advice on selecting new PCB design package
megoodsen
In leui of a FAQ for this group, here goes with a likely hot
chestnut...
I'm looking for a good schematic capture and PCB design package to
replace our very flaky EasyPC.
We need both good schematic and PCB layout capabilities, ideally in one
system.
Best I outline the requirements...
We do pretty straightforward analogue and digital designs, and a lot of
microwave RF designs.
We create a lot of our own components (sch and PCB elements) as many of
the parts we use are very often not in any libraries.
Our boards (especially RF boards) are often multilayer, with blind
vias, have curved tracks of need-to-be defined width and length, and
always copper pours. (EasyPC copper pours lets us down a lot).
We also need to export boards (with components) to 3D mech CAD
(Solidworks) in some format.
We need good autorouting for non RF boards of course.
The players I am looking at are:
Electronics Workbench
Eagle
OrCAD
Cadstar
Pulsonix
I'd really appreciate comments from users of these packages about their
suitability for our tasks, and if they are stable in use etc.
thanks
Charlie Edmondson
a full, commercial package. However, if you really need to do good RF
design, add Microwave Office to your list.
Charlie
Spehro Pefhany
Is anyone using Agilent ADS?
Robert Lacoste
1140686047....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hi,
I have right now exactly the same problem, looking for a new CAD tool, for
nearly exactly the same kind of designs (mainly RF).
On my side I added one constraint : budget under 2-3K$. That reduced my list
to the following : PADS (but without any autorouter for this budget), Eagle
(but may be a little limited for difficult RF designs), and Proteus
(Isis/Ares). CADSTAR seems great but a little over budget for me, Orcad,
Pulsonix and Protel are significantly more expensive as far as I've found.
So I am tempted to give a try to Proteus, I've just downloaded the demo and
the tool seems quite well done and full of features, even if the user
interface seems not really windows-standard. Any experiences from Proteus
users, especially doing RF designs ?
Cheers,
Robert
Robert
"Spehro Pefhany" <spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in message
news:mdrrv1hivek7fsv2l...@4ax.com...[snip]
>>> I'd really appreciate comments from users of these packages about their
>>> suitability for our tasks, and if they are stable in use etc.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>>
>>You would find ORCAD adequate for all these tasks, as it is designed as
>>a full, commercial package. However, if you really need to do good RF
>>design, add Microwave Office to your list.
>>
>>Charlie
>
> Is anyone using Agilent ADS?
I wrote some Foundry tools in that when I was doing support for folks like
Ericsson and Nokia. Though Nokia preferred Aplac.
Robert
Leon
They bought Proteus where I used to work. It was usable (a friend of
mine did lots of designs with it, including some complex 6-layer ones),
but had lots of bugs and shortcomings. Support (in the UK) was
non-existent. I used it once when he was on holiday, just to modify a
couple of tracks, and it was *very* hard work. Perhaps I am spoiled,
I've used Pulsonix since it first came out.
Leon
Joel Kolstad
Speaking of modifying tracks...
"Leon" <leon_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140779005....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"I used it once when he was on holiday, just to modify a
couple of tracks, and it was *very* hard work. Perhaps I am spoiled,
I've used Pulsonix since it first came out."
In my experience Protel is better than Pulsonix when it comes to the
"automatic loop removal" feature that's quite useful while re-routing tracks.
(Pulsonix seems as after as not to think you're drawing a new track rather the
re-routing.) How about you?
Leon
I've never really used Protel. I tried it a couple of years ago, just
out of curiosity, but didn't like it all. I found it very difficult to
use.
Leon
ildik...@gmail.com
Our Company has been using ORCAD for years and we are now switching
over to PADS due to a lot of problems with ORCAD.
PADS has a good link to Hyperlinx in case you want to simulate your
PCB's performance. ORCAD claims to have .HYP generation capability but
it does not work correctly.
PADS layout is extremely good, supports interactive and autorouting,
handles impedance pairs easily -even when autorouting!- and easy to
use. Of the many packages I have used so far, PADS is the best!
Regards,
Telep
megoodsen
Could you tell me what kind of problems you had with OrCAD?
On paper, EASYPC does a lot of what we want, but in reality, it too
gives us too many problems and loses a lot of time as a result...
thanks
Dax
Proteus v6.9
Hobbyist-grade capture and layout. Their claim to fame for hobbyists is
their interactive microcontroller simulation integrated in the capture
package. Capture is OK, layout "works", is all I'll say.
Eagle v4.16
Very nice little hobbyist-grade package. The interface is a little odd
but it gets the job done and the price is very reasonable. No frills,
just works good doing basic boards.
Electronics Workbench (MultiSim) v9 with UltiBoard & UltiRoute
I loved Electronics Workbench when I was a student and I still like
MultiSim but using it for capture and layout is just wrong. It's moved
out of the hobbyist-grade ranks but the layout section, called
UtilBoard, is a mess. The router is a joke. I have to say that I really
like the user interface for UltiBoard but the program is slow even on a
faster machine and...well, it's just a mess. They have a downloadable
v9 demo, try it for a laugh.
Pulsonix
A decent package with a fair price. The autorouter is acceptable. Not
bad at all. Suspect the software company has one principle
programmer/owner. Also comes with a one-man promoter and cheerleader
called Leon. Don't know his relationship with Pulsonix but the guy pops
up everywhere on the net with a good word for Pulsonix. (Google
keywords "Pulsonix" & "Leon" on the web and in the groups.)
OrCAD v10.5
Very respectable, professional package with the best autorouter
available. You could do a lot worse.
PADS 2005
A very respectable package. The low-end of the high-end packages. A
terrific value for the money but not cheap.
If money is not a problem, go with PADS. If it is, check out Orcad or
maybe Pulsonix.
Robert Lacoste
ranking : We moved from Electronic Workbench to Proteus for our
professionnal designs after a quite exaustive benchmark (including Orcad,
Pads and others), and concluded that Proteus was the best value for money,
in particular when comparing apples to apples in term of pricing. I mean
when comparing high-end Proteus configurations (with mixed mode advanced
simulation and the very good Electra autorouter option) with entry level
"expensive" packages (usually without autorouting at all nor simulation for
the same price). Of course a high level PADS is great, but at what price ?
Proteus's interface is quite unusual, but pleasant and homogeneous after
some hours. For our mixed-signal designs it has all the features we were
looking at : blind/buried vias, unlimited polygonal ground planes with real
time refresh and automatic island removal, backannotation, stacked pads,
panellisation, etc. The schematic side has very powerful "macro" features,
and is able to export the netlist in all common standards. The Electra
autorouter seems *very* good, quite as good for medium complexity designs
than the Specctra router we used before (we don't use the internal
autorouter). And lastly the technical support was really good the three
times we called them. Two drawbacks : the libraries are quite limited, and
no dedicated features for the routing of high speed busses.
Friendly yours,
Robert Lacoste
www.alciom.com
"Dax" <email_d...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1142322650.2...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Leon
I'm just a user and beta-tester, and have used it since it first came
out. Pulsonix has quite a few programmers,each with many years of PCB
software design experience. I also run the Pulsonix Yahoo group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PulsonixUG/
Leon
Joel Kolstad
news:1142322650.2...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> A decent package with a fair price. The autorouter is acceptable. Not
> bad at all. Suspect the software company has one principle
> programmer/owner.
I don't believe they're *that* small; I get the impression it's probably more
like 2-4 programmers and another half dozen admin/sales/support people. Note
that they license their SPICE simulation and the auto-router.
> Also comes with a one-man promoter and cheerleader
> called Leon. Don't know his relationship with Pulsonix but the guy pops
> up everywhere on the net with a good word for Pulsonix. (Google
> keywords "Pulsonix" & "Leon" on the web and in the groups.)
I think Leon's just been using Pulsonix almost since it came out, it meets his
needs, and he has close enough ties to Pulsonix that a lot of what he'd like
to see added to it ends up in up, so he couldn't be happier. :-)
As another Pulsonix user, I'd say that it is a good, "solid" product although
its interface is not quite as "seamless" as I'd like it to be. (For instance:
I'd prefer panning with the mouse to move the schematic the way the mouse is
moved rather than opposite it. I'd prefer to be able to copy & paste a bunch
of components and have them electrically connect themselves to what they're
dropped on... and this doesn't occur.) Still, these are "little things" that
one can learn to live with with only occasional cursing; Pulsonix has a lot of
the "fancy" features that the big boys do (support for net classes, "rooms,"
arbitrary attributes, etc.) that are seem quite uncommon in packages at its
price point. For the hobbyist, however, these features often go unneeded,
hence my suggestions in the past that people also look at the likes of Rimu
PCB, gnuEDA, etc.
> OrCAD v10.5
> Very respectable, professional package with the best autorouter
> available. You could do a lot worse.
Haven't tried it for PCB layout, but for schematics I'd say it's "comfortable"
(it does get the job done with a minimal of annoyance) if not outstanding.
Hasn't had any significant updates in years; on-going development is now in
India. (Which is to say -- most likely by people who are programmers and not
PCB layout techs. This criticism is probably valid for many other packages as
well.)
> PADS 2005
> A very respectable package. The low-end of the high-end packages. A
> terrific value for the money but not cheap.
I haven't used PADS enough to really get to like it, but I have used it enough
to know how annoying it can be. Ever tried the "make re-use" feature? It's
borderline worthless, yet it's part of a package that adds thousands of
dollars to the price tag.
The main packages you didn't mention were Protel and Accel (now owned by
Protel). Back in the Protel 3 days, I used it a lot and really liked it; I
don't have any experience with newer versions.
---Joel Kolstad
Dax
Protel [16-bit v2.8; v3; 98; 99; 99SE SP6]
The multiple lives of Protel. The old 16-bit Advanced Schematic and PCB
in their later 2.x existence were solid programs you could get a lot
done with. It's a shame they're not available now, they were that good.
They're still available on some Chinese EDA warez distrubution sites so
if you Google hard enough, you can still ferret out a copy to compare
to the modern packages. At v3 Protel switched to the integrated
client/server scheme and things started to get buggy. v3, crap. 98,
crap. 99, not crap but buggy. Protel 99 SE with SP6, very good with few
bugs. This is a program that can handle most any everyday board. Highly
recommended. The autorouter is capable and the tight coupling between
schematic and layout should be a model for other vendors. The 30-day
unlimited demo and the all-important Service Pack 6 are still widely
available around the net (wink, hint, nudge, see below). When Protel
moved to DXP (2002 release), the product fell on it's face. SP1 helped
and SP2 makes it usable. The Situs autorouter was a disappointment. DXP
2004 introduced more problems. The current product is still DXP 2004
but it was renamed Altium Designer 6. The one thing to know about
Altium is that they are *always* adding more features before previous
problems have been fixed. This is their big, big problem. Altium
Designer 6 lets you flip the board and work on it from behind. Great,
but how about they get the Situs autorouter to follow its rules
correctly, *first*! The hardware requirements of Designer 6 are
absolutely ridiculous as is the multiple monitor recommendation.
DXP/Designer 6 looks like a hot product but dig deep and you'll see
that it comes up short, quickly. Explore the Protel Knowledge Base and
see for yourself. The last time I was following their open support
forum it sounded like many of the users wanted to sue. Leon, you've
commented on the user revolts at the Altium forum more than once,
haven't you? I'd really like DXP if it worked right. About Altium: I've
personally handled contacts with Altium sales to purchase tens of
thousands of dollars worth of licenses for their embedded compiler tool
chains and can tell you they really didn't seem to care if they sold a
license or not. I'd ask for a quote and it would take *days* to get a
response. Inevitably there would be an error on the quote, like if the
license was to be node-locked or floating. It would take days and phone
call reminders to get an ammended quote. People applying for welfare
get treated better than that. I just didn't understand it. Then it
would take another 7-10 days for the lady with the fricking license
generator to send me the license files after they confirmed payment had
cleared! This was in '02.
P-CAD
I don't have much experience with this other than evaluation so I can't
say anything other than it is a serious tool targeted toward layout
people. I'd like to hear from P-CAD users.
Comments have been made comparing the Electra autorouter to Specctra.
