Re: [PEDA] Schematic - Dashed Lines.
Hi Harry, I have been complaining ever since 98SE. Trouble is you get seduced by the silky touch you get with DXP and its really hard to switch. For instance, using Orcad is like getting into a bed full of cold porridge after using Protel or DXP, and just as buggy. I am seriously thinking of going to Tsien. They lease their product for around £400 pa, which is dirt cheap compared to Altium, and they work on the bugs (or you don't renew the lease). Again, its not as silky as DXP but, long ago, I used their Boardmaker app under DOS and it was absolutely bullet proof. Robert -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Geoff Harland Sent: 24 January 2008 07:31 To: peda@techservinc.com Subject: Re: [PEDA] Schematic - Dashed Lines. So it is not really a bug, because a menu choice had been provided that didn't work. Oh well, so that's all right then. And even though that menu choice doesn't work, it is actually still possible to create dashed lines by pasting short line segments, as and how required. That's really fantastic too; where would everyone be without the provision of such advice to help them out? But just in case anyone has a tin ear, I do NOT think that defects like that are all right then at all. I'm not unduly bothered about that defect in particular, but it is still all-too-typical of what Altium has been shipping to its customers since the days when God was still in diapers. I honestly can't and don't understand why there aren't far more complaints about how buggy Altium's software is. However, as far as I am concerned, anyone who doesn't see fit to complain about the defects in their applications, but who is prepared to publicly defend them, is an accessory to the provision of crappy software, and is thus part of the problem. It is public knowledge that many people are unhappy about Microsoft. I'm not trying to start any flame war on that matter, and/or which type of OS (Windows, Linux, or others) that people should install on their PCs, but at least MS continues to provide service packs and patches for earlier versions of Windows for quite some time after releasing following versions. (They aren't still supporting NT 4.0, but they still did so for some time after releasing following versions, and AFAIK, they are still, for at least the time being, continuing to support Windows 2000.) OTOH, each time Altium releases another major version, they stop releasing SPs for the previous major version. It would be one thing to not continue releasing SPs for the previous version if the last SP released for that version resulted in it being totally bug-free. However, not only has that never been the case, but the final versions of each major version still contain *serious* defects, such as those involving output (e.g. Gerber files and printouts). I don't believe for one minute that Altium are at all likely to ever release a SP5 for AD2004 (or a SP3 for DXP, or a SP7 for Protel 99SE, or a SP4 for Protel 98 ...). However, given that other companies have issued product recalls on various occasions and for various reasons, I still don't understand why Altium's customers tolerate that. And to make matters even worse, there is nothing atypical about outstanding defects continuing to remain unrectified within following major versions. So not only are customers not getting serious defects rectified for free, but many are paying good money to upgrade to the next major version, ... and *still* not getting many serious defects rectified. I don't want to see the software industry subjected to higher levels of regulation than is currently the case, as it is unlikely that there would be a beneficial impact as far as prices or ongoing innovation are concerned. But software of the quality released by Altium still increases the likelihood of such an outcome occurring. I have already said what I think of anyone who doesn't see fit to complain about the defects, but who is prepared to publicly defend them. In the case of this defect, shortcomings of the GDI could be regarded as a complicating factor, but it is still not an excuse for failing to provide some type of workaround of a satisfactory manner, or otherwise appropriately modifying the user interface to prevent giving users the impression that certain functionality is available when that is actually not the case. Regards, Geoff. Harry Selfridge wrote: Hi Brad, This is an old issue that is well known. It's not really a bug, but a result of how the dotted and dashed lines were produced. In Protel99SE graphical lines were drawn using the Windows Graphics Device Interface (GDI), and the Windows GDI does not support the width property. The bug was allowing a menu choice that didn't work. You can manually create dashed lines of any width by drawing a short solid line with the desired width, then use copy and paste, or paste it multiple times using Paste Array. Regards - Harry
[PEDA] Test!
