In my case, we upgraded a few machines to get the latest PCB and schematic tools because the discount was available and I didn't hear too many complaints about the DXP software on the other forum... though the asking for help is constant... If it was easier to use I would expect to see mostly newbies over there walking through some of the more difficult steps...
We paid the money for a training class. I used it on a couple of designs and was very frustrated with it... So I put the box away and kept using the one I could use 99SE. I have felt frustrated with almost every new release... I guess that's human nature... When I got 98 I found out that they had broken some features that were in 2.8 2.5 I can't remember the number now... but I asked them to send me a copy of the older release too when I needed to send something to PADS it would still work in the older software but not in 98. ASCII out the file and read it into the older software and jump through the hoops and viola! A PADS file.. Why did they break it? Who knows... So at one point in order to do my work I needed 3 versions of Protel, Orcad Schematic and Autocad to get my job done. They still don't have an 'all in one' package even though the sales pitch would have you believe it. When they came out with 99 I waited until the roar of complaints died down and when they got to service pack 3 I figured it would be okay.... but they came out with 99SE instead.... oh boy.... I resisted that one for a long time too.. until finally when I changed jobs I was forced into it. I have been using it after figuring out that the windows filing system was the only way to go to avoid loosing track of what 'copy of a copy of a backup version of the file' was the right one.... sheeze.. I longed for a PCB package to edit PCB's and a Schematic Package to edit schematics... and all this other stuff could go in the trash for all I cared. So now we are up to service pack 6 on 99SE and there is a new release, DXP. So I waited again when DXP came out... and it looks like I didn't wait long enough. So we shall see how the 2004 product shapes up... but I expect it to be consistent with the previous releases... buggy for the first 3 service packs and harder to use all together. I guess that's why I 'ranted on ' a bit on the sales pitch of how great it was... but I can guarantee I won't 'get my knickers in a knot' worrying about it. (I just love that one... 'Knickers in a Knot'... I heard that on TV the other night <grin>) Bill Brooks PCB Design Engineer , C.I.D., C.I.I. Tel: (760)597-1500 Ext 3772 Fax: (760)597-1510 -----Original Message----- From: Ian Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 7:53 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] 2004 DXP Looks Great, On 02:08 PM 10/03/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >Ian Wilson wrote: > >>I am intrigued by this. How do the people that haven't used something >>know it is not more (or less) productive than what they are using. > >That one is easy to answer. Go back and read the posts again. Almost >every individual, including me, has indicated that they actually tried DXP >before putting it away. I understand that and did read it the posts. I was not commenting on whether DXP is better or worse that P99SE. My question was asking Phil how he *knew* it was less productive if it was still "in the box". He replied to say it was installed but he no longer used it. This is a clarification my overly literal brain can deal with. I do know there are lots of people around that have used DXP to some degree and given up. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next few months. Bye for now, Ian * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
