> -----Original Message----- > From: Protel Hell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 4:26 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [PEDA] What is the meaning of "DXP" > > Protel reminds me of the early versions of ViewDraw, not easy > to learn or use, I don't know where you are at or background
Viewdraw, or as it is called now Pads/DX Designer is not that much better now. Up to P99SE the simplicity of the Protel user interface beat Viewdraw or PowerLogic (which I used from DOS version also). I have only used Protel since P98 came out, but used Orcad since SDT IV / Powerlogic since P2000 / Viewdraw (hated that, gave up) With DXP Altium decided a more cluttered environment was in order and spoiled that simplicity a bit IMO not only for previous Protel users but new ones as well. I think it was haste, or developers with a new toy (nice panels) and a little additional razz for marketing but I have a feeling the comments on the DXP list to rationalise the functions within the panels to tidy them up and reduce the amount open at one time will get a fair hearing. > all you have to do to see how well sch & pcb match in Protel > is look at the cardboard triangle thing they give you, if I > every remember all that I'll > either: be committed to insane asylum or forget everything else I know It is far more natural than you think. > I hope my bitching is seen as constructive by Altium, > ViewDraw which I compared it to is much easier to learn and > productivity has increased than it was in the past, hopefully > DXP will improve too No one usually bitches more about DXP as regards the UI and project/file management structure than me. But as far as comparing Viewdraw and DXP, I would have to pick DXP every time, warts and all. John > > > > >From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: [PEDA] What is the meaning of "DXP" > >Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:56:03 -0500 > > > >At 02:40 PM 12/16/2003, Protel Hell wrote: > >>so what's the excuse for pcb not matching schematic? > > > >The history was two different DOS programs... Then there are > >differences in what is natural with schematics and what is > natural with > >PCB design. In schematic, symbol representation is important but not > >electrically functional, in PCB, most everything creates a physical > >structure with important characteristics. It is clear that > the programs > >were not originally designed to have a common way of doing things; > >sometimes this is appropriate, sometimes it is merely irritating. > > > > > >>I hope they work on the productivity, it is obvious the system was > >>designed more from the EE designers perspective, and that's > great, but > >>for the person that only does pcb design it is very slow, I hope I > >>never have to do a large board with this, I'll use > something else if > >>it is up to me > > > >As a printed circuit designer, I found Protel quite easy to use, I > >started with Protel 98. (I had used the Autotrax demo years > before to > >write a Tango > >- Protel bidirectional translator, but the real key to my Protel > >experience was Tango itself, since it was pretty much an Autotrax > >killer, written by Accel to grab the U.S. market of Protel, > for whom they had been the U.S. > >rep.) > > > >I'm not sure I agree that Protel is designed "more from the EE > >designers perspective," partly because I'm not sure exactly what Mr. > >Protel Hell means. Protel definitely appeals more to > engineers than to > >in-house printed circuit design specialists, but the reasons > for that > >are complex, having a lot to do with the kinds of characters who are > >attracted to -- or qualified for -- the two fields. I'm a printed > >circuit designer, a specialist to be sure, but my training and > >inclinations are more like an engineer and, when I worked at large > >companies, tended to get along very well with the engineers > and not always so well with other designers.. > > > >Protel is a highly flexible design system, there are usually > many ways > >to accomplish a task, and it has an open database, which gives even > >more flexibility. I might be called a "printed circuit design > >engineer," rather than a CAD specialist per se. I was never > shy to dig > >into the inner workings of the programs I worked with, to > write my own > >utilities to manipulate databases when the command set of > the program > >didn't do what I needed, or didn't do it with sufficient > power and speed. > > > >I find it interesting that I almost completely stopped writing > >utilities when I started using Protel, because the program > already did > >most of what I needed to do; what remained could usually be handled > >simply by opening up the ASCII database with Word or Excel. > > > >Productivity is a double-edged sword. Sometimes what makes a program > >difficult to learn can increase productivity for one who has learned > >it; the reverse can be true as well, i.e., what makes a program more > >productive can make it harder to learn. A good program is both > >intuitive *and* efficient, that is, it may have, for > example, plenty of > >menus with logical names, but it may also have lots of keystroke > >shortcuts, since the keyboard is faster than the mouse for a > skilled user. > > > >Protel is quite satisfactory for large boards *if you know > how to use > >it.