Re: [PEDA] Warning to DXP Users re P99SE files
some programs give you a choice after installation , in the form of a dialog box asking you IF you want file type .xxx to be associated with this program . IF you click yes, then windows will remember that file type as being associated with the new program, if you click no, that file type will remain associated with whatever program it was before. Matt Tudor , MSEE http://www.gigahertzelectronics.com - Original Message - From: Wojciech Oborski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 3:22 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Warning to DXP Users re P99SE files JaMi Smith wrote: snip DXP opened the file instead of Protel 99 SE ! snip Altium, care to weigh in on this one? snip File extensions assotiation is a Windows thing, not Protel! ICAP/IV (Intusoft's simulation software) we use, has *.dwg extension for it's drawings (schematics), which is also well known extension for Autocad drawings. *.sch extension is used by Protel, our old OrCAD SDT and possibly many other EDA tool I do not use. Others could give you many more examples, for sure. How do you think Protel/Altium could manage this? Please, do not blame Altium for every possible problem or difficulty happening in your professional activity - maybe it's just my personal impression, but it's some of your recent posts that made that impression. Wojciech Oborski * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Shazam Gollie! - SP7 Committe
even if some code was the same it doesn't mean the bug fix would be the same . Sometimes a quick fix is modifying other portions of the software than the faulty one, maybe even not knowing where the fault is , just patch something until it works. For example, something hangs, we don't know why, put a timeout on it , problem solved although the cause still exists. Matt Tudor, MSEE http://www.gigahertzelectronics.com - Original Message - From: Tony Karavidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Protel EDA Forum' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 3:38 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Shazam Gollie! - SP7 Committe I was thinking about this a bit more today. This evening Terry Creer discovered a 'new' bug. Subsequently, a few of us confirmed it in DXP. Here's an interesting perspective: It's probably clear that DXP has some if not a lot of code reuse from 99SE. If we find a bug in DXP, you know it will have very high priority. If it turns out that a bug is fixed in a module that was reused, that would be a FREE fix for the 99SE code base. A service pack might move forward for 99SE without them even trying! Neat huh? -Original Message- From: JaMi Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 12:20 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Cc: JaMi Smith Subject: Re: [PEDA] Shazam Gollie! - SP7 Committe - Original Message - From: Tony Karavidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ ~ ~ Not to jump all over you, but how do you suppose Altium is supposed to fix bugs if we don't report them? Excellent point Tony, But I think that there are actually some other priorities too! I think that the first thing we have to do is pull together as a group, and poll the major players out there on just what we want to do, and how we can effectively go about doing it. I think that it really is clear that we want and need a Protel 99 SE SP7. I also think that we all must realize that Altiums priorities are with DXP now, and we are not going to get very far if we attempt to draw resources away from DXP, which I do not believe that we have to do. I think that we have crossed the major hurdle that was in place in that most people out there now appear that they are really ready to admit that Protel 99 SE is if fact a software package that has some real serious bugs out there which are causing some real stability issues and problems, and is in fact flaky, and that Protel / Altium has never appeared willing to admit to any of this, nor have some of it's staunchest supporters. But the facts appear to speak for themselves. Protel / Altium will just have to face the facts. I think that if Protel /Altium are faced with a unified front from their customers and users, I think that we actually can get a lot of things done. I think that another major issue and hurdle is also about to fall into place, or actually out of the way, and that is the issue of DXP. Many are ready to abandon Protel 99 SE in order to jump on the DXP band wagon, thinking that all of their software problems and shortcommings will go away once we get past DXP SP1 and learn how to operate DXP. What many of those people do not understand is that even if all of the code was rewritten, by an entirely new team of programmers, the environment and mentality that allowed this to happen with Protel 99 SE is still very much entrenched at Protel / Altium, and that means that the same thing will happen with DXP, unless the customers and users confront Protel / Altium and let them know that this type of programming and lack of support cannot be allowed to continue. I don't think that it is going to take much to convince most people out there that unless we as a group demand more from Protel / Altium, we are simply not going to get it. Many of those people will soon find that the current attentiveness of Protel / Altium management in the DXP forum and their willingness in trying to get things worked out with DXP, is only a temporary situation brought about by the need to start collecting annual renewals for ATS in just a little over 2 weeks now, in an attempt to head off a PR and Financial Disaster, not to mention potential legal issues. As soon as they can convince enough people that DXP is really working, so that they can start collecting revenue from ATS as well as new DXP sales, we will see that support in the forum evaporate, and we will be in exactly in the same position that we have been in with Protel 99 SE for the past however many years. And it is not even as simple as that, not only since any new code base not only has its own new problems, but not every thing in DXP is in fact new, which means that there may be some old problems sneaking into the mix. So as I was saying, I think that we need to organize ourselves and come to a consensus as to our direction, and if
Re: [PEDA] Board Shops with Online Quotes ?
