Re: [PEDA] Footprints with traces
Mark, the best forum to ask DXP questions is on the Altium DXP technical forum. You can sign up for it through the Altium website. However, I believe this problem is the very same as one finds in P99SE. There is no way to have the tracks and additional pads or fills associated with a net automatically DRC error free when you enter the footprint into your PCB database. In the section for editing control of nets (sorry I don't use DXP so I can't say exactly where it is) there is a function called something similar to Update free primitives from Component pads. After running this function your non-net associated tracks and fills will be updated to the same netname as the pads they are connected to. Hope that helps, someone else may answer shortly that uses DXP and can give you a more precise description of where the function lies in DXP. The only way to create offset holes as far as I know is to add additional copper tracks or fills to offset the pad area from the hole. For your task I would be thinking of using just fills the correct size for SMT bypass caps. If you are using thru hole caps, I think that I would just use separate components rather than building them in. With built in ancillary components you will have issues creating your schematic and BOMs because you will not be treating them as separate components. Sincerely, Brad Velander. Lead PCB Designer Norsat International Inc. Microwave Products Tel (604) 292-9089 (direct line) Fax (604) 292-9010 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.norsat.com -Original Message- From: Leopold, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 5:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEDA] Footprints with traces Hi, I am running DXP and I want/need to create a footprint that has surface mount pads connected to vias by a short trace that won't cause a whole lot of DRC errors on my PCB. The footprint is for bypass caps placed on the component side of a multi-layer board. The vias take the cap terminals to the appropriate power or ground plane. My company's boards are not that complex and I generally hand route them, so this would save me from having to run traces and placing vias for all the bypass caps. I could also see this being useful for creating footprints that will accommodate both SMT and THT resistors and caps -- which I could have used more than once in the past when prototyping. The problem that I run into is that in the process of generating the PCB from the schematic, the pad is correctly associated with its intended net, but neither the trace nor the via are associated with any net. This leads to DRC clearance errors as I have effectively connected a No Net trace to a pad with a net. Is there any way to setup the footprint or the schematic to PCB process so that the pad-trace-via combination are all added to the appropriate net? Another possible solution that I toyed with was to have an elongated pad with the hole offset, but I can't find any way to have the hole placed anywhere but in the middle of the pad. Is there a way to place the hole offset from the middle of the pad? Thanks, Mark * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] License Legalities OT
I mentioned this because I know that a designer might be approached by someone who wants to make such a thing. He might provide a photo of an old board and say that he needs to reproduce it, the originals have been lost, he might claim. You mean something like this: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFd=PALLp=1u=/netahtml/srchnum.htmr=1f=Gl=50s1=6058192.WKU.OS=PN/6058192RS=PN/6058192 _ Brian Guralnick - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 9:47 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] License Legalities OT At 07:56 PM 9/9/2003, Brian Guralnick wrote: misdemeanor. Selling the boxes appears to be a public offense (if I'm correct, public offenses are prosecutable as felonies). Relevant to the interests of printed circuit designers, printed circuit boards are specifically mentioned. That's because any pirated boxes have been stolen from the cable company, or manufacter. Such cable boxes are only sold between the manufacturers (ie Scientific Atlanta, GI - Jerrold, Pioneer...) and the cable companies. Any of the boxes which are purchased separately between you a store dealer, must be stolen units, or stolen property, not to mention that these units have also been modified intentionally for theft of signal as well. No, I don't think this is correct, or at least it isn't complete. The reference is to non-authorized decoders which are sold on the black market. They are not generally stolen, per se, though they may represent unauthorized use of intellectual property or such things as copied circuit boards. The reference is to devices to defeat the scrambling. Sure, the legal box does that, but a new law wouldn't have been needed to deal with theft of boxes Rather someone may have reverse-engineered a box or may have developed an independent decoder. I mentioned this because I know that a designer might be approached by someone who wants to make such a thing. He might provide a photo of an old board and say that he needs to reproduce it, the originals have been lost, he might claim. (And certainly I've been asked to reproduce PCBs where the films etc. had completely disappeared.) Designers are not obligated to confirm that a design request is legitimate, but if it did become reasonably clear that it was not legitimate, and the designer provided services to further the end of unlawful use, I think the designer might be exposed to criminal liability. This is entirely aside from the ethical question. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Advanced Schematic on Win2k?