Electra is a decent router for the money but please, it can't compare
to Specctra at any level. It's like comparing a Cessna 170 to a flying
saucer. If Electra did better then Specctra on "moderately complex"
designs, then someone does not know how to control Specctra. Pushing
the "Go" button is not autorouting. It takes a considerable amount of
time and knowledge to set a design up for effective autorouting with
Specctra but it always pays off. This company sells Specctra training
videos. They want $995 USD for the beginner course and another $995 USD
for the advanced course. Probably worth every penny.
http://www.accelerated-designs.com/info/TrainingCDs.shtml
As a reply to the comments about Proteus, come on, it's
*hobbyist-grade*. In the layout (ARES) manual, instructions are given
for individuals how to output CAM data to a printer with drill-holes
shown so they can be used as manual drilling targets for people who
etch their own boards at home. ARES and ISIS were started well but
appear to be several years behind other products *except* for their
terrific microcontroller simulation. It's not simply an instruction set
simulator, the full microcontroller is modeled along with the A/D SPICE
in real time. If you're building a microcontroller widget, this is the
platform to develop the firmware on before real hardware exists. I know
I'm really bad for saying this but the default color scheme for the
schematic capture section of the product has that "circus came to town"
look. I load a color template carefully prepared to match Protel 99SE
colors (used a color-picker utility) so it looks presentable.
OrCAD Capture is simply the best in it's class. It looks great and
works great. OrCAD Layout is not the best but OK and is tightly
integrated with Specctra, king of autorouters. There is also a very
good public support forum at the Cadence website with some very helpful
Elmers. Compare that to the Cadence website where everything related to
support is under lock and key with a password unless you have a support
contract. I'm I right there or will just a license do to get an access
password? Yes, development has slowed and now should be called
maintenance. v9.2.3 was where it came of age as long as all the updates
are applied. I don't see anything to write home about in v10 and I
haven't tried v10.5 yet.
Sorry Leon, I shouldn't have stepped on your tail like that. While
researching Pulsonix last year I read just about every word you've
written on the net and know you're on the up and up.
I rated Electronics Workbench v9, the Frankenstein of EDA packages,
above Proteus and Eagle because EW is solidly in the professional
class. MultiSim has been bloated until it functions as a Capture
package and UltiBoard & UltiRoute have been bolted on and made to
integrate with MultiSim. It's crappy but it works and the feature set
puts it above hobbyist-grade. I don't like it there but it has to be.
I'd pick Proteus over EW to use for normal PTH designs if I had my
choice but overall, EW ranks higher on my scale. Sorry.
Mentor Graphics Expedition
I've never seen or studied this but a buddy has been promising for 6
months to give me a copy. It is supposedly the Holy Grail of PCB
systems. Exceedingly difficult to learn but all powerful and all
knowing. I'd love to hear comments from current users.
Another product I haven't used is Zuken Cadstar. I trialed it at v6 for
a couple of hours and wasn't impressed but I hear it is in the PADS
class or higher, now.
No-Brainers
If a teen hobbyist came to me and wanted to learn PCB design, I'd steer
them toward Eagle (free version.) If an Engineering intern wanted the
same thing I'd start them with Protel 99 SE SP6 (free, unlimited 30-day
trial). Anyone else has to decide for themselves.
Protel 99 SE SP6
http://vasy.dlug.hu/downloads/doc2/elektro/elektro/protel99se-trial/01-setup/protel99se_full_trial_version_.exe
http://www.altium.com/files/protel/downloads/files/protel99seservicepack6.exe
http://www.altium.com/files/protel/legacy/handbookp99se.pdf
Brad Velander
ACCEL was bought by Protel/Altium along with it's bigger brother PCAD in
2000. Shortly after the Altium purchase all ACCEL users were either orphaned
or upgraded to PCAD. ACCEL no longer exists unless you are still running a
pre-Altium version (version 15 if I remember correctly). It was a pretty
respectable package in it's day, somewhat simpler than PCAD and limited in
layers/nets/parts when compared to it's big brother but in it's day it met a
price/performance point that was quite good and very suitable for a lot of
small - medium companies.
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.
--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.
"Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad7...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:121eqjn...@corp.supernews.com...
Leon
Dax wrote:
> Missed Protel and P-CAD, sorry.
[deleted]
> No-Brainers
> If a teen hobbyist came to me and wanted to learn PCB design, I'd steer
> them toward Eagle (free version.) If an Engineering intern wanted the
> same thing I'd start them with Protel 99 SE SP6 (free, unlimited 30-day
> trial). Anyone else has to decide for themselves.
EasyPC is about the same price as Eagle (no free version, though) and
is *much* easier to use:
It's been around for over 20 years, I was one of their earliest
customers.
Leon
Dax
Didn't Pulsonix grow out of EasyPC or something like that, Leon? I've
heard stories that it did. Maybe you can give us whole history?
I'd recommend Eagle over EasyPC because:
1. It's has a free version that is quite usable, see limitations below.
2. Large, active global user base to provide support.
3. There are significant 3rd party tools.
4. It has very few bugs, not something most EDA packages can brag
about.
Many hobbyist share their Project designs on the net in Eagle format.
Yes, EasyPC is easier to use but Eagle is *free*.
>From the cadsoft website:
************************************************************************************************
The following limitations apply to the EAGLE Light Edition in general:
* The useable board area is limited to 100 x 80 mm (4 x 3.2
inches).
* Only two signal layers can be used (Top and Bottom).
* The schematic editor can only create one sheet.
Apart from these three limitiations the EAGLE Light Edition can do
anything the Professional Edition can do. You can even load, view and
print drawings that exceed these limits!
************************************************************************************************
A 4" x 3.2" board with no pin, net, or component limit and two signal
layers. What more does a newbie need?
Joel Kolstad
I'm impressed by your broad experience with these difference CAD programs,
even if I don't agree with all of your opinions!
"Dax" <email_d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142400225....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> OrCAD Capture is simply the best in it's class. It looks great and
> works great.
As you say, "oh, come on!" :-) Here's a short list of things that are
annoying in OrCAD capture:
-- Tab-click works to select one of multiple overlapping objects, but this
doesn't work in conjunction with multiple select (ctrl+click)
-- The highest zoom level is artificially low
-- No means to set the "pick" radius
-- Pins for schematic symbols must be placed strictly around a rectangular
bounding box.
-- Pin styles are limited (there's a canned number of selections -- e.g.,
"short" and "long" for general purpose pin; no independent adjustment of pin
length)
-- Pin names can't be turned off on a pin-by-pin basis (it's all or
nothing! -- so you end up turning them all off and using text to display what
you want)
-- No ability to add or change keyboard mapping (!! -- this is, what, 2006?)
-- Macro language is half-baked; many functions you'd like to use (e.g., "zoom
area" with mouse input providing the bounding box) don't exist
-- No "area de-select" option
-- No polygon shape select
-- No way to toggle area select from "everything wholly within the selected
area" to "everything touching the selected area" from the keyboard
-- No tool-tips/status bar display/whatever of a net's name, class, etc. when
you select it (must double-click to bring up a modal dialog to obtain this
information)
-- Busses can only contain homogenous items, e.g., Data[0:7] -- you can't
create a "mixed" bus that also bundles in, e.g., CS, Rd, Wr!
-- No tabbed window view
I realize that many people aren's used to these features and therefore just
don't know what they're missing, but I find the biggest annoyance when using
multiple CAD programs is that you really start to miss nice features from one
in another. Better programs (e.g., those with full macros and keyboard
re-assignment) often let you emulate the other programs' functionality to a
large extent; such is not the case with OrCAD.
> Compare that to the Cadence website where everything related to
> support is under lock and key with a password unless you have a support
> contract.
Did you mean Mentor? Mentor won't even let you access their web site
knowledge base for, e.g., PADS without a support contract. (I've mentioned
before that I really tend to think that PADS is somewhat like Oracle -- it's
really not that much better than the competition, but information about it is
purposely kept somewhat obscure so that there's an entire artificial industry
in training, support contracts, etc.)
> I rated Electronics Workbench v9, the Frankenstein of EDA packages,
> above Proteus and Eagle because EW is solidly in the professional
> class.
Just curious -- what *does't* Proteus do that you'd like it to? I've never
used it, but on paper it looks pretty good. I certainly don't downgrade a
package because it also happens to cater to hobbyists (e.g., printing out
drill hole targets for manual PCB fabrication, as you mention).
---Joel
Joel Kolstad
"Dax" <email_d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142437129.7...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> EasyPC is just the low-end hobbyist version of Pulsonix, isn't it?
Not really. My understanding is that EasyPC and Pulsonix started out as two
completely different codebases, different companies, different programmers.
At some point Pulsonix purchased EasyPC, development is now all done in the
same building, and therefore there's lots of sharing of bits of code between
the two. (Kinda like how PCAD started getting a lot of Protel features once
Protel purchased Altium.) Leon can surely provide more details...
It is surprising to me that EasyPC seems to have very little marketing (not
even its own web site!?)...
> Many hobbyist share their Project designs on the net in Eagle format.
> Yes, EasyPC is easier to use but Eagle is *free*.
EasyPC, even in its stripped down forms (e.g., the 1000 pin version) is still
spendy enough that you have a solid point. On the other hand, programs such
as RimuPCB are so cheap that I think they're still well within a hobbyist's
budget... and at least appear to still get you that "easier to use" feature.
---Joel
Leon
A friend of mine uses Proteus where I used to work. It's full of bugs,
but he manages to get round them and produce decent designs with a
great deal of work. Sometimes he even has to get the PCB supplier to
pre-process the Gerbers (expensive) , because he can't get it to
produce the right shapes. Support is non-existent from the UK supplier.
I tried using it once to modify a board while he was on holiday - just
altering a few vias and tracks was a nightmare.
They got Eagle for everyone else but I refused to use it, and they let
me use my own copy of Pulsonix after a big row with management. Doing
anything in Eagle required about twice as many keystrokes and mouse
operations as with Pulsonix, agravating my RSI problems. I got them to
give in on Health and Safety grounds. 8-) It also kept crashing on me.
One of the engineers who knew Eagle well spent two weeks laying out a
PCB, I could have done it in one day with Pulsonix.
Leon
Joel Kolstad
"Leon" <leon_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142444708.1...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> They got Eagle for everyone else but I refused to use it, and they let
> me use my own copy of Pulsonix after a big row with management. Doing
> anything in Eagle required about twice as many keystrokes and mouse
> operations as with Pulsonix, agravating my RSI problems.
So wouldn't you also like to see a Pulsonix option whereby "auto weld" worked
(1) when multiple components where being pasted and (2) for connecting pins to
the middle of nets (rather than just the ends or other component pins as it
does now)? :-) I spend a noticeable amount of time in Pulsonix copying and
pasting something and then drawing a bunch of short wire segments hooking
everything up; none of Protel, PCAD, and OrCAD require this.
Another nice time saver from OrCAD is "repeat paste" where it repeats the last
paste command at the offset between the original component and where you first
pasted it. Pulsonix does have the somewhat similar option to "copy matrix,"
but when you just need to repeat pasting a component some, say, 3-4 times it's
more effort to set up than just manually pasting.
---Joel
RST Engineering (jw)
mid-range and low-end packages are done in a country outside of the USA.
Eagle is German
Pulsonix & EZPC are UK
Rimu is NZ
Protel is OZ
I'm just curious why?
Jim
Joel Kolstad
news:2c2cc$44185c52$42512db5$17...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
> I'm just curious why?
It might have something to do with the labor market. Labor rates in the US
are quite high, so in a market where there isn't a whole lot of volume,
product prices end up high as well. It is surprising to me that in a country
like NZ -- which is a lot closer to China than the US is -- material goods
such as PCs, power tools, etc. cost noticeably more than in the US, yet labor
is a lot cheaper.
At this point, to some degree it's probably self-perpetuating... if you're in
the US and think you're going to write some EDA software, you're probably
immediately struck that your closest market (the US) is dominated by the
high-end, high-cost package, and that's very difficult to compete with. The
Internet has negated this to some extent, however.
Finally... there are a few low-end US vendors out there... or at least there
were! Ivex (Winboard) was US, no? And there's AMS down in Florida... I used
their software once, and it had some incredible limitations such as only
allowing 10 different pad shapes (!), but it did get the job done at the time
(a decade back -- these days freeware alternatives are far better).
DJ Delorie
"RST Engineering \(jw\)" <j...@rstengineering.com> writes:
> I hope I'm not being too parochial, but it seems that almost all of the
> mid-range and low-end packages are done in a country outside of the USA.
gEDA is done primarily in the USA.
Christian HOSTELET
"RST Engineering (jw)" <j...@rstengineering.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: 2c2cc$44185c52$42512db5$17...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
Why what?
Why those non-US citizens are able to design and produce some good pieces of
software without the help of the great USA?
Are you suggesting this is not a "normal" situation? If yes, please think
twice.
>
> Jim
--
Christian - Grenoble
RST Engineering (jw)
medium to low range software was not only written outside the US, but sold
from outside the US. The only exception that I know about was
Circuitmaker/Traxmaker in Utah, but they were bought and killed off by
Protel.
And AMS may have had an office in Florida, but I think I can safely assure
you that the real main office was not in Florida.
