Re: [PEDA] DXP Discussion

2002-07-31 Thread Andrew Jenkins



 -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

2002-07-31 Thread Duane Foster

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

2002-07-31 Thread Igor Gmitrovic

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

2002-07-30 Thread Michael Reagan (EDSI)

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

2002-07-30 Thread Tim Hutcheson

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

2002-07-30 Thread JaMi Smith

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

2002-07-30 Thread Tony Karavidas

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

2002-07-30 Thread Michael Reagan (EDSI)

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

2002-07-30 Thread Tony Karavidas

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

2002-07-30 Thread Frank Gilley

 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

2002-07-30 Thread Joe Sapienza

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

2002-07-30 Thread Michael Reagan (EDSI)


 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

2002-07-30 Thread Rene Tschaggelar

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

2002-07-30 Thread Robert M. Wolfe

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

2002-07-30 Thread Ian Wilson

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

2002-07-30 Thread Tony Karavidas

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

2002-07-30 Thread Brian Sherer

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