* I don't think there is an easier PCB CAD system. I once had a > >customer who required that I use OrCAD Layout, which was, at > the time > >-- I don't know if it has changed -- a very rigid and very > >non-intuitive design system, which cost about triple the price of > >Protel at the time. The customer wanted me to use OrCAD even > though he > >hated it himself, because he had spent $13,000 on it and > Capture and he couldn't get his money back.... It was a disaster. > >I've talked to a lot of designers about the experience, and > apparently > >I was not uniquely stupid. I'd spend a day figuring out how to do > >something that would take a few seconds in Tango or Protel; > next day, > >when I needed to do it again, I had forgotten, it was that complex. > > > >Yet there are designers who swear by OrCAD. My conclusions > are various: > >(1) They don't know any better, and/or (2) more importantly, > they are > >accustomed to OrCAD, and when you've been doing something a > certain way > >for ten years, it definitely becomes the "intuitive way" to > do the thing. > > > >If you really want to compare two CAD systems, ask designers > who have > >become expert with both systems, anything short of that is pretty > >arbitrary, depending on the history of the evaluator. > > > >>like it or not, for beter or worse, MicroSoft rules the > world, if you > >>expect to suceed software must conform to Windows, it must > be easy to > >>learn in any case, DXP is the most unintuitive CAD I have > ever seen, > >>and I've been in CAD over 20 years > > > >Windows conventions were largely designed for use with > documents; once > >you get outside of text documents, the "conventions" see a lot of > >variation. In PCB design, placement position is critical. Simple > >cut-and-paste doesn't cut it, so to speak. > > > >But where it is reasonably appropriate to use known conventions, > >certainly they should be used. My point, however, is that this may > >sacrifice the productivity of an expert user for ease-of-use for a > >novice. Protel, I think, has a good set of compromises, but > certainly > >it can be improved; in fact, it *has* been improved quite a > bit since I started to use it. > > > >I originally commented on Protel Hell's complaint about > inconsistency > >between CAMtastic and PCB, which, indeed, are far more inconsistent > >than, say, Schematic and PCB. It is irritating and frustrating that, > >for example, zooming around the board requires drastically different > >procedures in the two programs. That's a productivity > killer. But both > >programs have users accustomed to the existing interfaces, > which makes > >changing one or the other tricky. I'd suggest having alternate > >interfaces; that is, the existing interface for one of the programs > >would be retained as an option; but the standard, default > interface, if > >it differed, would be designed to form a common standard > interface for all the programs in the set. > > > >For example, in PCB, I'm accustomed to zooming in with Z-W, draw box > >with mouse. The window can be panned by grabbing the view box in the > >Browse PCB mini-display and moving it, or it can be panned even more > >quickly by hold-right-mouse, which grabs the screen, which > can then be > >panned directly, which works great for short pans. Or I can > simply zoom > >out (perhaps Z-B, which will show me the entire board) and > then zoom in > >again to the area of interest. Lots of ways to do the task, not to > >mention the pull-down menus, the rt-click popup menu, and > PageUp and PageDown. > > > >Now, in Schematic, hit the Z key and you get the zoom menu. W works > >just like in PCB, so that the Z-W method of zooming in works > the same > >as in PCB, and since it is my default way of looking about, I > >experience PCB and Schematic as being quite similar in this respect. > >Some of the options on the Z menu are the same in PCB and in > Schematic, > >some are different. Some of the differences are appropriate, some > >represent ways in which Schematic > >-- or maybe PCB -- could be improved. For example, why is > there a Zoom > >Select command in PCB and not in Schematic? > > > >But there is no Panel display of the whole schematic and there is no > >grabbing the screen with the right-mouse and panning that > way. How much > >of a loss is this? A little, not a lot.... The range of > scales used on > >a schematic is not as great as on a PCB; the panel display > is thus less > >important. But I don't use it a lot in PCB, simply because I'm quite > >accustomed to doing without such a thing, I just zoom in and > out a lot. > > > >And I'm very grateful that my Protel/hardware combination draws the > >screen quickly. I remember CADstar running on early PCs.... > I've still > >got the original boxes for CADstar and Redlog in the closet.... > >Installed, used once, replaced with a $250 program called > EasyPCB, and > >put away.... (That was about $14K worth of software at the time, the > >loan or gift -- it was never clear -- of a customer who was acquired > >and disappeared; they used to sell CADstar/Redlog. And it > was way too > >cumbersome to use.) > > > >It's easy to look at a program and find something wrong with > it. In the > >end, however, it seems that there are a lot of engineers and > designers > >who use Protel because they like it, they find it better than the > >options, it works for them. It's not better than it could > theoretically > >be, but better than the other programs that are actually > available and > >affordable. (Protel has gotten more expensive, but the > competition is > >generally even more expensive. If I were in marketing at > Altium, I'd be > >very conscious of the entry market. At a startup, cash might > be short. > >How can I encourage small companies to get started with > Protel, how can I make it easy for them? > >There are some other programs out there that might be appealing to a > >startup; for example Tsien Boardmaker, and it costs very > little to get > >into Boardmaker; and it does, in fact, do printed circuit design.... > >but Protel it is not, I would not recommend Boardmaker to > someone who > >can afford Protel and who needs to do serious work, but if > you *can't* > >afford Protel > >-- even a resold license, which might be 25-50% off -- then > you do what > >you > >can.) > > > >When I bought Protel 98, I paid for it out of my own pocket. It was > >truly a bargain. (I was fortunate enough to have a friend with an > >un-upgraded Autotrax license, so I only paid about $1995; full price > >then was, as I recall, $3995.) Many of those who write for this list > >are similarly working for themselves, they have chosen to > use Protel, > >no one is standing over them making them use it. If you are > accustomed > >to something else, it can seem like cruel fate to be forced to use a > >new tool. But don't let yourself imagine that the tool is useless! > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, > work and > yourself. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
