[PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
Our group has used Protel for years. I've tried to get everyone to change to something else for most of that time but the resistance has been fairly great. It seems that the the philosophy has been that pain you know is preferable to the pain you don't know. However, with the introduction of DXP/2004 everyone is starting to realize that a good tool is needed. Is there something that is generally considered to be the best? I realize that some of the tools cost significantly more but when the frustration, poor results, and wasted time are considered, it may not actually be that expensive. One of the guys here uses PADS and really likes it. If we make a change we don't want to make the same mistake we made with Protel again. Ray Mitchell Engineer, Code 2732 SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego, CA. 92152 (619)553-5344 [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
Ray The choice is simple you need to purchase Mentor Expedition , appox cost 36K. Simply the best Mike Reagan EDSI -- Original Message -- From: Ray Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 07:41:56 -0700 >Our group has used Protel for years. I've tried to get everyone to change >to something else for most of that time but the resistance has been fairly >great. It seems that the the philosophy has been that pain you know is >preferable to the pain you don't know. However, with the introduction of >DXP/2004 everyone is starting to realize that a good tool is needed. Is >there something that is generally considered to be the best? I realize >that some of the tools cost significantly more but when the frustration, >poor results, and wasted time are considered, it may not actually be that >expensive. One of the guys here uses PADS and really likes it. If we make >a change we don't want to make the same mistake we made with Protel again. > >Ray Mitchell >Engineer, Code 2732 >SPAWAR Systems Center >San Diego, CA. 92152 >(619)553-5344 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
Ray, I made the mistake that you are considering before. The group I was with in Temecula bought Pads on my misguided recommendation... I was taken in by the demo. The guys made it look so easy, then when I got the software and realized they sold me a package that was stripped down compared to the one they demonstrated... I saw red. If I wanted the package that did all the fancy stuff like interactive routing and push and shove placement etc, I would have to pay thousands more for the 'add-ons'. The total would come to about 22K... we chose not to by more stuff, but to try to get along with what we bought. I cussed aloud many times when trying to learn to use the software on my own. I took a 1 day compressed class and that didn't help much either... Pads is functional, if not confusing... and if you don't know any tool it can be fine, you just need to allow yourself 6 months to a year to get it to be really useful. Learning all the 'work arounds' can be a full time job, and very frustrating when you have a job to get done. I spent a lot of time on the phone with the tech support guy in Los Angeles, He speaks with a Russian accent to boot. That was not fun when he was out on sales calls... The thing I am trying to say is, Protel was what we purchased after fighting with the PADS program for a month and a half. PADS would not take back their software, so we had to eat the 12 grand we invested in that software. Later I took a class at Palomar College that was using PADS and walked through a full semester of training with the package and still I don't like it, but I was able to use it. It's a frustrating package for a guy like me who expects to find the print command under the word, print. There's was buried in some dialog box that had no reference to printing at all. Protel has been a better software package than the PADS program was for me, mostly because Protel was more intuitive to use, I spent less time looking for a command or feature than I did with PADS and it was easier to use and it let me undo mistakes which PADS was notorious for NOT letting me do. The new 2004 product remains to be seen... I would be patient and don't get too discouraged with all the talk you hear on this forum... some of us are real idealists... I think I'm included in that group. As soon as I can get the time to spend on kicking the tires on the new software I will let you know what I think of where we are with Protel. In the mean time you can ask specific questions about the functionality on this forum and you might consider get the training class that Matthew Berggren does on Protel if you can. It was helpful in getting a better sense of what the software can do and where you can go with it. Although I found when I was learning Protel that a local designer who had been using it since version 2.0 was more savvy and had better 'tricks' for being productive with it than I got anywhere else. I have been using Protel since version 98 and that was in 1998. It's not a bad package. There are just some features I wish it had that are less than perfect, but hopefully they will iron those out in the future. Feel free to give me a call if you need help. Or just publish your questions here and you have a lot of years of PROTEL experience here at your fingertips with all these great guys and gals listening in. They will be glad to help and discuss your issues I'm sure and even some of them are programmers who will write user commands that you can use to get better productivity out of the software. (Okay, so now I am an apologist for the Altium company... so shoot me...) Actually, the best combo I have used so far in this price range is the Orcad schematic package with the Protel PCB editor and the Specctra Autorouter and AutoCad for the drafting of mechanical things like board outlines, dimensions, etc... We use the schematic package here that comes with Protel and we get by with it. Have for the last 3 years. Bill Brooks PCB Design Engineer , C.I.D., C.I.I. TITAN CORPORATION DATRON WORLD COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION 3030 Enterprise Court, Vista, CA 92083 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://www.titan.com/business_units/index.html?organization_id=81 Tel: (760)597-1500 Ext 3772 Fax: (760)597-1510 ___ Member of the San Diego Chapter of the IPC Designers Council Communications Officer, Web Manager http://dcchapters.ipc.org/SanDiego/ -Original Message- From: Ray Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 7:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation? Our group has used Protel for years. I've tried to get everyone to change to something else for most of that time but the resistance has been fairly great. It seems that the the philosophy has been that pain you know is preferable to the pain you don't know. However, with the introduction of DXP/2004 everyone is starting t
Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
The 'best' program out there by popular opinion... I hate to say this... Is supposedly Mentor Expedition. Now that being said... the reason it's the 'best' is not its ease of use. It does gate and pin swapping. It has a first class interactive autorouter. It can interface with REAL GOOD simulation tools and they can do simulation based upon the board geometry. The design team at Qualcomm was using Mentor to do the cell phones that they are so famous for... but it took having a Mentor rep onsite to deal with the issues that they had... and a lot of custom programming... it was not cheap. I taught a PCB design class at Palomar using Mentor... What a pain ... Mentor set us up with a minimal system... ala the PADS story...