I've had very good results with www.pcbexpress.com for small quantities or protos . They don't charge tooling , also no electrical test for less than 20pcs protos . 3 days 4 layers no soldermask , ALWAYS (and I mean always) on time with zero problems. 4 days 4 layers LPI soldermask +silkscreen both sides, ALWAYS on time with no problems. No monkeys flipping layers, changing layer order , adding holes, etc. Board quality looks good even under microscope , laminate schedule is consistent . Only drawback is everything is automated. Submit files via ftp, pay over the web, get boards 4 days later. No muss no fuss . Did I mnetion they're the least expensive of the bunch ? Far less than Advanced Circuits for same quality and quantity . You just don't get to speak on the phone with your favorite salesdroid , that's really sad . Matt Tudor , MSEE http://www.gigahertzelectronics.com - Original Message - From: Robison Michael R CNIN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Protel EDA Forum' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 9:28 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Board Shops with Online Quotes ? Jon Elson said: We used to use Imagineering, aka www.pcbnet.com, as they were cheaper than Advanced Circuits a few years ago. Beware, though, that they charge for electrical test but may not actually do the test. We had a 6-layer board that they did for us, it had the ET stamp on it, but a batch of the boards were NOT tested. We don't have the equipment to test them ourselves, so we find the inner layer shorts, etc. AFTER all the parts are on. Well, we have no other choice but to blacklist them on this particular type of problem. We have gone through about 5 fabricators due to this same game. Advanced Circuits has NEVER pulled this stunt on us. Before we went to Advanced Circuits the first time, we used Proto-Circuits in Alpharetta, GA, and left them for the same reason. *** Thank you for making me aware of this problem. This kind of shoddy and dishonest workmanship is unacceptable to us. We do low-rate production, and our profit is based on a smooth development cycle. If we populate a board and it fails test, we are in trouble. A prolonged troubleshooting period threatens both our delivery date and our profit. miker * Tracking #: B8709D0DB7F3604DAAB386D812A88672E6996313 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture.
- Original Message - From: Tony Karavidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Protel EDA Forum' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 1:07 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] KLUNK! - Whats wrong with this picture. Hi Joe, I looked at the dates because your comment sparked interest. The older dates look to me like development tool DLLs, PLD stuff (the files from 1996), icons, pretty benign and uncontrollable stuff. If you look at the meat of the code, the file are dated 2002. I would disagree with you just because there are so many new problems with DXP. Even some core functions that we were familiar with have changed. I'm just guessing, but maybe the code base of P99SE was getting very difficult to maintain, and they opted for a 'fresh start' in many ways. In this article: http://www.embedded.com/story/OEG20020819S0056 the author states: To achieve the best long-term results, it is often necessary to have the courage to discard bad code and rewrite it. Maybe that is where P99 ended up. Like I said, I'm just guessing. discarding bad code is one thing, changing top level GUI specs is another . They decided to incorporate new features and discard old features based on management perception rather than user feedback. Starting from scratch new code doesn't mean discarding the old menus or feature set . All it needed was some corrections and some additions to be a better EDa tool than 99se or the competition . Then with the brand new enhanced spec software engineers could've written code in any language of their choice and on any platform . Altium should have correlated the feature set with the market segment they're addressing. They should've made an effort to keep the familiar menus regardless of the underlying code whenever possible. IT looks a lot like the not invented here syndrome , new development team is brought in, old people let go, new people badmouth old ones and then change everything including what was good. This was terribly foolish because Altium was somewhere up there on the learning curve in designing EDA tools . 99se was the nth iteration with lots of incremental improvements over previous versions. Giving up their functionality and replacing them with different options/menus/features threw them years back on the evolution scale. They could've rewritten the whole program from scratch but still maintain a top level GUI familiar interface , instead I bet they rewrote the GUI and probably patched the old underlying code. I'm sure it's still that Delphi code BTW . An example of how not to develop software, or what happens to shareholders money when management doesn't have a clue. They are currently reinventing the wheel , unfortunately it's still square or octagonal at best . Matt Tudor , MSEE http://gigahertzelectronics.com p.s. in this day and age the PLD tool makes no sense whatsoever , Xilinx, Actel, Atmel, Altera offer free tools with better funcionality , which have the added advantage that they actually _work_ for a change . * Tracking #: B583A16F9F0D87409C1CC56EB92C8E2B42E82B54 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] SCSI v IDE IBM Deathstars (was Protel vs. DirectCD)