Jim and Ian, Thanks for the replies. So, when you installed the program, did you do the standard installation or just copy the Client sub-directory over to the Win2K disk? The Client directory is designed to let you run the program from the CD, if you desire, without installing the software on disk. I went that route since I wasn't sure how the installer would handle NT, and because I didn't want it copying over lots of old DLLs that might cause problems down the line. Thanks, PeterM - Original Message - From: Jim Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 12:15 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Advanced Schematic on Win2k? I am running 3.4 on win2k. I had lots of problems upgrading my computer (Sony laptop) to win2k but installing the protel software was not one of them. Jim Walker Walker Power Design, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Ian Capps [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 12:28 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Advanced Schematic on Win2k? Hi Peter I have EDA Client 3.0 on WIN 2K without hassles. Ian Capps * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] patent OT
You mean something like this: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFd=PALLp=1 u=/netahtml/srchnum.htmr=1f=Gl=50s1=6058192.WKU.OS=PN/6058192RS=PN/60 58192 Brian, you thief! You pirate! How dare you design an illegal descrambler box! And you had the audacity to get a patent on it! ;-) Seriously, though, how was this different than the descramblers for cable TV? I remember using a cable descrambler (a legal one) as early as 1982. That predates your patent quite a bit. Side note: that USB audio uber-codec you are working on, does it have SPDIF in/out? I'd like to connect it to the coax digital input on my Yamaha receiver. Right now I take the SPDIF output from the Soundblaster Live and convert it to RS485 differential signal with optical isolation (using homebrew circuitry), run it into the living room over unused Cat5 pair, and convert it back to SPDIF. I'd want to do the same thing with yours. Can it be used that way? Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com - Original Message - From: Brian Guralnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 12:09 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] License Legalities OT You mean something like this: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFd=PALLp=1 u=/netahtml/srchnum.htmr=1f=Gl=50s1=6058192.WKU.OS=PN/6058192RS=PN/60 58192 _ Brian Guralnick * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] License Legalities OT
I mentioned this because I know that a designer might be approached by someone who wants to make such a thing. He might provide a photo of an old board and say that he needs to reproduce it, the originals have been lost, I guess laziness has no-bounds. _ Brian Guralnick - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 9:47 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] License Legalities OT At 07:56 PM 9/9/2003, Brian Guralnick wrote: misdemeanor. Selling the boxes appears to be a public offense (if I'm correct, public offenses are prosecutable as felonies). Relevant to the interests of printed circuit designers, printed circuit boards are specifically mentioned. That's because any pirated boxes have been stolen from the cable company, or manufacter. Such cable boxes are only sold between the manufacturers (ie Scientific Atlanta, GI - Jerrold, Pioneer...) and the cable companies. Any of the boxes which are purchased separately between you a store dealer, must be stolen units, or stolen property, not to mention that these units have also been modified intentionally for theft of signal as well. No, I don't think this is correct, or at least it isn't complete. The reference is to non-authorized decoders which are sold on the black market. They are not generally stolen, per se, though they may represent unauthorized use of intellectual property or such things as copied circuit boards. The reference is to devices to defeat the scrambling. Sure, the legal box does that, but a new law wouldn't have been needed to deal with theft of boxes Rather someone may have reverse-engineered a box or may have developed an independent decoder. I mentioned this because I know that a designer might be approached by someone who wants to make such a thing. He might provide a photo of an old board and say that he needs to reproduce it, the originals have been lost, he might claim. (And certainly I've been asked to reproduce PCBs where the films etc. had completely disappeared.) Designers are not obligated to confirm that a design request is legitimate, but if it did become reasonably clear that it was not legitimate, and the designer provided services to further the end of unlawful use, I think the designer might be exposed to criminal liability. This is entirely aside from the ethical question. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Advanced Schematic on Win2k?