( see previous e-mail) They have a similar sales philosophy at Mentor, (may be why they bought PADS), add on modules that you need so you can customize 'till the cows come home' it's a very 'feature rich' environment... But... with that comes great difficulty in use and lots of time on the tech support hotline trying to figure out what went wrong... and why this thing here crashes, and what's this error code mean? Etc.. etc.. They have pretty good phone support for paying customers. Colleges, well they don't support the colleges as well as paying customers. They are a big company, and they make millions every year. The software costs about 40K a seat. Figure to spend a year to get it to the productive level you would expect it to be at for a design team. It's a big investment of man hours and money, but I hear once you get it up and running smoothly it's a performer. Also expect to pay your designers 100k or more a year. That goes with the territory as well, so I am told, unless you outsource to India. Our sister company used Mentor Board station and upgraded to Expedition... after a year and a half they couldn't seem to get any more productivity out of it and shut it down due to the oppressive maintenance cost. They are shopping their boards outside to a guy that uses PADS that gets them what they want quickly with out the large maintenance fees that Mentor charges for support. We use Protel here.. and so far, Altium does not charge us for support... I could set up a design group of 5 guys on Protel for the cost of one Mentor seat and maintenance. So if you have a year and half a million to spend, you might be able to get the 'best' for your team. And that might be an option for you, if it is, I can put you in touch with a good friend of mine who is the regional tech/sales guy for the whole southwest I know he will treat you and your company very well. Some folks need the capabilities that are not available in Protel and can afford to buy them. For the rest of us, there is Protel. Bill Brooks PCB Design Engineer , C.I.D., C.I.I. Tel: (760)597-1500 Ext 3772 Fax: (760)597-1510 -Original Message- From: Ray Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 7:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation? Our group has used Protel for years. I've tried to get everyone to change to something else for most of that time but the resistance has been fairly great. It seems that the the philosophy has been that pain you know is preferable to the pain you don't know. However, with the introduction of DXP/2004 everyone is starting to realize that a good tool is needed. Is there something that is generally considered to be the best? I realize that some of the tools cost significantly more but when the frustration, poor results, and wasted time are considered, it may not actually be that expensive. One of the guys here uses PADS and really likes it. If we make a change we don't want to make the same mistake we made with Protel again. Ray Mitchell Engineer, Code 2732 SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego, CA. 92152 (619)553-5344 [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
2nd Best... would be Cadence. The features are similar but the user interface is 10 years behind. Similar cost, similar time to get up and running... similar maintenance...similar modularity. Bill Brooks PCB Design Engineer , C.I.D., C.I.I. Tel: (760)597-1500 Ext 3772 Fax: (760)597-1510 -Original Message- From: Brooks,Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 9:55 AM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation? The 'best' program out there by popular opinion... I hate to say this... Is supposedly Mentor Expedition. Now that being said... the reason it's the 'best' is not its ease of use. It does gate and pin swapping. It has a first class interactive autorouter. It can interface with REAL GOOD simulation tools and they can do simulation based upon the board geometry. The design team at Qualcomm was using Mentor to do the cell phones that they are so famous for... but it took having a Mentor rep onsite to deal with the issues that they had... and a lot of custom programming... it was not cheap. I taught a PCB design class at Palomar using Mentor... What a pain ... Mentor set us up with a minimal system... ala the PADS story...( see previous e-mail) They have a similar sales philosophy at Mentor, (may be why they bought PADS), add on modules that you need so you can customize 'till the cows come home' it's a very 'feature rich' environment... But... with that comes great difficulty in use and lots of time on the tech support hotline trying to figure out what went wrong... and why this thing here crashes, and what's this error code mean? Etc.. etc.. They have pretty good phone support for paying customers. Colleges, well they don't support the colleges as well as paying customers. They are a big company, and they make millions every year. The software costs about 40K a seat. Figure to spend a year to get it to the productive level you would expect it to be at for a design team. It's a big investment of man hours and money, but I hear once you get it up and running smoothly it's a performer. Also expect to pay your designers 100k or more a year. That goes with the territory as well, so I am told, unless you outsource to India. Our sister company used Mentor Board station and upgraded to Expedition... after a year and a half they couldn't seem to get any more productivity out of it and shut it down due to the oppressive maintenance cost. They are shopping their boards outside to a guy that uses PADS that gets them what they want quickly with out the large maintenance fees that Mentor charges for support. We use Protel here.. and so far, Altium does not charge us for support... I could set up a design group of 5 guys on Protel for the cost of one Mentor seat and maintenance. So if you have a year and half a million to spend, you might be able to get the 'best' for your team. And that might be an option for you, if it is, I can put you in touch with a good friend of mine who is the regional tech/sales guy for the whole southwest I know he will treat you and your company very well. Some folks need the capabilities that are not available in Protel and can afford to buy them. For the rest of us, there is Protel. Bill Brooks PCB Design Engineer , C.I.D., C.I.I. Tel: (760)597-1500 Ext 3772 Fax: (760)597-1510 -Original Message- From: Ray Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 7:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation? Our group has used Protel for years. I've tried to get everyone to change to something else for most of that time but the resistance has been fairly great. It seems that the the philosophy has been that pain you know is preferable to the pain you don't know. However, with the introduction of DXP/2004 everyone is starting to realize that a good tool is needed. Is there something that is generally considered to be the best? I realize that some of the tools cost significantly more but when the frustration, poor results, and wasted time are considered, it may not actually be that expensive. One of the guys here uses PADS and really likes it. If we make a change we don't want to make the same mistake we made with Protel again. Ray Mitchell Engineer, Code 2732 SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego, CA. 92152 (619)553-5344 [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
I am in agreement with Bill Brooks and his comments about PADS. I too own a seat of PADS. Unfortunately for $8500 I can't use it. DXF is an option, design rules are a $4K option and get this.copy and paste is an option. GONG! piece of crap for $8500. If you asked me several years ago about Protel, I would stack it against anything ( providing you never attempted to user the router). The main advantage was user interface and getting up to speed. There is no clear advantage to other products. DXP is as cumbersome and awkward to use as PCAD, Cadence, or Mentor. So given that all is equal Mentor is the clear winner. Altium better start to listen to folks like Ray. Ray came to the same conclusions that everyone else has about DXP without anyone holding a prompter if front of him. Ray's statement are pretty significant from a marketing standpoint Mike Reagan -- Original Message -- From: "Brooks,Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 09:12:42 -0700 >Ray, > >I made the mistake that you are considering before. The group I was with in >Temecula bought Pads on my misguided recommendation... I was taken in by the >demo. The guys made it look so easy, then when I got the software and >realized they sold me a package that was stripped down compared to the one >they demonstrated... I saw red. If I wanted the package that did all the >fancy stuff like interactive routing and push and shove placement etc, I >would have to pay thousands more for the 'add-ons'. The total would come to >about 22K... we chose not to by more stuff, but to try to get along with >what we bought. I cussed aloud many times when trying to learn to use the >software on my own. I took a 1 day compressed class and that didn't help >much either... > >Pads is functional, if not confusing... and if you don't know any tool it >can be fine, you just need to allow yourself 6 months to a year to get it to >be really useful. Learning all the 'work arounds' can be a full time job, >and very frustrating when you have a job to get done. I spent a lot of time >on the phone with the tech support guy in Los Angeles, He speaks with a >Russian accent to boot. That was not fun when he was out on sales calls... > >The thing I am trying to say is, Protel was