ditto this snip below for us
and we haven't gotten 2004 yet either
although we did the access code in the mail
and that was over a week ago

> I went back to Protel and made the transition from 99SE to DXP. I don't
> know why they didn't just fix 99SE instead of basically starting over.
> Trying to use DXP at first made me feel like a complete idiot, it is a
> resource hog (my 1GHZ computer is too slow?) and the software still
> isn't quite finished (I am still waiting for 2004, hopefully it is
> better).  This has been very painful, but at least it wasn't $40k a
> seat!

at $40K  you can get a pretty nice car wrapped around a seat

PADs charging for the copy/paste *is* pretty outrageous

do they charge for mouse support or file save as too?

Dennis Saputelli


Cliff Gerhard wrote:
> 
> Bill, I think your opinion about Mentor is spot on.
> 
> Sorry long rant ahead....
> 
> A few years back, I took a job managing the layout department (among
> other things) for a company that had been using PADs for several years.
> One of my jobs was to pick new CAD software because they were very tired
> of PADs.  The one that really got me was when I asked PADs about cutting
> and pasting.  I had an op amp circuit that was similar to one that we
> had done on another board.  I wanted to copy it to the new design.  It
> would only copy the components.  All of the traces would be removed.
> They came back with "you need our design re-use package".  $4k +
> Maintenance to cut and paste! Unreal!
> 
> We had also been bitten several times by software bugs (DRC and Gerber
> generation) that caused very expensive and time critical boards to be
> scrapped.  I was personally using Protel at the time, but it was not
> even considered because they wanted a "high end" tool.
> 
> We were using Cadence for IC development (well into six figures for
> those tools!) and I was under some pressure to pick the Cadence PCB
> tools. All of the engineers (about 20) were using OrCAD (which had just
> been bought by Cadence) and we didn't want all of the engineers to have
> to learn a new schematic capture program, so we also needed to be able
> to use OrCAD as a front end for a while at least.
> 
> The tools from Cadence and Mentor were not well integrated at all at
> that time.  They had both been gobbling up smaller companies and adding
> bits and pieces to their software into their existing products.  Many
> different and non-intuitive ways to do the same thing.
> 
> I did my research and it was very much like dealing with used car
> salesmen. A very unpleasant experience.  At the time, Mentor had just
> picked up Veribest and their interactive manual routing was very
> impressive.  We had to maintain all of our old PADs designs and both
> salesmen (Cadence and Mentor) assured me, in writing, that they had a
> working PADs translator and it would not be an issue.
> 
> I made the decision to go with Mentor. The cost was about $80k for two
> seats.  We immediately had problems.  The PADs \translator was non
> functional for quite some time and we had a bunch of problems trying to
> use Orcad Netlists.  You had to have an error free netlist loaded to
> even place a part on a new board!
> 
> Once we placed the P.O., we needed support to get through these issues.
> Tech support and the leghumping salesman, who had been calling me
> several times a day prior to getting the P.O. signed, were now taking
> days to return my calls.  At one point, I feared that I might loose my
> job over the decision.  After about a year (no exaggeration) the layout
> people were finally getting up to speed with the tools and fairly happy
> with them.  These were very sharp people and excellent designers too.
> 
> I have since moved on and am now back with a small product development
> company.  I was again faced with the problem of choosing a CAD system.
> We do not have the deep pockets to afford the "high end" tools.  After
> my experience with Mentor, I am not sure I would have considered it even
> if we could afford it.
> 
> I went back to Protel and made the transition from 99SE to DXP. I don't
> know why they didn't just fix 99SE instead of basically starting over.
> Trying to use DXP at first made me feel like a complete idiot, it is a
> resource hog (my 1GHZ computer is too slow?) and the software still
> isn't quite finished (I am still waiting for 2004, hopefully it is
> better).  This has been very painful, but at least it wasn't $40k a
> seat!
> 
> I hope Protel is not bailing out of the "shrink wrapped" CAD market.
> There isn't much else out there for us who can't afford (or don't need)
> the high dollar tools.  If they are putting all their eggs in the
> embedded system business I can't see them surviving too much longer.
> Then I guess I'll be back to that familiar place of having to pick a new
> CAD system.
> 
> o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o
> Cliff Gerhard, P.E.
> E-M Designs, Inc.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brooks,Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 12:48 PM
> To: 'Protel EDA Forum'
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
> 
> I'm sure they were former auto salesmen ... 'oh, you want brakes with
> it... well that's the diamond option, and a steering wheel? Well you
> need the platinum option...' etc... etc..
> 
> Bill Brooks
> PCB Design Engineer , C.I.D., C.I.I.
> Tel: (760)597-1500 Ext 3772 Fax: (760)597-1510
> 

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________
Integrated Controls, Inc.           Tel: 415-647-0480  EXT 107 
2851 21st Street                    Fax: 415-647-3003
San Francisco, CA 94110             www.integratedcontrolsinc.com


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to