Darren wrote:
Lost power for a while here.....the grid
as Melbourne doesn't have the capacity for the
peak loads.
I did not know Melbourne was working at emulating California that
closely :) Believe me, it is not all that it is cracked up to be. I
know, I lived in California for 6 years before escaping ahead of the
rolling blackouts.
Now if that didn't do what you intended you
would have to go do all that again and hope to get it right
the next time...
If you budget your time to allow for not getting it right the first time
a certain percentage of times, the equation changes. Frankly, you or I
should really not care how it is done by someone else. Each of us
should base our decision on how things are currently working for us.
For me personally, after having used 99SE for as long as I have, errors
of that kind are extremely rare.
On of my problems with 2004 has been that it requires much more use of
the keyboard. I am not talking about hitting the space bar, or the tab
key, or control something, etc. I am talking about cases where you have
to move your hand away from the trackball to the keyboard. Even if you
have to move your focus from the screen to the keyboard, it takes time.
That whole refocusing costs you several seconds every time you have to
do it and seconds add up in the course of a day.
A second bug in 2004, that I have personally reported to Altium at least
3 times, is that it does not work with large fonts. I have dual
2048x1536 monitors and hence run extra large fonts as my system fonts.
In 99SE, where all text appears in its separate boxes, things come out
looking nice and legible independent of the size of the system fonts
because Windows handles the sizing issues (as explained to me by a
Windows programmer). In 2004 and AD, the text is displayed on a common
background and as a result gets clipped and overwrites each other,
rendering it virtually unreadable.
So for me, the list of times AD is slower, is much less then
the stuff it saves me time overall, and some features save a
lot of time.
I think what you are trying to say is that the list of times AD is
slower is much less than the list of times where it is faster or much
faster and as a result you end up saving time overall. Am I right? If
so, good for you.
For me, that has not been the case in the times I have used DXP and
2004. I am well aware that things will speed up if I start using it
regularly and get more proficient, but it is my judgment that due to a
number of inherent problems with the user interface, I am unlikely to
reach a break even point. The equation may change if due to totally new
features (board flip or enhanced features for the mouse scroll wheel for
example) savings can be realized in other areas that offset the
increased cost for the neutered features. However, it still bugs me
that a company would nutters good software because someone who does not
actually use it (most probably marketing) decides that it looks prettier
that way and has no concept that the changes make it less functional.
Bottom line, I bought it, after having a play.
That is the information I was looking for. Thanks for it. I would love
to hear how you feel about it after using it for some time.
Regards,
Hamid
____________________________________________________________
You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum
To Post messages:
mailto:[email protected]
Unsubscribe and Other Options:
http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com
Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004):
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current):
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