Peter, As I recall, I just inserted the disk(s) and clicked the appropriate squares for a standard installation. When I then went to use it, a message popped up stating some limitation on usage until I unlocked it. I went to the help - about screen to access the unlock code entry etc. and it worked the same as it did many years ago on win95 or 98. Jim Walker Walker Power Design, Inc. 877 281-7483 Peter Montgomery wrote: Jim and Ian, Thanks for the replies. So, when you installed the program, did you do the standard installation or just copy the Client sub-directory over to the Win2K disk? The Client directory is designed to let you run the program from the CD, if you desire, without installing the software on disk. I went that route since I wasn't sure how the installer would handle NT, and because I didn't want it copying over lots of old DLLs that might cause problems down the line. Thanks, PeterM - Original Message - From: Jim Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 12:15 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Advanced Schematic on Win2k? I am running 3.4 on win2k. I had lots of problems upgrading my computer (Sony laptop) to win2k but installing the protel software was not one of them. Jim Walker Walker Power Design, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Ian Capps [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 12:28 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Advanced Schematic on Win2k? Hi Peter I have EDA Client 3.0 on WIN 2K without hassles. Ian Capps * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Advanced Schematic on Win2k?
Ian, From memory the access keys were stored as clear text in an ini file. You could check on an your old installation and see what is in the ini files, then add this directly. They are. I tried this but didn't have any luck. The other thing that comes to mind is the relevant edit boxes being pushed off the dialog - are you running with Large Fonts on the Win2k box? No, stock font size. Thanks, PeterM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Advanced Schematic on Win2k?
Jim, As I recall, I just inserted the disk(s) and clicked the appropriate squares for a standard installation. When I then went to use it, a message popped up stating some limitation on usage until I unlocked it. I went to the help - about screen to access the unlock code entry etc. and it worked the same as it did many years ago on win95 or 98. Well, simple works. I did a standard install and it seems to be fine. I was presented with all the options and entered my codes. Advanced Schematic 3 is now running (as far as I can tell) just fine. I have no idea where it put the various DLLs, but I can't find any in the various WinNT directories, so my OS still seems to be clean. Life is good. BTW, I guess I'm not alone in finding Protel's charge for upgrading is kind of insane. I think my 16 bit software cost me about $2000. To upgrade now to DXP would cost me $6000. Apparently, Protel thinks that charging three times the original cost of the software to upgrade is a sound and logical business plan. It sounds moronic if you ask me. Thanks, PeterM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] patent OT
Brian, you thief! You pirate! How dare you design an illegal descrambler box! And you had the audacity to get a patent on it! ;-) Actually, my largest customers were legitimate cable companies, who wanted to keep using their existing discontinued encoders for cheaper channels, where they did not want to up-grade their head end, but maintain multi-platform compatibility. My partner and I were even investigated by federal forces, and I we were cleared for distributing the cable boxes in the states. Seriously, though, how was this different than the descramblers for cable TV? I remember using a cable descrambler (a legal one) as early as 1982. That predates your patent quite a bit. Well, my unit is basically a Time-Base-Corrector, with a narrow PLL locked to the silent time during sync color subcarrier burst just after. It actually doesn't care for how the signal was originally encoded. 1982?, could you mean 1992? -- Side note: that USB audio uber-codec you are working on, does it have SPDIF in/out? I'd like to connect it to the coax digital input on my Yamaha receiver. There is no definition in the SPDIF standard. I can output a SACD compliant bit stream, 24bit/chan, 192Khz + preamp control, from my digital side, however, I doubt you will find a better analog out than my analog pod, unless you already have a DA unit with a transformer-tube IV conversion stage, and a 128 step passive attenuator stage. It will be possible to run a standard Ethernet cable from the PC digital side unit to you living room with a DA converter side. Note that you will also have a HDTV picture embedded in the signal as well. --- My main modules concerning mostly the video: ftp://ftp.pages.infinit.net/bd2.jpg 93kb They are now being stuffed, I expect to have them sometime next week. I have 2 more audio modules, out of 6, to finish, their Gerbers will be going out by Friday this week. _ Brian Guralnick - Original Message - From: Bagotronix Tech Support [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 12:16 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] patent OT You mean something like this: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFd=PALLp=1 u=/netahtml/srchnum.htmr=1f=Gl=50s1=6058192.WKU.OS=PN/6058192RS=PN/60 58192 Brian, you thief! You pirate! How dare you design an illegal descrambler box! And you had the audacity to get a patent on it! ;-) Seriously, though, how was this different than the descramblers for cable TV? I remember using a cable descrambler (a legal one) as early as 1982. That predates your patent quite a bit. Side note: that USB audio uber-codec you are working on, does it have SPDIF in/out? I'd like to connect it to the coax digital input on my Yamaha receiver. Right now I take the SPDIF output from the Soundblaster Live and convert it to RS485 differential signal with optical isolation (using homebrew circuitry), run it into the living room over unused Cat5 pair, and convert it back to SPDIF. I'd want to do the same thing with yours. Can it be used that way? Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com - Original Message - From: Brian Guralnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 12:09 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] License Legalities OT You mean something like this: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFd=PALLp=1 u=/netahtml/srchnum.htmr=1f=Gl=50s1=6058192.WKU.OS=PN/6058192RS=PN/60 58192 _ Brian Guralnick * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Advanced Schematic on Win2k?