what we purchased after fighting >with the PADS program for a month and a half. PADS would not take back their >software, so we had to eat the 12 grand we invested in that software. Later >I took a class at Palomar College that was using PADS and walked through a >full semester of training with the package and still I don't like it, but I >was able to use it. It's a frustrating package for a guy like me who expects >to find the print command under the word, print. There's was buried in some >dialog box that had no reference to printing at all. > >Protel has been a better software package than the PADS program was for me, >mostly because Protel was more intuitive to use, I spent less time looking >for a command or feature than I did with PADS and it was easier to use and >it let me undo mistakes which PADS was notorious for NOT letting me do. > >The new 2004 product remains to be seen... I would be patient and don't get >too discouraged with all the talk you hear on this forum... some of us are >real idealists... I think I'm included in that group. > >As soon as I can get the time to spend on kicking the tires on the new >software I will let you know what I think of where we are with Protel. >In the mean time you can ask specific questions about the functionality on >this forum and you might consider get the training class that Matthew >Berggren does on Protel if you can. It was helpful in getting a better sense >of what the software can do and where you can go with it. Although I found >when I was learning Protel that a local designer who had been using it since >version 2.0 was more savvy and had better 'tricks' for being productive with >it than I got anywhere else. > >I have been using Protel since version 98 and that was in 1998. It's not a >bad package. There are just some features I wish it had that are less than >perfect, but hopefully they will iron those out in the future. > >Feel free to give me a call if you need help. Or just publish your questions >here and you have a lot of years of PROTEL experience here at your >fingertips with all these great guys and gals listening in. They will be >glad to help and discuss your issues I'm sure and even some of them are >programmers who will write user commands that you can use to get better >productivity out of the software. > >(Okay, so now I am an apologist for the Altium company... so shoot me...) > > >Actually, the best combo I have used so far in this price range is the Orcad >schematic package with the Protel PCB editor and the Specctra Autorouter and >AutoCad for the drafting of mechanical things like board out
Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
- Original Message - From: "Ray Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 3:41 PM Subject: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation? > Our group has used Protel for years. I've tried to get everyone to change > to something else for most of that time but the resistance has been fairly > great. It seems that the the philosophy has been that pain you know is > preferable to the pain you don't know. However, with the introduction of > DXP/2004 everyone is starting to realize that a good tool is needed. Is > there something that is generally considered to be the best? I realize > that some of the tools cost significantly more but when the frustration, > poor results, and wasted time are considered, it may not actually be that > expensive. One of the guys here uses PADS and really likes it. If we make > a change we don't want to make the same mistake we made with Protel again. Have a look at Pulsonix: http://www.pulsonix.com It was developed from scratch by a group of people who used to work for Zuken-Redac, support is excellent. Unlike Altium, they fix bugs immediately they come to light. The autorouter is quite good and works reliably. Pricing is competitive. I set an independent users group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PulsonixUG/ It gets very little traffic because the software is so easy to use and has so few problems. It imports Protel designs in ASCII format, as well as those produced with most other products. A full working demo (100 pins limit) may be downloaded and, if you ask them nicely, you may have a full license for 30 days or more, so that you can evaluate the software properly. Leon * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
Hi Leon: Does the Pulsonix autorouter have a "push-n-shove" algorithm? tr :) -Original Message- From: Leon Heller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 1:53 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation? - Original Message - From: "Ray Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 3:41 PM Subject: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation? > Our group has used Protel for years. I've tried to get everyone to change > to something else for most of that time but the resistance has been fairly > great. It seems that the the philosophy has been that pain you know is > preferable to the pain you don't know. However, with the introduction of > DXP/2004 everyone is starting to realize that a good tool is needed. Is > there something that is generally considered to be the best? I realize > that some of the tools cost significantly more but when the frustration, > poor results, and wasted time are considered, it may not actually be that > expensive. One of the guys here uses PADS and really likes it. If we make > a change we don't want to make the same mistake we made with Protel again. Have a look at Pulsonix: http://www.pulsonix.com It was developed from scratch by a group of people who used to work for Zuken-Redac, support is excellent. Unlike Altium, they fix bugs immediately they come to light. The autorouter is quite good and works reliably. Pricing is competitive. I set an independent users group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PulsonixUG/ It gets very little traffic because the software is so easy to use and has so few problems. It imports Protel designs in ASCII format, as well as those produced with most other products. A full working demo (100 pins limit) may be downloaded and, if you ask them nicely, you may have a full license for 30 days or more, so that you can evaluate the software properly. Leon * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
Hi Leon; Is the phone support good at Pulsonix? tr :) -Original Message- From: Leon Heller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 1:53 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation? - Original Message - From: "Ray Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 3:41 PM Subject: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation? > Our group has used Protel for years. I've tried to get everyone to change > to something else for most of that time but the resistance has been fairly > great. It seems that the the philosophy has been that pain you know is > preferable to the pain you don't know. However, with the introduction of > DXP/2004 everyone is starting to realize that a good tool is needed. Is > there something that is generally considered to be the best? I realize > that some of the tools cost significantly more but when the frustration, > poor results, and wasted time are considered, it may not actually be that > expensive. One of the guys here uses PADS and really likes it. If we make > a change we don't want to make the same mistake we made with Protel again. Have a look at Pulsonix: http://www.pulsonix.com It was developed from scratch by a group of people who used to work for Zuken-Redac, support is excellent. Unlike Altium, they fix bugs immediately they come to light. The autorouter is quite good and works reliably. Pricing is competitive. I set an independent users group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PulsonixUG/ It gets very little traffic because the software is so easy to use and has so few problems. It imports Protel designs in ASCII format, as well as those produced with most other products. A full working demo (100 pins limit) may be downloaded and, if you ask them nicely, you may have a full license for 30 days or more, so that you can evaluate the software properly. Leon * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
