Mira wrote:
> If the price is high or getting higher, there is a 90%
> probability that the software will be cracked.
> Some companies tolerate this because it gives the
> users a chance to view its capabilities.
> If they keep control on who is using the software,
> they'll loose.
> It's easy these days to get a free license for some
> time and get a feeling of what this software does but
> it was impossible to do this in the past.
>
> I don't believe that any company is interested in
> supporting the old versions of their software. These
> are generally companies, which don't pay maintenance
> and therefore they don't get upgrades or don't want to
> pay for upgrades.
> Who would invest in activity, which is not funded.
Sigh. (I apologise to everyone on this list who has got the gist of what I have
had to say on his matter in previous messages which I have sent here, but it
seems that not everyone here has actually managed that so far.)
I don't know how much clearer I can be in saying why I consider that Altium
*should* be prepared to continue issuing SPs for major versions of their
software, even after a newer major version has been released.
It would be even more profitable for Altium if they were to collect money from
their customers, but give them *nothing* in return; they wouldn't have to shell
out any money hiring any programmers (to write any code for any application).
But apart from having no "return" customers in the event that they were to opt
for such a business plan, they would also find themselves in court for taking
money from their customers under false pretences.
I am *not* suggesting that Altium has ever done that, and I also regard it as
very unlikely that they ever would. That said, all of their major versions of
Protel / DXP /AD up unto (and including) AD2004 have incorporated defects which
result in files created from PCB files being of a defective nature.
Gerber files in which pads having an Octagonal shape are not correctly
depicted. And thermal relief patterns (associated with through-hole pads and
vias) on Internal Plane layers always have four openings, and regardless of
whether users specified four openings or just two openings for each pad and via
within the file. And "blowout patterns" not being provided on Internal Plane
layers when pads on (external) Signal layers incorporate a hole. (Pads
incorporating holes should thus *always* reside on the MultiLayer layer
instead, but it still doesn't change the fact that either holes should be
always be "prohibited" for any pads which are *not* on the ML layer, or else
"blowout patterns" should *always* be provided on Internal Plane layers for
*any* pad which incorporates a hole.) And "blowout patterns" not being provided
*by default* (on Internal Plane layers) for *unplated* pads, even when they are
on the ML layer. (A Design Rule can be defined to
implement that outcome, but having to do that still *shouldn't* be necessary.)
There are also some outstanding issues with printouts from PCB files, such as
vias of a "blind" or "buried" nature not being depicted on copper layers which
are located "between" the via's "Start" layer and "End" layer. And if the
option of Colored printouts (and also Gray printouts? is selected, then some
objects are depicted in the wrong color (such as "renderings" of pads or vias
on layers other than the layer on which the pad or via concerned actually
resides).
I am not prepared to vouch that all other aspects of output files are fully
satisfactory, but the defects which I have listed still *shouldn't* "feature"
within the application. And although sufficiently experienced and knowledgeable
users can "manage" those defects, the fact still remains that they *shouldn't
have to*. Even if the application is not totally defect-free (which I consider
really would be difficult to achieve), it still shouldn't "bite"
less-experienced users in the way which it definitely can.
So the point is that the earlier versions contain *serious* defects which can
result in mis-manufactured PCBs. Most products for sale in the marketplace can
potentially be subjected to a "product recall" if they are of a seriously
defective design, and/or if they fail to implement their mooted functionality
to at least a satisfactory standard.
I fully concur that continuing to issue SPs for any earlier version would
require an outlay of expenditure by Altium. And to the extent that they should
do so for ethical/moral reasons, it is immaterial as to how many customers
might opt to subsequently upgrade to the prevailing version (when they would
otherwise have opted *not* to do so).
I don't believe for one minute that every customer who owns an earlier version
would subsequently update to the prevailing version if Altium were to release
yet another SP to rectify at least the serious defects still remaining within
the earlier version. That said, I am still picking that there probably still
would be at least *some* customers who *would* subsequently upgrade, when they
wouldn't *otherwise* do so - and the reason why they would be prepared to
upgrade in such circumstances (- and *only* in such circumstances) would be
because of the "message" sent to them by Altium that they were taking their
customers' interests seriously, rather than treating them as suckers. (Will
such defects be rectified in the next major version? Purchase it, and *if* your
lucky number comes up, then *maybe* some of them will be rectified...)
The upshot of *some* of their customers subsequently deciding to upgrade, *when
they would not have done so otherwise*, would be to reduce the *net* outlay
required to issue such a followup SP. If enough customers decided to
subsequently upgrade (when they would not have done so otherwise), they could
even end up *improving* their bottom line as a consequence of issuing that SP.
But even if the number of customers who subsequently upgraded (when they would
not have done so otherwise) was not sufficient to cover the costs associated
with issuing the following SP, there would still be ethical/moral reasons for
issuing a followup SP for at least AD2004 (and a reduction in the probability
of having a class action lawsuit issued against them by customers upset by the
application not implementing "core" functionality to a satisfactory standard).
In reality, I'm not holding my breath waiting for any additional SPs to be
issued for any of their earlier major versions. It is not at all implausible
(and probably even almost certain) that Altium's management have assessed that
the number of customers who would be prepared to upgrade (when they would not
have done so otherwise) in the event that they did issue any more SPs for any
earlier major versions would not be sufficient to recoup the associated outlay
required.
Then again, there could be yet other reasons why they have opted not to issue
any more SPs for any earlier versions, but if that really is the case, I don't
see too much profit or merit in contemplating what those reasons could be.
> I'm sure that Altium is reading all bug reports but
> they decide which one to fix based on the weather that
> day.
Altium have claimed that they have "eaten their own dog food", and as such,
they *should* have a better handle on which defects are obnoxious from their
customers' point of view, and of which defects are of a truly serious nature.
> They sure haven't found a way to get the maximum from
> the people who are testing the software.
>
> Mira
I think that a lot of the software which they have "shipped" is so buggy that
it shouldn't even be seen by any of their external beta testers, let alone by
their end customers. So raising the quality of their software to an extent that
their beta testers are subsequently provided with software of a higher quality
than what their end customers have been provided with to date (or at least
prior to the release of AD2006) would be a good starting point.
Although there could well be many people on this list who think that Altium's
software is of a "relatively high" quality, the fact still remains that it
*shouldn't* contain any defects which can "bite" unwary customers - and in the
event that any such defects actually are "shipped", then they *should* be
rectified ASAP.
I am sure that most people on this list at least understand the gist of what I
am saying, and have in fact done so for some time. But if there is anyone here
who *still* doesn't do so, then I honestly don't know what I could possibly say
that actually would "get through" to them. However I will still try and refrain
from commenting further on such matters.
Regards,
Geoff.
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.
www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail
____________________________________________________________
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]
