> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terry Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 8 May 2001 04:12
> To: Protel EDA Forum
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel news. Was: BGA Design
>
>
> On Mon, 07 May 2001 10:48:49 +1000, Don wrote:
>
> >
> >> Combined in what way? Personally I write HDL (verilog),
> draw schematics,
> >> layout PCBs, and write embedded software - I doubt many
> Protel customers
> >do
> >> all that as individuals although many will as companies.
> What use is a
> >VHDL
> >> or C compiler to a guy like...
> >>
> >> Brad Velander,
> >> Lead PCB Designer,
>
> >If you have a look at the current toolchain for the AT94 it will be
> >immediately clear ( look for co-verification ) as to why it would be
> >advantageous for Atmel to be able to source low cost modules
> to make the
> >CPU&sea of gates ubiquitous.
>
> That still doesn't answer the question what does Brad want a
> C compiler
> for.
>
> >Currently their tools are sourced from the big
> >guys such as Mentor & have licensing & cost issues which
> prevent the devices
> >from common usage.
>
> I will agree providing low cost tools needed to do the job
> would help Atmel
> and it's customers.
>
If the speculation about the direction that Protel is taking is correct,
then they would be aiming to "serve two masters" - the traditional PCB
focused user and the user who wants it all. This sort of move would likely
make the software package truly "fat-ware" with lots of extra features and
complications that most of the users don't need and will resent having to
navigate around to get to the core features that they do need. Even if they
decide to create two product lines, each to "serve one master", it is likely
that there will still be extra overhead built into the simpler product. This
is analagous to what has happened to MS Word and Excel over the years. How
many people truly need to use all of the features in the current versions?
I have yet to see where the extra overhead introduced by the new features
made the software run faster. Many of the added features are of the "me
too" type where they don't work all that well, or don't do enough, forcing
you to go buy the software that is focused on the type of work you are
intending to do.
At GE, they had a New Product Introduction procedure that forced you to look
at the real needs of the potential customer base. One of the criteria used
in drawing up the product specifications was that the product should meet
the needs of 80% of it's potential customer base. Often, trying to meet the
needs of the remaining 20% of your potential customer base forces too much
extra cost onto the 80%. The products developed using this philosopy did
quite well on the marketplace.
Phil So
The contents of this E-mail may contain information that is legally
privileged and/or confidential to the named recipient. This information is
not to be used by any other person and/or organisation. The views expressed
in this document do not necessarily reflect those of the company.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/subscrib.html
* - or email -
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
