Downloading OrCAD Capture
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Jim Thompson
wrote:
>Four CDs--holy moly! What the heck's in there?
GIGO :-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
Web-Site.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:50:17 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
> >Four CDs--holy moly! What the heck's in there?
>
> GIGO :-)
Yeah, that's what I figure.
<Commercial>
That's some amazing bloatware Martha! It's super! Why it cleans, it
scours, and it cooks 20% superer than that other bloatware.
</Commercial>
I need it for a project, so into the depths I go...
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
>Four CDs--holy moly! What the heck's in there?
Trust me. Every one is crap. We just switched to 16.3 (from 15.7). Other
than a *stupid* face-lift it's garbage. The schematic area is smaller than it
was before, with more junk around it. They should allow the screens to undock
so they can be placed on different screens.
Joel Koltner
news:auoqh61sklk6lhm7v...@4ax.com...
You mean something like the "Place Part" panel? It does undock -- just drag
on its title bar and place it wherever you want; I normally have the actual
schematic take up one monitor and then stick that panel on the next monitor.
Of course, why you can't *resize* the undocked panel is anyon'e guess; that
would actually be, you know, *useful!*
The GUI updates for me are somewhere between "different but no better" to
"maybe a little better" compared to 15.7. It's kinda what I expect from
Cadence with ORCAD -- dicking around with the GUI is relatively easy and
"looks cool" to, e.g., some manager who never has to actually use the tool,
whereas actually improving the core functionality of the program requires
rather more effort that is often only appreicated engineers who often aren't
the ones driving the purchasing decision.
---Joel
Jim Thompson
I quit at PSpice v15.7, after paying for years of "updates" that
contained no functional changes.
I use PSpice Schematics, NOT OrCAD Capture, though I can convert to
Capture format if a customer requests.
I also have managed a fairly smooth way of drawing with PSpice
Schematics but using the LTspice engine for simulation.
Principal trick to getting all your controls into the LTspice .CIR
file:
ANY template that has (for example)...
.INC DummyFile.txt \n
VDC Vdd 0 5.5V
Is forced into .CIR by the PSpice netlister, rather than in the .NET
file.
(Any template beginning with "." goes into .CIR)
Thus PSpice Schematics is only used for netlisting circuit components,
and the LTspice .CIR file set all simulation functions.
Sweet :-)
Now! If I can figure out how to have PSpice Probe read LTspice data
files, I'll have the best of both worlds... PSpice's frontend and
post-processor, but with LTspice's speed :-)
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
<zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote:
><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
>news:auoqh61sklk6lhm7v...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:50:17 -0800 (PST), dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Trust me. Every one is crap. We just switched to 16.3 (from 15.7). Other
>> than a *stupid* face-lift it's garbage. The schematic area is smaller than
>> it
>> was before, with more junk around it. They should allow the screens to
>> undock
>> so they can be placed on different screens.
>
>You mean something like the "Place Part" panel? It does undock -- just drag
>on its title bar and place it wherever you want; I normally have the actual
>schematic take up one monitor and then stick that panel on the next monitor.
I couldn't get it undocked, though it is a natural way to do things these days
(FrameMaker did all of this in the early-90's). I'll have to try it again
when I get back Tuesday. Do all the panels undock? There are several that I
have to switch back and forth between that would be great spread over several
screens.
>Of course, why you can't *resize* the undocked panel is anyon'e guess; that
>would actually be, you know, *useful!*
It seems that it would be harder to NOT allow that.
>The GUI updates for me are somewhere between "different but no better" to
>"maybe a little better" compared to 15.7. It's kinda what I expect from
>Cadence with ORCAD -- dicking around with the GUI is relatively easy and
>"looks cool" to, e.g., some manager who never has to actually use the tool,
>whereas actually improving the core functionality of the program requires
>rather more effort that is often only appreicated engineers who often aren't
>the ones driving the purchasing decision.
To me the "different but no better" is more of "a whole lot worse, for no good
reason". The icons aren't obvious and are "soft" (fuzzy, hard to read). I
suppose you're right, they had to make *some* change to justify an upgrade.
The only reason I upgraded is the layout guy upgraded to make Allegro happy,
then he kept locking me out of my schematics (the stupid thing "upgrades" the
file format when you *enter* the schematic).
Joel Koltner
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:degsh6dqito535amm...@4ax.com...
> I couldn't get it undocked, though it is a natural way to do things these
> days
> (FrameMaker did all of this in the early-90's). I'll have to try it again
> when I get back Tuesday. Do all the panels undock?
As far as I've noticed, yes. ...although windows that look like "regular"
schematic windows such as "Place Database Part" can't be moved outside of the
main ORCAD window. Some windows/panels such as the file/hierarchy explorer
window and the session have options if you right-click their title bars for
docked or not (MDI child)... although I don't think this is actually needed
for any particular functionality (just makes it faster, perhaps, to
dock/undock if you do so repeatedly, I guess).