It just seemed odd, that's all. No offense intended.
Jim
"Christian HOSTELET" <christian.hos...@free.fr> wrote in message
news:441882d1$0$13011$626a...@news.free.fr...
Brad Velander
Ivex has moved around a lot, originally they were just a few miles away
from me in the Vancouver, B.C., area. Then I had heard that they moved to
the States. However if it must be known, the original software was
originally written and designed in India by an Indian Telecom company (a
state company?). I heard a rumor at one point that the owners of Ivex had
moved the progamming/development to Korea but I never confirmed that.
--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.
"Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad7...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:121gpa2...@corp.supernews.com...
> "RST Engineering (jw)" <j...@rstengineering.com> wrote in message
> news:2c2cc$44185c52$42512db5$17...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
>
Brad Velander
What about PADs, PCAD, OrCAD just to name a few? While these days it may
be hard to tell where they are actually programmed, I have heard rumors that
Cadence has shifted OrCAD support./maintanence to India. Altium may be doing
the PCAD development and support either from their San Diego digs or in Oz.
PADs, even back when they were their own company (US) , some modules were
being programmed in Russia and I believe some in Bulgaria by what I was told
by various insiders.
As for your question why? Economics 101, specialized programs with a
limited market to be done for a competive price point. And at that there are
probably more cracked/stolen versions around than paid for legal versions.
So Economics, economics, economics. Why are stereos made in Malaysia,
Thailand, India, China?
--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.
"RST Engineering (jw)" <j...@rstengineering.com> wrote in message
news:2c2cc$44185c52$42512db5$17...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
Paul Burke
> It is surprising to me that EasyPC seems to have very little marketing (not
> even its own web site!?)...
>
<http://www.numberone.com/index.asp>
Typically, the url doesn't even mention EasyPC.
>
> EasyPC, even in its stripped down forms (e.g., the 1000 pin version) is still
> spendy enough that you have a solid point.
They really are daft. They used to do a 98UKP version, which was at
least within hobbyist/ microbusiness range. They've dropped that. The
free demo version is utterly unusable, as it can't load or save. It's as
though they really don't want to sell it. Rather typically British I'm
afraid.
Paul Burke
Paul Burke
> I hope I'm not being too parochial, but it seems that almost all of the
> mid-range and low-end packages are done in a country outside of the USA.
>
Business culture, if you select Protel and it's no good, it's Protel's
fault, but if you select Eagle and it's no good, it's your fault?
The attitude that "you get what you pay for" stronger in the USA?
Tax regime?
Paul Burke
colin_...@yahoo.com
long time.
Do people have strong opinions on which of the budget packages produce
the highest quality actual pcb, bugs and bad user interfaces not
withstanding. I need 6 layers in total with good control over split
planes and DRC and I need it to look good! I only need to use it once
as if on the off chance I made any money out of it I would probably buy
ORCAD simply because I have used it a lot over the last ten years or
so.
Colin
DMBPr...@aol.com
hobbyist level boards. The problem they have is charge only a hundred
dollars or so for the product and have little or no money for support.
A good example is the AutoTRAX product from a one man operation in the
UK. You wouldn't risk a serious design to such a package.
Despite what the previous guy says, Easy-PC packs a big punch for the
money. Why should he be hung-up on there not being a free version or
that the Easy-PC website says Number One Systems....? If I search for
Windows, Excel, Powerpoint I get directed to a website that says
Microsoft.... If I seach for PADs I get directed to Mentor..... so
what's it got to do with being 'British'....?
OrCAD looks to be on the slippery slope. The schematics is still good
but the OrCAD layout product is from the stone age. It looks DOS to
me......! What little dev that remains is now coming from India - the
US OrCAD dev group is long gone. Cadence don't even sell it
nowadays..... all sales are through Distributors.
Prescott
JeffM
>
Terry Porter used to post links
to photos of his output from gschem / pcb / gEDA
but he has switched servers so often
that none of those links are still valid.
They looked good, apparantly he was making a good living,
and the cost of gEDA is ZERO.
I figure that choosing an ECAD is like selecting a car.
All posts in this thread should conclude with a YMMV.
.
.
>I need...good control over split planes
>
Ever done that before? Are you quite sure you want to?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_frm/thread/1656681d9bef69bd/9d104f8f54b69ee7?q=*-*-never-seen-split-grounds-work-well+save-a-plane-*-do-it-right+*-causes-*-as-many-problems-as-it-cures+Splitting-grounds-rarely-makes-sense+c-shaped-*-*+zzz+wrong-reason&fwc=1
The thread is indexed to specifics
(in Courier so you can see Ken Smith's diagram);
Larkin and Joerg give the overview near the beginning of the thread.
Joel Kolstad
news:47smpvF...@individual.net...
Ah, thanks. I was thinking Number One's web site was for a distributor
selling both Pulsonix and EasyPC, but I was clearly mistaken.
> It's as though they really don't want to sell it. Rather typically British
> I'm afraid.
Haha... :-)
DMBPr...@aol.com
to handle 6 layers for nothing.
You can buy good quality CAD for a reasonable amount nowadays so why
mess with a free product like gEDA?
In general, such products are created by enthusiasts for the use of
other enthusiasts. It's just like saying "I'm not going to use any
commercial level wordprocessing, spreadsheet, presentation, publishing
tools, only what I can get free on the internet". Yep, you will
undoubtedly find such products but would you find anyone who relies on
software tools for their livelihood wasting time with them........ No,
of course not.
Rule of thumb: if you're a hobbyist, a technofreak, and/or design small
and very simple two sided boards with just a few standard components
then give the freebes a try. If you're doing any kind of commercial
level boards of any size above small and simple then expect to pay at
least $500 and upwards for something decent and reliable.
Prescott
Paul Burke
> Look, common sense must tell you that you aren't going to get a product
> to handle 6 layers for nothing.
You can. It's called KiCAD, and it's similar to most low- end CADs. I
don't like its interface, but people who have tried it say it works well.
> In general, such products are created by enthusiasts for the use of
> other enthusiasts. It's just like saying "I'm not going to use any
> commercial level wordprocessing, spreadsheet, presentation, publishing
> tools, only what I can get free on the internet".
KiCAD was developed by academic programmers, hardly amateurs. You can
get full commercial grade wordprocessing, spreadsheet etc. totally free-
look up Open Office.
The free products are often as well, or better supported than the
equivalent commercial one. People may well be doing it for geekish fun
in many cases, but is a geek likely to make a worse job than a bored
hourly-paid programmer with a boss desperate to release product and a
support department concerned mainly with saving face?
Paul Burke
Ales Hvezda
> Look, common sense must tell you that you aren't going to get a product
> to handle 6 layers for nothing.
> You can buy good quality CAD for a reasonable amount nowadays so why
> mess with a free product like gEDA?
Because products like gEDA aren't just about being free (although
that is nice). They are about giving you _full_ control over your
design. Common sense says that commercial entities are
interested in making money (right?) so they will do as much as
possible to retain control over your designs that you created using
their product (that is, lock you into using their product exclusively)
and make it as hard as possible to use a competitor's product. I
like to control the software I use.
Here's a good list of reasons why somebody would want to use
gEDA (or any free software/OSS for that matter):
http://geda.seul.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=geda:faq#why_what_makes_geda_so_different_from_other_eda_tools
(sorry about the long link)
[snip]
> Rule of thumb: if you're a hobbyist, a technofreak, and/or design small
> and very simple two sided boards with just a few standard components
> then give the freebes a try. If you're doing any kind of commercial
> level boards of any size above small and simple then expect to pay at
> least $500 and upwards for something decent and reliable.
Here's a list of successful projects on the 'net (there are more out
there; I just haven't found them and some are commercial people
obviously do not post their designs ) that use gEDA:
http://geda.seul.org/links.html#projects
I would say that some of them are fairly non-trivial. It becoming
more and more evident that free software/OSS tools are capable
of being used to create complex designs.
-Ales
--
Ales Hvezda
ahvezda AT seul.org
http://geda.seul.org
DJ Delorie
DMBPr...@aol.com writes:
> Look, common sense must tell you that you aren't going to get a
> product to handle 6 layers for nothing.
PCB (part of the gEDA project) handles 8 layers by default, for no
cost. Minimum board size is, as I posted before, about a third of a
mile square in the development version (the latest released version is
"limited" to 32x32 inches, just for you convenience, you can change it
if you want). You can easily rebuild it for more layers if you need
to (I've built it for 50+ layers before). Did I mention it's no cost?
So, your common sense needs adjusting.
And if it doesn't happen to do what you want, you have options that
the commercial vendors can't offer you:
* You can change it yourself.
* You can get a friend to change it.
* You can pay a contractor (your choice!) to change it.
* You can pay (or bribe) one of the PCB developers to change it.
* You can ask nicely and someone may change it for you for fun.
* You can complain that it doesn't do what you like (ok, the
commercial vendors offer this one as well ;)
David Brown
> Look, common sense must tell you that you aren't going to get a product
> to handle 6 layers for nothing.
> You can buy good quality CAD for a reasonable amount nowadays so why
> mess with a free product like gEDA?
>
> In general, such products are created by enthusiasts for the use of
> other enthusiasts. It's just like saying "I'm not going to use any
> commercial level wordprocessing, spreadsheet, presentation, publishing
> tools, only what I can get free on the internet". Yep, you will
> undoubtedly find such products but would you find anyone who relies on
> software tools for their livelihood wasting time with them........ No,
> of course not.
>
Have you been hiding under a rock for the last ten years? There are a
number of reasons why free and open source software is popular, only one
of which is the cost. Assuming you are talking about desktop software
(since no one but a fully paid astroturfer would suggest free and open
source software is not suitable for server and infrastructure
applications), a steadily increasing proportion of users rely on more
and more free and open source software. Personally, I have not used
commercial "office" applications in a professional context since a brief
spell with Word 2 around 12 years ago. I specifically choose LaTeX for
documentation, because it is a far more professional and capable system
for technical writing than any commercial word processor. For simpler
documents I actively choose Open Office - leaving an unopened, unwanted
copy of Word lying on a shelf. For my programming work (my main job), I
choose to use free gcc ports rather than commercial toolkits whenever I
can. I do so because I get higher quality software, better control of
the software, and better control of the work produced using the
software. For some types of software I am even more extreme - in my
role as IT manager for our company, I dictate that Internet Explorer, a
popular commercial browser, is not to be used for security reasons,
while open source FireFox and free (but not open source) Opera are suitable.
EDA software is a special case. The market is much smaller than for,
say, a word processor, and writing EDA software is specialist work
requiring a lot of effort to develop. This has meant the rise of free
and open source EDA software has been a lot slower than in many other
areas. Software like KiCAD is fine for small or hobby projects, but
does not have the professional features for bigger projects. gEDA is
capable of large projects, but suffers badly from its appearance and
usability (or lack thereof). Quite frankly, the schematic and pcb
screenshots look like something from an early 1990's DOS program. I'm
sure it works well in use, but it's hardly going to attract new users
without a major facelift (and a native windows port - cross-platform
programming is not *that* hard, as long as you use toolkits like GTK or
wxWidgets rather than XAW). What the open source tools do have, though,
is open file formats - something that is sorely missed in this branch,
and a major source of vendor lock-in.
So if you want to say there are no open source EDA tools that are ready
for mainstream professional use, then I (unfortunately) have to agree.
But that's not because of problems with open source as such - it is lack
of money, time, motivation and direction that currently stops gEDA from
being a match for Protel, OrCAD, etc. In other software branches where
time, money, motivation and direction are available, then open source
software is often superior to any available commercial equivalent.
DMBPr...@aol.com
open source all the time do you...Mmmmm. Is this professionally or
personally...? If it's professionally can you divulge the name of your
company? Does it have a website? Can you tell me the number of staff,
revenues, etc...?
You went into a long attack on my logic then say:
"gEDA is capable of large projects, but suffers badly from its
appearance and
usability (or lack thereof). Quite frankly, the schematic and pcb
screenshots look like something from an early 1990's DOS program. I'm
sure it works well in use, but it's hardly going to attract new users
without a major facelift"
Would any sensible commercial enterprise want to save a few hundred
dollars by using something resembling an early 90's DOS product"...????
Prescott
DMBPr...@aol.com
on serious, mission critcal projects????
Prescott
DMBPr...@aol.com
right....???
You say "but people who have tried it (KiCAD) say it works well"....
what people...??
Tell us about the serious projects KiCAD has been used on..?? Can you
give me the size of boards, number of layers, level of technology,
value of projects...etc.