edsi wrote: Altium better start to listen to folks like Ray. Ray came to the same conclusions that everyone else has about DXP without anyone holding a prompter if front of him. Ray's statement are pretty significant from a marketing standpoint I was at the PCB design expo last month. Altium was a no-show. I talked to a number of vendors (not just PCB design software vendors) about how the show was going etc. When I mentioned that I was using Protel, a number of them wanted to know what was going on with Protel. Several vendors independently told me that they had seen a lot of very unhappy current Protel customers at the show looking for a new package. As one DFM software vendor put it, he did not see how Altium could avoid going under with the number of unhappy customers he had seen at the show. The fact is that Altium avoided the PCB expo where PCB designers could be found and showed up in force at the Embedded Systems show where few existing customers would be around. This can lead one to only two conclusions: 1) Altium is doing a fundamental change in their business model and is abandoning the PCB end of things and moving to a high level design entry company. or 2) Altium is now completely focused on the short term and is looking for a quick buck wherever it can be found with no emphasis on continuing customer relations and support for existing customers. I personally liked Mentor Expedition and will most probably switch later in the year. Yes, Expedition is several times more expensive than Protel, but after I take my time and the cost of a Protel induced disaster into account, it is looking dirt cheap. I will most probably evaluate DXP/2004, if I ever actually see the upgrade. I received an e-mail from Altium almost 6 weeks ago stating that my upgrade was shipping, but have yet to see it. Calls to Altium have yielded nothing more than excuses and bold faced lies: "No upgrades were ever shipped before March 14" If Altium can not manage a simple task of shipping an upgrade to a customer, how on the earth do they expect me to trust them to put out a software that actually works? Hamid * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
- Original Message - From: "Tom Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 7:44 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation? > Hi Leon: > > Does the Pulsonix autorouter have a "push-n-shove" algorithm? I don't think so. It's actually the Bartels router - have a look at the Bartels web site: http://www.bartels.de/router.htm Leon * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
- Original Message - From: "Tom Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 7:46 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation? > Hi Leon; > > Is the phone support good at Pulsonix? Very good. Someone is always available during UK working hours. Leon * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
How about phone support in the USA? tr :) -Original Message- From: Leon Heller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 3:07 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation? - Original Message - From: "Tom Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 7:46 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation? > Hi Leon; > > Is the phone support good at Pulsonix? Very good. Someone is always available during UK working hours. Leon * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
[PEDA] Are fiducials necessary?
I was reading about fiducials in J-STD-013. Are they necessary or just something that may come in handy? Might a board assembler tell you he can't pick and place if you don't have them? My board has 4.9mil traces and spaces and many of my components are 10mils apart. Ray Mitchell Engineer, Code 2732 SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego, CA. 92152 (619)553-5344 [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
- Original Message - From: "Tom Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 8:11 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation? > How about phone support in the USA? The US distributor is LPKF. I don't know what their support is like, though. You could try posting a msg to the UG, there are several US users who belong to it. Leon * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
Mike, You left out the surprise that Dimensioning is also an OPTION, yes it is designed for and by marketing/sales guys, must be a dream for some of them, lest we forget the maintenance fee is also relative to number of options Joe - Original Message - From: "edsi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 1:47 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation? > I am in agreement with Bill Brooks and his comments about PADS. I too own a seat of PADS. Unfortunately for $8500 I can't use it. DXF is an option, design rules are a $4K option and get this.copy and paste is an option. GONG! piece of crap for $8500. > > If you asked me several years ago about Protel, I would stack it against anything ( providing you never attempted to user the router). The main advantage was user interface and getting up to speed. There is no clear advantage to other products. DXP is as cumbersome and awkward to use as PCAD, Cadence, or Mentor. So given that all is equal > Mentor is the clear winner. > > Altium better start to listen to folks like Ray. Ray came to the same conclusions that everyone else has about DXP without anyone holding a prompter if front of him. Ray's statement are pretty significant from a marketing standpoint > > > > > > Mike Reagan > > > > > > -- Original Message -- > From: "Brooks,Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 09:12:42 -0700 > > >Ray, > > > >I made the mistake that you are considering before. The group I was with in > >Temecula bought Pads on my misguided recommendation... I was taken in by the > >demo. The guys made it look so easy, then when I got the software and > >realized they sold me a package that was stripped down compared to the one > >they demonstrated... I saw red. If I wanted the package that did all the > >fancy stuff like interactive routing and push and shove placement etc, I > >would have to pay thousands more for the 'add-ons'. The total would come to > >about 22K... we chose not to by more stuff, but to try to get along with > >what we bought. I cussed aloud many times when trying to learn to use the > >software on my own. I took a 1 day compressed class and that didn't help > >much either... > > > >Pads is functional, if not confusing... and if you don't know any tool it > >can be fine, you just need to allow yourself 6 months to a year to get it to > >be really useful. Learning all the 'work arounds' can be a full time job, > >and very frustrating when you have a job to get done. I spent a lot of time > >on the phone with the tech support guy in Los Angeles, He speaks with a > >Russian accent to boot. That was not fun when he was out on sales calls... > > > >The thing I am trying to say is, Protel was what we purchased after fighting > >with the PADS program for a month and a half. PADS would not take back their > >software, so we had to eat the 12 grand we invested in that software. Later > >I took a class at Palomar College that was using PADS and walked through a > >full semester of training with the package and still I don't like it, but I > >was able to use it. It's a frustrating package for a guy like me who expects > >to find the print command under the word, print. There's was buried in some > >dialog box that had no reference to printing at all. > > > >Protel has been a better software package than the PADS program was for me, > >mostly because Protel was more intuitive to use, I spent less time looking > >for a command or feature than I did with PADS and it was easier to use and > >it let me undo mistakes which PADS was notorious for NOT letting me do. > > > >The new 2004 product remains to be seen... I would be patient and don't get > >too discouraged with all the talk you hear on this forum... some of us are > >real idealists... I think I'm included in that group. > > > >As soon as I can get the time to spend on kicking the tires on the new > >software I will let you know what I think of where we are with Protel. > >In the mean time you can ask specific questions about the functionality on > >this forum and you might consider get the training class that Matthew > >Berggren does on Protel if you can. It was helpful in getting a better sense > >of what the software can do and where you can go with it. Although I found > >when I was learning Protel that a local designer who had been using it since > >version 2.0 was more savvy and had better 'tricks' for being productive with > >it than I got anywhere else. > > > >I have been using Protel since version 98 and that was in 1998. It's not a > >bad package. There are just some features I wish it had that are less than > >perfect, but hopefully they will iron those out in the future. > > > >Feel free to give me a call if you need help. Or just publish your questions > >here and you have a lot of years of PROTEL exp
Re: [PEDA] Are fiducials necessary?
