Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
Lots of message traffic in this KLUNK! thread... KLUNK! reminds me of the animated cartoon series (Dastardly and Muttley in Their Flying Machines) that featured WWI-style pilots Dick Dastardly, his dog Muttley, and 2 screw-up sidekick pilots, one of whom was named Klunk. Dick Dastardly and his sidekicks (bad guys cast as a German stereotype) were always trying to stop the carrier pigeon (Yankee Doodle) from delivering the vital message of the day (whatever that was). Dastardly and his sidekicks would devise the most hare-brained of schemes to "stop that pigeon!", and they would always fail, in a hilarious spectacular crash. Here is a website about this old cartoon show: http://www.tibonia.com/Dmeg1.htm If we are Yankee Doodle pigeon (carrying money), and Altium is the Vulture Squadron, it seems that Altium's recent ATS and DXP efforts (hare-brained schemes to get that money) are crashing and burning similarly. :-) Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com * Tracking #: 00A5912C470F794D8335C4AB6369D929792C073E * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
There are many factors in the same equation, but as I see it, they had to come up with something completely new so they could introduce the ATS. That, to me, is the most important factor in all this. They are fighting for revenue, as any other busines does. That they might lose in the end is a law of (business) nature. Igor -Original Message- From: mariusrf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, 8 September 2002 4:06 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. - Original Message - From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > Hi Joe, > > I looked at the dates because your comment sparked interest. The older > dates look to me like development tool DLLs, PLD stuff (the files from > 1996), icons, pretty benign and uncontrollable stuff. > > If you look at the meat of the code, the file are dated 2002. I would > disagree with you just because there are so many new problems with DXP. > Even some core functions that we were familiar with have changed. > > I'm just guessing, but maybe the code base of P99SE was getting very > difficult to maintain, and they opted for a 'fresh start' in many ways. > > In this article: http://www.embedded.com/story/OEG20020819S0056 the > author states: "To achieve the best long-term results, it is often > necessary to have the courage to discard bad code and rewrite it." > > Maybe that is where P99 ended up. Like I said, I'm just guessing. discarding bad code is one thing, changing top level GUI specs is another . They decided to incorporate new "features" and discard old features based on management perception rather than user feedback. Starting from scratch new code doesn't mean discarding the old menus or feature set . All it needed was some corrections and some additions to be a better EDa tool than 99se or the competition . Then with the brand new enhanced spec software engineers could've written code in any language of their choice and on any platform . Altium should have correlated the feature set with the market segment they're addressing. They should've made an effort to keep the familiar menus regardless of the underlying code whenever possible. IT looks a lot like the "not invented here" syndrome , new development team is brought in, old people let go, new people badmouth old ones and then change everything including what was good. This was terribly foolish because Altium was somewhere up there on the learning curve in designing EDA tools . 99se was the nth iteration with lots of incremental improvements over previous versions. Giving up their functionality and replacing them with different options/menus/features threw them years back on the evolution scale. They could've rewritten the whole program from scratch but still maintain a top level GUI familiar interface , instead I bet they rewrote the GUI and probably patched the old underlying code. I'm sure it's still that Delphi code BTW . An example of how not to develop software, or what happens to shareholders money when management doesn't have a clue. They are currently reinventing the wheel , unfortunately it's still square or octagonal at best . Matt Tudor , MSEE http://gigahertzelectronics.com p.s. in this day and age the PLD tool makes no sense whatsoever , Xilinx, Actel, Atmel, Altera offer free tools with better funcionality , which have the added advantage that they actually _work_ for a change . * Tracking #: B583A16F9F0D87409C1CC56EB92C8E2B42E82B54 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
In my experience Protel versions 3.0, 98 and 99 were "flaky". Protel 99SE with SP6 is stable. I aggree with you on SP7. There are things to be corrected. Igor -Original Message- From: JaMi Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, 7 September 2002 6:41 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Cc: JaMi Smith Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. - Original Message - From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 9:14 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > Jami, > > Do you have the ability to install P99SE on a different machine? (I > can't remember if you've indicated that before). I think your frequent > crashes are pretty unusual. > Tony, Over the past year, most of my problems have been on either a Dell Model 4100 1GHz Pentium III or once that was upgraded, on a Dell Model 535 2.3Ghz Pentium 4, at work. I then purchased my own license, and now have my own copy of Protel 99 SE SP6 installed on my own IBM Model 6648 NetVista 866 MHz Pentium III at home. I actually just think that the crashes are just a matter of usage, and the reason it has been so high in the past several weeks is that the total usage has been an average of about 12 hours a day, with occasions reaching up to 18 hours straight. When I push Protel, it crashes! When Protel crashes, I scream and yell! I don't think that I am having more crashes than some others out there, I just think that I may have a slightly higher usage, and be much much more vocal and much much less tolerant about the crashes. I really really think that is as simple as that. I think that far far too many people out there have become accustomed to their systems crashing on them from time to time for one reason or another, and actually think nothing of it. Many accept it as the "cost of doing business" as it were, and in some cases actually blame it on themselves thinking that it was something that they might have done wrong, or that for some reason the hardware or software combination that they have just does not live up to Protel's requirements and expectations. I have heard some people insist that their system is rock solid, and never crashes, and yet these are the very same people who admit that they have occasionally seen "hidden processes" or "phantom copies" of Protel still running when they go to shut their system down. This is not normal. This is not how software is supposed to run. Especially when that software is currently costing $8,000.00 a copy. It is not simply a fluke. It is not something that you did wrong. It is not that you have a flaky system. It is simply inexcusable blunders and oversights in programming. It really and truly is that Protel really and truly is flaky software. If nothing else, what we have learned today is that Protel can't even perform the simplest of functions of terminating its own program correctly and returning control and resources to the operating system, without making an error. This is fundamental. This is an obvious blunder. And this problem has been there all of the time. I know that there may be some in this forum who would take issue and try to say that this is not a big problem, and my answer to them is simply that we really do not know how big the problem is since we do not have the source code and can therefore not really understand what is or is not happening, and I don't think that that is really the issue here anyway. I think the issue here is that this "KLUNK!" problem proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that there are in fact some very basic software bugs and problems in Protel 99 SE, and that Protel / Altium has really never looked at the software from a stability and reliability standpoint to see whether or not there really are problems there when people have complained of crashes. Do you realize the magnitude of this blunder! What we have found out here today is something as basic and fundamental as writing your very first "hello world!" program in C, and having it crash on exiting "main". Whether or not it causes other problems is secondary to the fact that it is a programming blunder of monumental proportions, and the jury is not really in on whether or not it causes any other problems. These are the same people who are now trying to sell you another "can of worms" called DXP. I apologize for my little soap box oratory here, and it is certainly not my intention to offend anyone or start another battle of words, but this is Problem Number One in Introduction to Fundamental Programming 101, on How to Properly Terminate any Program, and Protel / Altium has flunked the course. I believe that this problem needs to be widely publicized, and Protel / Altium needs to be pressured into
Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