Prescott
Dave Boland
frustrated finding an EDA program that is:
* relatively easy to learn/use (I don't do cards very often)
* Can do a EuroCard sized card (4 in. by 6 in. I believe)
* 2 signal 2 power construction, 512 nodes
* Schematic capture and PCB design
* Low cost to free (for moderate use).
My review of various programs has found:
* Kicad -- can't be used on WinME, have not tried Linux (and
won't for now)
* FreePCB -- no schematic capture, but seems good otherwise.
* gEDA -- This group of well meaning people just don't have
a clue! Just read the most recent Circuit Cellar. An hour
to install on Linux! I don't think so. gEDA needs a
consistent interface from program to program, an installer
such as an open version of Wise, and a Windows version.
Most desktops are Windows, so why not a Windows version?? A
good user guide is also needed. This is a lot of work I
know (this is what I do for a living, so I fully get what is
involved), but is a requirement for gEDA to soar to the
heights that I believe it is capable of doing. I would
settle for a Knoppix CD with all of the gEDA programs and a
user guide. The user guide can be an updated version of the
articles in CC for a start.
* ExpressPCB -- propriety data format. Not acceptable!!
* Eagle -- Not the most user friendly program I have seen,
especially for a "professional" one. The free version is
very limited as well, but will do. This is what I'm using
until one of the ones above offer a better deal.
Dave,
David Brown
> I would like to jump in on this discussion. I have been frustrated
> finding an EDA program that is:
>
> * relatively easy to learn/use (I don't do cards very often)
> * Can do a EuroCard sized card (4 in. by 6 in. I believe)
> * 2 signal 2 power construction, 512 nodes
> * Schematic capture and PCB design
> * Low cost to free (for moderate use).
>
> My review of various programs has found:
>
> * Kicad -- can't be used on WinME, have not tried Linux (and won't for now)
>
You use WinME ?!? I didn't think anyone considered WinME a usable
system, even for the simplest home use. I don't normally like it when
people recommend upgrading your OS just to run a particular program, but
in the case of WinME, I'd make an exception. W2K or even XP is a much
better OS all round (assuming you want to remain with windows).
Incidentally, have you tried Kicad with WinME? I know the website says
W2K or XP, but it might run fine nonetheless. Certainly the main tools
and libraries (mingw and wxWidgets) are fine under at least Win98.
Dave Boland
> Dave Boland wrote:
>
>> I would like to jump in on this discussion. I have been frustrated
>> finding an EDA program that is:
>>
>> * relatively easy to learn/use (I don't do cards very often)
>> * Can do a EuroCard sized card (4 in. by 6 in. I believe)
>> * 2 signal 2 power construction, 512 nodes
>> * Schematic capture and PCB design
>> * Low cost to free (for moderate use).
>>
>> My review of various programs has found:
>>
>> * Kicad -- can't be used on WinME, have not tried Linux (and won't for
>> now)
>>
>
> You use WinME ?!?
Yes, and it works well. Even for developing large VB6
desktop applications with database and multiple RS-232 ports
going. Shock!
I didn't think anyone considered WinME a usable
> system, even for the simplest home use. I don't normally like it when
> people recommend upgrading your OS just to run a particular program, but
> in the case of WinME, I'd make an exception. W2K or even XP is a much
> better OS all round (assuming you want to remain with windows).
I've given billionaire Gates all of the money he is going to
get! My preference is for Linux once the desktop has as
good functionality as WinME (here comes the holy wars). I
want easy to use, consistent, etc. I know it can be done --
look at the Mac or Sun. I have used both and love them.
For a number of reasons the PC is a better choice for now,
and a Linux that works like a Mac or Sun would be great.
>
> Incidentally, have you tried Kicad with WinME?
Yes, and I get unicode and other errors. My guess is that
the developer uses WinXP. I found that doing development
this way to be a big mistake. Better to use the lowest
common denominator of O.S.'s and test with a higher level.
Takes less time, offers a wider audience.
David Brown
> No........ haven't been under any rocks old friend. Right, so you use
> open source all the time do you...Mmmmm. Is this professionally or
> personally...? If it's professionally can you divulge the name of your
> company? Does it have a website? Can you tell me the number of staff,
> revenues, etc...?
>
Newsgroup discussions like this are my own personal opinion, rather than
those of my employer, etc., etc. But my company knows what software I
use, and others here use lots of open source software.
I use a great deal of open source software professionally. So do most
serious computer users who go beyond the limits of word processor, web
browser and email. And everyone uses open source software behind the
scenes, whether they know it or not - the great majority of internet
infrastructure (mail routers, DNS servers, that sort of thing) is open
source software, as are a substantial proportion of other servers.
Apart from "standard" open source software such as FireFox, Thunderbird
and Open Office (which are to be found on many professionals' desktops),
I make a great deal of use of open source utility software (such as
cygwin), and I specifically choose open source tools for my embedded
systems programming when such tools are available (and of a solid
quality). If you want, I can go into detail as to why.
> You went into a long attack on my logic then say:
>
I didn't attack your logic - there was no logical argument but bold
statements such as "common sense must tell you..." and "anyone who
relies on software tools for the livelihood wasting time with them...
No, of course not".
> "gEDA is capable of large projects, but suffers badly from its
> appearance and
> usability (or lack thereof). Quite frankly, the schematic and pcb
> screenshots look like something from an early 1990's DOS program. I'm
> sure it works well in use, but it's hardly going to attract new users
> without a major facelift"
>
I don't disagree that gEDA or KiCAD is unlikely to be a sensible choice
for a professional EDA designer. There will be occasional situations
when such tools *are* the best for particular professionals, but not in
general. In the case of EDA tools, open source software is not (yet)
suitable for the mainstream.
What I strongly disagree with is your absurd claims that no open source
software is suitable for any professional use. I believe in using the
right tool for the right job, based on sensible decisions rather than
knee-jerk reactions and PHB logic (such as "if we haven't paid for it,
who do we sue when it stops working?"). That means using commercial
software or open source software (or commercial implementations of open
source software) as appropriate for the job.
> Would any sensible commercial enterprise want to save a few hundred
> dollars by using something resembling an early 90's DOS product"...????
>
You seem hung up on the idea of money. Open source means a great deal
more than just money. Professional users of Linux, for example, are
generally perfectly happy to pay hundreds of dollars for a solid Linux
distribution from Red Hat or Novel/SuSE. If gEDA were brought up to a
usable standard, they would have no problem selling CDs with basic
support contracts and documentation for a few hundred dollars. While
money is sometimes relevant (would I buy a compiler for $2000 when I can
get one for free? Only if the commercial one was very much better in
some way to justify the price), there are lots of other reasons for
choosing open source software.
Let me give you an example of the use of open source software in a
closely related field. If you use Altera's FPGA tools (or Xilinx's -
they have a virtually identical setup), you'll find that most of the
infrastructure of their tools is open source. They use open source
languages like TCL and Perl substantially, and include a cut-down cygwin
(posix layer for windows, along with a range of gnu and other open
source utilities) installation. If you use their soft processor
toolkit, it is based around Eclipse (an open source IDE), and the
compiler and debugger are ports of the standard open source gcc compiler
and gdb debugger.
> Prescott
>
By the way, if you want to use google groups for posting to usenet, it's
helpful if you quote properly. I know the google groups interface is
broken, but apparently the following works:
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>
DJ Delorie
David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes:
> gEDA is capable of large projects, but suffers badly from its
> appearance and usability (or lack thereof). Quite frankly, the
> schematic and pcb screenshots look like something from an early
> 1990's DOS program.
The PCB program in gEDA *is* 20 years old! But last year it got
upgraded to Gtk, and over the last few months I've been segregating
the GUI from the rest of the code, so we now support both Motif and
GTK, and ...
> I'm sure it works well in use, but it's hardly going to attract new
> users without a major facelift (and a native windows port -
> cross-platform programming is not *that* hard, as long as you use
> toolkits like GTK or wxWidgets rather than XAW).
... PCB's new API should easily support a native Windows and/or MacOS
GUI. I think someone's already working on wxWidgets too.
> So if you want to say there are no open source EDA tools that are
> ready for mainstream professional use, then I (unfortunately) have
> to agree.
I don't think gEDA is trying to compete with the big commercial
packages. I think we're trying to compete with the small and medium
commercial packages.
> But that's not because of problems with open source as such - it is
> lack of money, time, motivation and direction that currently stops
> gEDA from being a match for Protel, OrCAD, etc.
Money and time, yes - I fully agree! But I have plenty of motivation,
and lots of people are providing direction, no problems there.
And we're certainly open to offers for contracting work on gEDA, if
someone wants to provide the money so we can afford to spend more time
on it. How much does it cost to have Orcad add a custom feature for
you?
Joel Kolstad
news:1142596197....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Look, common sense must tell you that you aren't going to get a product
> to handle 6 layers for nothing.
Does "common sense" tell you that you can't get an operating system for
nothing? gEDA is still in what I'd call its early stages, but it shows plenty
of promise and will -- hopefully -- eventually end up being as good a CAD tool
as Linux is an operating system. That being said, while I think Linux is
good, I also think that Windows is decent -- and worth the purchase price --
as well. Similarly, even when gEDA is a little more full-featured, that
doesn't mean that commercial offerings won't be worth the money.
> In general, such products are created by enthusiasts for the use of
> other enthusiasts. It's just like saying "I'm not going to use any
> commercial level wordprocessing, spreadsheet, presentation, publishing
> tools, only what I can get free on the internet".
Uhh... you know about Open Office, right? It's not 100% compatible with
Microsoft Office (in particular it doesn't support Visual BASIC scripting and
the other forms of "automation" the office suite does), but for at least 90%
of all Office users I'd defy you to find something Open Office doesn't do
equally well (including opening and saving Office format files).
For that matter -- although it's something of a dying package -- TeX, LaTeX,
etc. are considered by some as superior document preparation systems to the
likes of Word, and these days most implementations are free or almost free.
---Joel
DJ Delorie
Dave Boland <NODARNSPA...@stny.rr.com> writes:
> * gEDA -- This group of well meaning people just don't have a clue!
Please specify which clues we're missing. Saying it's bad is not
constructive criticism, it's just criticism. Point out how we can
make it better, and we'll add your suggestions to the list (we know
about the ones below already). Please make sure you're using the
latest version first, though.
> Just read the most recent Circuit Cellar.
That article was written a year ago, and a *lot* has changed in the
software since then.
> An hour to install on Linux! I don't think so.
That's because the CD-ROMs have sources on them, not binaries, to
avoid incompatibilities with your OS.
> and a Windows version.
I think you can get them to work with Cygwin, but yeah, we know about
that requirement.
> A good user guide is also needed.
I could say that about a lot of commercial packages, too ;-)
> I would settle for a Knoppix CD with all of the gEDA programs and a
> user guide.
I think someone's mentioned a LiveCD with gEDA on it, on our mailing
lists.
Joel Kolstad
"Dave Boland" <NODARNSPA...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:eGASf.9462$Da7....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> * Kicad -- can't be used on WinME, have not tried Linux (and won't for now)
Does this imply you're running WinME? I'd suggest it's *really* worth the
money to pick up a used copy of Windows 2000 on eBay or similar and install it
on your PC. :-)
> * gEDA -- This group of well meaning people just don't have a clue! Just
> read the most recent Circuit Cellar. An hour to install on Linux!
Kinda reminiscent of the early days of Linux, no? :-)
> * ExpressPCB -- propriety data format. Not acceptable!!
I understand your frustation here, although it's not a show-stopper for me.
(I used it once while working at Tektronix. Our group used it for
non-critical test/prototype boards! They had enough bueaurcracy around and
the "official" PCB layout department with their very $$$ tools took a dim view
of engineerings wanting to layout their own boards -- even though going
through the layout department usually have severe schedule impacts, i.e., a
month to layout a 4"x6" double sided board.) My feeling was that ExpressPCB
is targeted towards pretty simply boards anyway, so worst case having to
re-enter the design into a better package was probably no more than a couple
days work.
---Joel
Joel Kolstad
"Dave Boland" <NODARNSPA...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3xBSf.3684$Mj....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> I've given billionaire Gates all of the money he is going to get! My
> preference is for Linux once the desktop has as good functionality as WinME
> (here comes the holy wars). I want easy to use, consistent, etc.
I want to be able to click on "setup.exe" and actually have the equivalent of
start menu icons appears regardless of whether I'm running KDE, Gnome, or
whatever else.
Given the development model of Linux, I don't expect there'll ever be just one
desktop (as there is in 99% of cases for Windows, Macs, and Suns -- there
actually are a few people hardcore enough to run alternative Windows desktops
out there, but there of course are compatible with the Windows Explorer in
terms of picking up the menus and icons from the right places) -- and that's
certainly a good thing. Still, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that
all those guys get together to agree on a few more standards.
> Yes, and I get unicode and other errors. My guess is that the developer
> uses WinXP. I found that doing development this way to be a big mistake.
> Better to use the lowest common denominator of O.S.'s and test with a higher
> level.
I hate to tell you this, but in 2006 it's a reasonable expection that Windows
2000 is the "lowest common denominator." Yes, I know, plenty of people still
use Windows 98 or 95 (or even DOS!), but as far as new development goes, you
just can't expect people to be writing software for anything over 6 years old,
IMO.
---Joel
Joel Kolstad
"DJ Delorie" <d...@delorie.com> wrote in message
news:xnbqw56...@delorie.com...
> And if it doesn't happen to do what you want, you have options that
> the commercial vendors can't offer you:
> * You can change it yourself.
...etc...
I'd just point out that -- while you certainly have a point -- better EDA
tools that have keyboard re-mapping and automation features (e.g., a good
macro language) can go a long way towards providing any new "feature" you want
anyway, and yet you still retain compatibility with everyone else who's
running the tool. Realistically you can't expect that anyone running gEDA
will have any changes you've implemented other than those that were officially
accepted into the "main line" distribution; as such configuration files and
external (script/macro) interfaces can be much more "portable."
Joel Kolstad
news:441a...@news.wineasy.se...
> DMBPr...@aol.com wrote:
> For some types of software I am even more extreme - in my role as IT manager
> for our company, I dictate that Internet Explorer, a popular commercial
> browser, is not to be used for security reasons, while open source FireFox
> and free (but not open source) Opera are suitable.
Let me guess... you'd ban Windows altogether "for security reasons" if you
could? :-) I think your position is a little extreme -- with a decent network
firewalling and automatic security patching, I'd guesstimate about 99% of
security problems are with the end users (people consciously agreeing to &
running a download, for instance) and not the software itself. I don't know
what kind of company your the IT manager of, but in a company of
engineering-level employees, it's downright insulting to try to dictate what
web browser they might use. And of course many software companies require
Internet Explorer to test their own products, since that's what their own
customers will be using.
> What the open source tools do have, though, is open file formats - something
> that is sorely missed in this branch, and a major source of vendor lock-in.
What, you don't like EDIF? :-)
DJ Delorie
"Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad7...@yahoo.com> writes:
> I'd just point out that -- while you certainly have a point --
> better EDA tools that have keyboard re-mapping and automation
> features (e.g., a good macro language) can go a long way towards
> providing any new "feature" you want anyway, and yet you still
> retain compatibility with everyone else who's running the tool.
PCB (well, the Xaw and Motif versions) has keyboard remapping, user
definable menus, and limited scriptability already. I'm planning on
letting you script mouse buttons too. I don't know if the Gtk folks
will add that to their GUI.
The new API we're just finishing up offers a standard way to add
modules to the core, without worrying too much about compatibility.
Such modules at the moment are limited to GUI and export (print,
gerber, png, etc), but there's no reason why we couldn't support
import and "wizard" modules too.
Ok, now I'm thinking we could add dynamic linking support, and let you
have your module as a .so or .dll. Sigh, more work to do.
I suppose you could add a script interpreter as a module, too.
> Realistically you can't expect that anyone running gEDA will have
> any changes you've implemented other than those that were officially
> accepted into the "main line" distribution; as such configuration
> files and external (script/macro) interfaces can be much more
> "portable."
I would hope that people who need changes bad enough to fund them,
would help themselves and everyone else by getting their new features
added to the official code set. That's how most of the features that
are there got there.
But my point is you *can* choose that option. A more realistic option
is to pay the gEDA developers to add what you want to the official
sources, then you have it forever and don't have to worry about
compatibility.
Stuart Brorson
Oh my! Another open-source EDA flamefest of sci.electronics.cad!
Dax's comments are very interesting, and he seems well informed
regarding commerical offerings. On the other hand, the open-source
discussion is giving me a feeling of deja vu.
I'll make a couple of points and then disappear again.
* Don Prescott says:
> Right......... gimmee the names of some well known companies using
> gEDA on serious, mission critcal projects????
Don apparently has a memory loss problem since he asked *exactly* this
question last year on s.e.c. Here's the thread:
The point made to Don then (and now) is that this business about
"mission critical projects" is a red herring. (Remember, Don?) GEDA
competes against low to mid level EDA packages. Nobody uses low- to
mid-level EDA packages for "mission critical" projects. That is,
nobody will use circuitmaker, pulsonix, ExpressPCB, Eagle, Kicad, or
gEDA for a 20 layer router board with 622MBps busses requiring
matched-length tracks & 2.5Gbps diff pairs to an optical transceiver.
If you're worried about "mission critical" stuff, then fork out your
$20000 and use Allegro.
On the other hand, if you need to bang out a 4 layer test board in a
hurry, then give gEDA a try. Or if you're a student, hobbiest,
independent consultant, or professional engineer who needs to do a
reasonably simple board in a hurry, it's worth it to try the
open-source alternative. You can easily do a 6 or 8 layer board with
a couple of hundred components.
Yes, gEDA lacks a couple of features (such as backanno from PCB to
gschem), but this is well known and documented in the gEDA FAQ:
http://geda.seul.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=geda:faq
Open-source stuff is completely open about it's features and
drawbacks. Is commerical software?
* Dave Boland says:
> If gEDA were brought up to a
> usable standard, they would have no problem ...
Folks often assert that gEDA (or other open-source software) is
"difficult to use". This is a naked assertion made without any
support; unfortunately, it creates the same effect amongst uninformed
potential users as intentional, vendor-created FUD. Dave, can you
please call out specific problems in gEDA holding it below a "usable
standard"? I am particularly interested in hearing about stuff you
notice while trying to use gEDA. If you haven't actually used it,
then let us know.
> gEDA needs a consistent interface from program to program
GEDA is a collection of programs written by a confederacy of different
programmers who have banded together to create a suite of tools useful
to everybody. There are certainly UI differences between the
different tools. OTOH, at the level of file formats and design
compatibility, the design flow in gEDA is pretty seamless. No Perl
duct tape is needed anywhere. This isn't true of lots of ASIC flows,
but nobody every complains. Think about how different all the Xilinx
FPGA tools are (when run from the command line)! Why do people beef
about gEDA, but ignore Xilinx? Answer: the complainers don't have that
much experience with EDA tools. Just MHO.
Here in New England, the most common board flow (in my experience,
anyway) seems to be Viewdraw -> Allegro or Viewdraw -> PADS. In both
cases, there is a large difference in the UI experience between the
two programs. Like gEDA, the schematic capture program was developed
by a different group from the layout editor. However, Viewdraw can
export flawless Allegro and PADS netlists, and nobody every asserts
that this UI difference is a problem. The same is true of gschem,
which can export over 20 different netlist formats. Maybe 5 or
thereabouts are layout netlists -- for open-source as well as for
commercial (e.g. Protel) tools.
This topic is discussed at greater length in the FAQ linked above.
> An hour to install on Linux! I don't think so.
As DJ pointed out, this is (average) time required for the install
wizard to run from begin to completion. The install wizard simply
automates the process of compiling the software from source. You
don't need to be there while the wizard is doing its thing; it runs
itself, unlike a Windows install wizard.
Installing the software from source was chosen for the CD distribution
since it eliminates many of the dependency problems associated with
installing binaries onto unknown systems. It is also consistent with
the GNU/open-source philosophy. If you want to install binaries, the
following package types are also available on the gEDA website: Red
Hat RPM, Debian DEB, and Mac Fink. Check them out here:
http://geda.seul.org/download.html
BSD packages are also available elsehwere.
> and a Windows version.
This is an interesting one. It is certainly true that there is no
good Windows version of gEDA. There are (at least) two reasons for
this:
1. Nobody has stepped up to the plate to make this happen. Most of
the gEDA developers are Linux geeks, and they are not very interested
in producing a Windows port. "If you want to use gEDA, get a Linux
box" is the reigning philosophy. If a new developer does a Windows
port, he will be welcomed into the fold.
2. Some current gEDA developers also feel that a Windows version
would open the floodgates to totally clueless newbies, who would then
flood the e-mail discussion lists with dumb questions and support
requests. GEDA is created by volunteer developers; they don't want to
spend 10 hours/day holding the hands of idiotic and ungrateful
newbies. If you want an example of what can happen to a totally-open
EDA project running on Windows, read some of the idiocy posted to the
LTSpice Yahoo group, or read the constant begging for free cores on
the OpenCores development lists.
> A good user guide is also needed.
That's what the two articles in Circuit Cellar (March & April 2006)
are about. There is also a lot of documentation on the web site,
including official docs, tutorials, and an ever-expanding, wiki-based
FAQ. See it all here:
http://geda.seul.org/docs/index.html
GEDA is not difficult to use if you have some passing familiarity with
EDA programs, or you take the time to read the docs. (Unbelieveably,
we have seen total newbies try it without doing any reading, or having
ever run any other CAD software before. That individual whined a lot
on the e-mail list, but apparently got his project done.) Nor does it
look like a DOS program. (What prompted that assertion?)
GEDA is available for free download and has been used (by me, for
example) both at my day job as well as at home for my own projects.
Unlike e.g. Eagle, the stuff you download for free is full-featured --
there is no crippled version of gEDA. I suggest that interested folks
download it for themselves and try it out -- warts and all -- rather
than believe FUD spread around on usenet.
Stuart
JeffM
>>I would settle for a Knoppix CD
>>with all of the gEDA programs and a user guide.
>
>I think someone's mentioned a LiveCD with gEDA on it,
>on our mailing lists.
I appreciate the
*steering business toward Redmond is evil* mindset
(or whatever makes a Windows port less attractive to developers).
The big hurdle you guys have to jump is getting folks to install Linux.
ISTM, a bootable Knoppix-like release of gEDA
would push things in that direction.
People who already use Seamonkey (or Firefox/Thunderbird/Nvu),
OpenOffice.org, mplayer / VideoLAN Client, the GIMP, gcc, GAIM, etc.
under Windoze would get used to yet 1 more piece of utilitarian
software
and maybe that would further convince them
that OS migration isn't going to be that big a deal anyway
as far as lack of apps.
I'm hoping you guys give this notion more than a passing glance.
John Doty
> ::gEDA needs...and a Windows version.
>
>>>I would settle for a Knoppix CD
>>>with all of the gEDA programs and a user guide.
>>>Dave Boland
>>
>>I think someone's mentioned a LiveCD with gEDA on it,
>>on our mailing lists.
>>DJ Delorie
>
>
> I appreciate the
> *steering business toward Redmond is evil* mindset
> (or whatever makes a Windows port less attractive to developers).
I don't think that's the issue. As a gEDA user I've gotten to know the
developers (even gone out to dinner with some), and as far as I can tell
they just aren't Windows developers. Personally, I use MacOSX on a
PowerBook for portability and Linux on midrange commodity hardware for
heavy lifting: gEDA works well in both those environments (needs Fink on
MacOSX), so it suits me very well. gEDA's modular toolkit approach suits
me well also: my customers want netlists and schematics (they have other
contractors they use for board or chip design).
Somebody *did* port gEDA to Windows a few years ago, but nobody
maintained the port. If the Windows EDA community wants gEDA, somebody
has to step forward and do the work.
---
John Doty, Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
---
His diagnosis of the hostility ... reflects the willful blindness of the
invader who assures himself that the natives are only made unfriendly by
some other provocation than his own. -Barbara W. Tuchman
DJ Delorie
"JeffM" <jef...@email.com> writes:
> I appreciate the *steering business toward Redmond is evil* mindset
I won't speak for the others here, but my opinion is that open source
software on proprietary platforms acts as a lever to convince more
people to consider open source software in general, and specifically
to consider OSS alternatives to their existing applications.
Thus, the goal still isn't to steer business *towards* Redmond, but to
convince people (by example) to steer away from it. A program that
*only* works on Windows would steer business to Redmond. A program
that's available on multiple platforms lets the user choose the OS if
they can, yet still use OSS applications if they can't.
A Windows user who prefers Firefox to IE, may choose gEDA over Eagle
as a "first try" because of a bias towards OSS from Firefox.
Eventually, they may choose to replace Windows with, say, Linux,
assuming it's going to be better for them like all the other OSS apps
they use. Etc.
Of course, this assumes that (1) they *can* use the applications on
their OS, and (2) they find them to be as usable (for less cost), or
better than proprietary alternatives.
So, I have no personal opposition to Windows (heck, I wrote DJGPP,
remember?), I just don't happen to use it. If I were to develop any
Windows apps these days, I'd have to install a MinGW cross compiler
and Wine.
Gary Crowell / VCP
ACCEL-PCAD V13, and Tango was mixed in there sometime. Was it Tango that was orphaned, or did Tango
become PCAD?
Anyway now its V18, Altium PCAD 2004. The 2004 version (which really didn't come out 'til early
2005) has been pretty well maintained and they say there will be a 2006 release. It continues to
suffer from rumors that it will be merged into Protel (Altium Designer DXP, whatever).
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:31:13 GMT, "Brad Velander" <bve...@SpamThis.com> wrote:
>Joel,
> ACCEL was bought by Protel/Altium along with it's bigger brother PCAD in
>2000. Shortly after the Altium purchase all ACCEL users were either orphaned
>or upgraded to PCAD. ACCEL no longer exists unless you are still running a
>pre-Altium version (version 15 if I remember correctly). It was a pretty
>respectable package in it's day, somewhat simpler than PCAD and limited in
>layers/nets/parts when compared to it's big brother but in it's day it met a
>price/performance point that was quite good and very suitable for a lot of
>small - medium companies.
>
>Sincerely,
>Brad Velander.
Randall Nortman
> Right......... gimmee the names of some well known companies using gEDA
> on serious, mission critcal projects????
I suppose that "well known" is a bit subjective -- the startup I'm
involved in is quite well known to myself and my associates, but I'm
sure that's not what you meant. But what does it matter if we are
well known or not? The projects I've used gEDA on are more than
mission critical -- they are business critical; i.e., if any of these
projects were to go badly, the entire company would pretty much
immediately be out of business. (Such is life in a startup. Second
chances are rare.) And I've got several years of my life invested in
this venture, so this is not something I take lightly. Despite this
fact, I never seriously considered using anything other than gEDA/pcb.
Yes, there is a steep learning curve, but there's a reward at the top
of that hill.
The roughest part of gEDA in my experience has been pcb, the board
layout component, but it has been progressing in leaps and bounds
recently, thanks to the efforts of the developers. Gone is the old
klunky Xaw GUI, replaced by a new HID architecture that allows different
UIs to be plugged into the core engine, plus a shiny new GUI based on
GTK+.
In short, gEDA works for me, and it works well. It runs on my
platform of choice, it is stable, it has all the features I need, the
file formats are open and easy to manipulate in a text editor or with
custom scripts, the price is right, and, most importantly, I know I'll
never be at the mercy of the vendor. One thing gEDA does not do very
well is hold your hand, but there are a number of tutorials out there
that walk you through all the basics. With a little patience (and I
do mean a little), you can put all the pieces together yourself. And
it's getting easier every day, it seems.
So to answer your challenge -- have you ever bothered to actually
learn to use gEDA? Ever designed a board with it? Is there something
in particular it can't do that you really need?
--
Randall
Brad Velander
Was Tango not ACCEL? I don't recall the particulars but I believe that
some called the tool Tango while others just called it ACCEL. One of those
confused identity products that I believe had somehow grown or evolved from
Tango but some people wouldn't let go of the old name.
--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.
"Gary Crowell / VCP" <v...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:g9hn12lepcaj6j81c...@4ax.com...
Dax
>circuitmaker, pulsonix, ExpressPCB, Eagle, Kicad, or
>gEDA for a 20 layer router board with 622MBps busses requiring
>matched-length tracks & 2.5Gbps diff pairs to an optical transceiver.
This is a true statement but please, don't lump Pulsonix in with the
rest of the toy software. It is fully a professional-level product and
doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath.
Someone mentioned Accel EDA v14. I found a copy of this on the eDonkey
network and installed it. Splash page shows a copyright of 1998. Wow,
this was some package for 1998! I'm impressed. This copy had the help
and libraries ripped out but another download claims to be a full
install including a tightly integrated SPECCTRA. I'll download that and
give it a spin and maybe update the thread.
Cadstar is at v8 now and it looks to be a peer with PADS as far as
high-speed, SI features. There's a copy of v8 and v7 on eDonkey and
I'll have a look-see what it's all about.
Worst PCB package I've ever seen is WinBoard/WinDraft from IVEX. Bugs
galore, serious ones and annoying ones, that never got fixed or grew
worse. When I saw IVEX finally shut its doors a couple of years ago, I
thought, "good riddance!"
The only problem with Pulsonix is the owner doesn't market his product
worth a crap. This tends to happen when an engineer-type (which I am,
no offense intended) runs the show, in my experience. Whenever I've
mentioned Pulsonix to some very knowledgeable people, their eyes squint
and they say "Pulsonix?" The website looks OK but DIY. Screen shots are
fewer now that they were in v3. And default white background for the
layout tool? Give me a break. How about a selection of color presets to
remind a user of Protel or Orcad Capture? How much work would it
friggin take? Just have an intern or high school kid do it. Nice
product that continues to improve...too bad.
Brad Velander
Yes I had used ACCEL version 14, however my recollection is that V.14
had a number of weaknesses that were addressed in v.15. All I can remember
about is that I was quite pleased with the v.15 improvements and was looking
forward to future versions if they kept on path.
Your comments about it being some package, remember this was most
closely a limited/junior version of PCAD. Yes it was a pretty good package,
I am sure there are those who may disagree but that is mostly personal
preferences and what they like/are used to. If I recall correctly, creating
SCH library parts was not too intuitive, rather complicated and took a bit
of getting used to so that you could properly configure parts for gate or
pin swapping. I was sorry to hear that Altium was discontinuing it after
they bought PCAD and ACCEL, although it made sense business wise because it
could have been too much competition for their Protel tools. By that time i
had moved on to another company and wasn't using ACCEL any longer.
If you find ver. 15, it had a very neat tool for documenting your
design. You could take a snapshot of your PCB, place it within the database,
select layers, change zoom levels, mirror, flip, rotate, etc.. Then you
could do say a PCB assembly print with this snapshot window showing you a
detail view zoomed up, mirrored, flipped, rotated, to clearly show some
complicated or finely detailed area. The best thing is that if you changed
the board, the snapshot was live, it was updated to reflect the real board
changes. No need to redo the snapshot just because you editted the PCB since
creating the initial snapshot.
While I have had my differences with Leon on this group, I have to agree
with you 100%. Pulsonix is seemingly suffering from lack of exposure. They
do not seem to advertise in the industries #1 trade magazine PCD&M and as
far as I know they have never made the trip to the PCB West Design
Conference (PCB East Conference have no idea?). Both of those sources would
do marvels for their marketing if the product is even half as good as some
claim. Name any another source that is specifically marketed straight to PCB
designers. The only other one would be IPC Route magazine directed at
Designer council membership but I don't believe they take paid advertising.
If they sold enough to proffessional PCB designers then they might have
enough money to do some real significant development and grab market share
because there is a shortage of offerings in the lower - mid end of the
tools.
Now that said, if you haven't realized Pulsonix is not a hobbyist or
non-proffessional tool. Pulsonix is a low-end to medium level proffessional
tool, afterall it starts at approx. $2000 US and goes to over $10K with
additional modules and unlimited database elements (pins and layers).
--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.
"Dax" <email_d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142749109.3...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Someone mentioned Accel EDA v14. I found a copy of this on the eDonkey
> network and installed it. Splash page shows a copyright of 1998. Wow,
> this was some package for 1998! I'm impressed. This copy had the help
> and libraries ripped out but another download claims to be a full
> install including a tightly integrated SPECCTRA. I'll download that and
> give it a spin and maybe update the thread.
>
Leon
Joel Kolstad wrote:
[deleted]
>
> Just curious -- what *does't* Proteus do that you'd like it to? I've never
> used it, but on paper it looks pretty good. I certainly don't downgrade a
> package because it also happens to cater to hobbyists (e.g., printing out
> drill hole targets for manual PCB fabrication, as you mention).
>
Pulsonix has a drill hole option - very useful as I often make
prototype boards at home. Of course, I sometimes forget and one or two
PCB suppliers object to them: Olimex emails a cryptic "No donuts"!
PCB-Pool just ignores them.
Leon
Leon
Pulsonix sales are handled through distributors in various countries,
who also provide support. It's a very configurable package. For
instance: the background can be any colour one wants and individual
nets can have their own colours. There is a colour setting that allows
R, G, B, hue, saturation and luminosity to be selected for various
features.
Leon
kai-martin knaak
> There is a colour setting that allows R, G, B, hue,
> saturation and luminosity to be selected for various features.
This is the job of the default color selection box of the widget set
used. I'd be more impressed, if the transparency of objects could be
configured.
---<(kaimartin)>---
--
Kai-Martin Knaak
http://lilalaser.dyndns.org/blog
Lukas Louw
> Yes I had used ACCEL version 14, however my recollection is that V.14
> had a number of weaknesses that were addressed in v.15. All I can remember
> about is that I was quite pleased with the v.15 improvements and was
> looking forward to future versions if they kept on path.
>
> Your comments about it being some package, remember this was most
> closely a limited/junior version of PCAD. Yes it was a pretty good
> package, I am sure there are those who may disagree but that is mostly
> personal preferences and what they like/are used to. If I recall
> correctly, creating SCH library parts was not too intuitive, rather
> complicated and took a bit of getting used to so that you could properly
> configure parts for gate or pin swapping. I was sorry to hear that Altium
> was discontinuing it after they bought PCAD and ACCEL, although it made
> sense business wise because it could have been too much competition for
> their Protel tools. By that time i had moved on to another company and
> wasn't using ACCEL any longer.
Some snipping......
PCAD is alive and well, PCAD2004 (Version 18 in Accel speak) is the current
version, and PCAD2006 will supposedly ship later this year.
I moderate the user group at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PCAD-EDA/
Lukas
Gary Crowell / VCP
I don't know anything that transpired between '91-'98, I was never familiar with the Tango product.
I've always assumed that Tango evolved into Windows PCAD because the old PCAD was DOS. No idea
where the name ACCEL came from.
The Windows PCAD was noticably less powerful than the older DOS version, but it has gotten better.
Oh, and come to think of it, ACCEL PCAD was at V12 (not 13) when I started with it in '98.
Gary
Dax
Here's the splash from ACCEL EDA P-CAD PCB v14.00.46. I guess it's your
memory vs. this OEM bitmap.
http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/6219/accelv140kp.jpg
Accel EDA v15 is just another name for the P-CAD 2000 product, is it
not?
**************************************************************************************
Accel EDA v14
P-CAD 2000 (v15)
P-CAD 2001 (v16)
P-CAD 2002 (v17)
P-CAD 2004 (v18)
Brad Velander
I was strictly speaking of ACCEL (which is what it says on the box in
big letters, actually ACCEL EDA to be absolutely complete), which was
discontinued in approx. March-May of 2000. About 4 months after Altium
bought ACCEL Technologies.
--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.
"Lukas Louw" <lo...@att.net> wrote in message
news:qleTf.8205$bn3....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Brad Velander
My memory is not that faulty. I was responsible for the software,
maintenance, use, standards, upgrades, internal support and library
management. Not likely I would forget that it was actually PCAD.
It was a very separate program that just shared some common code with
the real PCAD. It has nowhere near the capabilities of PCAD in terms of
layers and high end PCB design concerns. Thus I will sometimes describe it
as a PCAD Jr.. Simple test, how many PCB copper layers can your downloaded
ACCEL software handle, PCAD was greater than 20 layers (I don't recall the
precise number). I believe that ACCEL EDA is limited to no more than 8 or 10
layers and 6 seems to be ringing a bell somewhere in my head.
Jeesh, just do a web search for ACCEL EDA or ACCEL Technologies. You
will see that there was both ACCEL EDA and PCAD as separate tools.
--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.
"Dax" <email_d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142787872.3...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Lukas Louw
> My memory is not that faulty. I was responsible for the software,
> maintenance, use, standards, upgrades, internal support and library
> management. Not likely I would forget that it was actually PCAD.
>
> It was a very separate program that just shared some common code with
> the real PCAD. It has nowhere near the capabilities of PCAD in terms of
> layers and high end PCB design concerns. Thus I will sometimes describe it
> as a PCAD Jr.. Simple test, how many PCB copper layers can your downloaded
> ACCEL software handle, PCAD was greater than 20 layers (I don't recall the
> precise number). I believe that ACCEL EDA is limited to no more than 8 or
> 10 layers and 6 seems to be ringing a bell somewhere in my head.
>
> Jeesh, just do a web search for ACCEL EDA or ACCEL Technologies. You
> will see that there was both ACCEL EDA and PCAD as separate tools.
>
> --
> Sincerely,
> Brad Velander.
Hi Brad,
There is admittedly some confusion about the old Accel software naming
conventions:)
In the pre-Protel/Altium days, Accel Technologies had one product, but it
was known as Accel EDA, with 2 versions. The full unlimited version was
called PCAD, a Windows app, not to be confused with the old DOS Master
Designer PCAD. The limited version, with fewer signal layers, a 400
component limitation, and some other feature limitations, most notably only
one copper pour allowed, was called Tango, not to be confused with the
original DOS Tango. The 2 versions shared the same GUI, identical database
structures, etc.
After Protel, now Altium, bought out Accel Technologies, the product is now
called PCAD200X, this decade anyways, also with 2 versions, full unlimited
and a 2nd, cheaper one with layer and component limitations, no other
features compromised.
Confused yet?
Lukas
Andy Peters
> Never doubted it Lukas,
> I was strictly speaking of ACCEL (which is what it says on the box in
> big letters, actually ACCEL EDA to be absolutely complete), which was
> discontinued in approx. March-May of 2000. About 4 months after Altium
> bought ACCEL Technologies.
The tool currently called PCAD is really Accel with newer features. I
remember the switch from Accel to PCAD was pretty seamless.
-a
Joel Kolstad
"Leon" <leon....@bulldoghome.com> wrote in message
news:1142767896.1...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Pulsonix has a drill hole option - very useful as I often make
> prototype boards at home. Of course, I sometimes forget and one or two
> PCB suppliers object to them: Olimex emails a cryptic "No donuts"!
> PCB-Pool just ignores them.
Advanced Circuit's "freedfm.com" site tends to generate many spurious error
messages with the drill holes drawn (i.e., donuts are drawn). Their
suggestion to avoid this is to just avoid drawing them, so they ignore them as
well (when you go to fab).
Brad Velander
Seems like you know exactly what I am talking about if you also did the
change to PCAD. Was that back in early 2000, like I reported about my old
mates? Yes I would imagine the switch was pretty seemless since I had always
considered ACCEL EDA just a junior/limited version of PCAD.
From what you are now saying, maybe Altium was forced to reconsider the
orphaning of the ACCEL users and reversed it's decision but not until after
they had already convinced my former work mates to upgrade to the full PCAD.
--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.
"Andy Peters" <Bassm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142879026....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Brad Velander
See my comments interspersed.
"Lukas Louw" <lo...@att.net> wrote in message
news:ZawTf.592420$qk4.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>The limited version, with fewer signal layers, a 400 component limitation,
>and some other feature limitations, most notably only one copper pour
>allowed, was called Tango, not to be confused with the original DOS Tango.
>The 2 versions shared the same GUI, identical database structures, etc.
Yes, yes, everything you say is bang on with my memory except for the name.
Don't recall the one copper pour limit, could have been but I would think I
would have remembered that because personally I love copper pours, can't do
without them. Maybe one per layer? Hold it I have a couple of old boards,
let me look. Damn, no external pours but there is at least one internal
layer with at least pours, can't see anything else internally so maybe there
is only one pour and the othewr internals were planes.
>
> After Protel, now Altium, bought out Accel Technologies, the product is
> now called PCAD200X, this decade anyways, also with 2 versions, full
> unlimited and a 2nd, cheaper one with layer and component limitations, no
> other features compromised.
>
> Confused yet?
>
> Lukas
Well your last question is very appropriate. Yes I am confused because
my old mates told me that they were forced to update to the full unlimited
PCAD or face being orphaned. That came directly from the fellow that took
over all responsiblities for the software when I left the company. As I
mentioned in the other response to Andy, maybe Altium eventually was forced
to reconsider orphaning the ACCEL product but not until after my old mates
had already dove into the deep end and upgraded?
Except that at the time I had no confusion with all of the licensing
documentation nor technical support who all referenced ACCEL as the package
we were using. When I was using it, it may well have been what you referred
to as Tango but all my contacts and literature from ACCEL Technologies
referred to it as ACCEL EDA. So am I confused or was ACCEL Technologies
confused?
Here is what I might surmise. ACCEL Technologies may have wanted to
change the product name to ACCEL EDA but was fighting a loosing battle with
ole time Tango users that refused to completely give up on the old Tango
moniker? Just one possibility consider all that has been exchanged about it
in this thread. You will note that Dax's screenshot doesn't say Tango
anywhere on it and Andy "seems" to confirm my recollection as well. If Dax's
screenshot is from PCAD, which it could possibly be, all things considered,
then he will have 20 or more layer capability in the package.
--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.
Dax
http://web.archive.org/web/19990202043848/www.acceltech.com/product_info/accel_eda/atpvsappv13.html
Nothing about pour limits. Just licensing, components and layers
limits.
Index page for snooping around the old Accel website using the Internet
Archive Wayback Machine:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.acceltech.com
Some of the PDF brochure links are active into the archive so the old
sales lit can be viewed.
Dax
For comparison, the lowest of the low end. Seems to be popular among
the kiddies. Has that Fisher-Price look. Does not come with Play Dough
desktop PCB fabrication machine :)
ROFL: "Try DipTrace and you will be surprised! DipTrace is a complete
state-of-the-art PCB Design System."
$145 for 500 pins, 2 layer version
$595 for unlimited version
Dax
Lukas Louw
V12, circa 1996, and only one copper pour was allowed, which was relaxed in
later versions, don't ask me which, it's MUCH too long
ago...............................
Lukas
Dax
David Harmon
<email_d...@yahoo.com> wrote,
>"EDA for Dummies" ---> http://www.diptrace.com
>
>For comparison, the lowest of the low end. Seems to be popular among
>the kiddies. Has that Fisher-Price look. Does not come with Play Dough
>desktop PCB fabrication machine :)
Silly, Play-Doh is no good for PCBs.
Play-Doh is for making prototype cases.
(And it's Hasbro, not FP. http://www.hasbro.com/playdoh/ )
DJ Delorie
Actually, there's one company that came up with a way to make PCBs
using a play-doh like conductive goo. Mill/drill recesses in blank
(i.e. no copper) FR4 where you want "traces", squeegie the goo into
the recesses, bake so it hardens. Presto! Solderable traces, "plated
through" vias, etc, without etching.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find anyone who commercialized the process.
It probably would have cost too much for the equipment anyway :-P
Joel Kolstad
news:xnodzzh...@delorie.com...
> Unfortunately, I couldn't find anyone who commercialized the process.
> It probably would have cost too much for the equipment anyway :-P
I suspect it probably would have done OK, since the costs seem comparable to
using an LPKF machine (not at all cheap), and they've been in business for
quite some time now. I'd guess the hard part is initially getting the product
to market and gaining market share.
Brad Velander
I hadn't thought of trying the internet "wayback machine". Most
everytime I have tried it, they didn't have anything for the sites I was
looking for. After any number of unsuccessful tries I sort of gave up ever
looking.
So I guess most everything is answered, It was called "...Tango PCB", 6
routing/signal layer limit, 400 components confirmed, more than one pour (I
was quite sure I saw two inside the one board I looked at. Although I
thought it could have been a split plane or a pour/fill combination).
The real name configuration is closest to what Lukas had suggested with
The PCAD and Tango tools both being subproducts of the ACCEL EDA tool
family.
--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.
"Dax" <email_d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142951307....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Stuart Brorson
: Right......... gimmee the names of some well known companies using gEDA
: on serious, mission critcal projects????
Don,
While browsing for something else, I happened to find this company
which lists gEDA alongside PADS as one of their preferred tools:
http://www.distantfocus.com/main/services_index.html
Page down to the "tools" section.
Looks like gEDA is gaining traction in the commercial world.
Stuart
DMBPr...@aol.com
And gEDA ain't gaining "traction" in the commercial world. OK, tell me
some points about gEDA that would attract me to use it instead of one
of the standard paid-for products..... And don't tell me it's free.
The fact that it's free is paradoxically a deterent to a serious user.
Prescott
Lukas Louw
unusable. I'd love to get rid of annual maintenance fees like everyone else,
but switching to GEDA will definitely be a step backwards in productivity
for me.
OTOH anyone who uses one of these packages for commercial work should not
really be concerned about up front cost and maintenance fees and such, IMHO.
It's a business expense like anything else, and you amortize the initial
purchase cost over a few contracts, and maintenance should really be covered
by one medium sized job.
Even a low cost EDA package like Cadsoft's Eagle pretty much blows gEDA out
of the water. Their professional package at US$1200 seems to be a vary fair
deal. One design job takes care of that....... They don't seem to list
maintenance fees, so I can't comment on that, but even at say US$300/year,
that cost can easily be covered by one small design job per year.....
That does not mean that I'll never consider switching, but gEDA has a loong
ways to go before it'll be mature enough to be considered as a serious
contender.
I DO like the concept of course, and wish the developers all the best in
their endeavors.
Lukas
DJ Delorie
"Lukas Louw" <lo...@att.net> writes:
> but switching to GEDA will definitely be a step backwards in productivity
> for me.
Why?
Lukas Louw
>> for me.
>
> Why?
OK check out the specifications at www.pcad.com and if you can convince me
that gEDA will be as productive or better, I'll switch today:)
Lukas
DJ Delorie
"Lukas Louw" <lo...@att.net> writes:
> OK check out the specifications at www.pcad.com and if you can convince me
> that gEDA will be as productive or better, I'll switch today:)
No, I mean why do *you* find it a step backwards? A long list of
features that people may not use isn't a realistic target. What do
*you* find useful in PCAD that gEDA doesn't have? I'm not trying to
convince you to switch, I'm trying to figure out what's going to be
important to work on in gEDA.
(and yes, this is as close to real marketing research as gEDA gets ;)
A quick glance shows the following PCAD limits:
* 999 layers
* 30 character layer names
* 0.1 mil max resolution
The first is a compile-time constant for PCB, you can have as many as
you want. The others PCB already exceeds.
(not that I'm saying PCB is *better* than PCAD, just that there are at
least a few example specs that PCB is better at).
Lukas Louw
> features that people may not use isn't a realistic target. What do
> *you* find useful in PCAD that gEDA doesn't have? I'm not trying to
> convince you to switch, I'm trying to figure out what's going to be
> important to work on in gEDA.
>
> (and yes, this is as close to real marketing research as gEDA gets ;)
>
> A quick glance shows the following PCAD limits:
>
> * 999 layers
> * 30 character layer names
> * 0.1 mil max resolution
>
> The first is a compile-time constant for PCB, you can have as many as
> you want. The others PCB already exceeds.
>
> (not that I'm saying PCB is *better* than PCAD, just that there are at
> least a few example specs that PCB is better at).
The points you raise really don't mean much in practice:)
If you want, I can go through the GEDA specs some time and compile a list of
features that I perceive as lacking. It'll take me at least a week to get to
that though, my workload is pretty heavy at this point. Is there a concise
doc somewhere that lists everything, or do I have to hunt?
mmm http://geda.seul.org/ seems to be down right now.......
Lukas
Dave Boland
DJ, Stuart, sci.electronics.cad readers,
Hey, didn't we just do this last week? Darn those time
warps! I'd like to make another attempt to answer your
questions about gEDA and marketing it. First, I do want to
thank the gEDA community for all of the hard work, and to
assure all of you that my comments are not meant as
put-downs, but suggestions for improvement. Ready? Good!
First, the business essence of software is productivity.
There are a few parts to this. First is how long it takes
to learn a tool. This is a one-shot cost, but it is part of
the cost of software, which means free isn't (free) when you
look at the big picture. I would give Eagle a C-, gEDA a
D+. What the gEDA community needs to do is to make it
easier to learn and use. Not that it is hard, and Stuart's
Circuit Cellar articles will help -- even if they are a year
old (which I find hard to believe, but I'll take DJ at his
word). A specific suggestion is to copy a well know user
interface such as either Autocad or Microsoft Draw. Not
that I'm in love with either, but it will reduce the
learning curve.
Next is the time it takes to do something. This is more a
matter of experience, but some tools are just easier to use.
For example, the much maligned VB6 is easy to learn and
use for GUI's and database applications under Windows. It
is not my language of choice for heavy lifting -- I'll use
C/C++ for that. The gEDA community should always be asking
itself "how can we make doing simple jobs easy, and
difficult jobs not so hard."
The final aspect to productivity is feature set. After all,
if it can't do the job it isn't productive. This is a
marketing question more than technical or usability. My
sense is that gEDA should aim for the market sweet spot
which I suppose is something like:
* Cross section of 4S4P
* Size of double EuroCard (forget these dimensions)
* Nodes numbering into 2048, perhaps higher
* Schematic capture, layout, spice, electrical analysis of
stripline/microstrip, 3D view of layout. Listed these in
order of importance to me. Not a big fan of autorouters.
To re-cap, gEDA needs to be more productive, which means
easier to learn/use with a common and consistent user
interface, moderate feature set.
On to a few other issues. Top of this list is W I N D O W S
version!!! I'm not a great fan of Windows, but it is on
over 85% of technical desktops. This is a market ripe for
the picking. You will need that familiar/consistent U.I.
and a setup program along with (my words) "gEDA for
Dummies". This is a lot of work, but who says you have to
give it away. If you can make the Windows user more
productive with gEDA than Eagle, then charge for it, or for
support.
Finally, work with someone to get a Knoppix (or other Linux
LiveCD) to include the full gEDA suite. Again, more work.
Gee, I started out to write a few sentences and look what
happened! Kind of like software isn't it (it never ends,
especially if the users find it useful).
Good luck, and for me it is back to Eagle to get some cards
designed.
Regards,
Dave
DJ Delorie
Nor do bullet lists on corporate web pages, which makes it hard for us
developers to know what people would really benefit from.
> If you want, I can go through the GEDA specs some time and compile a
> list of features that I perceive as lacking. It'll take me at least
> a week to get to that though, my workload is pretty heavy at this
> point. Is there a concise doc somewhere that lists everything, or do
> I have to hunt?
Heh. Documentation is *high* on our list of things to improve. At
the moment, the best bet is to read the various tutorials to get a
feel for the workflow; Circuit Cellar has published one of a two-part
article on the workflow; there's online tutorials as well.
No rush, of course!
IMHO the best way to "learn" gEDA is to pick a small project that
isn't time-constrained and try using gEDA to accomplish it.
> mmm http://geda.seul.org/ seems to be down right now.......
Lukas Louw
like gEDA.
The larger EDA compnaies sell their product on teh golf course and dining &
wining at corporate level.
They attend trade shows, advertise etc., so mainatain a high visibilitty and
thus credibility to teh corporate muck a mucks.
They provide instant phone based tech support
The list can go on and on.
Without real financial backing for proper marketing, any new package may as
well resign itself to servicing hobbyist and micro to small scale commercial
users.
If you read the trade rags, you'll see that EDA revenues have been pretty
disappointing lately in general. Most of the players are offering deep
discounts to attract new users, cuttign even more into their potential
revenue. I imagine that most of them rely on annual
maintenance/subscriptions as their main source of revenue these days. It
will be extremely difficult for a new player to siphon some of that business
away without at least SOME pretensions of being a real company that can
provide critical support on demand, and has some staying power.
The only real new recent player I'm aware of is probably Pulsonix, and I
have absolutely no idea how well theyr'e doing financially.
My 2 cents,
Lukas
DJ Delorie
Yeah. My participation is partly a "what should we work on" and
partly a campaign to make sure people (1) don't underestimate what we
do have, and (2) be specific about what we don't have. If I can
"train" people to provide feedback that helps us make gEDA better,
rather than just say "gEDA sucks!", then we won't waste as much time
arguing and gEDA would improve.
At the moment, I'm filing all my replies in the "future file". I
still have my day job (embedded software tools :) and my wife still
wants her projects done too.
> First, I do want to thank the gEDA community for all of the hard
> work, and to assure all of you that my comments are not meant as
> put-downs, but suggestions for improvement. Ready? Good!
Ready!
> What the gEDA community needs to do is to make it easier to learn
> and use. Not that it is hard, and Stuart's Circuit Cellar articles
> will help -- even if they are a year old (which I find hard to
> believe, but I'll take DJ at his word).
Publishing cycles, timing of articles to match issue themes, etc. As
proof, the examples use the Xaw PCB, but the GTK pcb is almost a year
old. Heck, we've already replaced the "old" GTK design with the new
HID GTK design!
> A specific suggestion is to copy a well know user interface such as
> either Autocad or Microsoft Draw. Not that I'm in love with either,
> but it will reduce the learning curve.
The PCB HID project (now complete!) made some changes to the way mouse
buttons work to improve usability. The lesstif HID is nearly 100%
user customizable, so if you like a particular way of doing things,
you can set it up that way.
I suspect a good User's Guide would make the most sense for this item,
though. The GUI isn't something easily changed, because it's so
subjective.
> The gEDA community should always be asking itself "how can we make
> doing simple jobs easy, and difficult jobs not so hard."
Ok, so now we need feedback about (1) which are the simple jobs that
aren't as easy as they could be, and (2) which difficult jobs should
be automated most?
Most of our work is based on what we, the developers, feel we need to
do our boards. Me, personally, I find the best feedback comes from
people who *don't* know what the software's limits are, and just
"expect" it to do something. I consider those expectations to be a
better guide than reactions to what the tools actually do.
For example, my preference is to put effort into the trace optimizer,
because our autorouter isn't that good and hand-routing doesn't always
leave pretty results. I'd rather throw down ugly (perhaps
drc-failing) traces, and let the optimizer clean it up. I don't want
to have to measure track spacing or wade through pages of DRC logs, I
want a button that says "Fix everything!".
> The final aspect to productivity is feature set. After all, if it
> can't do the job it isn't productive. This is a marketing question
> more than technical or usability.
Yeah, marketing is hard to do when you don't already have people using
your software. Hence my requests here.
> My sense is that gEDA should aim
> for the market sweet spot which I suppose is something like:
> * Cross section of 4S4P
That's an acronym I'm not familiar with.
> * Size of double EuroCard (forget these dimensions)
One thought we had was for "New layout" to offer a list of templates,
pre-populated with the standard connectors, dimensions, etc. Building
a PCI card? Pick one of the standard sized PCI card templates.
> * Nodes numbering into 2048, perhaps higher
I assume you mean usability in that range; we have no technical limit.
> * Schematic capture, layout, spice, electrical analysis of
> stripline/microstrip, 3D view of layout. Listed these in order of
> importance to me. Not a big fan of autorouters.
We have all but the last, and the HID interface lets us do the last
with OpenGL if someone takes the time to add it.
> On to a few other issues. Top of this list is W I N D O W S
> version!!!
Yeah, we know. HID lets us drop in a Windows GUI for the PCB editor.
Both gschem and PCB have been ported to windows before (via Cygwin)
but a native (minGW perhaps) port would be best. We just need to find
someone willing and able to add it.
> Finally, work with someone to get a Knoppix (or other Linux LiveCD)
> to include the full gEDA suite. Again, more work.
We've discussed this before too.
Thanks for the feedback!
DJ Delorie
In addition, the users are just as demanding as ever. "You should fix
this!" "You should add this!" It doesn't help when you are working
on the tools in your spare time. I hope you can understand my
frustration ;-)
Lukas Louw
>> The points you raise really don't mean much in practice:)
>
> Nor do bullet lists on corporate web pages, which makes it hard for us
> developers to know what people would really benefit from.
LL> Absolutely, you really have to get down and dirty in the trenches with
an app before yea can make any real comments.
>> If you want, I can go through the GEDA specs some time and compile a
>> list of features that I perceive as lacking. It'll take me at least
>> a week to get to that though, my workload is pretty heavy at this
>> point. Is there a concise doc somewhere that lists everything, or do
>> I have to hunt?
>
> Heh. Documentation is *high* on our list of things to improve. At
> the moment, the best bet is to read the various tutorials to get a
> feel for the workflow; Circuit Cellar has published one of a two-part
> article on the workflow; there's online tutorials as well.
LL>> Heh no/poor documentation is a real negative if you want to attract
user:)
> No rush, of course!
LL>> Time is a problem for me right now, work is coming in at a furious
pace.....
> IMHO the best way to "learn" gEDA is to pick a small project that
> isn't time-constrained and try using gEDA to accomplish it.
>
>> mmm http://geda.seul.org/ seems to be down right now.......
>
> http://www.geda.seul.org/
> ^^^^
LL>> Still can't get to it....
Stuart Brorson
Well, DJ beat me to the punch! I was going to also ask for specifics
from Lukas. Thanks, DJ! Getting specific info (instead of
generalized grousing) helps the developers know what users want. We
are always interested in specific, actionable suggestions & bug
reports. We can't do much with general complaints.
Dave Boland <NODARNSPA...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
[ ... major snip! .. ]
: What the gEDA community needs to do is to make it
: easier to learn and use. Not that it is hard, and Stuart's
: Circuit Cellar articles will help -- even if they are a year
: old (which I find hard to believe, but I'll take DJ at his
: word).
Actually, it's true -- I wrote the articles appearing in March & April
CC during the spring of 2005. Since they are long, and are meant to
run back-to-back, CC had a hard time scheduling them -- hence the
delay. In the meantime, PCB has changed considerably. In particular,
it got a GTK-based GUI. Then, DJ and company entirely refactored (and
rewrote) the code to allow for installation of any arbitrary GUI.
Nonetheless, the articles are still very useful, since the way you
drive the software hasn't changed -- only the look of the GUI. The
point behind the articles was exactly what you asked for: "GEDA for
dummies".
: The final aspect to productivity is feature set. After all,
: if it can't do the job it isn't productive. This is a
: marketing question more than technical or usability. My
: sense is that gEDA should aim for the market sweet spot
: which I suppose is something like:
: * Cross section of 4S4P
4 routing layers & 4 plane layers? Check.
: * Size of double EuroCard (forget these dimensions)
PCB supports unlimited board size.
: * Nodes numbering into 2048, perhaps higher
Check.
: * Schematic capture,
Gschem. Present on gEDA Suite Install CD.
http://geda.seul.org/download.html
: layout,
PCB. Present on gEDA Suite Install CD.
http://geda.seul.org/download.html
: spice,
Ngspice, gnucap. Present on gEDA Suite Install CD.
http://geda.seul.org/download.html
: electrical analysis of stripline/microstrip
Wcalc. Present on gEDA Suite Install CD.
http://geda.seul.org/download.html
: 3D view of layout.
Well, we don't do this. Kicad does:
http://www.lis.inpg.fr/realise_au_lis/kicad/
Personally, I am skeptical of the utility of this feature, unless you
also have a 3D CAD program and are designing a major system. GEDA is
useful at the low to mid-level market spot. This means 6U Eurocards,
test boards, single boards for instrumentation, 4 or 6 layer embedded
computer boards, PC-104 stuff, etc. Nothing offering a major
mechanical challenge.
If you are desinging major rack-based systems and have a mechanical
engineering team worried about mechanical interferences, you are in a
different league. Buy a few seats of Mentor ViewDraw/Expedition and
SolidWorks if you're really doing the big stuff. Just MHO.
: Listed these in
: order of importance to me. Not a big fan of autorouters.
: To re-cap, gEDA needs to be more productive, which means
: easier to learn/use with a common and consistent user
: interface, moderate feature set.
Ummm, please download it and give it a try, then let us know what is
not easy to learn/use. Again, specific observations are appreciated.
We can't do anything with general complaints ("easier to learn/use").
: On to a few other issues. Top of this list is W I N D O W S
: version!!! I'm not a great fan of Windows, but it is on
: over 85% of technical desktops. This is a market ripe for
: the picking. You will need that familiar/consistent U.I.
: and a setup program along with (my words) "gEDA for
: Dummies". This is a lot of work, but who says you have to
: give it away. If you can make the Windows user more
: productive with gEDA than Eagle, then charge for it, or for
: support.
Unless somebody picks up the ball, this probably won't happen. GEDA
is -- and will likely remain -- an open-source/free-software effort.
That means that it is produced by volunteers who do it for fun, and
because they use the tools themselves for board design/circuit
simulation/what4ever. None of the current developers are interested
in a Windows port.
As for making money with it, somebody else pointed out that the EDA
market is in the doldrums, which I am well aware of since I read EE
Times too. Accordingly, I don't see room for yet another
commercial low-to-mid level board design suite. GEDA is an
open-source project which works quite well, and is gaining traction
with folks who are Linux/open-source adept, and appreciate the fact
that it is freely available for download at no cost. Since engineers
tend to be smart, Linux adept, & able to figure things out, learning
to use gEDA should be straightforward and fun for them. That is,
Engineers are *exactly* the right audience for an open-source EDA
project. OTOH, trying to turn it into yet another commercial product
is a non-starter. Just MHO.
Of course, if we got a call from a VC who wanted to fund something,
we wouldn't immediately hang up the phone on them . . . . ;-)
: Finally, work with someone to get a Knoppix (or other Linux
: LiveCD) to include the full gEDA suite. Again, more work.
See above. I do know that there is some user interest in a
Knoppix-style live CD. I am the one who did the install CD with the
Python-based install wizard. I am too busy -- and not interested
enough -- to spin a live CD. This project awaits a new volunteer.
Meanwhile, you can always download the install CD and just install the
gEDA Suite on any old Linux box you have laying around. If you don't
have any Linux boxes available, and are unwilling to build one, then
perhaps gEDA isn't for you anyway. :-)
Stuart