HP SCSI scanner cards were notorious for their compatibility problems. And for the fact that HP was dropping driver support as soon as they could, by just phasing out the product although the OS versions were still being sold. I remember a Symbios SCSI card myself which contributed to some white hair definitely . Matt Tudor , MSEE http://www.gigahertzlectronics.com - Original Message - From: Bagotronix Tech Support [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] SCSI v IDE IBM Deathstars (was Protel vs. DirectCD) at one point i got a scsi scanner (HP) it wouldn't run on my scsi system (built by MICRON for $5K) it insisted on ONLY running on the crappy scsi controller they packaged with it after plugging that in i got it running, but there were still issues ... My experience also. I had to replace the el-crappo (8-bit ISA) SCSI card with another el-crappo one when the first one died. That was for a circa 1993 UMAX Vista T-630 scanner (bulky by today's standard, but it still works and produces beautiful results). * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tracking #: B96A8EB919FC5940B44C1C8561A48FD5FCE61FCF * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Protel vs. DirectCD
if you Google rec.video.desktop you will see the vast majority of people had problems with roxio and switched to ahead nero for cd burning . directcd and easy cd creator historically had tons of issues with the most diverse pc configurations . Matt Tudor , MSEE http://www.gigahertzelectronics.com - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 11:33 AM Subject: [PEDA] Protel vs. DirectCD I've just encountered a problem which essentially crashes my machine (W2K P99SE SP6) when I try to run Protel while Roxio's Easy CD Creator v 5.01_E2 is running. I think it's just a shell for DirectCD; it came bundled with my Dell, but is actually just crippleware (lowering my opinion of Dell; they promised a CDRW with supporting software, but this comes with ads to buy the full software). Has anyone else seen this? Is there anything specific I can do to alow continuing to at least view schematics in Protel while writing a CD of unrelated files? Steve Hendrix * Tracking #: 7B0CD65563C74148BADB5AA58B9D02736C31EF31 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] DXP Newsgroup
probably they don't want regular 99se users to see all dxp problems which are going to surface . they might assume that most 99se (or older versions) users are like you and me, busy working, and have no time to subscribe to a gazillion different lists. Therefore all DXP problems would become invisible to 99se suckers , sorry for the typo , I meant potential dxp upgrade customers . I think for the time being I won't advise any of my clients to buy Protel until this mess ( oops , sorry for the typo again, I meant marketing strategy) gets sorted out. Not until dxp is reported stable by a large number of users and the ATS policy guarantees the client receives at least a bug free version (without having to pay for an undefined duration the ATS fees) . best regards, Matt Tudor , MSEE - embeded , RF and Microwave Consulting http://www.gigahertzelectronics.com - Original Message - From: Bagotronix Tech Support [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] DXP Newsgroup Why don't they watch where the DXP message traffic is (here)? Instead of where they wish it was (there)? Seriously, I don't have time to register for all the variant lists that some may propose, i.e. the list of all Protel 99SE users who never owned v2.8, are thinking about upgrading to DXP, but don't like ATS, have green skin and pink eyes, ingrown left foot big toenails, and 6 fingers on each hand, etc. Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. * Tracking #: 1405A0D28C7C9E4A9785AABB175225B8DE100F9A * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] PCB houses
I don't have a real answer here so perhaps it would be wiser to keep quiet but maybe there's a reason this company is called Enigma ??? ;) Like in making their specs top secret even for customers? Best Regards, Matt Tudor , MSEE http://www.gigahertzelectronics.com - Original Message - From: Brad Velander [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Protel EDA Forum' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] PCB houses Dennis, no I didn't mean 1 oz. foil or starting copper weight, I meant 1 oz. plating. I thought that my comment was fairly clear but I guess not. I had also mentioned that they have an automated plating line which supposedly was their reason for only plating one weight of copper without screwing up their line for varying plating thickness. As I mentioned, Daniel says he has had different experiences with Enigma, so now I am in the dark about why we were told they only plated 1 oz. Cu. 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: Dennis Saputelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 6:13 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] PCB houses just to clarify terms here don't you really mean 'starting weight' 1oz copper not '1 oz plating'? 1/2 oz starting wt is used for finer pitch and lines and 2 oz for some power applications the traditional tin lead plating is in addition to that Dennis Saputelli * Tracking #: A8C2DED5D263AB418172C67F406A6727ECE3176F * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] LCD screens WAS: Hardware questions (upgrade time - yuk!)