Jami, I read this and I agree with some of it. Keeping in mind several reasons for the timing of an Immature release, or a late release I understand the sales and marketing side of the argument. As far as the user side It is unacceptable to consume time sorting out the problems in a new tool that is both expensive and allegedly an improvement of something already in place. The real question is where threshold of diminishing short and longterm returns are in each users individual organization. With regard to the klunk issue i recommend just giving the system a shutdown whenever you go to lunch or a meeting or whaever and that may help clear the memory and residuals therein. That is provided you can afford the reboot times with your particular conditions. Joe - Original Message - From: "JaMi Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "JaMi Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 2:45 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > Joe, > > Please see below, > > Thanks, > > JaMi > > > - Original Message - > From: "Joe Sapienza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 3:38 AM > Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > > > > Jami, > > > > This problem only manifests itself after long usage for you. Then it may > be > > related to the way it uses memory, i refer to it a memory leakage and does > > occur to some people. The problem was very obvious when the early Windows > > versions were release. I suspect that whatever the implemented fix was it > > was manily a bandaid or leak control as we used to call it. Personally I > > have not seen it as of late and my sessions never run that long, I haven't > > seen any of this especially in Win2K. > > > > Interesting point. I never thought of it as a question of how long a > "continuous session" was, or the duration of time between "boot" and > "shutdown". This is scary. I know that in the past I have worked at big > corporations where they have brought in job shoppers and worked people > "double shift" and "triple shift" people on the same "workstations" (such > Cadnetix, Mentor, CBDS, and CADAM) to keep the "resources" in use 16 or 24 > hours a day to shorten the length of large project when things have really > gotten into a crunch. If what you say is true, can you imagine what would > happen in a design department with say 5 seats of Protel, if they tried to > fully utilize their resources in the same manner today? > > All of my recent problems with 99 SE SP6 within the last year have been on > three different platforms, all running Win2K, where I am generally running > Protel all day, but the system is shut down every night. > > Several years ago however, I was running Protel 98 on both Win 95 ORS2 and > NT4 SP3, and while using Protel was only a small part of my job there, it > did crash on a regular basis. What used to get me there was that when Protel > 98 crashed, It would loose all trace of the file. I mean lost, except for > original backup which could have been several hours or even days or weeks > old (if I remember correctly, it did not make a new backup until you saved > the file you were currently working on , so that if you crashed, you lost > the current copy). There may have been a way to recover it (similar to those > brought up here by Dennis), but I didn't know how. That was where I learned > that when it came to Protel, I needed to "SAVE" often, and also "SAVE AS" to > multiple files every time I saved, which was easy with the old file > structure since I just had to double click on each of the two different > names I would use for primary and reserve files. > > > Judging on the creation dates of many of the files in DXP I would surmise > > that the issue could still be there as the files are from the early > versions > > and loaded into the new DXP front end GUI. > > > > This is what scares me. > > This is what I am afraid of. > > It is not that "KLUNK!" may or may not be a problem in DXP, since Tony > already has said that it is not. > > My fear is that there are many other problems of a basic nature similar to > "KLUNK!", that have been programmed into existing modules, that are being > incorporated bodily into DXP, Band-Aid and all, waiting to do their thing. > > I mean programmers as a lot are fairly "consistent" people. When you are > good, you are good on a regular basis. When you are s
Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
Maybe that is where P99 ended up. Like I said, I'm just guessing. without sitting down and doing an in depth lookse. I am not inclined nor do I have the free time. - Original Message - From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > Hi Joe, > > I looked at the dates because your comment sparked interest. The older > dates look to me like development tool DLLs, PLD stuff (the files from > 1996), icons, pretty benign and uncontrollable stuff. > > If you look at the meat of the code, the file are dated 2002. I would > disagree with you just because there are so many new problems with DXP. > Even some core functions that we were familiar with have changed. > > I'm just guessing, but maybe the code base of P99SE was getting very > difficult to maintain, and they opted for a 'fresh start' in many ways. > > In this article: http://www.embedded.com/story/OEG20020819S0056 the > author states: "To achieve the best long-term results, it is often > necessary to have the courage to discard bad code and rewrite it." > > Maybe that is where P99 ended up. Like I said, I'm just guessing. > > > > > > -Original Message----- > > From: Joe Sapienza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 3:39 AM > > To: Protel EDA Forum > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > > > > > > Jami, > > > > This problem only manifests itself after long usage for you. > > Then it may be related to the way it uses memory, i refer to > > it a memory leakage and does occur to some people. The > > problem was very obvious when the early Windows versions were > > release. I suspect that whatever the implemented fix was it > > was manily a bandaid or leak control as we used to call it. > > Personally I have not seen it as of late and my sessions > > never run that long, I haven't seen any of this especially in Win2K. > > > > Judging on the creation dates of many of the files in DXP i > > would surmize that the issue could still be there as the > > files are from the early versions and loaded into the new DXP > > front end GUI. > > > > I think it would take a bigger redo than the fron end to fix > > it. I believe that the release of DXP was very rushed to keep > > up with the competition as one of the major competitors was > > releasing a new version at the same time. > > > > Joe > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "JaMi Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: "JaMi Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 4:40 AM > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 9:14 PM > > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > > > > > > > > > > Jami, > > > > > > > > Do you have the ability to install P99SE on a different > > machine? (I > > > > can't remember if you've indicated that before). I think your > > > > frequent crashes are pretty unusual. > > > > > > > > > > Tony, > > > > > > Over the past year, most of my problems have been on either a Dell > > > Model 4100 1GHz Pentium III or once that was upgraded, on a > > Dell Model > > > 535 > > 2.3Ghz > > > Pentium 4, at work. > > > > > > I then purchased my own license, and now have my own copy > > of Protel 99 > > > SE SP6 installed on my own IBM Model 6648 NetVista 866 MHz > > Pentium III > > > at > > home. > > > > > > I actually just think that the crashes are just a matter of > > usage, and > > > the reason it has been so high in the past several weeks is > > that the > > > total > > usage > > > has been an average of about 12 hours a day, with occasions > > reaching > > > up to 18 hours straight. > > > > > > When I push Protel, it crashes! > > > > > > When Protel crashes, I scream and yell! > > > > > > I don't think t
Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
I know you do PCB layout, but do you design software also? Tony, I do PCB in Protel and the competition package. I also do mechanical stuff in Acad and Cadkey, soon adding Solidworks. I spent the last 6 years developing Controllers, touchscreens and customized software interfaces, so I do have some Ideas on what and how the memory is managed in windows. If you look at the file creation dates on many items you will see that they are there for the call. Inevitably a new engine can only do what it's available data and subroutines have to offer. Joe - Original Message - From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 12:57 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > I wouldn't disagree with you much, but to add a few other thoughts: > > Did P98 "KLUNK!" back in 1998 on Win98? Maybe a service pack to windows, > or win2k or winXP changed somehow and caused the "KLUNK!" to start. The > reason I ask that is because I have a simple app I purchased and it was > running fine one win98, then on win2k. At some point I tried it on winXP > and the minimize button no longer worked! How could a simple, ubiquitous > task as minimize stop working?? I have no idea, but I asked the vendor > that supports the app and they say they are aware of it and will release > a fix at some point. Does the lack of a date mean they aren't sure why > it broke? > > I know you do PCB layout, but do you design software also? > > > > -Original Message- > > From: JaMi Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 1:41 AM > > To: Protel EDA Forum > > Cc: JaMi Smith > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 9:14 PM > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > > > > > > > Jami, > > > > > > Do you have the ability to install P99SE on a different machine? (I > > > can't remember if you've indicated that before). I think > > your frequent > > > crashes are pretty unusual. > > > > > > > Tony, > > > > Over the past year, most of my problems have been on either a > > Dell Model 4100 1GHz Pentium III or once that was upgraded, > > on a Dell Model 535 2.3Ghz Pentium 4, at work. > > > > I then purchased my own license, and now have my own copy of > > Protel 99 SE SP6 installed on my own IBM Model 6648 NetVista > > 866 MHz Pentium III at home. > > > > I actually just think that the crashes are just a matter of > > usage, and the reason it has been so high in the past several > > weeks is that the total usage has been an average of about 12 > > hours a day, with occasions reaching up to 18 hours straight. > > > > When I push Protel, it crashes! > > > > When Protel crashes, I scream and yell! > > > > I don't think that I am having more crashes than some others > > out there, I just think that I may have a slightly higher > > usage, and be much much more vocal and much much less > > tolerant about the crashes. > > > > I really really think that is as simple as that. > > > > I think that far far too many people out there have become > > accustomed to their systems crashing on them from time to > > time for one reason or another, and actually think nothing of > > it. Many accept it as the "cost of doing business" as it > > were, and in some cases actually blame it on themselves > > thinking that it was something that they might have done > > wrong, or that for some reason the hardware or software > > combination that they have just does not live up to Protel's > > requirements and expectations. > > > > I have heard some people insist that their system is rock > > solid, and never crashes, and yet these are the very same > > people who admit that they have occasionally seen "hidden > > processes" or "phantom copies" of Protel still running when > > they go to shut their system down. > > > > This is not normal. > > > > This is not how software is supposed to run. > > > > Especially when that software is currently costing $8,000.00 a copy. > > > > It is not simply a fluke. > > > > It is not something that you did wrong. > > >
Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