Hi Ray, Fiducials are highly recommended for surface mount component placement. I think some assembly machines can deal without them by picking an unused pad nearby but its much harder and more error prone without them. You should try to use them. Also you can add global fiducials on the manufacturing panel to help. Local fiducials are good when you have a fine pitch part like a QFP package or BGA. They are only 3mm in overall diameter counting the clearance and if you locate them at diagonal opposing corners they work best. If you contact Jerry or Jeff Hughes over at Hughes Circuits in San Marcos, he can give you some of the Pro's and Con's... and workarounds. 760-744-0300. Also a good reference book on the subject of Design for Manufacturability is available from Printed Circuit Technology, P.O. Box 334. Burlington, MA. 01803 (617)272-0938 called "Bare Board PWB Design Manual by Norman S. Einarson " A great book that was distributed by Coretec a number of years ago. It sounds like your board will be a candidate for fiducials on the panel. Bill Brooks PCB Design Engineer , C.I.D., C.I.I. Tel: (760)597-1500 Ext 3772 Fax: (760)597-1510 -Original Message- From: Ray Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 12:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEDA] Are fiducials necessary? I was reading about fiducials in J-STD-013. Are they necessary or just something that may come in handy? Might a board assembler tell you he can't pick and place if you don't have them? My board has 4.9mil traces and spaces and many of my components are 10mils apart. Ray Mitchell Engineer, Code 2732 SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego, CA. 92152 (619)553-5344 [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Are fiducials necessary?
Ray, I work for a contract manufacturer specializing in small - medium production volumes. Fiducials are more than just handy! The Pick & Place equipment uses fiducials to identify board location and fine pitch part location. If they're not present we have to jump through hoops to get parts placed correctly. As a result placement accuracy suffers which can force re-work. This means we have to charge you more! Regards, Steve Allen Project Engineer Manufacturing Services, Inc. Kennewick, WA n a message dated 4/9/2004 12:32:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was reading about fiducials in J-STD-013. Are they necessary or just something that may come in handy? Might a board assembler tell you he can't pick and place if you don't have them? My board has 4.9mil traces and spaces and many of my components are 10mils apart. Ray Mitchell Engineer, Code 2732 SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego, CA. 92152 (619)553-5344 [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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 -Original Message- From: Joe Sapienza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 12:35 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation? Mike, You left out the surprise that Dimensioning is also an OPTION, yes it is designed for and by marketing/sales guys, must be a dream for some of them, lest we forget the maintenance fee is also relative to number of options Joe - Original Message - From: "edsi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 1:47 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation? > I am in agreement with Bill Brooks and his comments about PADS. I too own a seat of PADS. Unfortunately for $8500 I can't use it. DXF is an option, design rules are a $4K option and get this.copy and paste is an option. GONG! piece of crap for $8500. > > If you asked me several years ago about Protel, I would stack it against anything ( providing you never attempted to user the router). The main advantage was user interface and getting up to speed. There is no clear advantage to other products. DXP is as cumbersome and awkward to use as PCAD, Cadence, or Mentor. So given that all is equal > Mentor is the clear winner. > > Altium better start to listen to folks like Ray. Ray came to the same conclusions that everyone else has about DXP without anyone holding a prompter if front of him. Ray's statement are pretty significant from a marketing standpoint > > > > > > Mike Reagan > > > > > > -- Original Message -- > From: "Brooks,Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 09:12:42 -0700 > > >Ray, > > > >I made the mistake that you are considering before. The group I was with in > >Temecula bought Pads on my misguided recommendation... I was taken in by the > >demo. The guys made it look so easy, then when I got the software and > >realized they sold me a package that was stripped down compared to the one > >they demonstrated... I saw red. If I wanted the package that did all the > >fancy stuff like interactive routing and push and shove placement etc, I > >would have to pay thousands more for the 'add-ons'. The total would come to > >about 22K... we chose not to by more stuff, but to try to get along with > >what we bought. I cussed aloud many times when trying to learn to use the > >software on my own. I took a 1 day compressed class and that didn't help > >much either... > > > >Pads is functional, if not confusing... and if you don't know any tool it > >can be fine, you just need to allow yourself 6 months to a year to get it to > >be really useful. Learning all the 'work arounds' can be a full time job, > >and very frustrating when you have a job to get done. I spent a lot of time > >on the phone with the tech support guy in Los Angeles, He speaks with a > >Russian accent to boot. That was not fun when he was out on sales calls... > > > >The thing I am trying to say is, Protel was what we purchased after fighting > >with the PADS program for a month and a half. PADS would not take back their > >software, so we had to eat the 12 grand we invested in that software. Later > >I took a class at Palomar College that was using PADS and walked through a > >full semester of training with the package and still I don't like it, but I > >was able to use it. It's a frustrating package for a guy like me who expects > >to find the print command under the word, print. There's was buried in some > >dialog box that had no reference to printing at all. > > > >Protel has been a better software package than the PADS program was for me, > >mostly because Protel was more intuitive to use, I spent less time looking > >for a command or feature than I did with PADS and it was easier to use and > >it let me undo mistakes which PADS was notorious for NOT letting me do. > > > >The new 2004 product remains to be seen... I would be patient and don't get > >too discouraged with all the talk you hear on this forum... some of us are > >real idealists... I think I'm included in that group. > > > >As soon as I can get the time to spend on kicking the tires on the new > >software I will let you know what I think of where we are with Protel. > >In the mean time you can ask specific questions about the functionality on > >this forum and you might consider get the training class that Matthew > >Berggren does on Protel if you can. It was helpful in getting a better sense > >of what the software can do and where you can go with it. Although I found > >when I was learning Protel that a local designer who had be
Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