the only reason for which I'd ever change a screen resolution would be to _increase_ it. I don't need menus and toolbars to take half of my screen area at low resolutions. I always run the highest res the screen supports. Talking of laptops, is anybody running Protel on 1600x1200 resolution Toshiba laptops ? I've seen a few models with this screen and liked it. The only problem for me was XP, because I run several other programs which require dongles, are not XP compatible etc. Also some missing ports (replaced by usb only) are a problem for me . Matt Tudor , MSEE http://www.gigahertzelectronics.com - Original Message - From: Bagotronix Tech Support [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 4:32 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] LCD screens WAS: Hardware questions (upgrade time - yuk!) You guys are compleat vidiots! ;-) What happens when you run a LCD screen at something other than it's pixel resolution? I have seen quite a few laptop screens that don't look good when running at lower resolutions than pixel-res. Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tracking #: DBA9952F7F325A46A5A7A91A610A334A72D337E6 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Hardware questions (upgrade time - yuk!)
I'm using 2 17 LCD's at 1280x1024 each, with a dual head card. I wouldn't go back to a CRT . 17 LCd's can be had for little money now, paid $1000 for both months ago. All things considered, the 2 lcd's give me more viewing area for the money, more resolution , take less desk space and are sharper than crt's for the same resolution . Matt Tudor, MSEE http://www.gigahertzelectronics.com - Original Message - From: Brian Guralnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 3:44 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Hardware questions (upgrade time - yuk!) Monitors (yuk!): Oh boy, this is a delicate subject. #1, Size. From your letter, I'll bet you want at least 21 inch. I've had more experience with the monitors which have the damper wires. I've gotten stuck in a loop where these have proven to be brighter, sharper, affordable. To get the shame performance out of the standard circular grill type of picture tube typically sky-rockets the price. My favorite choice here is the Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2040u. This 22 inch screen will give you the 2048x1536 AT 75Hz. The focus convergence uniformity over this entire screen from edge to edge has always impressed me. Especially when you consider the price of a new one is around 1,100$, I guarantee you can't go wrong. 1 extra detail, if you will only use 1280x1024 don't mind a minor loss in sharpness with this screen, manually set the R, G, B - Gains in the color temperatures to 100%, maybe the G - at 90%, and set the contrast to 100%. You will have a picture so bright that you can use this screen for cad out-doors, in direct sunlight, with ease. I have yet to see another screen go that bright without custom RGB video amps a display with smudgy focus color bleeding. Monitor review: http://www.cadalyst.com/reviews/hardware/0500monitors/mitsu.html -notes : Best warranty Flattest picture http://www.cadalyst.com/reviews/hardware/0702monitors/view.htm -notes : Cheapest screen, 700$. I wouldn't recommend it for resolutions above 1280x1024. For an LCD solution, try here: (I don't have much experience with LCD except that the STUPID 17 inch outdoor screen at my local Wendy's Drive thru has better contrast and color than the indoor desktop LCD screens. Why?) The only realistic LCD solution: http://www.cadalyst.com/reviews/hardware/0402lcd/dell.htm * Tracking #: 65819DF2ADEA634184F6FD99578EB80E59C3AC94 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Acrobat 5 on Schematics
I've seen this too , although in a weird variation. Just some of the letters would disappear , so the words had holes . I had to change the font type to make this go away - Original Message - From: Brian Guralnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 3:19 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Acrobat 5 on Schematics For the fonts that don't render correctly you may have to tell the PDF writer to embedd the fonts. I haven't seen a problem with the arcs. Rob This sometime can be related to the outer margin settings. I usually set my outer margins to as small ass possible, then, shrink the auto % size by 0.1%. After this, everything seems to come through perfectly fine. Brian Guralnick - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 3:45 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Acrobat 5 on Schematics For the fonts that don't render correctly you may have to tell the PDF writer to embedd the fonts. I haven't seen a problem with the arcs. Rob Brian Sherer [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 07/10/2002 01:07:22 PM Please respond to Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc:(bcc: Rob LaMoreaux/DSPT) Subject: [PEDA] Acrobat 5 on Schematics I have Adobe Acrobat v5.0.5 under Win'98 and '99SE SP6 with 512 MB RAM, and it works OK on Schematic files with the exception that arcs of certain diameters located within 20% of the right edge of the sheet are not rendered at all. This includes such objects as the arcs used to create AND gates. It also fails to render certain specific larger font sizes, such as 20pt. These are for the most part B sheets; the effect doesn''t seem related to sheet size or circuit complexity. I'm using the default Acrobat settings. Brian Foothill Services LLC At 09:49 AM 7/10/02 -0700, you wrote: I reccomend adobe acrobat for pcb files. However, version 4 on w2000 sp2 does not work on sch files. For those I use efax. For low cost if you subsribe to efax, you can use their prit driver/display software to export to tiff or jpeg. Does anyone know if acrobat 5 works with sch files? Mike - Original Message - From: Yuriy Khapochkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 7:37 AM Subject: [PEDA] PPC to word insertion Does anybody know how to insert PPC (PCBPrint) image into Microsoft Word? I would appreciate any ideas better, than printing - scanning. Yuriy Khapochkin. * Tracking #: A90690A739593B4B829B4449AA8525A82604F7AC * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] OS bugs WAS: Problems with schematic annotate function.
to upgrade or not to upgrade, this is the question ;-) seriously, why should I upgrade? I will consider a next upgrade only when there is new software to warrant it. Meaning with so many new USEFUL features that it'll increase my productivity or will make new tasks a lot more doable . This is not the case with the current upgrades. I couldn't care less if the nemus are shaded or animated. The current CAD versions I run cost between 10 to 100 times the value of my computer and operating system. The amount of time rquired by each upgrade is always more than I could afford. It's similar to leasing a new Porsche every six months and driving it mainly in reduced speed areas. I wouldn't do this with a car, why do this with software? There are no new simulation algorythms and no new laws of physics applicable to schematic and pcb design. Current tools have most of the features I want and there's nothing new and spectacular in any of these upgrades. I'll live with what I have until the current OS computing crisis ends in a few years. I'm not willing to subsidize M$ any longer. Matt Tudor , MSEE http://www.gigahertzelectronics.com - Original Message - From: Bagotronix Tech Support [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 10:04 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] OS bugs WAS: Problems with schematic annotate function. What this means for Altium is that they must either continue to support W2K, or start supporting Linux, for future Protel releases. That is, if they want me to upgrade ;-) Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tracking #: 738AE51EDB9C9E4A9A3601EA6ABB9CCE94DA5798 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] OS bugs WAS: Problems with schematic annotate function.