- Original Message - From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > Hi Joe, > > I looked at the dates because your comment sparked interest. The older > dates look to me like development tool DLLs, PLD stuff (the files from > 1996), icons, pretty benign and uncontrollable stuff. > > If you look at the meat of the code, the file are dated 2002. I would > disagree with you just because there are so many new problems with DXP. > Even some core functions that we were familiar with have changed. > > I'm just guessing, but maybe the code base of P99SE was getting very > difficult to maintain, and they opted for a 'fresh start' in many ways. > > In this article: http://www.embedded.com/story/OEG20020819S0056 the > author states: "To achieve the best long-term results, it is often > necessary to have the courage to discard bad code and rewrite it." > > Maybe that is where P99 ended up. Like I said, I'm just guessing. discarding bad code is one thing, changing top level GUI specs is another . They decided to incorporate new "features" and discard old features based on management perception rather than user feedback. Starting from scratch new code doesn't mean discarding the old menus or feature set . All it needed was some corrections and some additions to be a better EDa tool than 99se or the competition . Then with the brand new enhanced spec software engineers could've written code in any language of their choice and on any platform . Altium should have correlated the feature set with the market segment they're addressing. They should've made an effort to keep the familiar menus regardless of the underlying code whenever possible. IT looks a lot like the "not invented here" syndrome , new development team is brought in, old people let go, new people badmouth old ones and then change everything including what was good. This was terribly foolish because Altium was somewhere up there on the learning curve in designing EDA tools . 99se was the nth iteration with lots of incremental improvements over previous versions. Giving up their functionality and replacing them with different options/menus/features threw them years back on the evolution scale. They could've rewritten the whole program from scratch but still maintain a top level GUI familiar interface , instead I bet they rewrote the GUI and probably patched the old underlying code. I'm sure it's still that Delphi code BTW . An example of how not to develop software, or what happens to shareholders money when management doesn't have a clue. They are currently reinventing the wheel , unfortunately it's still square or octagonal at best . Matt Tudor , MSEE http://gigahertzelectronics.com p.s. in this day and age the PLD tool makes no sense whatsoever , Xilinx, Actel, Atmel, Altera offer free tools with better funcionality , which have the added advantage that they actually _work_ for a change . * Tracking #: B583A16F9F0D87409C1CC56EB92C8E2B42E82B54 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
- Original Message - From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 9:57 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > Did P98 "KLUNK!" back in 1998 on Win98? Maybe a service pack to windows, > or win2k or winXP changed somehow and caused the "KLUNK!" to start. The > reason I ask that is because I have a simple app I purchased and it was > running fine one win98, then on win2k. At some point I tried it on winXP > and the minimize button no longer worked! How could a simple, ubiquitous > task as minimize stop working?? I have no idea, but I asked the vendor > that supports the app and they say they are aware of it and will release > a fix at some point. Does the lack of a date mean they aren't sure why > it broke? > Excellent question and very valid point! P98 does "KLUNK! in Win98, but I am not sure about Win95 or NT4. Is it possible that anyone else out there can answer this question? > I know you do PCB layout, but do you design software also? > the short answer is yes. This is a simple question which I believe you and several others have asked before, but I haven't gotten around to answering it yet. I will. Too long an answer for today though, as I still have to finish the "board from hell" by Monday. JaMi * Tracking #: A58DB5C5900B284F8CC1B32F5139D275AEA803EE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
Joe, Please see below, Thanks, JaMi - Original Message - From: "Joe Sapienza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 3:38 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > Jami, > > This problem only manifests itself after long usage for you. Then it may be > related to the way it uses memory, i refer to it a memory leakage and does > occur to some people. The problem was very obvious when the early Windows > versions were release. I suspect that whatever the implemented fix was it > was manily a bandaid or leak control as we used to call it. Personally I > have not seen it as of late and my sessions never run that long, I haven't > seen any of this especially in Win2K. > Interesting point. I never thought of it as a question of how long a "continuous session" was, or the duration of time between "boot" and "shutdown". This is scary. I know that in the past I have worked at big corporations where they have brought in job shoppers and worked people "double shift" and "triple shift" people on the same "workstations" (such Cadnetix, Mentor, CBDS, and CADAM) to keep the "resources" in use 16 or 24 hours a day to shorten the length of large project when things have really gotten into a crunch. If what you say is true, can you imagine what would happen in a design department with say 5 seats of Protel, if they tried to fully utilize their resources in the same manner today? All of my recent problems with 99 SE SP6 within the last year have been on three different platforms, all running Win2K, where I am generally running Protel all day, but the system is shut down every night. Several years ago however, I was running Protel 98 on both Win 95 ORS2 and NT4 SP3, and while using Protel was only a small part of my job there, it did crash on a regular basis. What used to get me there was that when Protel 98 crashed, It would loose all trace of the file. I mean lost, except for original backup which could have been several hours or even days or weeks old (if I remember correctly, it did not make a new backup until you saved the file you were currently working on , so that if you crashed, you lost the current copy). There may have been a way to recover it (similar to those brought up here by Dennis), but I didn't know how. That was where I learned that when it came to Protel, I needed to "SAVE" often, and also "SAVE AS" to multiple files every time I saved, which was easy with the old file structure since I just had to double click on each of the two different names I would use for primary and reserve files. > Judging on the creation dates of many of the files in DXP I would surmise > that the issue could still be there as the files are from the early versions > and loaded into the new DXP front end GUI. > This is what scares me. This is what I am afraid of. It is not that "KLUNK!" may or may not be a problem in DXP, since Tony already has said that it is not. My fear is that there are many other problems of a basic nature similar to "KLUNK!", that have been programmed into existing modules, that are being incorporated bodily into DXP, Band-Aid and all, waiting to do their thing. I mean programmers as a lot are fairly "consistent" people. When you are good, you are good on a regular basis. When you are sloppy, you are sloppy on a regular basis. When you screw up, you don't just do it once. When you do a big and obvious "KLUNK!", there are usually several more smaller ones hiding in the wings. You may have noticed how I am going out of my way not to mention other Protel problems that have discussed here in the past, and I will not bring them up here except to say that they are "consistent" with "KLUNK!". I mean can you imagine if you cataloged each and every "exception error" that has occurred with Protel, just how many different ones there would be, and just how many of each you would have, and just how many of those will still continue to happen in DXP. Scary. Very scary. > I think it would take a bigger redo than the fron end to fix it. I believe > that the release of DXP was very rushed to keep up with the competition as > one of the major competitors was releasing a new version at the same time. > Exactly, it was rushed by the new management that is more and more income driven, and as it appears more and more as each day goes by, less technically, shall we say, "oriented", to be nice. It is very apparent to me that what is going on in the Official Altium Monitored DXP Forum right now, is a continuation of the "rush" and application of yet more Band-Aids, in an attempt to "redeem" DXP and ATS in the mind of customers before O
Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
Hi Joe, I looked at the dates because your comment sparked interest. The older dates look to me like development tool DLLs, PLD stuff (the files from 1996), icons, pretty benign and uncontrollable stuff. If you look at the meat of the code, the file are dated 2002. I would disagree with you just because there are so many new problems with DXP. Even some core functions that we were familiar with have changed. I'm just guessing, but maybe the code base of P99SE was getting very difficult to maintain, and they opted for a 'fresh start' in many ways. In this article: http://www.embedded.com/story/OEG20020819S0056 the author states: "To achieve the best long-term results, it is often necessary to have the courage to discard bad code and rewrite it." Maybe that is where P99 ended up. Like I said, I'm just guessing. > -Original Message- > From: Joe Sapienza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 3:39 AM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > > > Jami, > > This problem only manifests itself after long usage for you. > Then it may be related to the way it uses memory, i refer to > it a memory leakage and does occur to some people. The > problem was very obvious when the early Windows versions were > release. I suspect that whatever the implemented fix was it > was manily a bandaid or leak control as we used to call it. > Personally I have not seen it as of late and my sessions > never run that long, I haven't seen any of this especially in Win2K. > > Judging on the creation dates of many of the files in DXP i > would surmize that the issue could still be there as the > files are from the early versions and loaded into the new DXP > front end GUI. > > I think it would take a bigger redo than the fron end to fix > it. I believe that the release of DXP was very rushed to keep > up with the competition as one of the major competitors was > releasing a new version at the same time. > > Joe > > > - Original Message - > From: "JaMi Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "JaMi Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 4:40 AM > Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > > > > > > ----- Original Message - > > From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 9:14 PM > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > > > > > > > Jami, > > > > > > Do you have the ability to install P99SE on a different > machine? (I > > > can't remember if you've indicated that before). I think your > > > frequent crashes are pretty unusual. > > > > > > > Tony, > > > > Over the past year, most of my problems have been on either a Dell > > Model 4100 1GHz Pentium III or once that was upgraded, on a > Dell Model > > 535 > 2.3Ghz > > Pentium 4, at work. > > > > I then purchased my own license, and now have my own copy > of Protel 99 > > SE SP6 installed on my own IBM Model 6648 NetVista 866 MHz > Pentium III > > at > home. > > > > I actually just think that the crashes are just a matter of > usage, and > > the reason it has been so high in the past several weeks is > that the > > total > usage > > has been an average of about 12 hours a day, with occasions > reaching > > up to 18 hours straight. > > > > When I push Protel, it crashes! > > > > When Protel crashes, I scream and yell! > > > > I don't think that I am having more crashes than some others out > > there, I just think that I may have a slightly higher usage, and be > > much much more vocal and much much less tolerant about the crashes. > > > > I really really think that is as simple as that. > > > > I think that far far too many people out there have become > accustomed > > to their systems crashing on them from time to time for one > reason or > another, > > and actually think nothing of it. Many accept it as the > "cost of doing > > business" as it were, and in some cases actually blame it on > > themselves thinking that it was something that they might have done > > wrong, or that > for > > some reason the hardware or software combination that they > have just > > does not live up to Protel's requirements and expectations. > >
Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
I wouldn't disagree with you much, but to add a few other thoughts: Did P98 "KLUNK!" back in 1998 on Win98? Maybe a service pack to windows, or win2k or winXP changed somehow and caused the "KLUNK!" to start. The reason I ask that is because I have a simple app I purchased and it was running fine one win98, then on win2k. At some point I tried it on winXP and the minimize button no longer worked! How could a simple, ubiquitous task as minimize stop working?? I have no idea, but I asked the vendor that supports the app and they say they are aware of it and will release a fix at some point. Does the lack of a date mean they aren't sure why it broke? I know you do PCB layout, but do you design software also? > -Original Message- > From: JaMi Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 1:41 AM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Cc: JaMi Smith > Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 9:14 PM > Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > > > > Jami, > > > > Do you have the ability to install P99SE on a different machine? (I > > can't remember if you've indicated that before). I think > your frequent > > crashes are pretty unusual. > > > > Tony, > > Over the past year, most of my problems have been on either a > Dell Model 4100 1GHz Pentium III or once that was upgraded, > on a Dell Model 535 2.3Ghz Pentium 4, at work. > > I then purchased my own license, and now have my own copy of > Protel 99 SE SP6 installed on my own IBM Model 6648 NetVista > 866 MHz Pentium III at home. > > I actually just think that the crashes are just a matter of > usage, and the reason it has been so high in the past several > weeks is that the total usage has been an average of about 12 > hours a day, with occasions reaching up to 18 hours straight. > > When I push Protel, it crashes! > > When Protel crashes, I scream and yell! > > I don't think that I am having more crashes than some others > out there, I just think that I may have a slightly higher > usage, and be much much more vocal and much much less > tolerant about the crashes. > > I really really think that is as simple as that. > > I think that far far too many people out there have become > accustomed to their systems crashing on them from time to > time for one reason or another, and actually think nothing of > it. Many accept it as the "cost of doing business" as it > were, and in some cases actually blame it on themselves > thinking that it was something that they might have done > wrong, or that for some reason the hardware or software > combination that they have just does not live up to Protel's > requirements and expectations. > > I have heard some people insist that their system is rock > solid, and never crashes, and yet these are the very same > people who admit that they have occasionally seen "hidden > processes" or "phantom copies" of Protel still running when > they go to shut their system down. > > This is not normal. > > This is not how software is supposed to run. > > Especially when that software is currently costing $8,000.00 a copy. > > It is not simply a fluke. > > It is not something that you did wrong. > > It is not that you have a flaky system. > > It is simply inexcusable blunders and oversights in programming. > > It really and truly is that Protel really and truly is flaky software. > > If nothing else, what we have learned today is that Protel > can't even perform the simplest of functions of terminating > its own program correctly and returning control and resources > to the operating system, without making an error. > > This is fundamental. > > This is an obvious blunder. > > And this problem has been there all of the time. > > I know that there may be some in this forum who would take > issue and try to say that this is not a big problem, and my > answer to them is simply that we really do not know how big > the problem is since we do not have the source code and can > therefore not really understand what is or is not happening, > and I don't think that that is really the issue here anyway. > > I think the issue here is that this "KLUNK!" problem proves > beyond any shadow of a doubt that there are in fact some very > basic software bugs and problems in Protel 99 SE, and that > Protel
Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
Jami, This problem only manifests itself after long usage for you. Then it may be related to the way it uses memory, i refer to it a memory leakage and does occur to some people. The problem was very obvious when the early Windows versions were release. I suspect that whatever the implemented fix was it was manily a bandaid or leak control as we used to call it. Personally I have not seen it as of late and my sessions never run that long, I haven't seen any of this especially in Win2K. Judging on the creation dates of many of the files in DXP i would surmize that the issue could still be there as the files are from the early versions and loaded into the new DXP front end GUI. I think it would take a bigger redo than the fron end to fix it. I believe that the release of DXP was very rushed to keep up with the competition as one of the major competitors was releasing a new version at the same time. Joe - Original Message - From: "JaMi Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "JaMi Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 4:40 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > > - Original Message - > From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 9:14 PM > Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > > > > Jami, > > > > Do you have the ability to install P99SE on a different machine? (I > > can't remember if you've indicated that before). I think your frequent > > crashes are pretty unusual. > > > > Tony, > > Over the past year, most of my problems have been on either a Dell Model > 4100 1GHz Pentium III or once that was upgraded, on a Dell Model 535 2.3Ghz > Pentium 4, at work. > > I then purchased my own license, and now have my own copy of Protel 99 SE > SP6 installed on my own IBM Model 6648 NetVista 866 MHz Pentium III at home. > > I actually just think that the crashes are just a matter of usage, and the > reason it has been so high in the past several weeks is that the total usage > has been an average of about 12 hours a day, with occasions reaching up to > 18 hours straight. > > When I push Protel, it crashes! > > When Protel crashes, I scream and yell! > > I don't think that I am having more crashes than some others out there, I > just think that I may have a slightly higher usage, and be much much more > vocal and much much less tolerant about the crashes. > > I really really think that is as simple as that. > > I think that far far too many people out there have become accustomed to > their systems crashing on them from time to time for one reason or another, > and actually think nothing of it. Many accept it as the "cost of doing > business" as it were, and in some cases actually blame it on themselves > thinking that it was something that they might have done wrong, or that for > some reason the hardware or software combination that they have just does > not live up to Protel's requirements and expectations. > > I have heard some people insist that their system is rock solid, and never > crashes, and yet these are the very same people who admit that they have > occasionally seen "hidden processes" or "phantom copies" of Protel still > running when they go to shut their system down. > > This is not normal. > > This is not how software is supposed to run. > > Especially when that software is currently costing $8,000.00 a copy. > > It is not simply a fluke. > > It is not something that you did wrong. > > It is not that you have a flaky system. > > It is simply inexcusable blunders and oversights in programming. > > It really and truly is that Protel really and truly is flaky software. > > If nothing else, what we have learned today is that Protel can't even > perform the simplest of functions of terminating its own program correctly > and returning control and resources to the operating system, without making > an error. > > This is fundamental. > > This is an obvious blunder. > > And this problem has been there all of the time. > > I know that there may be some in this forum who would take issue and try to > say that this is not a big problem, and my answer to them is simply that we > really do not know how big the problem is since we do not have the source > code and can therefore not really understand what is or is not happening, > and I don't think that that is really the issue here anyway. > > I think the issue here is that this "KLUNK!" problem proves beyond any > shadow
Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