Peter snip BTW, I guess I'm not alone in finding Protel's charge for upgrading is kind of insane. I think my 16 bit software cost me about $2000. To upgrade now to DXP would cost me $6000. snip We got a deal for half price to move to dxp, still a lot but much more paletable ;-) with a little customization DXP is very good and worth the money, to us anyway. still has a few problems but not as many as our old package or most of the others out there that i have used. Rich * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] patent OT
Link ERROR- My main modules concerning mostly the video: ftp://ftp.pages.infinit.net/bd2.jpg 93kb Correct link- http://pages.infinit.net/helloftp/bd2.jpg 93kb _ Brian Guralnick - Original Message - From: Brian Guralnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] patent OT Brian, you thief! You pirate! How dare you design an illegal descrambler box! And you had the audacity to get a patent on it! ;-) Actually, my largest customers were legitimate cable companies, who wanted to keep using their existing discontinued encoders for cheaper channels, where they did not want to up-grade their head end, but maintain multi-platform compatibility. My partner and I were even investigated by federal forces, and I we were cleared for distributing the cable boxes in the states. Seriously, though, how was this different than the descramblers for cable TV? I remember using a cable descrambler (a legal one) as early as 1982. That predates your patent quite a bit. Well, my unit is basically a Time-Base-Corrector, with a narrow PLL locked to the silent time during sync color subcarrier burst just after. It actually doesn't care for how the signal was originally encoded. 1982?, could you mean 1992? -- Side note: that USB audio uber-codec you are working on, does it have SPDIF in/out? I'd like to connect it to the coax digital input on my Yamaha receiver. There is no definition in the SPDIF standard. I can output a SACD compliant bit stream, 24bit/chan, 192Khz + preamp control, from my digital side, however, I doubt you will find a better analog out than my analog pod, unless you already have a DA unit with a transformer-tube IV conversion stage, and a 128 step passive attenuator stage. It will be possible to run a standard Ethernet cable from the PC digital side unit to you living room with a DA converter side. Note that you will also have a HDTV picture embedded in the signal as well. --- My main modules concerning mostly the video: ftp://ftp.pages.infinit.net/bd2.jpg 93kb They are now being stuffed, I expect to have them sometime next week. I have 2 more audio modules, out of 6, to finish, their Gerbers will be going out by Friday this week. _ Brian Guralnick - Original Message - From: Bagotronix Tech Support [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 12:16 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] patent OT You mean something like this: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFd=PALLp=1 u=/netahtml/srchnum.htmr=1f=Gl=50s1=6058192.WKU.OS=PN/6058192RS=PN/60 58192 Brian, you thief! You pirate! How dare you design an illegal descrambler box! And you had the audacity to get a patent on it! ;-) Seriously, though, how was this different than the descramblers for cable TV? I remember using a cable descrambler (a legal one) as early as 1982. That predates your patent quite a bit. Side note: that USB audio uber-codec you are working on, does it have SPDIF in/out? I'd like to connect it to the coax digital input on my Yamaha receiver. Right now I take the SPDIF output from the Soundblaster Live and convert it to RS485 differential signal with optical isolation (using homebrew circuitry), run it into the living room over unused Cat5 pair, and convert it back to SPDIF. I'd want to do the same thing with yours. Can it be used that way? Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com - Original Message - From: Brian Guralnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 12:09 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] License Legalities OT You mean something like this: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFd=PALLp=1 u=/netahtml/srchnum.htmr=1f=Gl=50s1=6058192.WKU.OS=PN/6058192RS=PN/60 58192 _ Brian Guralnick * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Advanced Schematic on Win2k?