> To me the "different but no better" is more of "a whole lot worse, for no
> good
> reason". The icons aren't obvious and are "soft" (fuzzy, hard to read).
I find that in many programs I never end up using the icons, since they're not
as obvious as looking through the menus for the same functionality... which
then usually lists the shortcut key that I'll begin to remember if I use that
function often anyway.
> The only reason I upgraded is the layout guy upgraded to make Allegro happy,
> then he kept locking me out of my schematics (the stupid thing "upgrades"
> the
> file format when you *enter* the schematic).
Yes... you have to keep doing File->Save As Capture 16.2 design to obtain some
semblance of backwards compatibility. (We learned this the hard way after
wanting to have folks be able to just download the *much smaller than 4 CDs*
ORCAD viewer program, but -- no surprise here! -- Cadence hasn't updated it in
years and it just steadfastly refuses to open 16.3 format files.)
---Joel
qrk
<zapwireD...@yahoo.com> wrote:
That's why I stick with the old DOS Orcad SDT386+ schematic editor. A
few updates by others, like a GUI, have made this a semi-modern tool.
Efficient to use, doesn't crash, and it's easy to write your own
netlist converters.
TheGlimmerMan
TADA!
DOSBox rules!
Nico Coesel
AFAIK the Orcad file format didn't change from 9.2 until 16.3.
--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joerg
Which makes me wonder, since they tout the viewer on their web site and
obviously their standard operating procedures failed to flag a need to
update that, what else might have fallen through the cracks?
Nah, I'll stay with Cadsoft for now. They recently promised that they
(finally!) plan to provide hierachical sheet structures in the naxt
major release. Upon which I'll send them a nice big check because then
this CAD is IMHO as close to perfect as it gets. Yeah, I know, now Jeff
will come with his DRM cruzade :-)
> AFAIK the Orcad file format didn't change from 9.2 until 16.3.
>
Oh yes it did. Download Myriad viewer and try to load a 16.3 file. Then,
after clicking away the error message where the schematic should have
been but wasn't, load an old version file.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
Nico Coesel
Which is a valid argument. It has made me decide to stay away from
Eagle. What if the DRM feature is triggered by accident? No software
is 100% error free and Murphy dictates a problem will occur at the
worst possible time.
>> AFAIK the Orcad file format didn't change from 9.2 until 16.3.
>>
>
>Oh yes it did. Download Myriad viewer and try to load a 16.3 file. Then,
>after clicking away the error message where the schematic should have
>been but wasn't, load an old version file.
Weird. I have no problems at all moving libraries and files between
versions.
JeffM
>[...]I'll stay with Cadsoft for now. They recently promised that
>they (finally!) plan to provide hierachical sheet structures
>
Huh-zah!
>now Jeff will come with his DRM cruzade :-)
>
...as I will with any vendor who puts
surreptitious gotchas into their products.
cruzade?? Did I miss something--or did you?
Joerg
It isn't. As long as you do not copy schematics from dubious sources. I
have never met anyone who uses Eagle professionally and ran into that issue.
> ... No software
> is 100% error free and Murphy dictates a problem will occur at the
> worst possible time.
>
It isn't, but it has yet to cause a DRM issue on its own. Somehow a CAD
vendor has to protect their rights. And I do _not_ wish they ever change
to theway it's done on Mathcad. I just bought that and it took a solid
week to get the license going, doesn't get more cumbersome than that.
Whereas Cadsoft juts chucks you the keys and trusts you. Trust? What a
concept ... :-)
>>> AFAIK the Orcad file format didn't change from 9.2 until 16.3.
>>>
>> Oh yes it did. Download Myriad viewer and try to load a 16.3 file. Then,
>> after clicking away the error message where the schematic should have
>> been but wasn't, load an old version file.
>
> Weird. I have no problems at all moving libraries and files between
> versions.
>
Again, try Myriad viewer, then you'll see it. Or take a schematic, edit
it with 16.3, store in 16.3 format and then try to open that with
version 9 or something. You will be surprised.
Joerg
Ok, often spelled crusade. See, you just started another one :-)
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
You *don't* want to know.
>Nah, I'll stay with Cadsoft for now. They recently promised that they
>(finally!) plan to provide hierachical sheet structures in the naxt
>major release. Upon which I'll send them a nice big check because then
>this CAD is IMHO as close to perfect as it gets. Yeah, I know, now Jeff
>will come with his DRM cruzade :-)
I'll let you know, in a couple of weeks, if OrCAD 16.3 can do hierarchical
schematics (perfect test coming up). Just had a thought, OrCAD touts their
FPGA abilities. HTH do they do FPGAs without hierarchy?
>> AFAIK the Orcad file format didn't change from 9.2 until 16.3.
>>
>
>Oh yes it did. Download Myriad viewer and try to load a 16.3 file. Then,
>after clicking away the error message where the schematic should have
>been but wasn't, load an old version file.