- Original Message - From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 9:14 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > Jami, > > Do you have the ability to install P99SE on a different machine? (I > can't remember if you've indicated that before). I think your frequent > crashes are pretty unusual. > Tony, Over the past year, most of my problems have been on either a Dell Model 4100 1GHz Pentium III or once that was upgraded, on a Dell Model 535 2.3Ghz Pentium 4, at work. I then purchased my own license, and now have my own copy of Protel 99 SE SP6 installed on my own IBM Model 6648 NetVista 866 MHz Pentium III at home. I actually just think that the crashes are just a matter of usage, and the reason it has been so high in the past several weeks is that the total usage has been an average of about 12 hours a day, with occasions reaching up to 18 hours straight. When I push Protel, it crashes! When Protel crashes, I scream and yell! I don't think that I am having more crashes than some others out there, I just think that I may have a slightly higher usage, and be much much more vocal and much much less tolerant about the crashes. I really really think that is as simple as that. I think that far far too many people out there have become accustomed to their systems crashing on them from time to time for one reason or another, and actually think nothing of it. Many accept it as the "cost of doing business" as it were, and in some cases actually blame it on themselves thinking that it was something that they might have done wrong, or that for some reason the hardware or software combination that they have just does not live up to Protel's requirements and expectations. I have heard some people insist that their system is rock solid, and never crashes, and yet these are the very same people who admit that they have occasionally seen "hidden processes" or "phantom copies" of Protel still running when they go to shut their system down. This is not normal. This is not how software is supposed to run. Especially when that software is currently costing $8,000.00 a copy. It is not simply a fluke. It is not something that you did wrong. It is not that you have a flaky system. It is simply inexcusable blunders and oversights in programming. It really and truly is that Protel really and truly is flaky software. If nothing else, what we have learned today is that Protel can't even perform the simplest of functions of terminating its own program correctly and returning control and resources to the operating system, without making an error. This is fundamental. This is an obvious blunder. And this problem has been there all of the time. I know that there may be some in this forum who would take issue and try to say that this is not a big problem, and my answer to them is simply that we really do not know how big the problem is since we do not have the source code and can therefore not really understand what is or is not happening, and I don't think that that is really the issue here anyway. I think the issue here is that this "KLUNK!" problem proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that there are in fact some very basic software bugs and problems in Protel 99 SE, and that Protel / Altium has really never looked at the software from a stability and reliability standpoint to see whether or not there really are problems there when people have complained of crashes. Do you realize the magnitude of this blunder! What we have found out here today is something as basic and fundamental as writing your very first "hello world!" program in C, and having it crash on exiting "main". Whether or not it causes other problems is secondary to the fact that it is a programming blunder of monumental proportions, and the jury is not really in on whether or not it causes any other problems. These are the same people who are now trying to sell you another "can of worms" called DXP. I apologize for my little soap box oratory here, and it is certainly not my intention to offend anyone or start another battle of words, but this is Problem Number One in Introduction to Fundamental Programming 101, on How to Properly Terminate any Program, and Protel / Altium has flunked the course. I believe that this problem needs to be widely publicized, and Protel / Altium needs to be pressured into "stepping up to the plate" and taking responsibility for the problem, and promising to do something about it, for all current Protel 99 SE users and customers. There are many Protel 99 SE customers out there that have a monumental investment in Protel 99 SE software, and simply cannot afford to "upgrade" to DXP to solve the existing problems and shortcoming
Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
Jami, Do you have the ability to install P99SE on a different machine? (I can't remember if you've indicated that before). I think your frequent crashes are pretty unusual. > -Original Message- > From: JaMi Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 7:46 PM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Cc: JaMi Smith > Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > > > Thanks Dennis, > > I did not know that. > > I usually have had to do a "recover" after a crash from the > "backup" or the "previous backup" in the same directory as > the original ".ddb" file, and in fact I have had to do that > at least twice in the last week with this board, which is > probably why I am in "paranoid mode" to begin with. > > I will look into that, because that would mean a great deal > of "time saved" in some instances, if I did not have to go > all of the way back to a previous "backup" to recover the database. > > Thanks again, > > JaMi > > > - Original Message - > From: "Dennis Saputelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 6:50 PM > Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > > > > operating in paranoid mode is generally a good thing when > so much work > > hangs in the air > > > > to allay your fears somewhat, and you may know this well, a > set of up > > to ten incrementing timed auto save backups may be written to a > > separate folder which by default is an SE subfolder > > > > these are independent of and in addition to the backups > that are made > > in the local directory each time you push the save button > and i have > > found them to very useful on occasion > > > > even a trashed DDB (which, knock on wood, we have not yet > had) can be > > reasonably well reconstructed using these > > > > i have found that even when the program is crashed, > depending on the > > crash mode, it generally will faithfully keep making these timed > > backups > > > > just wait out the 10 minutes or however long you have it set for > > BEFORE terminating the TASK > > > > they have saved us a few times and are a thoughtful feature > of protel > > > > the settings are in the ARROW menu preferences, autosave button > > > > Dennis Saputelli > > > > > ** > ** > * Tracking #: 7BA82E7D0ABC5749A4DB05FB0887FAC83EA68721 > * > ** > ** > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
Thanks Dennis, I did not know that. I usually have had to do a "recover" after a crash from the "backup" or the "previous backup" in the same directory as the original ".ddb" file, and in fact I have had to do that at least twice in the last week with this board, which is probably why I am in "paranoid mode" to begin with. I will look into that, because that would mean a great deal of "time saved" in some instances, if I did not have to go all of the way back to a previous "backup" to recover the database. Thanks again, JaMi - Original Message - From: "Dennis Saputelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 6:50 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > operating in paranoid mode is generally a good thing when so much work > hangs in the air > > to allay your fears somewhat, and you may know this well, a set of up to > ten incrementing timed auto save backups may be written to a > separate folder which by default is an SE subfolder > > these are independent of and in addition to the backups that are made in > the local directory each time you push the save button and i have found > them to very useful on occasion > > even a trashed DDB (which, knock on wood, we have not yet had) can be > reasonably well reconstructed using these > > i have found that even when the program is crashed, depending on the > crash mode, it generally will faithfully keep making these timed backups > > just wait out the 10 minutes or however long you have it set for BEFORE > terminating the TASK > > they have saved us a few times and are a thoughtful feature of protel > > the settings are in the ARROW menu preferences, autosave button > > Dennis Saputelli > * Tracking #: 7BA82E7D0ABC5749A4DB05FB0887FAC83EA68721 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
operating in paranoid mode is generally a good thing when so much work hangs in the air to allay your fears somewhat, and you may know this well, a set of up to ten incrementing timed auto save backups may be written to a separate folder which by default is an SE subfolder these are independent of and in addition to the backups that are made in the local directory each time you push the save button and i have found them to very useful on occasion even a trashed DDB (which, knock on wood, we have not yet had) can be reasonably well reconstructed using these i have found that even when the program is crashed, depending on the crash mode, it generally will faithfully keep making these timed backups just wait out the 10 minutes or however long you have it set for BEFORE terminating the TASK they have saved us a few times and are a thoughtful feature of protel the settings are in the ARROW menu preferences, autosave button Dennis Saputelli * Tracking #: BF27229BE28EAC4A8A688FFBEC335263508E743D * -- ___ www.integratedcontrolsinc.comIntegrated Controls, Inc. tel: 415-647-04802851 21st Street fax: 415-647-3003San Francisco, CA 94110 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
Thanks Tony, JaMi - Original Message - From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 6:12 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > It does not occur in DXP. * Tracking #: 97F7203F058AAF44B45F1235B05D08993943C9B1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
It does not occur in DXP. > -Original Message- > From: JaMi Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 5:53 PM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Cc: JaMi Smith > Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > > > Ian, > > Please see below, > > JaMi > > PS - Still waiting to hear from someone as to whether this > problem exists in DXP! * Tracking #: 2B437A171D256543BE5C06CB8DC3F84D452AC65D * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