On 04:08 AM 11/09/2003, Peter Montgomery said: Jim, As I recall, I just inserted the disk(s) and clicked the appropriate squares for a standard installation. When I then went to use it, a message popped up stating some limitation on usage until I unlocked it. I went to the help - about screen to access the unlock code entry etc. and it worked the same as it did many years ago on win95 or 98. Well, simple works. I did a standard install and it seems to be fine. I was presented with all the options and entered my codes. Advanced Schematic 3 is now running (as far as I can tell) just fine. I have no idea where it put the various DLLs, but I can't find any in the various WinNT directories, so my OS still seems to be clean. Life is good. BTW, I guess I'm not alone in finding Protel's charge for upgrading is kind of insane. I think my 16 bit software cost me about $2000. To upgrade now to DXP would cost me $6000. Apparently, Protel thinks that charging three times the original cost of the software to upgrade is a sound and logical business plan. It sounds moronic if you ask me. Well ... 32-bit software is 65536 times as good as 16-bit software isn't it? Altium should be charging you $131 Million to upgrade. Ian * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Advanced Schematic on Win2k?
Well ... 32-bit software is 65536 times as good as 16-bit software isn't it? Altium should be charging you $131 Million to upgrade. Ian That would only be true if the 32 bit version had 65536 X the op-code instructions without wasting additional system resources. Since this isn't true, I think after you work out the waist additional stuff, Protel should be paying you to upgrade to their 32 bit version. _ Brian Guralnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Ian Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 8:02 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Advanced Schematic on Win2k? On 04:08 AM 11/09/2003, Peter Montgomery said: Jim, As I recall, I just inserted the disk(s) and clicked the appropriate squares for a standard installation. When I then went to use it, a message popped up stating some limitation on usage until I unlocked it. I went to the help - about screen to access the unlock code entry etc. and it worked the same as it did many years ago on win95 or 98. Well, simple works. I did a standard install and it seems to be fine. I was presented with all the options and entered my codes. Advanced Schematic 3 is now running (as far as I can tell) just fine. I have no idea where it put the various DLLs, but I can't find any in the various WinNT directories, so my OS still seems to be clean. Life is good. BTW, I guess I'm not alone in finding Protel's charge for upgrading is kind of insane. I think my 16 bit software cost me about $2000. To upgrade now to DXP would cost me $6000. Apparently, Protel thinks that charging three times the original cost of the software to upgrade is a sound and logical business plan. It sounds moronic if you ask me. Well ... 32-bit software is 65536 times as good as 16-bit software isn't it? Altium should be charging you $131 Million to upgrade. Ian * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Advanced Schematic on Win2k?