Bill you have the idea, just bear in mind they sell new product but act like USED car salesmen Yesterday I sat thru the demo of OADS 5.02 and their new Schematic package PADS Design, you'de be amazed how many new features loked to my mind to be stolen/copied directly from Protel 99SE - Original Message - From: "Brooks,Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Protel EDA Forum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 3:48 PM 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 > > > -Original Message- > From: Joe Sapienza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 12:35 PM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation? > > Mike, > > You left out the surprise that Dimensioning is also an OPTION, yes it is > designed for and by marketing/sales guys, must be a dream for some of them, > lest we forget the maintenance fee is also relative to number of options > > Joe > > > > - Original Message - > From: "edsi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 1:47 PM > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation? > > > > I am in agreement with Bill Brooks and his comments about PADS. I too own > a seat of PADS. Unfortunately for $8500 I can't use it. DXF is an option, > design rules are a $4K option and get this.copy and paste is an option. > GONG! piece of crap for $8500. > > > > If you asked me several years ago about Protel, I would stack it against > anything ( providing you never attempted to user the router). The main > advantage was user interface and getting up to speed. There is no clear > advantage to other products. DXP is as cumbersome and awkward to use as > PCAD, Cadence, or Mentor. So given that all is equal > > Mentor is the clear winner. > > > > Altium better start to listen to folks like Ray. Ray came to the same > conclusions that everyone else has about DXP without anyone holding a > prompter if front of him. Ray's statement are pretty significant from a > marketing standpoint > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike Reagan > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Original Message -- > > From: "Brooks,Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 09:12:42 -0700 > > > > >Ray, > > > > > >I made the mistake that you are considering before. The group I was with > in > > >Temecula bought Pads on my misguided recommendation... I was taken in by > the > > >demo. The guys made it look so easy, then when I got the software and > > >realized they sold me a package that was stripped down compared to the > one > > >they demonstrated... I saw red. If I wanted the package that did all the > > >fancy stuff like interactive routing and push and shove placement > etc, I > > >would have to pay thousands more for the 'add-ons'. The total would come > to > > >about 22K... we chose not to by more stuff, but to try to get along with > > >what we bought. I cussed aloud many times when trying to learn to use the > > >software on my own. I took a 1 day compressed class and that didn't help > > >much either... > > > > > >Pads is functional, if not confusing... and if you don't know any tool it > > >can be fine, you just need to allow yourself 6 months to a year to get it > to > > >be really useful. Learning all the 'work arounds' can be a full time job, > > >and very frustrating when you have a job to get done. I spent a lot of > time > > >on the phone with the tech support guy in Los Angeles, He speaks with a > > >Russian accent to boot. That was not fun when he was out on sales > calls... > > > > > >The thing I am trying to say is, Protel was what we purchased after > fighting > > >with the PADS program for a month and a half. PADS would not take back > their > > >software, so we had to eat the 12 grand we invested in that software. > Later > > >I took a class at Palomar College that was using PADS and walked through > a > > >full semester of training with the package and still I don't like it, but > I > > >was able to use it. It's a frustrating package for a guy like me who > expects > > >to find the print command under the word, print. There's was buried in > some > > >dialog box that had no reference to printing at all. > > > > > >Protel has been a better software package than the PADS program was for > me, > > >mostly because Protel was more intuitive to use, I spent less time > looking > > >for a command or feature than I did with PADS and it was easier to use > and > > >it let me undo mistakes which PADS was notorious for NOT letting me do. > > >
Re: [PEDA] Are fiducials necessary?
09/04/2004 20:28:38, Ray Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Are they (fiducials) necessary or just something that may come in handy? talk to your assembly shop. They'll be exceedingly happy to help. I'm asked for several different shapes / sizes of fiducial, depending on where the boards are going to be stuffed - some places are happy with them widely spaced, out on the (disposable) board carrier, some want them on the board near the unplated tooling holes, some want local fiducials next to tricky components. I don't know what IPC specify, but I'd definitely ask your stuffing shop for their preferences. I'd also advise against using zero-thou tracks as keepouts in fiducials, no matter how tempting it may be, since P99 has that tendency to draw small diagonal pads with a zero-thou track if it's got one it's used elsewhere in the design, which works about as well as you'd expect. Whoops, no pad :) (I wonder if that's still the case in 2004 - my copy just turned up. Reading the license suggested that I'd have to remove my copy of 99SE, and I'm damned if I'm doing that, so time for a chat with the distributor and Altium, I guess). Steve * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Are fiducials necessary?
That's good enough for me. I'll use them. My understanding is that in general: 1. They should be 1mm in diameter and have a clearance of at least 1mm around them. 2. They should go as close to each part as possible but need not have any specific or consistent distance from the parts. 3. They should be copper with no solder mask. 4. There should be some global fiducials. 5. Different assembly shops have differing needs/preferences. Is this reasonable? Thanks for your help. Ray At 03:46 PM 4/9/2004 -0400, you wrote: Ray, I work for a contract manufacturer specializing in small - medium production volumes. Fiducials are more than just handy! The Pick & Place equipment uses fiducials to identify board location and fine pitch part location. If they're not present we have to jump through hoops to get parts placed correctly. As a result placement accuracy suffers which can force re-work. This means we have to charge you more! Regards, Steve Allen Project Engineer Manufacturing Services, Inc. Kennewick, WA n a message dated 4/9/2004 12:32:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was reading about fiducials in J-STD-013. Are they necessary or just something that may come in handy? Might a board assembler tell you he can't pick and place if you don't have them? My board has 4.9mil traces and spaces and many of my components are 10mils apart. Ray Mitchell Engineer, Code 2732 SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego, CA. 92152 (619)553-5344 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ray Mitchell Engineer, Code 2732 SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego, CA. 92152 (619)553-5344 [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
This is pretty damning commentary. And maybe a bit 'rash'... It does make me think hard about Mentor and the cost/vs. productivity issues. If, I say,* IF * Altium is shifting its focus to the embedded systems market as a way of garnering revenue... it may mean that they have come to the conclusion that there is no more or not enough money to be made in the PCB design industry for them, for whatever reason. I doubt this, because I know that Protel has the lion's share of the market in the UK and the rest of the world for that matter... Logically, their business model tried to change awhile back... they tried to introduce a system whereby support services would be the revenue stream to replace new sales of PCB software here in the U.S. They may have reasoned that Cadence and Mentor are getting along this way. They have a customer base that has bought into the regular payment of fees for services... and expect to be kept operating because of their regular annual payments. Software upgrades and service packs are funded by the service agreement monies, and they make a killing in the 'Training Center' area because nobody can sit down and learn it without training. Protel failed to make that happen... we as a body rejected the idea. They may have decided to take a different tack at it... This reminds me of how the CAD market used to be before the desktop computers were available... Huge fees for the initial purchase of equipment and software, a year in setup and customization, a full time 'programmer' type to handle upgrades and customization of the software, and a large payment to the CAD vendor every year for maintenance. I don't know about you, but I hated that business model. Only very large companies could afford the cost of doing engineering in those days... the 'small guy' just bought a drafting board and a light table... no software or maintenance contract required... and worked like a dog to try to keep up. We can't go back to those days anymore. Bishop graphics doesn't sell the tape and Mylar. But... there is Protel. Mentor demos very well. Mentor has the features that we should have in Protel. I used it for the first