Ian, Please see below, JaMi PS - Still waiting to hear from someone as to whether this problem exists in DXP! - Original Message - From: "Ian Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > On 03:00 PM 6/09/2002 -0700, JaMi Smith said: > > >Can we also add this to the Official Protel 99 SE BUG list on Yahoo! ? > > You write it out in a suitable fashion and it can be added. Thanks, I will, but it may take me a little time, as I am currently "lost in space" on a project that just doesn't seem to end. snip > As for the bug - I am not at all convinced that this is a major issue at > all and I think it very unlikely that this is the root cause of any of > Protel's other issues But I could be wrong. > snip > I rather think this is a very minor issue - I have noticed it in the past > but have never considered it of any consequence. Still if it bothers > others, and they are prepared to write up the bug list entry I am happy to > add it to the database. > I am currently working on the "project from hell", on my home system, a couple of 1 GHz MAX104 ADC's interfacing to a 957 pin Xilink BGA with "LVDS" controlled impedance differential pairs, which, needless to say, are all hand routed. My dependence on my home system, and my fear of loosing it all with an inopportune "crash" of Protel, is what lead me to discover this problem in the first place. But as I mentioned in the my reply to Dwight, I have noticed several "hidden processes" (my term), or "phantom copies" (as Dennis calls them), in the past several days while I have been operating in this "paranoid mode", and I now unquestionably associate these "background crashes" with this "KLUNK!" Phenomena. As to whether or not it really means anything, I will simply say that the verdict is possibly still out on this one. I do know however, that this topic has come up here in the forum numerous times in the past, and several people seem to think that it may possibly be associated with other problems, such as the still unresolved "occasional crash" for no apparent reason. Speaking of which, while I cannot remember the exact details, I have had a number of those unexplained "occasional crashes" in the past week, which I now believe are directly related, and which, as a matter of fact, are what is responsible for getting me into operating in this "paranoid mode" for the past few days. I think that some of those unexplained "occasional crashes" have been related to "loading" and "clearing" netlists (from OrCAD), and specifically some bizarre behavior wherein Protel would not let me hand route anything after "clearing" all nets and then "reloading" them, until I exited Protel and restarted it. Anyway, now that the "KLUNK!" phonemna is "known", I'll bet that it will be easy to associate any future "crashes" or "problems" with whether or not there are any "hidden processes" or "phantom copies", and possibly "recreate" other "problems" with "unknown" causes which have popped up here in the forum in the past. I tried to search my local PEDA folder for "Task Manager" and "Shutdown", to locate some examples of what has been discussed regarding "hidden processes" or "phantom copies" here in the past, but my "archive" on this system only goes back to 9/13/01. I did however come up with a few post that may be relevant, and copied them in here below. Thanks for your input. As a side note, if this seems to be something that we (those in the forum) can pin down to being a specific problem in Protel 99 SE SP6, then it is something that Altium should be able to address and fix fairly simply, and which would truly justify them issuing a Service Pack 7, which could at the same time possibly address a few other issues too. To that end, I would request any input from any in the forum regarding this problem, since we all do not necessarily plan on upgrading to DXP, and it may not be realistically be really operational for as much as a year yet, which means that a SP7 really is important to many people out here, and may in fact be really warrented now. JaMi FROM THE ARCHIVES - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 6:55 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Weird behaviour > In a message dated 3/6/2002 7:02:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > had to shut down the program occasionally using T
Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
On 03:00 PM 6/09/2002 -0700, JaMi Smith said: >Can we also add this to the Official Protel 99 SE BUG list on Yahoo! ? You write it out in a suitable fashion and it can be added. See the bug list for the format but basically: Date: 2001/02/05 (ISO format) Summary: Sch: Hidden pin connectivity with unnamed pins Details: Sch P99SESP6: Hidden pins without a name are allocated a new name by the netlister and connected together. Names of the usual form, Net_PinNumber, are allocated. Submitted by: Confirmed by: URL: As for the bug - I am not at all convinced that this is a major issue at all and I think it very unlikely that this is the root cause of any of Protel's other issues But I could be wrong. For those interested they can compare the messages passed about the application as it closes using the top right X and the File Exit by comparing these to gif screen captures. There is a difference, but who knows where the sound is generated. Neither method of exiting causes any entry in the Win2k event log. http://www.considered.com.au/images/SpyOutput(KlunkFileExit).gif http://www.considered.com.au/images/SpyOutput(NoKlunkTopRightX).gif I rather think this is a very minor issue - I have noticed it in the past but have never considered it of any consequence. Still if it bothers others, and they are prepared to write up the bug list entry I am happy to add it to the database. Ian Wilson * Tracking #: 1AE52E539FD90F478AA403791A5ED1B72BD62A2D * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
I tried turning it off and also turning off all the other things in
Preferences and it still "KLUNK!" s
Tony
> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis Saputelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 1:13 PM
> To: Protel EDA Forum
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
>
>
> yeah i never noticed that either (the difference in the
> closing 'klunk') but we do get it sometimes too
>
> i wonder if this has anything to do with the 'issue' of
> phantom copies of protel still running even after it is quit
> which seems to be specific to WIN2K
>
> (i.e., the situation where Protel shows in the task manager
> after it has been closed)
>
> maybe the KLUNK is really trying to tell us something
>
> i would also speculate that it *may* have something to do
> with 'compact on close' which sometimes on some systems
> doesn't work correctly
>
> why doesn't someone - :) turn off compact on close and
> explore this possible relationship to the mystery KLUNK
>
> Dennis Saputelli
>
> JaMi Smith wrote:
> >
> > OK . . .
> >
> > So I'll admit, I missed the Class on Protel 99 SE Basics . . .
> >
> > And I slept thru most of the Protel 99 SE 101 and 102 Classes . . .
> >
> > But gimmie a break . . .
> >
> > This one has got me baffled . . .
> >
> > So what are the two simplest functions that one can
> possibly perform
> > in Protel 99 SE?
> >
> > I mean the absolute simplest, most bare bones, easiest
> things to do in
> > Protel 99 SE.
> >
> > I mean like, are you ready for this one, START Protel 99
> SE, and are
> > you ready for this one, END Protel 99 SE.
> >
> > Not too complex here, just simple stuff.
> >
> > OK . . .
> >
> > I can think of 3 ways to START Protel 99 SE (without an open
> > database):
> >
> > 1. Double click the ICON on the Desktop.
> >
> > 2. Place the cursor over the ICON in the Desktop and press ENTER.
> >
> > 3. Navigate the START MENU and go from there.
> >
> > Nothing too complicated, nothing major, and I do not have
> any problems
> > here, I can handle everything so far.
> >
> > But now comes the problem.
> >
> > I can think of 6 ways to END Protel 99 SE (without an open
> database):
> >
> > 1. Click on the big "X" ("Close") in the upper right hand
> corner of
> > the Application.
> >
> > 2. From the "File" menu pulldown click on "Exit".
> >
> > 3. From the Task Manager, select Protel and end it.
> >
> > 4. "Shutdown" the system.
> >
> > 5. Hit "RESET", or turn off the power switch, or simply
> pull the plug
> > out of the wall (believe it or not I have had to resort to
> this before
> > when Protel 99 SE "locks up").
> >
> > 6. Simply wait for it to "CRASH", which it always seems to
> do all by
> > itself sooner or later.
> >
> > Now I will admit that the last 4 are not normal ways of
> simply ENDING
> > Protel 99 SE, so we can eliminate them right off the bat,
> and simply
> > stick with the first 2.
> >
> > "No Brainer" . . .
> >
> > OK . . .
> >
> > So I simply START Protel 99 SE by any of the above methods,
> or maybe
> > some that I haven't thought of, and go from there.
> >
> > Now comes the hard part, we have Protel 99 SE up and
> running, with no
> > database open, in all of its glory, and we want to close
> it, so what
> > do we do?
> >
> > 1. We hit the big "X", and "wala!", it closes. Simple enough, I can
> > andle this. No problem here.
> >
> > 2 We go to the "File" menu pulldown, and click on "Exit", and what
> > happens now?
> >
> > Well first of all, it takes much much much much longer to
> END Protel
> > 99 SE this way, but now comes the real problem, on it's
> final exit, we
> > get, are you ready for it, a Microsoft "KLUNK! sound, you know, the
> > "sour note" that Microsoft gives off when you commit an error!
> >
> > Not the "Happy little Bell" that Microsoft uses to get your
> attention,
> > but the "KLUNK!" that it uses to say "ERROR!", or "WRONG
> ANSWER". or
> > "You Blew It!".
> >
> > OK . . .
> >
> > One of the two
Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
Dennis and the group, I apologize for my sporadic responses, but I am having trouble with my email provider, SBCGLOBAL.NET, and they are only giving me about half of my email. I am sure the rest is just stuck on some server in Podunk Arkansas, and will show up sometime tomorrow. Please see below. JaMi - Original Message - From: "Dennis Saputelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 1:13 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. > yeah i never noticed that either (the difference in the closing 'klunk') > but we do get it sometimes too > > i wonder if this has anything to do with the 'issue' of phantom copies > of protel still running even after it is quit > which seems to be specific to WIN2K > > (i.e., the situation where Protel shows in the task manager after it has > been closed) > This is what I mean by "hidden" processes, and "leftover" processes, the things that never show up in Task Manager, but cause additional "crashes" and never show up until you try to shutdown, and then bingo, there it is, and you have to say "END NOW". > maybe the KLUNK is really trying to tell us something > I would venture to say that Protel / Altuim as made a very simple but serious programming blunder here that is on the one hand very simple, but yet at the same time very fundamental, and is in reality "the root of all evil" speaking in terms of things Protel This does appear to be a real programming error. This does appear to be a fundamental problem. This does appear to be a bonafide legitamate bug. This does appear to possibly be the answer to other problems with Protel. Murphys Law states that this problem has possibly propagated thru into DXP, which I own, but which is still in the box, and not installed yet. Can anybody out there who has DXP running (yeah, I know, that is an oxymoron, like military intelligence) check this problem out on DXP. Can we also add this to the Official Protel 99 SE BUG list on Yahoo! ? JaMi Yes Altuim, I really do want my Service Pack 7. * Tracking #: F117FDA09B206C41BFC678D36A0DB4AE4E618CF1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
It takes too long to close DDBs when accessing them on the network.