This is only a test to see if I can post an original message to the forum. Sincerely, Brad Velander, CID+ Senior PCB Designer Northern Airborne Technology #14 - 1925 Kirschner Road, Kelowna, BC, V1Y 4N7. tel (250) 763-2232 ext. 225 fax (250) 762-3374 This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, reproduction, copying distribution or other dissemination or use of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete this e-mail. It is the policy of Northern Airborne Technology Ltd that no legally binding statements, representations or commitments (collective statements) may be made by e-mail. Any such statement must be confirmed either by facsimile transmission or by post before they will have legal effect. The sender of this e-mail is not authorized to commit the company in any way and the addressee is hereby formally notified of that fact. Northern Airborne Technology (NAT) Ltd. 1925 Kirschner Road Kelowna, BC Canada, V1Y 4N7 Phone: 250-763-2232 Fax: 250-762-3374 You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum To Post messages: mailto:PEDA@techservinc.com Unsubscribe and Other Options: http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): http://www.mail-archive.com/peda@techservinc.com
Re: [PEDA] Test!
Hi, test worked OK. Does the reply get through too? I'm not sure if mine do. Robert Gillatt -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Velander Sent: 24 January 2008 18:26 To: 'peda@techservinc.com' Subject: [PEDA] Test! This is only a test to see if I can post an original message to the forum. Sincerely, Brad Velander, CID+ Senior PCB Designer Northern Airborne Technology #14 - 1925 Kirschner Road, Kelowna, BC, V1Y 4N7. tel (250) 763-2232 ext. 225 fax (250) 762-3374 This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, reproduction, copying distribution or other dissemination or use of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete this e-mail. It is the policy of Northern Airborne Technology Ltd that no legally binding statements, representations or commitments (collective statements) may be made by e-mail. Any such statement must be confirmed either by facsimile transmission or by post before they will have legal effect. The sender of this e-mail is not authorized to commit the company in any way and the addressee is hereby formally notified of that fact. Northern Airborne Technology (NAT) Ltd. 1925 Kirschner Road Kelowna, BC Canada, V1Y 4N7 Phone: 250-763-2232 Fax: 250-762-3374 You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum To Post messages: mailto:PEDA@techservinc.com Unsubscribe and Other Options: http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): http://www.mail-archive.com/peda@techservinc.com You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum To Post messages: mailto:PEDA@techservinc.com Unsubscribe and Other Options: http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): http://www.mail-archive.com/peda@techservinc.com
Re: [PEDA] Advice needed...
Just a couple thoughts: What is the clock frequency and, more importantly, what is the rise or fall time? How long is the trace run? This will have to be controlled impedance if the length of the line is significant compared to how far the signal will propagate during the rise or fall time. (Use 167 ps/inch for a rough propagations speed on the board.) How many things get clocked along the line? If there is only one then series termination at the source works well. If there are multiple things to be clocked along the line, then parallel termination at the end is in order. If radiated emissions are the problem (i.e. to pass FCC) then the best choice is to bury the signals stripline fashion, or at least keep their height above their reference plane small. Close proximity to a plane constrains the stray field lines. Burying between well-stitched planes is even better. Choose parts such that the slowest acceptable rise and fall times are used. This will limit harmonic content. A clock typically has significant harmonics up to hundreds of times the clock rate. Make sure there are no plane fingers or stubs that approach 1/4 wavelength for any of these harmonics, as the harmonics can cause these to resonate. Never split a plane under or near where the high speed trace runs. This breaks the high speed return path and causes both emissions and reflections. Hope this helps, Jeff Condit - Original Message - From: Jon Elson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Discussion List peda@techservinc.com Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:11 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Advice needed... David Cary wrote: Dear Tom Robinson, ... Any tips on ways to route a clock signal on a multilayer board. ... to minimize radiated emissions. Jon Elson gives the most important tips. I have been collecting similar tips at the Avoiding Noise web page. However, Atmel's EMC Design Considerations paper seems to contradict the use power/ground as outer shields idea: When... four or more layers are used ... one plane is used as a ground plane... one layer as a power plane ... These two planes should then be placed next to each other in the middle of the board, to reduce power supply impedance and loop area. It is not a good idea to place the power and ground planes as the outer layers to act as shields. It does not work as intended, as high currents are running in the ground plane. Yes, this is one of those tradeoffs. I always place the power and ground together for the lowest impedance of the planes, and have not used the buried/stripline traces for EMI supression. It depends on how much each of these conditions is a problem that MUST be solved. It may be required in some cases to trade off a little power plane noise to satify an EMI requirement. You can also add a shield plane, either over the whole board, or just as a local shield that covers the noisy trace, with lots of stitch vias to tie it to the main ground plane. There is no ONE answer to this, it totally depends on the specific requirements. Jon You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum To Post messages: mailto:PEDA@techservinc.com Unsubscribe and Other Options: http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): http://www.mail-archive.com/peda@techservinc.com -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.10/1241 - Release Date: 1/24/2008 9:58 AM You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum To Post messages: mailto:PEDA@techservinc.com Unsubscribe and Other Options: http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): http://www.mail-archive.com/peda@techservinc.com
[PEDA] More SPs for older major versions? (was Re: Schematic - Dashed Lines.)
