as i understand the general development process BETA is way too late for user feature input and wish lists
at that point major decisions and directions have already been set BETA is to shake out problems, new features and wishes at that stage would only add new problems my take on this is that they have their own vision of the direction they want to go with the software and as far as i can tell they didn't give a hoot about what we have been clamoring for now such arrogance can actually be ok if they are truly visionary and much smarter than we are (which is something i would hope to be the case) users, myself included, have a way of clinging to a pair of comfortable old shoes, when in fact a new pair may be more appropriate witness autocad, trapped by its own success it's really a total mess but they can't change anything core because of all the third party apps and recalcitrant users now solidworks comes along and starts with a clean slate autocad is hanging on by it's fingernails and only that because of the huge user base having said all of this, the question now at hand is whether they have met the above criteria regrettably, i don't think so there is time enough to prove me wrong, and i certainly would hope to be proven wrong **** regarding Rob's comment about getting no response because he is not on ATS not so! i have ATS and have gotten ZERO response to more than several questions which i have posted on the DXP list and also repeated there (they may not have been questions they wanted to hear about) i have been using protel since autotrax (DOS) i went through all the cycles, i, like Rob, have been directly responsible for AT LEAST 5 companies adopting protel, often under protest would i do that now? no way, in fact being a protel advocate is a bit of an embarrassment at the moment what is the current value of ATS ? (in my humble opinion) NOTHING - ZERO - NADA in short it is worthless i think at this point the only way they can resurrect some good will from ATS owners is to issue the long overdue SP7 for 99SE since this would have the effect of making people even less motivated to move to DXP then they would then have redouble their efforts to improve DXP enough to seduce us to make the move in other words actually earn their keep, offer real value in exchange for money Dennis Saputelli "John A. Ross [Design]" wrote: > > From: "Brad Velander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 4:58 PM > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues > > > Rob, could you explain your comments about the Cam Manager in DXP a > > little better. Do you mean to say that every time you want to generate > > Gerber/Drill output, you have to reconfigure your output formats manually > > each time? If what I think you are saying is true, who is the rocket > > scientist at Protel that blew that one. You know how many mistakes are > made > > generating gerber/drill formats on an initial configuration, saving and > > tweaking those configurations is only the minimal acceptable feature for > the > > past 10 years (some packages longer than that). Aaaarghhh, Protel/Altium > > just don't know what the f#$% they are doing, incompetent, completely > > incompetent. > > Brad > > You have to generate the ouptuts in the individual groups (gerber, drill > etc). > > Pre Cam-Manager style. So we have ANOTHER step backwards, productivity wise. > Pay more (ATS) do less! Dont figure with me. > > The features in DXP that I would have welcomed (productivity increase) might > not have been so easy to get into a SP7 in 99SE as a database change was > needed to accomodate them. BUT, a gradual change into DXP from 99SE > enviroment (SP7) would have been less of a shock than it stands now. > > I got my 'ATS' copy of DXP as I bought a new 99SE license Q2 this year. But > after using the trial version first, I would say I would rather have seen a > SP7 than DXP. For now the 'good' in DXP (and there is some) so far does not > justify the amount of missed features and reduced productivity for me as > compared to 99SE. > > Although I would not say Altium were completely incompetent with DXP, what I > would say is that whovever did the market/user research on what changes & > features should be added into DXP, well, they simply asked the wrong people > or did not ask in the first place, just skimmed the user lists and made a > few notes. The beta program obviously did not take in a big enough cross > section of users (not just loyal experts) to yeild accurate information on > what the 'average user' would like or need, and of course those that did > beta test, have their gag order to contend with, so we will never know. I > would have thought after the 99->99SE experience, the situation would not > have occurred again, oh my.... > > :-( > > John > > > > > Sincerely, > > Brad Velander. > > > > Lead PCB Designer > > Norsat International Inc. > > Microwave Products > > Tel (604) 292-9089 (direct line) > > Fax (604) 292-9010 > > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.norsat.com > > Norsat's Microwave Products Division has now achieved ISO 9001:2000 > > certification > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Rob Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 6:48 AM > > > To: Protel EDA Forum > > > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Service Pack 7 vs DXP issues > > > > > > > > > If there were a service pack 7 that also included some long > > > requested new > > > features that are now included in DXP, I would be much more > > > inclined to pay > > > for SP7 than for DXP. DXP is promising in some areas, but completely > > > useless for me in it's current state. I fail to understand > > > why Altium had > > > to so drastically change the interface that long time Protel > > > users will now > > > have to retrain themselves. Features that I would pay for in > > > SP7 that are > > > currently in DXP would be items such as: > > > > > > 1. Layer Pairing in PCB > > > 2. Associative Dimensions > > > 3. Break wire with part in Schematic > > > 4. Right-click panning in schematic like in PCB now. > > > 5. Better padstack control in PCB > > > 6. Part editing in Schematic like in PCB now. > > > 7. Multi-channel capability in Sch and PCB. > > > 8. Automatic edge pullback on PCB planes. > > > 9. Query ability (but please leave existing global options alone!) > > > 10. Ability to exclude certain components from the BOM. > > > > > <SNIP> > > > > > > 5. Cam manager is gone from PCB. Instead of hitting "F9" to > > > process all > > > your cam outputs in one keystroke, you will now have to > > > process gerbers, nc > > > drill files, pick & place and testpoint data individually. > > > > > <SNIP> > > > > > > Rob > > > ************************************************************************ * Tracking #: 06DD5C4C586F0E4981A6E27A95B65660427F5D7E * ************************************************************************ -- ___________________________________________________________________________ www.integratedcontrolsinc.com Integrated Controls, Inc. tel: 415-647-0480 2851 21st Street fax: 415-647-3003 San 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 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