-Original Message-
From: Dennis Saputelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:52 PM
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
just curious
is there a reason you don't have compact on close on?
Dennis Saputelli
Nicholas Cobb wrote:
>
> I don't have compact on close on and I get the KLUNK. Even though I too
> never noticed this.
> Nick Cobb
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis Saputelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:13 PM
> To: Protel EDA Forum
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
>
> yeah i never noticed that either (the difference in the closing 'klunk')
> but we do get it sometimes too
>
> i wonder if this has anything to do with the 'issue' of phantom copies
> of protel still running even after it is quit
> which seems to be specific to WIN2K
>
> (i.e., the situation where Protel shows in the task manager after it has
> been closed)
>
> maybe the KLUNK is really trying to tell us something
>
> i would also speculate that it *may* have something to do with 'compact
> on close' which sometimes on some systems doesn't work correctly
>
> why doesn't someone - :) turn off compact on close and explore this
> possible relationship to the mystery KLUNK
>
> Dennis Saputelli
>
> JaMi Smith wrote:
> >
> > OK . . .
> >
> > So I'll admit, I missed the Class on Protel 99 SE Basics . . .
> >
> > And I slept thru most of the Protel 99 SE 101 and 102 Classes . . .
> >
> > But gimmie a break . . .
> >
> > This one has got me baffled . . .
> >
> > So what are the two simplest functions that one can possibly perform in
> > Protel 99 SE?
> >
> > I mean the absolute simplest, most bare bones, easiest things to do in
> > Protel 99 SE.
> >
> > I mean like, are you ready for this one, START Protel 99 SE, and are you
> > ready for this one, END Protel 99 SE.
> >
> > Not too complex here, just simple stuff.
> >
> > OK . . .
> >
> > I can think of 3 ways to START Protel 99 SE (without an open database):
> >
> > 1. Double click the ICON on the Desktop.
> >
> > 2. Place the cursor over the ICON in the Desktop and press ENTER.
> >
> > 3. Navigate the START MENU and go from there.
> >
> > Nothing too complicated, nothing major, and I do not have any problems
> here,
> > I can handle everything so far.
> >
> > But now comes the problem.
> >
> > I can think of 6 ways to END Protel 99 SE (without an open database):
> >
> > 1. Click on the big "X" ("Close") in the upper right hand corner of the
> > Application.
> >
> > 2. From the "File" menu pulldown click on "Exit".
> >
> > 3. From the Task Manager, select Protel and end it.
> >
> > 4. "Shutdown" the system.
> >
> > 5. Hit "RESET", or turn off the power switch, or simply pull the plug
out
> of
> > the wall (believe it or not I have had to resort to this before when
> Protel
> > 99 SE "locks up").
> >
> > 6. Simply wait for it to "CRASH", which it always seems to do all by
> itself
> > sooner or later.
> >
> > Now I will admit that the last 4 are not normal ways of simply ENDING
> Protel
> > 99 SE, so we can eliminate them right off the bat, and simply stick with
> the
> > first 2.
> >
> > "No Brainer" . . .
> >
> > OK . . .
> >
> > So I simply START Protel 99 SE by any of the above methods, or maybe
some
> > that I haven't thought of, and go from there.
> >
> > Now comes the hard part, we have Protel 99 SE up and running, with no
> > database open, in all of its glory, and we want to close it, so what do
we
> > do?
> >
> > 1. We hit the big "X", and "wala!", it closes. Simple enough, I can
andle
> > this. No problem here.
> >
> > 2 We go to the "File" menu pulldown, and click on "Exit", and what
happens
> > now?
> >
> > Well first of all, it takes much much much much longer to END Protel 99
SE
> > this way, but now comes the real problem, on it's final exit, we get,
are
> > you ready for it, a Microsoft "KLUNK! sound, you know, the "sour note"
> that
> > Microsoft gives off when you commit an error!
> >
> > Not the "Happy little Bell" that Microsoft us
Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
just curious
is there a reason you don't have compact on close on?
Dennis Saputelli
Nicholas Cobb wrote:
>
> I don't have compact on close on and I get the KLUNK. Even though I too
> never noticed this.
> Nick Cobb
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis Saputelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:13 PM
> To: Protel EDA Forum
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
>
> yeah i never noticed that either (the difference in the closing 'klunk')
> but we do get it sometimes too
>
> i wonder if this has anything to do with the 'issue' of phantom copies
> of protel still running even after it is quit
> which seems to be specific to WIN2K
>
> (i.e., the situation where Protel shows in the task manager after it has
> been closed)
>
> maybe the KLUNK is really trying to tell us something
>
> i would also speculate that it *may* have something to do with 'compact
> on close' which sometimes on some systems doesn't work correctly
>
> why doesn't someone - :) turn off compact on close and explore this
> possible relationship to the mystery KLUNK
>
> Dennis Saputelli
>
> JaMi Smith wrote:
> >
> > OK . . .
> >
> > So I'll admit, I missed the Class on Protel 99 SE Basics . . .
> >
> > And I slept thru most of the Protel 99 SE 101 and 102 Classes . . .
> >
> > But gimmie a break . . .
> >
> > This one has got me baffled . . .
> >
> > So what are the two simplest functions that one can possibly perform in
> > Protel 99 SE?
> >
> > I mean the absolute simplest, most bare bones, easiest things to do in
> > Protel 99 SE.
> >
> > I mean like, are you ready for this one, START Protel 99 SE, and are you
> > ready for this one, END Protel 99 SE.
> >
> > Not too complex here, just simple stuff.
> >
> > OK . . .
> >
> > I can think of 3 ways to START Protel 99 SE (without an open database):
> >
> > 1. Double click the ICON on the Desktop.
> >
> > 2. Place the cursor over the ICON in the Desktop and press ENTER.
> >
> > 3. Navigate the START MENU and go from there.
> >
> > Nothing too complicated, nothing major, and I do not have any problems
> here,
> > I can handle everything so far.
> >
> > But now comes the problem.
> >
> > I can think of 6 ways to END Protel 99 SE (without an open database):
> >
> > 1. Click on the big "X" ("Close") in the upper right hand corner of the
> > Application.
> >
> > 2. From the "File" menu pulldown click on "Exit".
> >
> > 3. From the Task Manager, select Protel and end it.
> >
> > 4. "Shutdown" the system.
> >
> > 5. Hit "RESET", or turn off the power switch, or simply pull the plug out
> of
> > the wall (believe it or not I have had to resort to this before when
> Protel
> > 99 SE "locks up").
> >
> > 6. Simply wait for it to "CRASH", which it always seems to do all by
> itself
> > sooner or later.
> >
> > Now I will admit that the last 4 are not normal ways of simply ENDING
> Protel
> > 99 SE, so we can eliminate them right off the bat, and simply stick with
> the
> > first 2.
> >
> > "No Brainer" . . .
> >
> > OK . . .
> >
> > So I simply START Protel 99 SE by any of the above methods, or maybe some
> > that I haven't thought of, and go from there.
> >
> > Now comes the hard part, we have Protel 99 SE up and running, with no
> > database open, in all of its glory, and we want to close it, so what do we
> > do?
> >
> > 1. We hit the big "X", and "wala!", it closes. Simple enough, I can andle
> > this. No problem here.
> >
> > 2 We go to the "File" menu pulldown, and click on "Exit", and what happens
> > now?
> >
> > Well first of all, it takes much much much much longer to END Protel 99 SE
> > this way, but now comes the real problem, on it's final exit, we get, are
> > you ready for it, a Microsoft "KLUNK! sound, you know, the "sour note"
> that
> > Microsoft gives off when you commit an error!