time in a class/seminar at PCB WEST on HDI Design. They offered it as the tool to demo the class exercises and it was remarkable easy to use for that class... (I remind you, there was a Mentor Tech support guy there in the class making sure we didn't have a bad experience) It got me interested. I checked into it later and it was my choice for the class at Palomar. Little did I know that it was going to be so hard to get it implemented into the class curriculum and difficult to use for my students. But that is the past. I expect Mentor will garner a large part of the PCB market over the next few years. It is a complex system and not for the squeamish... it takes real effort to get your arms around it. The EDA industry has a lot of struggling players who have been bought up by bigger 'fish' because they were not able to survive even with the maintenance revenue... That's what Mentor did, they bought Veribest (Cadnetix) and saved their overwhelmingly difficult product BOARD STATION from extinction... Cadence bought Orcad. Innoveda bought Pads and then Mentor bought Innoveda... gobble, gobble. Those big vendors like Cadence and Mentor will all adopt the old business model because the only players will be big companies... no competition, maybe Protel can't compete. Or maybe we just don't see the whole picture... Lots of 'maybes' in there. I think Protel has a market... it's guys and gals like us that are willing to hold on... but nobody can continue to wait forever. I would prefer that Protel remain a player and fix the product... there is a need for the smaller companies to have somewhere they can go to get their board software. As the economy picks up there will be a lot more startup shops and they will need Protel... or a cad vendor like them if they want to design in house. Then there's always the guys who set up shop and contract their jobs. And then there's China.. hmm that's another subject. If Mentor was cheaper Protel would not have a chance. Hang in there Protel and get the product working before sending it out. And... listen to your customers... Best regards, Bill Brooks PCB Design Engineer , C.I.D., C.I.I. Tel: (760)597-1500 Ext 3772 Fax: (760)597-1510 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 11:51 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation? edsi wrote: >Altium better start to listen to folks like Ray. Ray came to the same conclusions that everyone else has about DXP without anyone holding a prompter if front of him. Ray's statement are pretty significant from a marketing standpoint > I was at the PCB design expo last month. Altium was a no-show. I talked to a number of vendors (not just PCB design software vendors) about how the
Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 13:19:34 -0700, Brooks,Bill wrote: > Those big vendors like Cadence and Mentor will all adopt the old business > model because the only players will be big companies... no competition, > maybe Protel can't compete. Or maybe we just don't see the whole picture... > Lots of 'maybes' in there. I think Protel has a market... it's guys and > gals like us that are willing to hold on... but nobody can continue to wait > forever. I would prefer that Protel remain a player and fix the product... > there is a need for the smaller companies to have somewhere they can go to > get their board software. As the economy picks up there will be a lot more > startup shops and they will need Protel... or a cad vendor like them if they > want to design in house. Then there's always the guys who set up shop and > contract their jobs. And then there's China.. hmm that's another subject. > > If Mentor was cheaper Protel would not have a chance. Hang in there Protel > and get the product working before sending it out. And... listen to your > customers... This has been a really interesting discussion without degrading into outright Protel/Altium bashing. I think all of us on the list are hoping for the best, but there's a bunch of us that have been in the industry a long time and have heard and seen all the stories and promises... I took a look at the Pulsonix website today and I must say I'm impressed. They seem to have put together a package that does what 90% of engineers and PCB designers I talk to need. The price seems reasonable too. If their tools work as advertised, I think Altium has much to fear. As for me and my PCB designer -- we've decided to use Protel 99SE until it becomes impractical for us. Protel 2004 adds no "must have" features that make a switch worthwhile to us. I really wish Altium would have just fixed the handful of known issues with P99SE and charged an "upgrade fee" for it. I would have gladly coughed up $1000-$1500 for it, both for the bug fixes and to avoid having to go through a learning curve for a tool I'm still not convinced would let me do my job any faster or better. So for now, we're riding it out with P99SE but watching what develops in the market. Pulsonix just got added to the "watch list". Who knows, they might even offer a deal to convert registered users of other EDA tools to their software? Much as Protel did with Orcad users several years ago (when there was a revolt going on after Cadence bought Orcad). That could be big trouble for Altium. Matt Pobursky Maximum Performance Systems * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 13:19:34 -0700, Brooks,Bill wrote: > This is pretty damning commentary. And maybe a bit 'rash'... > > It does make me think hard about Mentor and the cost/vs. productivity > issues. > If, I say,* IF * Altium is shifting its focus to the embedded systems market > as a way of garnering revenue... it may mean that they have come to the > conclusion that there is no more or not enough money to be made in the PCB > design industry for them, for whatever reason. I doubt this, because I know > that Protel has the lion's share of the market in the UK and the rest of the > world for that matter... I've thought about this too and I think most EDA tool companies lose sight of the fact that they are providing tools to a niche market (relative to other desktop PC software) with a limited size and the requirements haven't changed all that much in the past 20 years. Yeah, geometries have gotten smaller and frequencies higher, but schematic capture and PCB design principles are still pretty much the same -- physics doesn't change and the manufacturing is still basically copper on a substrate. I know when it comes to tools, I want reliability and familiarity. Something I can pick up, do my job efficiently, count on the results and move on. Making software more complex and "feature rich" -- whether for serving the fractional percent of users that really require the added features (but seldom used by the vast majority) or for marketing purposes -- seems to be more common every day. Why can't good software be developed and maintained at a relatively stable feature and bug-free level? I guess the software companies see no increasing revenue stream with this model (since the "current version" stays current, longer), even though it results in the best product for the end user. So it actually pays to produce buggy or otherwise deficient code, where you get to charge the user for the fixes "in the next release" (service pack, whatever -- heck, just change the name of the program and charge an upgradge fee! ;-) ). Sheesh, I wish I could run my business and write my software that way... Another observation -- all my best software tools are written by smaller, privately held companies. Coincidence? I think not. They are mostly small groups of dedicated people that aren't just working for a paycheck (or stock options or quarterly bonuses). They actually have a personal involvement with the product and the customer and it's in their best interest to cultivate a loyal clientele who in turn "sells" their products by reputation and word-of-mouth. It seems that once a company goes public, the whole dynamic and focus of the company changes. Same with small companies acquired by larger public corporations. I think this is some of the dynamic we are seeing with Altium. When they were privately held Protel, they were an entirely different company and focused much more on the end user's needs. Ah well, Altium is free to run their business any way they see fit. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next few years. Matt Pobursky Maximum Performance Systems * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Are fiducials necessary?