At 02:08 PM 9/10/2003, Peter Montgomery wrote: BTW, I guess I'm not alone in finding Protel's charge for upgrading is kind of insane. I think my 16 bit software cost me about $2000. To upgrade now to DXP would cost me $6000. Apparently, Protel thinks that charging three times the original cost of the software to upgrade is a sound and logical business plan. It sounds moronic if you ask me. Moronic all the way to the bank, if one wants to be sarcastic about it. Actually, to consider Protel DXP to be an upgrade to the 16-bit software is a tad misleading. They sell it as an upgrade, and it does have some of the same bare-bones functionality, but the software has come a long way and you have skipped over a whole series of upgrades, the most notable being Protel 99SE, which was a vast improvement. As I recall, you could have upgraded from the 16-bit software to Protel 98 for $1000, and you could have upgraded Protel 98 to P99SE for another $1000 (actually, I did it for $700 when it was on special offer), and, likewise, you could have upgraded from 99SE to DXP for $1000. So, in the end, you would have paid $5000 for what retails for $8000. As it is, because you did not upgrade when the offers were there, you pay an extra $1000, you still save $2000 over someone who did not own a prior license. Come to think of it, that's what you paid for your license in the first place, they have given you full credit So you can be grateful or you can be resentful, take your pick. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] License Legalities OT
I guess I was referring to those who just want to rip-off, or copy, someone else's design. In a sense, I did find it funny when someone comes to me asking me to replicate someone else's design, and it happens to be 1 of my own PCB designs. It's happened more than once to me. Example: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFd=PALLp=1u=/netahtml/srchnum.htmr=1f=Gl=50s1=6088052.WKU.OS=PN/6088052RS=PN/6088052 My concept of line muting was demoed under non-disclosure to a company called H3D back in 97. They were informed that it was my own concept that I had applied for a patent. It was a simple means to get 3D on the desktop with win95/98 with any 2D or 3D graphics accelerator. 1 year later, they managed a cheap knock off of the line muting, they sold themselves out of business because of poor business practices to a company called Illixco, who now makes an oem version of their 3D glasses with a box that does line muting, bugged incorrectly I might add, which allows them to play movies on the desktop or explore some web pages in 3D. Now, do I waist time going after them, or, further develop 2 additional new patents which have more than quadruple to value each? _ Brian Guralnick - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 8:15 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] License Legalities OT At 11:51 AM 9/10/2003, Brian Guralnick wrote: I mentioned this because I know that a designer might be approached by someone who wants to make such a thing. He might provide a photo of an old board and say that he needs to reproduce it, the originals have been lost, I guess laziness has no-bounds. I'm not sure that I understand what Mr. Guralnick means here. The situation described can be legitimate, i.e., a manufacturer may have lost the fabrication data for an old pcb; I encountered this situation with a large elevator manufacturer who need to make a board that was last made ten years before. The old design worked fine, they did not need something new, and all they had was one of the PCBs. It was clearly theirs, it had their name etched on it! They paid me to, essentially, copy the design. It was, in fact, one of my early Protel jobs. I photographed the board with a digital camera, and brought the image into Protel with one of the graphics-to-Protel-track utilities that are still available. I then created footprints and drew new track over the old (the old was on a mech layer). It would have been just as easy to design the board anew, but they specifically did not want a new design, they wanted something exactly like the old. As part of the process, I did discover some errors in the original design, one or two floating inputs, which can be in practice harmless but which can bite you when you least expect it. As a step further down the path to disrepute, another potential customer came to me one time and claimed that a designer working for him had abandoned the project in mid stream and all he had was a prototype board This gets pretty dicey, but it would also be difficult, in practice, to confirm or deny the truth of the story. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Advanced Schematic on Win2k?
Ian, Well ... 32-bit software is 65536 times as good as 16-bit software isn't it? Altium should be charging you $131 Million to upgrade. You are clearly missing a career path. Perhaps you need to work at Enron or some other corporation in a CFO or CEO position. You truly understand the way to monetary enlightenment. Thanks, PeterM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] Advanced Schematic on Win2k?
Abd, Actually, to consider Protel DXP to be an upgrade to the 16-bit software is a tad misleading. They sell it as an upgrade, and it does have some of the same bare-bones functionality, but the software has come a long way and you have skipped over a whole series of upgrades, the most notable being Protel 99SE, which was a vast improvement. Correct. Of course, this is mainly because I was extremely annoyed that even after Win95 came out, Protel maintained a 16 bit codebase. It took them three years to upgrade to a 32 bit program. As I recall, you could have upgraded from the 16-bit software to Protel 98 for $1000, and you could have upgraded Protel 98 to P99SE for another $1000 (actually, I did it for $700 when it was on special offer), and, likewise, you could have upgraded from 99SE to DXP for $1000. Once again, very annoyed that a company wanted to charge me the original asking price to upgrade. The idea that the special offer is $700 is ridiculous to me. When upgrades cost as much as I paid for the product in the first place, I know the company in question has a bad upgrade policy. So, in the end, you would have paid $5000 for what retails for $8000. Bleh. As it is, because you did not upgrade when the offers were there, you pay an extra $1000, you still save $2000 over someone who did not own a prior license. Come to think of it, that's what you paid for your license in the first place, they have given you full credit So you can be grateful or you can be resentful, take your pick. Quite clearly resentful. Thanks, PeterM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