> >
> > Not the "Happy little Bell" that Microsoft uses to get your attention, but
> > the "KLUNK!" that it uses to say "ERROR!", or "WRONG ANSWER". or "You Blew
> > It!".
> >
> > OK . . .
> >
> > One of the two simplest functions in Protel
Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
I don't have compact on close on and I get the KLUNK. Even though I too
never noticed this.
Nick Cobb
-Original Message-
From: Dennis Saputelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:13 PM
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
yeah i never noticed that either (the difference in the closing 'klunk')
but we do get it sometimes too
i wonder if this has anything to do with the 'issue' of phantom copies
of protel still running even after it is quit
which seems to be specific to WIN2K
(i.e., the situation where Protel shows in the task manager after it has
been closed)
maybe the KLUNK is really trying to tell us something
i would also speculate that it *may* have something to do with 'compact
on close' which sometimes on some systems doesn't work correctly
why doesn't someone - :) turn off compact on close and explore this
possible relationship to the mystery KLUNK
Dennis Saputelli
JaMi Smith wrote:
>
> OK . . .
>
> So I'll admit, I missed the Class on Protel 99 SE Basics . . .
>
> And I slept thru most of the Protel 99 SE 101 and 102 Classes . . .
>
> But gimmie a break . . .
>
> This one has got me baffled . . .
>
> So what are the two simplest functions that one can possibly perform in
> Protel 99 SE?
>
> I mean the absolute simplest, most bare bones, easiest things to do in
> Protel 99 SE.
>
> I mean like, are you ready for this one, START Protel 99 SE, and are you
> ready for this one, END Protel 99 SE.
>
> Not too complex here, just simple stuff.
>
> OK . . .
>
> I can think of 3 ways to START Protel 99 SE (without an open database):
>
> 1. Double click the ICON on the Desktop.
>
> 2. Place the cursor over the ICON in the Desktop and press ENTER.
>
> 3. Navigate the START MENU and go from there.
>
> Nothing too complicated, nothing major, and I do not have any problems
here,
> I can handle everything so far.
>
> But now comes the problem.
>
> I can think of 6 ways to END Protel 99 SE (without an open database):
>
> 1. Click on the big "X" ("Close") in the upper right hand corner of the
> Application.
>
> 2. From the "File" menu pulldown click on "Exit".
>
> 3. From the Task Manager, select Protel and end it.
>
> 4. "Shutdown" the system.
>
> 5. Hit "RESET", or turn off the power switch, or simply pull the plug out
of
> the wall (believe it or not I have had to resort to this before when
Protel
> 99 SE "locks up").
>
> 6. Simply wait for it to "CRASH", which it always seems to do all by
itself
> sooner or later.
>
> Now I will admit that the last 4 are not normal ways of simply ENDING
Protel
> 99 SE, so we can eliminate them right off the bat, and simply stick with
the
> first 2.
>
> "No Brainer" . . .
>
> OK . . .
>
> So I simply START Protel 99 SE by any of the above methods, or maybe some
> that I haven't thought of, and go from there.
>
> Now comes the hard part, we have Protel 99 SE up and running, with no
> database open, in all of its glory, and we want to close it, so what do we
> do?
>
> 1. We hit the big "X", and "wala!", it closes. Simple enough, I can andle
> this. No problem here.
>
> 2 We go to the "File" menu pulldown, and click on "Exit", and what happens
> now?
>
> Well first of all, it takes much much much much longer to END Protel 99 SE
> this way, but now comes the real problem, on it's final exit, we get, are
> you ready for it, a Microsoft "KLUNK! sound, you know, the "sour note"
that
> Microsoft gives off when you commit an error!
>
> Not the "Happy little Bell" that Microsoft uses to get your attention, but
> the "KLUNK!" that it uses to say "ERROR!", or "WRONG ANSWER". or "You Blew
> It!".
>
> OK . . .
>
> One of the two simplest functions in Protel 99 SE, and it can't even do
this
> without a "KLUNK!".
>
> It can't even do this without an "ERROR!"
>
> What's wrong with this picture ???
>
> What's wrong with this picture !!!
>
> OK . . .
>
> So maybe it's me.
>
> Does this happen to anyone else?
>
> JaMi
* Tracking #: 6B9E4565338E3148841D7226674F665E1C2A4F09
*
--
___
www.integratedcontrolsinc.comIntegrated Controls, Inc.
tel: 415-647-04802851 21st Street
fax: 415-647-3003San Francisco, CA 94110
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
yeah i never noticed that either (the difference in the closing 'klunk')
but we do get it sometimes too
i wonder if this has anything to do with the 'issue' of phantom copies
of protel still running even after it is quit
which seems to be specific to WIN2K
(i.e., the situation where Protel shows in the task manager after it has
been closed)
maybe the KLUNK is really trying to tell us something
i would also speculate that it *may* have something to do with 'compact
on close' which sometimes on some systems doesn't work correctly
why doesn't someone - :) turn off compact on close and explore this
possible relationship to the mystery KLUNK
Dennis Saputelli
JaMi Smith wrote:
>
> OK . . .
>
> So I'll admit, I missed the Class on Protel 99 SE Basics . . .
>
> And I slept thru most of the Protel 99 SE 101 and 102 Classes . . .
>
> But gimmie a break . . .
>
> This one has got me baffled . . .
>
> So what are the two simplest functions that one can possibly perform in
> Protel 99 SE?
>
> I mean the absolute simplest, most bare bones, easiest things to do in
> Protel 99 SE.
>
> I mean like, are you ready for this one, START Protel 99 SE, and are you
> ready for this one, END Protel 99 SE.
>
> Not too complex here, just simple stuff.
>
> OK . . .
>
> I can think of 3 ways to START Protel 99 SE (without an open database):
>
> 1. Double click the ICON on the Desktop.
>
> 2. Place the cursor over the ICON in the Desktop and press ENTER.
>
> 3. Navigate the START MENU and go from there.
>
> Nothing too complicated, nothing major, and I do not have any problems here,
> I can handle everything so far.
>
> But now comes the problem.
>
> I can think of 6 ways to END Protel 99 SE (without an open database):
>
> 1. Click on the big "X" ("Close") in the upper right hand corner of the
> Application.
>
> 2. From the "File" menu pulldown click on "Exit".
>
> 3. From the Task Manager, select Protel and end it.
>
> 4. "Shutdown" the system.
>
> 5. Hit "RESET", or turn off the power switch, or simply pull the plug out of
> the wall (believe it or not I have had to resort to this before when Protel
> 99 SE "locks up").
>
> 6. Simply wait for it to "CRASH", which it always seems to do all by itself
> sooner or later.
>
> Now I will admit that the last 4 are not normal ways of simply ENDING Protel
> 99 SE, so we can eliminate them right off the bat, and simply stick with the
> first 2.
>
> "No Brainer" . . .
>
> OK . . .
>
> So I simply START Protel 99 SE by any of the above methods, or maybe some
> that I haven't thought of, and go from there.
>
> Now comes the hard part, we have Protel 99 SE up and running, with no
> database open, in all of its glory, and we want to close it, so what do we
> do?
>
> 1. We hit the big "X", and "wala!", it closes. Simple enough, I can andle
> this. No problem here.
>
> 2 We go to the "File" menu pulldown, and click on "Exit", and what happens
> now?
>
> Well first of all, it takes much much much much longer to END Protel 99 SE
> this way, but now comes the real problem, on it's final exit, we get, are
> you ready for it, a Microsoft "KLUNK! sound, you know, the "sour note" that
> Microsoft gives off when you commit an error!
>
> Not the "Happy little Bell" that Microsoft uses to get your attention, but
> the "KLUNK!" that it uses to say "ERROR!", or "WRONG ANSWER". or "You Blew
> It!".
>
> OK . . .
>
> One of the two simplest functions in Protel 99 SE, and it can't even do this
> without a "KLUNK!".
>
> It can't even do this without an "ERROR!"
>
> What's wrong with this picture ???
>
> What's wrong with this picture !!!
>
> OK . . .
>
> So maybe it's me.
>
> Does this happen to anyone else?
>
> JaMi
* Tracking #: 6B9E4565338E3148841D7226674F665E1C2A4F09
*
--
___
www.integratedcontrolsinc.comIntegrated Controls, Inc.
tel: 415-647-04802851 21st Street
fax: 415-647-3003San Francisco, CA 94110
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