09/04/2004 21:18:40, Ray Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >5. Different assembly shops have differing needs/preferences. Also, the needs may vay, depending on what machine they're doing the run on. If you're pushing a low-tech board their way, they may be using the "crapotron-3000" from 198x that wants an old-style cross-in-a-box, but your 0.5mm fineline BGA might want a new-style 1mm circle. Worth a phone call, since you're on the same team. (just spent the evening applying a couple of manufacturability tweaks to a pretty complex board a customer's running through a Chinese shop, in 10K+ batches. P99SE, SP6, plus Specctra, while not perfect, does get the job done. Here's hoping that 2004 makes things a little easier / quicker / cheaper / better.) Steve Wiseman * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
So I assume they use it as a budle for their PCB milling machines? > -Original Message- > From: Leon Heller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 3:34 PM > To: Protel EDA Forum > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite > recommendation? > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Tom Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 8:11 PM > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite > recommendation? > > > > How about phone support in the USA? > > The US distributor is LPKF. I don't know what their support > is like, though. You could try posting a msg to the UG, there > are several US users who belong to it. > > Leon > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
[PEDA] Protel 99SE - Routing vias are all 20mil diameter w/28mil hole!
Hello, In my design rules I've specified that all routing vias are to be 20mil diameter with a 10mil hole. However, the router makes them all 20mil diameter with a 28mil hole. Nice feature! I know it hasn't always done this - only sometimes. I only have one design rule for routing via style. Its scope is "Board" and it is enabled. Am I holding my mouth right for some routes and wrong for others? Ray Ray Mitchell Engineer, Code 2732 SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego, CA. 92152 (619)553-5344 [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 8:40 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation? So I assume they use it as a budle for their PCB milling machines? Yes, Pulsonix has a file output facility for LPKF machines. Leon * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
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 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Protel 99SE - Routing vias are all 20mil diameter w/28mil hole!
the spectraa router? as far as i know it always comes back w/ 28 holes pretty easy to fix if you don't forget, but somewhat bush league the 99SE router only uses the board via and i haven't seen it trash the hole size there are 3 candidates for sizes for a given type have you checked all 3 size pairs? mike i think has said this is fixed in P2004 re spectraa Dennis Saputelli Ray Mitchell wrote: > > Hello, > > In my design rules I've specified that all routing vias are to be 20mil > diameter with a 10mil hole. However, the router makes them all 20mil > diameter with a 28mil hole. Nice feature! I know it hasn't always done > this - only sometimes. I only have one design rule for routing via > style. Its scope is "Board" and it is enabled. Am I holding my mouth > right for some routes and wrong for others? > > Ray > > Ray Mitchell > Engineer, Code 2732 > SPAWAR Systems Center > San Diego, CA. 92152 > (619)553-5344 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- ___ Integrated Controls, Inc. Tel: 415-647-0480 EXT 107 2851 21st StreetFax: 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
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
Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation? PCAD
How about the other Altium package, PCAD? I'm amazed that Altium markets both when I can't find a straight up comparison between them. John Strupat JST Limited * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
At 01:50 PM 4/9/2004, Leon Heller wrote: Have a look at Pulsonix: http://www.pulsonix.com It was developed from scratch by a group of people who used to work for Zuken-Redac, support is excellent. Unlike Altium, they fix bugs immediately they come to light. There are a number of small companies which do this. However, it is probably overstated. They fix, I'm fairly sure, *some* deficiencies when they come to light. Others likely take some time. The interval between service packs for Protel, early in a product cycle, is not long; but I do think that patch release should be far more frequent, on an open beta basis. The autorouter is quite good and works reliably. Pricing is competitive. I set an independent users group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PulsonixUG/ It gets very little traffic because the software is so easy to use and has so few problems. The reference is appreciated, but more likely it has little traffic because it doesn't have so many subscribers. CAD users talk to each other, and lots of questions asked on support lists are about design issues, not specifically CAD system questions. I haven't looked at Pulsonix in a long time, I should mosey on over * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Good schematic/PCB development suite recommendation?
Brooks,Bill wrote: This is pretty damning commentary. And maybe a bit 'rash'... What exactly do you mean by calling the commentary "rash" ? Logically, their business model tried to change awhile back... they tried to introduce a system whereby support services would be the revenue stream to replace new sales of PCB software here in the U.S. Protel failed to make that happen... we as a body rejected the idea. And why did we reject the idea? I can not speak for you, but I can speak for myself. There were two reasons. First, when I bought 99SE, it came with support included in the price I paid for it. For them to all of sudden decide that they were going to renege on it is a violation of the contract and I would not stand for it on principle. Secondly, I might have been convinced to go along with the change because of changing business climate. However, the problem for Altium was that I had been occasionally calling the support hotline and knew that there was not much support there. I am certainly not going to pay for something if I was not going to receive any value or frequently receive wrong answers. Maybe other people refused to go along for other reasons, but this was my reasoning. Their attitude of "We have great news for you. We have decided to upgrade our service, so the same quality service that you were promised for free, you now get to pay for" did not go over well either. I think Protel has a market... it's guys and gals like us that are willing to hold on... but nobody can continue to wait forever. Altium's main market is people who have never heard of Protel before. I doubt they are getting much repeat business. It is hard to translate sayings into other languages, but here's one that bears a lot on Altium's situation for the last 5 or so years: Being bad is OK, having a bad reputation is what is really bad. Altium has acquired a very bad reputation among its users because of poor and short sighted management and now it is finding it hard to get any support from the user base. That may be its undoing. Hamid * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