I thought they'd changed too. I tried loading a 10.x file and it wouldn't but
thought that it might have been corrupted along the way (hadn't opened it in
years).
Joerg
T'is why I abandoned Orcad. Too many crashes. Switched to Eagle, no
crashes. It's amazing, Cadsoft's size is miniscule compared to Cadence
yet the quality of their software is superb. They just never understood
some of the necessities for business, such as the need for a hierarchy
(until recently).
>> Nah, I'll stay with Cadsoft for now. They recently promised that they
>> (finally!) plan to provide hierachical sheet structures in the naxt
>> major release. Upon which I'll send them a nice big check because then
>> this CAD is IMHO as close to perfect as it gets. Yeah, I know, now Jeff
>> will come with his DRM cruzade :-)
>
> I'll let you know, in a couple of weeks, if OrCAD 16.3 can do hierarchical
> schematics (perfect test coming up). Just had a thought, OrCAD touts their
> FPGA abilities. HTH do they do FPGAs without hierarchy?
>
Oh, I've seen flat sheet structures with dozens of pages. Very hard to
navigate for anyone other than the original designer. The sad part is
that Orcad-SDT from the late 80's could do hierarchies beautifully.
Nearly all my designs were done that way. Then Orcad was acquired and it
seems they broke it.
>>> AFAIK the Orcad file format didn't change from 9.2 until 16.3.
>>>
>> Oh yes it did. Download Myriad viewer and try to load a 16.3 file. Then,
>> after clicking away the error message where the schematic should have
>> been but wasn't, load an old version file.
>
> I thought they'd changed too. I tried loading a 10.x file and it wouldn't but
> thought that it might have been corrupted along the way (hadn't opened it in
> years).
That's the beauty of Orcad-SDT. It doesn't care how old a file is, I
could easily open my designs from 1989. With software it's like with
wine, older is usually better :-)
Which is one of the reasons why I stuck to Windows XP.
Nico Coesel
Ever tried to install Orcad with floating seat network licensing?
Fortunately a co worker came up with a cracked copy. Since then I only
buy software which preferably doesn't come with dongles. If it does
come with a dongle (or must be attached to a MAC address and so), a
cracked copy must be available otherwise it is a no go. I don't mind
paying for software but I don't want to be punished for it!
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Our OrCAD 16.3 copies are network licensed (we had a mix before). It took our
IT guys a week to get it working. They didn't get it working with P-Spice
15.something that was node-locked (Cadence promised it would work). We
basically lost P-Spice (it wasn't mine).
Joerg
Orcad won't get over this here doorstep :-)
> Fortunately a co worker came up with a cracked copy. Since then I only
> buy software which preferably doesn't come with dongles. If it does
> come with a dongle (or must be attached to a MAC address and so), a
> cracked copy must be available otherwise it is a no go. I don't mind
> paying for software but I don't want to be punished for it!
>
Well, I just bought Mathcad which comes only with MAC-lock. Only SW I
ever bought with that, and only because I had to. If I didn't need it
for an assignment I'd never have bought it. However, I got it in writing
from them that it's transferable to a new PC even with a lapsed
maintenance agreement. Or I should say maintenance tax because you are
forced to buy the 1st year. Same with Orcad I believe.
qrk
<justag...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 13:32:46 -0800, qrk <Spam...@spam.net> wrote:
[snippage]
>>
>>That's why I stick with the old DOS Orcad SDT386+ schematic editor. A
>>few updates by others, like a GUI, have made this a semi-modern tool.
>>Efficient to use, doesn't crash, and it's easy to write your own
>>netlist converters.
>
> TADA!
>
> DOSBox rules!
Don't need DOSBox anymore. You can run SDT386+ in its own Windows GDI
on Win2k, and XP with the proper SDT display drivers. No virtual OS
needed anymore.
TheGlimmerMan
Idiot! Real men upgrade to Windows 7. Why? Becuase it works and it IS
secure.
"anymore"? Ha! It never was needed. I use it because it is BETTER.
I get 800x600. I'll bet you don't, unless it is on an old Paradise or
Trident based POS.
I also get 1280 Tango PCB screens.
qrk
<justag...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:
I have no problems with XP and 2k security, although, I wouldn't use
it on a server that the outside public would hit.
Your right, I don't get 800x600 - that's too small of a space to work
on. I have the driver set up to do 1200x912 so I have a little desktop
space showing on my monitor. However, with this driver, I've also set
it up for 1900x1200 on a 30" screen (gets too slow on larger
resolutions). This is all done using modern Nvidia graphics boards
(6600 or newer). The modern SDT & PCB386+ drivers developed in the
past 6 years get rid of the limitations of the original drivers since
they make calls directly to the Windows GDI.
Jim Thompson
Sort of surprising, as ruthless as Cadence is, you'd expect them to
legally attack the driver writers for some obscure infringement.
Maybe all that is preventing it is a realization that there's enough
of you guys out there that you might be able to fight back and sink
Cadence... bring it on ;-)