for me. Maybe some enhancements to the high speed design rules , Protel...Sell us a separate autorotuing package with an interface that I can use other programs. Mike Reagan * Tracking #: D51E2786DF504A4D8B7B8807A501A22A946D0CE5 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 Discussion
You're wrong. The NDA applies for afterwards too. The NDA covers the NDA too, I guess. The beta was a lot of tiring work, so let's forget about the beta and focus on the release. You do your purchase decision on the release and not on the beta. The beta is gone ... Rene Joe Sapienza wrote: Hi, I didn't participate in the Beta test. However I may recall incorrectly that the Beta test NDA applied only during the term of the test and not after. I did the beta on 98 and I seem to recall that these were the terms. Maybe I'm wrong, does anyone have a copy of the DXP BETA NDA handy. Joe * Tracking #: 25284C275862004BB70022416264B2185EE1D717 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 Discussion
Mike, 100% Correct. Bob Wolfe Mike wrote I disagree,This is expensive software. I purchase $49.00 software and complain to store managers if my $49.00 package doesnt work, why shouldnt ALTIUM receive heat from us about not correcting bugs and not meeting our expectations. We are the paying customer. SIMPLE AS THAT If I take ALTIUMS attitude with my customers, I would be out of business. * Tracking #: 4674DEEDCD013E439E7F284399F3388A5D4A23BE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 Discussion
On 09:46 PM 30/07/2002 -0400, Robert M. Wolfe said: Mike, 100% Correct. Bob Wolfe Mike wrote I disagree,This is expensive software. I purchase $49.00 software and complain to store managers if my $49.00 package doesnt work, why shouldnt ALTIUM receive heat from us about not correcting bugs and not meeting our expectations. We are the paying customer. SIMPLE AS THAT If I take ALTIUMS attitude with my customers, I would be out of business. So do I - I think the heat should be bloody hot but also constructive. I have never held back on saying something is no good. But I usually try to offer some way in which it could be better or some reason for why an alternative is better. If you or Mike think I was suggesting going soft on Altium, by suggesting we be constructive in our criticism, I am sorry I created that impression. Since the program is more expensive than most we use, that is all the more reason why constructive criticism is more valuable for all of us. Most of us are not in the position of being able to change CAD/CAE packages easily so we have to be part of the process in making the package we have to work with work better. You can either be part of the process or you can simply complain. Which is it to be? In either case Altium will know what you don't like, but only in one will your comments be useful in making the damn thing better. Those with long memories will recall the process I went through on the release of P98 and P99. They will also see the results of some of the active engagement by a number of us in the changes from P99 to P99SE. BTW - maybe it is different in different places. To bag something in Australia is anything but a compliment - it means to denigrate it. I am saying it is easy for us to denigrate the software (always is after all). But at the same time can we rise above this and say why it is bad and how it could be better. I used the phrase We can bag DXP - that is really easy. Are some of you taking this to mean that I am saying DXP is good, or go soft on Altium? Where does the impression that I am suggesting going soft on Altium come from? Bye for now, Ian * Tracking #: 6383462D5F58A040B85F523C1D99005EE4E56B57 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 Discussion
In the US, 'to bag' generally means the same thing. I think some places it means to 'capture' or 'get lucky' but I'm not sure where... -Original Message- From: Ian Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 7:14 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP Discussion On 09:46 PM 30/07/2002 -0400, Robert M. Wolfe said: Mike, 100% Correct. Bob Wolfe Mike wrote I disagree,This is expensive software. I purchase $49.00 software and complain to store managers if my $49.00 package doesnt work, why shouldnt ALTIUM receive heat from us about not correcting bugs and not meeting our expectations. We are the paying customer. SIMPLE AS THAT If I take ALTIUMS attitude with my customers, I would be out of business. So do I - I think the heat should be bloody hot but also constructive. I have never held back on saying something is no good. But I usually try to offer some way in which it could be better or some reason for why an alternative is better. If you or Mike think I was suggesting going soft on Altium, by suggesting we be constructive in our criticism, I am sorry I created that impression. Since the program is more expensive than most we use, that is all the more reason why constructive criticism is more valuable for all of us. Most of us are not in the position of being able to change CAD/CAE packages easily so we have to be part of the process in making the package we have to work with work better. You can either be part of the process or you can simply complain. Which is it to be? In either case Altium will know what you don't like, but only in one will your comments be useful in making the damn thing better. Those with long memories will recall the process I went through on the release of P98 and P99. They will also see the results of some of the active engagement by a number of us in the changes from P99 to P99SE. BTW - maybe it is different in different places. To bag something in Australia is anything but a compliment - it means to denigrate it. I am saying it is easy for us to denigrate the software (always is after all). But at the same time can we rise above this and say why it is bad and how it could be better. I used the phrase We can bag DXP - that is really easy. Are some of you taking this to mean that I am saying DXP is good, or go soft on Altium? Where does the impression that I am suggesting going soft on Altium come from? Bye for now, Ian * Tracking #: 6383462D5F58A040B85F523C1D99005EE4E56B57 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 Discussion
InterestingIn my neck of the woods (NW US), to bag something is to abandon it as useless, but without extreme prejudice Brian At 07:32 PM 7/30/02 -0700, you wrote: In the US, 'to bag' generally means the same thing. I think some places it means to 'capture' or 'get lucky' but I'm not sure where... * Tracking #: F89D03FC4C3FC14E9ADC95FB81F22D9EE5A6763E * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *