Software for Schematic, PWB, and Spice?
Chris Carlen
> I am a First Year Student going for a BSEE.
>
> When I get into industry, they will want me to
> know how to do Schematic Capture, PWB Layout,
> and SPICE simulation. What software is the most
> popular and/or most likely to land me a good job?
> Price is no object for me; I have a large trust
> fund and would rather spend this month's $25K
> check on software than on the stuff I usually
> waste it on.
>
> Related question; if I ever become an independent,
> what's the best (as opposed to most widely used)
> software for Schematic Capture, PWB Layout, and
> SPICE simulation? Again, price is no object.
>
> -- First Year Student
No matter how much money you have there's no sense wasting it.
Try LTSpice for a good free simulator. It offers the advantage that
since it is free, there is no obstacle to others downloading it and
using it to view files that you create and submit to the forum or other
avenues of collaboration. In essence, it can be the ".PDF" of circuit
simulators. There are limits to this however when you get into making
your own symbol and subckt libraries. But in those cases you can simply
email the entire set of files involved in a simulation.
I use Eagle for board layout. It's not too expensive, and the newest
version sports a lot of sophisticated features for more serious designs.
It is very popular among designers needing a "midrange" package. It
also runs natively on Linux, which is a big plus since if you are going
to get a real education rather than just job training, you should become
familiar with the art and science of *computing* rather than "using a
computer". Thus, exposure to Linux would be an essential ingredient
toward that end. LtSpice also runs perfectly well under WINE in Linux.
Keep in mind these tools have significant learning curves. It would be
wiser not to purchase the "Cadillacs" of EDA tools while you are a
student. LTSpice will allow you to learn about SPICE modeling rather
than how to use a specific piece of software. SPICE modeling is sort
of its own sub-branch of applied mathematics pertaining to electrical
physics, but can also abstract and model non-electronic physical
systems, as well as complete electronic/physics systems.
Links:
http://www.linear-tech.com/software/
Good day!
--
_____________________
Christopher R. Carlen
cr...@earthlink.net
Suse 8.1 Linux 2.4.19
Leon Heller
"First Year Student" <anon...@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:106ccsk...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> I am a First Year Student going for a BSEE.
>
> When I get into industry, they will want me to
> know how to do Schematic Capture, PWB Layout,
> and SPICE simulation. What software is the most
> popular and/or most likely to land me a good job?
> Price is no object for me; I have a large trust
> fund and would rather spend this month's $25K
> check on software than on the stuff I usually
> waste it on.
>
> Related question; if I ever become an independent,
> what's the best (as opposed to most widely used)
> software for Schematic Capture, PWB Layout, and
> SPICE simulation? Again, price is no object.
Pulsonix starts at about $3300 including SPICE and is the best of the
mid-range packages, IMHO:
It's very easy to use, any bugs get fixed very quickly, and support is
excellent.
Leon
Ken Smith
Chris Carlen <crobc@BOGUS_FIELD.earthlink.net> wrote:
[...]
>toward that end. LtSpice also runs perfectly well under WINE in Linux.
Make that almost perfectly and I'd agree. The cross hair cursor when
drawing wires doesn't work right.
There are a few free PCB layout tools out there. Last time I tried it,
the one called "PCB"[*} for Linux worked well enough to do hobby boards.
[*] So creative
--
--
kens...@rahul.net forging knowledge
Rolavine
>From: First Year Student anon...@example.invalid
>Date: 3/27/2004 6:08 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <106ccsk...@corp.supernews.com>
>
>
>I am a First Year Student going for a BSEE.
>
>When I get into industry, they will want me to
>know how to do Schematic Capture, PWB Layout,
>and SPICE simulation. What software is the most
>popular and/or most likely to land me a good job?
>Price is no object for me; I have a large trust
>fund and would rather spend this month's $25K
>check on software than on the stuff I usually
>waste it on.
Give me half of it and take you sweetie on vacation to Hawaii! Say buddy want
to invest in my one man band electronic engineering company.
Rocky
Overworked, Underpaid, insane, hardware, software, pcb design, parts ordering,
test system making, embeded programming, windows programming, electronic hermit
monk. Hell send to to Hawaii, lol!
Kevin Aylward
> I am a First Year Student going for a BSEE.
>
> When I get into industry, they will want me to
> know how to do Schematic Capture, PWB Layout,
> and SPICE simulation.
They might well do, but whether you should become good at all is another
mater. Do you want to be a design engineer or a board layout
technician?
By all means, learn a bit about pcb layout, but those with BSEE's,
shouldn't, in my view, be concerned much about drawing pretty pictures.
If you do all, you will probably be treated as a flunky.
>What software is the most
> popular and/or most likely to land me a good job?
I don't think it really matters much what you learn on as regards to
getting a job, even though sometimes companies might request specific
experience.
> Price is no object for me; I have a large trust
> fund and would rather spend this month's $25K
> check on software than on the stuff I usually
> waste it on.
Are you serious dude?
Why the f&*k do you want to work at all?
What do you err.. waste you money on... blonds with big tits...fast
cars...cruises.....you want to trade this an become a geek EE. Your
sick.
>
> Related question; if I ever become an independent,
> what's the best (as opposed to most widely used)
> software for Schematic Capture, PWB Layout, and
> SPICE simulation? Again, price is no object.
There is no "best". All software has pros and cons. Some have features
better then others, whilst also having other features that are worse. As
far as ease of ease in a spice, SuperSpice is the best.
Get the demos, and play with them. That is the only way to find out if
that software is for you. There are as many opinions as people, and all
of them are incorrect, except mine.
Kevin Aylward
salesE...@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.
Terry Pinnell
http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/ECADList.html
Terry Pinnell
Hobbyist, West Sussex, UK
SioL
news:5qdd601adb7es21rn...@4ax.com...
I don't see Tango :)
SioL
Fred Bloggs
First Year Student wrote:
> I am a First Year Student going for a BSEE.
>
> When I get into industry, they will want me to
> know how to do Schematic Capture, PWB Layout,
> and SPICE simulation. What software is the most
> popular and/or most likely to land me a good job?
The ORCAD suite of products is the de facto industry standard by far,
and this would be the "best" for your purposes. Everything else snatches
at crumbs of the market from buyers who can't afford the big guns.
Bill Sloman
PCB has quite a long history. I'm on the gEDA mailing list, purely as
a lurker, and my impression is that the current version of PCB is
perfectly adequate for most professional boards - it doesn't seem to
be able to handle more than eight-layer boards, which could be a
restriction in some applications, and doesn't seem to offer an
auto-router, which some might see as a positive advantage (I had a
very frustrating time with an Orcad auto-router a few years ago.)
For the latest version of PCB see
For gEDA see
which points you to a whole collection of open source electronic
design software
------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Ken Smith
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:
[...]
>Ah, the Orcad auto-router...
>
>After the company I worked for bought it (on the strength of the
>DOS version of Orcad schematic being so good)
The people who wrote the DOS schematic capture are now all retired or
dead. Orcad really isn't even the same company it was back then. The
PCB-II program had a few bug but if you called them, they'd tell you how
to avoid trouble. At about the time the new PCB-386 program came out,
they changed and you couldn't get a straight answer out of them to save
your life. Then they got bought by Cadence. For a while it looked like
Cadence was just going to shut them down. Lately it looks more like they
are getting ready to cut them loose.
I tried and tried
>to make it work. Finally I got down to a a test case of a
>resistor and a capacitor in parallel - the simplest circuit
>I could think of. The OrCad autorouter took over five minutes to
>autoroute it and the result had 27 vias! I am sure that Orcad
>has improved a lot since then, but I tend to mistrust a company
>with management that allows something like that to ship.
>
>
>--
>Guy Macon, Electronics Engineer & Project Manager for hire.
>Remember Doc Brown from the _Back to the Future_ movies? Do you
>have an "impossible" engineering project that only someone like
>Doc Brown can solve? My resume is at http://www.guymacon.com/
Chris Carlen
> In article <c45ds...@enews3.newsguy.com>,
> Chris Carlen <crobc@BOGUS_FIELD.earthlink.net> wrote:
> [...]
>
>>toward that end. LtSpice also runs perfectly well under WINE in Linux.
>
>
> Make that almost perfectly and I'd agree. The cross hair cursor when
> drawing wires doesn't work right.
That's odd. It really works 99.99% perfectly for me. The only problem
is with editing some fields in dialogs like to put in many parameters
for a PWL source.
But the crosshairs work perfectly.
So I wonder, what are your Linux and WINE versions? I'm not using the
original WINE in my Suse 8.1 distribution, but a newer one that I think
was compiled by Suse community member.
Also have you talked to Mike about this problem, or tried it with a
recent LTSpice version?
The product is officially supported to work with Linux under WINE, so
with some effort it should be possible to get it to a level of
functionality that is as close to perfect as necessary to no have to
worry about it.
I still have that uncomfortable feeling with most programs under WINE,
but with LTSpice that just isn't the case anymore.
Good luck.
Tim Wescott
> I am a First Year Student going for a BSEE.
>
> When I get into industry, they will want me to
> know how to do Schematic Capture, PWB Layout,
> and SPICE simulation. What software is the most
> popular and/or most likely to land me a good job?
> fund and would rather spend this month's $25K
> check on software than on the stuff I usually
> waste it on.
>
> what's the best (as opposed to most widely used)
>
>
Not all CAD tools are alike, but once you've learned one you know 90% of
what the others will do. If you can't learn new CAD tools quickly
you'll fail anyway, so concentrate on being a good engineer who's not
locked into any one thing.
I'd say get something cheap and put that check into the early retirement
fund.
---------------------------------------
Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com
John Larkin
<anon...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>I am a First Year Student going for a BSEE.
>
>When I get into industry, they will want me to
>know how to do Schematic Capture, PWB Layout,
>and SPICE simulation. What software is the most
>popular and/or most likely to land me a good job?
>Price is no object for me; I have a large trust
>fund and would rather spend this month's $25K
>check on software than on the stuff I usually
>waste it on.
>
>Related question; if I ever become an independent,
>what's the best (as opposed to most widely used)
>software for Schematic Capture, PWB Layout, and
>SPICE simulation? Again, price is no object.
>
> -- First Year Student
I really like PADS for schematic entry and PCB layout. You can get the
demo CD and see how it feels. Like any cad program, there's a healthy
learning curve.
John
Ken Smith
Chris Carlen <crobc@BOGUS_FIELD.earthlink.net> wrote:
>Ken Smith wrote:
>> In article <c45ds...@enews3.newsguy.com>,
>> Chris Carlen <crobc@BOGUS_FIELD.earthlink.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>>toward that end. LtSpice also runs perfectly well under WINE in Linux.
>>
>>
>> Make that almost perfectly and I'd agree. The cross hair cursor when
>> drawing wires doesn't work right.
>
>
>That's odd. It really works 99.99% perfectly for me. The only problem
>is with editing some fields in dialogs like to put in many parameters
>for a PWL source.
Yes, I'm using SuSE 8.1, and last months version of Wine. I just
installed the latest LTspice.
The cross hairs get drawn but they don't get undrawn. The result is that
the screen ends up with many cross hairs. I still manage to get the
schematic drawn with only a little extra bother of having to go in and out
of the wire draw a lot.
[...]
>Also have you talked to Mike about this problem, or tried it with a
>recent LTSpice version?
If others had the problem, I'd take it to Mike. If its just a quirk of my
system that I can work with, I'd rather not use up my credit.
>I still have that uncomfortable feeling with most programs under WINE,
>but with LTSpice that just isn't the case anymore.
Here's a fun one:
I run dosemu. Under it I run Orcad's schematic capture. At work I run
Windoze, in a DOS window, I run the dos Orcad. Windows demands that Orcad
only be run as a full screen application. However, dosemu runs it ok in a
window on my desk top. Under windows any error message pops me out of the
window into the "Do you want to run this in MSDOS" dialog. Under dosemu,
the errors work correctly.
Bill Sloman
I don't know what Orcad is like at the moment. Orcad 9.0 was pretty
horrible.
The design data was all stored in some inaccessible proprietary format
so that you couldn't use search and replace to change signal names
Sci.electronics.cad seemed to favour Protel - it was half the price,
and easier to use.
PCB running under Linux is free - in both senses of the word - and
accessible. Worth a look.
-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
JeffM
You know the old Alt+Tab trick, don't you?
http://www.google.com/search?&q=alt-tab+shortcut+between-windows
Ken Smith
JeffM <jef...@email.com> wrote:
>>Windows demands that Orcad only be run as a full screen application
>>Ken Smith
>
>You know the old Alt+Tab trick, don't you?
Yes but it still means I can't have the PDF viewer and the schematic side
by side.
JeffM
>>When I get into industry, they will want me to know how to do
>>Schematic Capture, PWB Layout, and SPICE simulation.
>
>shouldn't, in my view, be concerned much about drawing pretty pictures.
The more you make your "documentation" look like this
http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/Print.cfm?ArticleID=4703
the more highly you will be regarded. 8-)
"Construction"
http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/Print.cfm?ArticleID=5186
Nico Coesel
>
>Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> says...
>
>>auto-router, which some might see as a positive advantage (I had a
>>very frustrating time with an Orcad auto-router a few years ago.)
>
>Ah, the Orcad auto-router...
>
>After the company I worked for bought it (on the strength of the
>DOS version of Orcad schematic being so good) I tried and tried
>to make it work. Finally I got down to a a test case of a
>resistor and a capacitor in parallel - the simplest circuit
>I could think of. The OrCad autorouter took over five minutes to
>autoroute it and the result had 27 vias! I am sure that Orcad
>has improved a lot since then, but I tend to mistrust a company
>with management that allows something like that to ship.
An autorouter isn't something that will work out of the box. Using an
autorouter is like a riding a bike or swimming. It takes time to learn
how to do it. A few months ago I spoke to an EE who has been using the
Specctra router for many years and the boards he made with it look
just fine.
--
Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Bedrijven en winkels vindt U op www.adresboekje.nl
Mac
>
> I am a First Year Student going for a BSEE.
>
> When I get into industry, they will want me to
> know how to do Schematic Capture, PWB Layout,
> and SPICE simulation. What software is the most
> popular and/or most likely to land me a good job?
> Price is no object for me; I have a large trust
> fund and would rather spend this month's $25K
> check on software than on the stuff I usually
> waste it on.
>
> Related question; if I ever become an independent,
> what's the best (as opposed to most widely used)
> software for Schematic Capture, PWB Layout, and
> SPICE simulation? Again, price is no object.
>
> -- First Year Student
I've used mentor graphics's high-end tool-chain and the cadence "capture"
program for schematic capture. For a single individual, there is no way I
could recommend mentor's high end tools. They are such a pain in the ass,
and I think they are too expensive for a non-institutional buyer. (Even a
trust-fund kid ;-) I think they have some mid-level tools now, and those
might work OK for you, but I haven't tried them. Cadence's capture is
decent enough, and it is considered a "real" tool in industry.
I don't do routing, and for the most part, I suggest you not do too much
of it either. It's handy to be able to dash out a quick prototype and it
may help you on your projects at school, but in industry, the guys who
route the boards are usually less like BSEE types and more like
CAD-operator types. A skilled autorouter operator is an exception, but as
a first year student, with no industry experience, you aren't going to
understand how to work an autorouter.
So if you are determined to do this, I would say, get "capture" from
cadence, or get an entry or mid-level tool from mentor graphics. For
routing, just get the one that plays nicely with whichever schematic
capture tool you decide on.
For spice, HSPICE seems to be the industry standard, at least at the IC
design level. I think it's really expensive. I've never used it. LTSpice
(which is free) is probably more than good enough for you for now. You
could also get a simulator that is well-integrated with your schematic
capture tool.
You can also get ngspice, which is basically the old Berkeley spice, with
some updates. I'm pretty sure they've got it working on Windows, but you
can definitely compile it for linux.
Ultimately, time spent on your curriculum will probably benefit you more
than learning specific CAD tools. In some cases, your curriculum might
actually involve using CAD tools, of course.
Also, for the most part, beginners shouldn't use spice. It will just
postpone real understanding. If you already know some circuit theory, then
it might be OK.
One thing to keep in mind is that the high-end, expensive tools often are
designed to manage everything from schematic capture and layout to
inventory control and costing and so on. Some of them only run on Unix,
and there is an expectation that there will be a dedicated staff of people
just to maintain the tool. It simply doesn't make sense for you to invest
in learning this type of tool unless you work for a company that uses it,
and they will most likely expect to train you anyway.
Hey, I just thought of another idea: Get some free software type tools
(gSchem for schematic capture, pcb for layout, and ngspice for
simulation -- see http://geda.seul.org) and donate some of the $10,000 you
save to the various projects. I believe they all accept donations. There
is a grand tradition of rich benefactors supporting worthy causes. Maybe
you could be such a benefactor for open-source EDA projects. Just a
thought. ;-)
regards,
Mac
Ken Taylor
news:ytqdnT2aFZh...@speakeasy.net...
>
> JeffM <jef...@email.com> says...
>
> >The more you make your "documentation" look like this
> >http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/Print.cfm?ArticleID=4703
> >the more highly you will be regarded. 8-)
>
>
> The author of those schematics is one of the most highly
> regarded EEs ever, so maybe you are on to something...
>
> I think it's the beard.
>
>
> --
> Guy Macon, Electronics Engineer & Project Manager for hire.
I've been using that package for years without a hitch - never needed a
service pack or nuffin!
Ken
Reg Edwards
Clinton's little white lies about harmless sex with his secretary during
working hours?
Leon Heller
>
> First Year Student <anon...@example.invalid> says...
>
> >what's the best (as opposed to most widely used)
> >software for Schematic Capture, PWB Layout, and
> >SPICE simulation? Again, price is no object.
>
> any other questions like it:
>
> First, do a Google groups search on one such product.
> Let's start with Pulsonix because it was just mentioned
> here and because it's a word that is unlikely to get a
> bunch of unrelated hits (unlike Tango and PADS...)
> Start here: http://www.google.com/groups?as_q=Pulsonix
>
> For each result click on "view entire thread" and then on
> the first post in the thread. Read all posts until the
> thread ends or the topic drifts.
>
> While doing this, make notes of any other products mentioned.
> Repeat the above steps for each one. (Accel, CADSTAR, Eagle,
> OrCAD, P-CAD, PADS, Protel, Pulsonix, Tango and Ultiboard are
> all names that you should run into somewhere along the line.)
>
> Finally, post a summary of what you found during your search here.
>
> (My summary; *nobody* seems to have anything bad to say about
> Pulsonix. Eagle seems to be the favorite free package.)
The Yahoo Pulsonix Users Group I formed gets very little use, presumably
because the product is very easy to use and has very few bugs.
Leon
Spehro Pefhany
<http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> says...
>
>>I just downloaded the Pulsonix demo, and every item in every
>>pulldown menu consists of the same three random characters.
>>When I close it and restart it I get a different set of three
>>random characters.
>>
>>System details: Compaq Proliant 5500R with quad Pentium Pro
>>processors (200Mhz, 1MB cache each) and 3GB of RAM. OS I
>>installed it on is Windows NT 4.0 SP6a with all of the latest
>>patches. (After I get it running in NT I plan on trying it
>>under WINE in Slackware Linux.)
>>
>>Before installing Pulsonix, I installed ExpressPCB, DIA, Vutrax,
>>Eagle and SwCAD, and they all work fine.
>>
>>Any suggestions?
>
>Here is what it looks like: http://www.guymacon.com/pulsonix.bmp
Hmm.. you mentioned you had some Japanese language stuff on your
machine?
http://www.pulsonix.com/FAQ/0006_WindowsMessages.htm
BTW, if you save the BMP file as a GIF it will be more like 10K than
2M in size!
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
John Woodgate
wrote (in <e6SdnUMpGMU...@speakeasy.net>) about 'Pulsonix
problem', on Mon, 29 Mar 2004:
>Here is what it looks like: http://www.guymacon.com/pulsonix.bmp
BIG FILE!
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
JeffM
http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/ECADList.html
does not render properly under my standards-compliant browser
(Gecko-based Mozilla 1.4).
The AUTOTRAX EDA header overwrites the atlc description.
When I change the font size to 75%, the overlap goes away.
I do notice that AUTOTRAX is the only title
which does not appear BELOW its respective divider line.
Mat Nieuwenhoven
<snip>
>I use Eagle for board layout. It's not too expensive, and the newest
>version sports a lot of sophisticated features for more serious designs.
> It is very popular among designers needing a "midrange" package. It
>also runs natively on Linux, which is a big plus since if you are going
>to get a real education rather than just job training, you should become
>familiar with the art and science of *computing* rather than "using a
>computer". Thus, exposure to Linux would be an essential ingredient
>toward that end. LtSpice also runs perfectly well under WINE in Linux.
I use Eagle for both schematic and board, and it fullfills my humble needs.
For non-commericial use, there is a restricted version for free.
I think the quality of the component libraries that come with anything you
choose is very important, otherwise you'll spend quite some time making
'real-world' components.
Mat Nieuwenhoven
Charles Edmondson
I will pop in here, and say that the Orcad Unison Ultra Suite will do
what you want for a mere $5K... 8-)
--
Charlie
--
Edmondson Engineering
Unique Solutions to Unusual Problems
Peter Bennett
<mni...@dontincludethis.zap.a2000.nl> wrote:
>I use Eagle for both schematic and board, and it fullfills my humble needs.
>For non-commericial use, there is a restricted version for free.
>I think the quality of the component libraries that come with anything you
>choose is very important, otherwise you'll spend quite some time making
>'real-world' components.
>
>Mat Nieuwenhoven
>
Conversely, I think the quality of the supplied libraries is fairly
unimportant, but the library editors _must_ be easy to use.
I've used various versions of Protel for many years, and I _still_
find that I generally have to make new schematic or PCB parts for
almost every job I do. There are so many different ICs available that
you just can't expect any CAD maker to cover them all in their
libraries (and when I use Altera FPGAs, I would want to make my own
schematic symbols, even if Protel provided a "generic" symbol for the
part - my symbols will have the pins labelled to suit my application,
not just as "I/O123", or somesuch.)
--
Peter Bennett, VE7CEI
peterbb (at) interchange.ubc.ca
new newsgroup users info : http://vancouver-webpages.com/nnq
GPS and NMEA info: http://vancouver-webpages.com/peter
Vancouver Power Squadron: http://vancouver.powersquadron.ca
Terry Pinnell
OK, Jeff, I'll take a look. Sun's shining today, so I'm about to set
off for a hike. Maybe sort it tonight.
--
Active8
> Leon Heller <leon_...@hotmail.com> says...
>
>>The Yahoo Pulsonix Users Group I formed gets very little use, presumably
>>because the product is very easy to use and has very few bugs.
>
> I just downloaded the Pulsonix demo, and every item in every
> pulldown menu consists of the same three random characters.
> When I close it and restart it I get a different set of three
> random characters.
>
> System details: Compaq Proliant 5500R with quad Pentium Pro
> processors (200Mhz, 1MB cache each) and 3GB of RAM. OS I
> installed it on is Windows NT 4.0 SP6a with all of the latest
> patches. (After I get it running in NT I plan on trying it
> under WINE in Slackware Linux.)
>
> Before installing Pulsonix, I installed ExpressPCB, DIA, Vutrax,
> Eagle and SwCAD, and they all work fine.
>
> Any suggestions?
None related to your specific prob, but I wouldn't buy a Compaq
after what I learnt this weekend. I'll post that OT in another
thread.
--
Best Regards,
Mike
Guy Macon
Active8 <reply...@ndbbm.net> says...
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:
>
>> System details: Compaq Proliant 5500R with quad Pentium Pro
>> processors (200Mhz, 1MB cache each) and 3GB of RAM. OS I
>> installed it on is Windows NT 4.0 SP6a with all of the latest
>> patches. (After I get it running in NT I plan on trying it
>> under WINE in Slackware Linux.)
>I wouldn't buy a Compaq after what I learnt this weekend.
>I'll post that OT in another thread.
I wouldn't buy anything they make today, but old Compaq
computers are real workhorses that will outlast lesser PCs.
--
Guy Macon, Electronics Engineer & Project Manager for hire.
Active8
It will. A lot of EE pages from the university sites have CAD
related stuff and you'll find pages on how to set up your account
for running simulations for assignments.
>
> Also, for the most part, beginners shouldn't use spice. It will just
> postpone real understanding. If you already know some circuit theory, then
> it might be OK.
Actually, it can be a good visual aid toward understanding. Beats
the hell out of plotting on paper, if nothing else.
And lets not forget that CAD is not restricted to capture, spice,
and layout. Many university course sites also have notes heavily
dependant on Mathcad, MATLAB (real popular, it seems), some
Mathematica, and LabView.
I'd suggest that First Year Student get with some upperclassmen and
find out WTF software he will be required to purchase for his
courses and get it ahead of time so he can become familiar with it.
When I was in school, we got the very first MACs. The software
wasn't worth spit except for Multiplan (gotta manage that trust fund
money) - the physics department later hacked it for use in lab
homework and other stuff. Problem was that just to take your FORTRAN
course, you had to learn to use the school's minicomputer system
which sported the PrimeII OS. The manual was about an inch thick and
unless someone took you by the hand and showed you what you needed
to know, yuo had to RTFM. Time basiclly wasted when all you need to
do is enter your code and compile.
So learning how to use the software, time permitting, would gove one
an edge when it's do or die time.
>
> One thing to keep in mind is that the high-end, expensive tools often are
> designed to manage everything from schematic capture and layout to
> inventory control and costing and so on. Some of them only run on Unix,
> and there is an expectation that there will be a dedicated staff of people
> just to maintain the tool. It simply doesn't make sense for you to invest
> in learning this type of tool unless you work for a company that uses it,
> and they will most likely expect to train you anyway.
Possibly while still in school if the school has a co-op program.
>
> Hey, I just thought of another idea: Get some free software type tools
> (gSchem for schematic capture, pcb for layout, and ngspice for
> simulation -- see http://geda.seul.org) and donate some of the $10,000 you
> save to the various projects. I believe they all accept donations. There
> is a grand tradition of rich benefactors supporting worthy causes. Maybe
> you could be such a benefactor for open-source EDA projects. Just a
> thought. ;-)
"I represent the Association for the Free Ejaculation of Windoze. We
are dedicated to eradicating doze doze. We need money..."
- Anonymous
--
Best Regards,
Mike
Terry Pinnell
John Woodgate
wrote (in <1g43a72g...@news.individual.net>) about 'Software for
Schematic, PWB, and Spice?', on Tue, 30 Mar 2004:
>I'd suggest that First Year Student get with some upperclassmen and
>find out WTF software he will be required to purchase for his
>courses and get it ahead of time so he can become familiar with it.
It'll be out of date by the time he's an upperclassman. (;-)
Active8
> Active8 <reply...@ndbbm.net> says...
>>
>>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:
>>
>>> System details: Compaq Proliant 5500R with quad Pentium Pro
>>> processors (200Mhz, 1MB cache each) and 3GB of RAM. OS I
>>> installed it on is Windows NT 4.0 SP6a with all of the latest
>>> patches. (After I get it running in NT I plan on trying it
>>> under WINE in Slackware Linux.)
>
>>I wouldn't buy a Compaq after what I learnt this weekend.
>>I'll post that OT in another thread.
>
> I wouldn't buy anything they make today, but old Compaq
> computers are real workhorses that will outlast lesser PCs.
Well, the speed tells me it's older than mine. I didn't know NT
could handle 4 MPUs, though. I thought it was limited to 2.
--
Best Regards,
Mike
Guy Macon
Mat Nieuwenhoven
>On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 21:22:39 +0100 (CET), "Mat Nieuwenhoven"
><mni...@dontincludethis.zap.a2000.nl> wrote:
>
>
>>I use Eagle for both schematic and board, and it fullfills my humble needs.
>>For non-commericial use, there is a restricted version for free.
>>I think the quality of the component libraries that come with anything you
>>choose is very important, otherwise you'll spend quite some time making
>>'real-world' components.
>>
>>Mat Nieuwenhoven
>>
>
>Conversely, I think the quality of the supplied libraries is fairly
>unimportant, but the library editors _must_ be easy to use.
>
>I've used various versions of Protel for many years, and I _still_
>find that I generally have to make new schematic or PCB parts for
>almost every job I do. There are so many different ICs available that
>you just can't expect any CAD maker to cover them all in their
>libraries (and when I use Altera FPGAs, I would want to make my own
>schematic symbols, even if Protel provided a "generic" symbol for the
>part - my symbols will have the pins labelled to suit my application,
>not just as "I/O123", or somesuch.)
I agree about the ability to easily add/change library parts. But it should
come with all standard ICs, housings, lots of connectors etc. to start with.
73, Mat Nieuwenhoven PA0MNU
JeffM
That's better.
Active8
> I read in sci.electronics.design that Active8 <reply...@ndbbm.net>
> wrote (in <1g43a72g...@news.individual.net>) about 'Software for
> Schematic, PWB, and Spice?', on Tue, 30 Mar 2004:
>>I'd suggest that First Year Student get with some upperclassmen and
>>find out WTF software he will be required to purchase for his
>>courses and get it ahead of time so he can become familiar with it.
>
> It'll be out of date by the time he's an upperclassman. (;-)
Lest he take that seriously, I think if they use Matcad this year,
for example, they'll be using it when and if he gets there. At worst
he'll need to upgrade, but I doubt it. Also, he can get the student
discount if it isn't already floating around campus freely or freely
floating around campus, take yer pick.
--
Best Regards,
Mike
"@com.aol >
I have no idea what it has to do with the capture software, but what the
hell, I'll try to answer that.
First, I think many people just had a moral problem with it. Simply put,
you really shouldn't cheat on your wife. The person of the President is
obviously a role model who can realistically expect to be held to high
moral standards, particularly when he publicly embraces his religion.
Second, it showed lack of judgment. It was frankly stupid to pick an
indiscreet 22 year old intern with which to have an affair. Kennedy at
least slept with mature women who could be counted on to keep their
mouths shut. A president should not be foolish enough to put himself
into compromising situations that have the possibility of turning into
vast embarrassments, as this one eventually did.
Third, we'd been through this before with Bill, in (IIRC) the Gennifer
Flowers debacle. We thought we had a deal, something along the lines of
"we'll let this one go, but no more scandals - from now on you keep your
fly zipped, OK?"
But mostly, I think it was the lying under oath. It's important to
remember that when Clinton leaned into the camera and uttered those now
famous words "I did NOT have sex with that woman" he was effectively in
court, testifying under oath in a criminal trial related to sexual
harassment charges dating to his days as governor of Arkansas.
Purgery in a criminal suit is not a trivial matter. Particularly when an
elected official is on the stand.
The pundits were eager to dismiss it, but many people in America,
frankly, are tired of being lied to by politicians and are on a slow
boil about it. I think I speak for many when I say what pushed me,
personally, over the edge was the televised image of the President
feigning righteous indignation, directing his response straight to me
... and lying out his ass.
- Steve
Kevin Aylward
> Reg Edwards wrote:
>> Why did the great American people attach so much importance to
>> president Clinton's little white lies about harmless sex with his
>> secretary during working hours?
>
> I have no idea what it has to do with the capture software, but what
> the hell, I'll try to answer that.
>
> First, I think many people just had a moral problem with it. Simply
> put, you really shouldn't cheat on your wife.
Agreed, but probably 50%+ do, as do the wives.
>The person of the
> President is obviously a role model who can realistically expect to
> be held to high moral standards,
ROTFLMAO
Nope. Only the naive might believe twaddle like this.
> particularly when he publicly
> embraces his religion.
*All* religious people are hypocrites, so nothing new here.
>
> Second, it showed lack of judgment. It was frankly stupid to pick an
> indiscreet 22 year old intern with which to have an affair. Kennedy at
> least slept with mature women who could be counted on to keep their
> mouths shut. A president should not be foolish enough to put himself
> into compromising situations that have the possibility of turning into
> vast embarrassments, as this one eventually did.
Agreed. What a twat he was.
>
> Third, we'd been through this before with Bill, in (IIRC) the Gennifer
> Flowers debacle. We thought we had a deal, something along the lines
> of "we'll let this one go, but no more scandals - from now on you
> keep your fly zipped, OK?"
>
> But mostly, I think it was the lying under oath.
Ahmmm...
>It's important to
> remember that when Clinton leaned into the camera and uttered those
> now famous words "I did NOT have sex with that woman" he was
> effectively in court, testifying under oath in a criminal trial
> related to sexual harassment charges dating to his days as governor
> of Arkansas.
I believe that the legal rational for this was that, arguably, "sexual
relations" meant normal sexual intercourse, in which case it would not
have technically been a lie.
>
> Purgery in a criminal suit is not a trivial matter. Particularly when
> an elected official is on the stand.
Unless the criminal case is about alleged rapes and so forth, a criminal
court has no business whatsoever in obtaining private and personal
information of this nature, whoever it is. The fact that something is
criminal, dose not make it "morally" correct. For example, both drug
laws and prostitution laws are, essentially, victimless "crimes". They
should not be crimes, so lying about such matters is perfectly justified
in my book.
>
> The pundits were eager to dismiss it,
Indeed, as am I.
but many people in America,
> frankly, are tired of being lied to by politicians and are on a slow
> boil about it.
Show me a person who says he never lies, and I will show you a liar. If
you can show me a better case which one is more likely to lie then when
one wants to hide the fact that one is cheating on ones wife, I'd like
to know.
>I think I speak for many when I say what pushed me,
> personally, over the edge was the televised image of the President
> feigning righteous indignation, directing his response straight to me
> ... and lying out his ass.
>
This is nothing new. All politicians lie as soon as their lips move, so
there is simply nothing of any new relevance on this particular case.
The only difference is that the lie was discovered.
You can argue until your blue in the face as to what things should be,
but they aint, and never will be. You can't get elected by telling the
truth. Its that simple.
Kevin Aylward
salesE...@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.
Leon Heller
>
> Leon Heller <leon_...@hotmail.com> says...
>
> >The Yahoo Pulsonix Users Group I formed gets very little use, presumably
> >because the product is very easy to use and has very few bugs.
>
> pulldown menu consists of the same three random characters.
> When I close it and restart it I get a different set of three
> random characters.
>
> processors (200Mhz, 1MB cache each) and 3GB of RAM. OS I
> installed it on is Windows NT 4.0 SP6a with all of the latest
> patches. (After I get it running in NT I plan on trying it
> under WINE in Slackware Linux.)
>
> Eagle and SwCAD, and they all work fine.
>
> Any suggestions?
Pulsonix has fixed this problem and sent updated DLLs to Guy.
Leon
"@com.aol >
Kevin Aylward wrote:
>>The person of the
>>President is obviously a role model who can realistically expect to
>>be held to high moral standards,
>
> Nope. Only the naive might believe twaddle like this.
Hey! I'm improving! Usually I get called things like "cynical" and "jaded".
But you're missing the point. Western leaders are expected to *behave*
in a moral way, even if they're not.
When I go home to visit my Mom, I meekly go to church on Sunday. I don't
think for a second that she believes I'm religious or anything, it's
just part of the game.
>>It's important to
>>remember that when Clinton leaned into the camera and uttered those
>>now famous words "I did NOT have sex with that woman"...
>
> I believe that the legal rational for this was that, arguably, "sexual
> relations" meant normal sexual intercourse, in which case it would not
> have technically been a lie.
Let's try a little experiment about legal rationale and see where it
gets us. Go home tonight and explain to your wife that your young office
assistant spent her afternoon under your desk - but that's OK, it wasn't
sexual - there was no penetration.
I’m thinking most people would consider a hummer from their secretary
some form of “sexual relations”, as the term is commonly used.
And let's not even start with the word "is".
>>Purgery in a criminal suit is not a trivial matter. Particularly when
>>an elected official is on the stand.
>
> Unless the criminal case is about alleged rapes and so forth, a criminal
> court has no business whatsoever in obtaining private and personal
> information ...
But that's the point, he was testifying in relation to "Paula Corbin
Jones vs. William Jefferson Clinton", a 1996 lawsuit dating to his days
as governor where he was accused of sexually harassing/assaulting Jones,
a state secretary.
If you stand accused of assaulting one office worker, a history of
sexual dalliances with your other office workers is certainly germane.
(The Clinton team response to the Jones suit, BTW, was the dumbest piece
of lawering I've ever seen. Rather than quietly settling it and letting
it go away, the Clinton camp dug in for battle, fought every court
action with arguments of executive privilege, and publicly smeared
Jones. All of which only encouraged Jones to keep fighting and keep it
in the public eye for 3 years - long enough to let it get wrapped up in
the Whitewater investigations. Dumb)
- Steve Switaj
John Woodgate
wrote (in <gPWac.6429$Tx6....@fe2.texas.rr.com>) about 'Software for
Schematic, PWB, and Spice (getting OT)', on Thu, 1 Apr 2004:
>(The Clinton team response to the Jones suit, BTW, was the dumbest piece of
>lawering I've ever seen. Rather than quietly settling it and letting it go away,
>the Clinton camp dug in for battle, fought every court action with arguments of
>executive privilege, and publicly smeared Jones. All of which only encouraged
>Jones to keep fighting and keep it in the public eye for 3 years - long enough
>to let it get wrapped up in the Whitewater investigations. Dumb)
'Dumb' depends on your viewpoint. How much money did the Clinton legal
team make out of it?
Kevin Aylward
> Kevin Aylward wrote:
>
>>> The person of the
>>> President is obviously a role model who can realistically expect to
>>> be held to high moral standards,
>>
>> Nope. Only the naive might believe twaddle like this.
>
> Hey! I'm improving! Usually I get called things like "cynical" and
> "jaded".
>
> But you're missing the point. Western leaders are expected to *behave*
> in a moral way, even if they're not.
And who might such a daft person be by way of example?
Again, what silly twat seriously expects politicians to behave in a
moral way. Get real dude. It aint goanna happen.
>
> When I go home to visit my Mom, I meekly go to church on Sunday.
Oh dear.
>I
> don't think for a second that she believes I'm religious or anything,
> it's just part of the game.
>
One I dont play anymore. I gave that up at five.
>
>>> It's important to
>>> remember that when Clinton leaned into the camera and uttered those
>>> now famous words "I did NOT have sex with that woman"...
>>
>> I believe that the legal rational for this was that, arguably,
>> "sexual relations" meant normal sexual intercourse, in which case it
>> would not have technically been a lie.
>
> Let's try a little experiment about legal rationale and see where it
> gets us. Go home tonight and explain to your wife that your young
> office assistant spent her afternoon under your desk - but that's OK,
> it wasn't sexual - there was no penetration.
>
> I’m thinking most people would consider a hummer from their secretary
> some form of “sexual relations”, as the term is commonly used.
I am explaining what the legal rational might have been. I was not
making a comment on whether it was an effective one or not. In my view
he would have been better saying "sexual intercourse", although this one
is still debatable. The best would have been, "I didn't fuck that
women". This would have been entirely accurate.
>
> And let's not even start with the word "is".
>
>
>>> Purgery in a criminal suit is not a trivial matter. Particularly
>>> when an elected official is on the stand.
>>
>> Unless the criminal case is about alleged rapes and so forth, a
>> criminal court has no business whatsoever in obtaining private and
>> personal information ...
>
> But that's the point, he was testifying in relation to "Paula Corbin
> Jones vs. William Jefferson Clinton", a 1996 lawsuit dating to his
> days as governor where he was accused of sexually
> harassing/assaulting Jones, a state secretary.
>
> If you stand accused of assaulting one office worker, a history of
> sexual dalliances with your other office workers is certainly germane.
Nope. Trials must be based on the evidence as it stands to that
particular case. This is fundamental in modern law. Prior history must
be excluded. If this were not the case, the authorities would simply
pick up any 10 times burglar they find, tell the jury, and have him
immediately convicted. Prior history can only have a place in the
sentencing after a conviction.
>
> (The Clinton team response to the Jones suit, BTW, was the dumbest
> piece of lawering I've ever seen. Rather than quietly settling it and
> letting it go away, the Clinton camp dug in for battle, fought every
> court action with arguments of executive privilege, and publicly
> smeared Jones. All of which only encouraged Jones to keep fighting
> and keep it in the public eye for 3 years - long enough to let it get
> wrapped up in the Whitewater investigations. Dumb)
>
I agree, that Clintons defence was completely wrong. It only goes to
show that no mater what field an "expert" is in, only a few are.
John Woodgate
A...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in <QDZac.1121$Ny4....@newsfep3-gui.server.nt
li.net>) about 'Software for Schematic, PWB, and Spice (getting OT)', on
Thu, 1 Apr 2004:
>Again, what silly twat seriously expects politicians to behave in a
>moral way. Get real dude. It aint goanna happen.
What is astonishing is that they kick over the traces in the assumption
that no-one will find out. This applies to British Conservative
politicians particularly, but by no means only to them.
Dave Cole
""sswitaj"@com.aolreverse"> wrote on 3/31/04 12:11:
Steve,
I don't believe I've ever seen or heard this stated more clearly.
Bravo!
Dave Cole
Leon Heller
"Leon Heller" <leon_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:406bc3b7$0$3308$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
Guy confirmed that the problem has been fixed, in a message posted to the
Pulsonix Users Group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PulsonixUG/message/254
He was very impressed with the rapid response from Pulsonix.
Leon