Jon Elson wrote: Geoff Harland wrote: But just in case anyone has a tin ear, I do NOT think that defects like that are all right then at all. I'm not unduly bothered about that defect in particular, but it is still all-too-typical of what Altium has been shipping to its customers since the days when God was still in diapers. Although I would have much preferred Altium continued work on P99 instead of always making a New, Revolutionary, Totally recreated from the ground up sofware package, I think I can see that they make a lot more money selling a new package than updating an old one. But, really, P99 is a ten-year old package, so I can understand their dropping support and improvements. I don't dispute that it would be more profitable for Altium to sell new versions of their software than to continue issuing SPs for earlier versions. (And I am not suggesting that it is wrong for Altium to (attempt to) make a profit from selling software to the public at large.) However, I consider that their customers are also entitled to be provided with software which is free from serious defects (ideally, totally defect-free of course, but as that would not be realistic, and/or result in much higher prices, then at least free of all serious defects), and in the event that any serious defects actually are shipped, then to have those rectified on an ASAP basis. Signing on for that attitude would be doing the right thing as far as their customers are concerned, and it would also reduce (if not totally eliminate) any cause for any of their customers to believe that Altium is in the business of selling them snake oil. But over and above that, treating their customers to that level of care and consideration would increase the likelihood that more of them would want to come back again (in the form of updating to each new major version of the application). But instead of focusing on eradicating outstanding serious defects within each SP released for each major version, Altium has been providing a lot of new functionality instead. That would be less objectionable if there were no still-outstanding serious defects at the time, and if the new functionality was not also defective, and if previously provided functionality wasn't also broken at the same time. And (not too surprisingly, given all of that) after the last SP has been released (for each major version), many serious defects are still outstanding. And because no more SPs have been released for any major version after the initial version of the next major version has been released, such defects end up being of a permanent nature, as far as each major version is concerned. I agree that it could be regarded as over the top for Altium to issue any more SPs for Protel 99 SE, as it definitely is long in the tooth at this point in time. However, if they actually did issue another SP for it, then it could be regarded as sending a powerful message to their customers that they actually do care for them. And even though many of their customers (currently owning no later version than Protel 99 SE) would (still) *not* subsequently upgrade to any later version, the attitude projected by Altium could still result in *some* of those customers subsequently opting to upgrade, when they would not *otherwise* have done so. So maybe the number of customers upgrading could even be sufficiently large to cover the costs associated with tracking down and subsequently rectifying the outstanding serious defects within Protel 99 SE, resulting in outcomes of not only doing the right thing for those customers, but also doing no harm to (and perhaps even improving) their bottom line. But even if it could still be regarded as over the top for Altium to issue any more SPs for Protel 99 SE, or for DXP (because of the period of time that has lapsed since the last SP was released for each of those versions), the still very buggy nature of AD2004 would be good grounds for at least one more SP to be released for at least that version. As I have said before, it would be one thing to not issue any further SPs for that version if there were no outstanding defects of a serious nature - but that is definitely not the case. And as such, there are arguably good grounds for owners of AD2004 to take a class action suit against Altium (because of outstanding defects of a serious nature), and as such, they have arguably had an undeserved break, due to those customers not doing so (to date). I honestly can't and don't understand why there aren't far more complaints about how buggy Altium's software is. However, as far as I am concerned, anyone who doesn't see fit to complain about the defects in their applications, but who is prepared to publicly defend them, is an accessory to the provision of crappy software, and is thus part of the problem. I do NOT defend Altium, and have decided I will not buy anything