not to forget _reliability_. I want a tool that I don't need to fix all the time .That costs me more money than anything else . I would be very upset if my car stalled on a busy highway. I would be upset if my supplier didn't finish my boards on time. I would be upset if my accountant didn't do what he was supposed to do. I am equally upset when I spend inordinate amounts of time and money on PC's, then pc upgrades, then os upgrades, then software upgrades, then driver upgrades, then more upgrades and patches to cure some of the problems the previous upgrades created. It is almost to the point where it negates the benefits of automating the tasks at all . As I said, computing raw power is quite enough for the trivial tasks of schematic capture and pcb layout plus some simulations. CAD programs and office applications had enough versions and revisions under their belt to implement most of the major functions I needed. I have workarounds for what's still missing . All my cad programs started on slower machines and ran fine on win95/98/nt4 . Until I am absolutely forced by CAD software unavailability for my existing platforms, and by technology shifts , there's no more upgrades for my company. Period. Best Reagrds, Matt Tudor , MSEE http://www.gigahertzelectronics.com - Original Message - From: Bagotronix Tech Support [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 12:39 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] OS bugs WAS: Problems with schematic annotate function. Maybe you don't care about the OS, but do you care about privacy, security, freedom, and fiscal responsibility? MS is out to eradicate all of these in their OS plans for the future (WPA, Passport, Palladium, etc.). * Tracking #: 71BC170101A0004DB1C4FA782270DE2D687475A7 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] OS bugs WAS: Problems with schematic annotate function.
true for some programs, impossible for others. There are some CAD packages which have limited time dongles, authorization codes, etc. The following year, when the code expires, they just tell you they don't support that version any longer. Or if your old mahcine crapped out and you needed to get a new one, there are os problems, driver problems and the CAD company tells you they don't support the old version of their software on the newer operating systems. I used to use an electromagnetic simulator called Sonnet , which was giving users a yearly license. That was many years ago . Got dissatisfied and gave up that particular CAD program. For everything that works, Protel 99se sp6 included , I keep for each project a backup with not only the project design files but the exact os and tools (cad, compilers etc and their configuration files) versions . This habit has got me in the past out of trouble repeatedly. CD's are literally a dime a dozen nowadays. Matt - Original Message - From: Tony Karavidas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 3:22 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] OS bugs WAS: Problems with schematic annotate function. Very true, but for many of us, Protel is very reliable now. It never crashes on me; it doens't trash my DDBs, etc. Why would you be 'forced' to upgrade? If you wanted to, you could still be running Orcad DOS, or Protel 2.8 or Easytrax. All that old stuff still runs fine on old machines or newer machines. It's only the stupid PowerPCB type dongle expirations that prevent you from going on year after year. -Original Message- From: mariusrf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 11:32 AM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] OS bugs WAS: Problems with schematic annotate function. not to forget _reliability_. I want a tool that I don't need to fix all the time .That costs me more money than anything else . I would be very upset if my car stalled on a busy highway. I would be upset if my supplier didn't finish my boards on time. I would be upset if my accountant didn't do what he was supposed to do. I am equally upset when I spend inordinate amounts of time and money on PC's, then pc upgrades, then os upgrades, then software upgrades, then driver upgrades, then more upgrades and patches to cure some of the problems the previous upgrades created. It is almost to the point where it negates the benefits of automating the tasks at all . As I said, computing raw power is quite enough for the trivial tasks of schematic capture and pcb layout plus some simulations. CAD programs and office applications had enough versions and revisions under their belt to implement most of the major functions I needed. I have workarounds for what's still missing . All my cad programs started on slower machines and ran fine on win95/98/nt4 . Until I am absolutely forced by CAD software unavailability for my existing platforms, and by technology shifts , there's no more upgrades for my company. Period. Best Reagrds, Matt Tudor , MSEE http://www.gigahertzelectronics.com - Original Message - From: Bagotronix Tech Support [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 12:39 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] OS bugs WAS: Problems with schematic annotate function. Maybe you don't care about the OS, but do you care about privacy, security, freedom, and fiscal responsibility? MS is out to eradicate all of these in their OS plans for the future (WPA, Passport, Palladium, etc.). * Tracking #: 505147AE992EE44BB88F7DE1A96FFD4805B765B7 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] SPICE sim question
most of the time the schematic portions which warrant accurate simulations can be reduced and modelled before running any simulation. For example reduce differential to single ended stages . Due to lack of accurate detailed models for specific parts, I just use generic models most of the time and tweak them for the main limitations the actual part might have in the given application . I usually simulate in spice just single stages . For larger systems , I go for a system simulator , like SystemView from Elanix . It's really nearly impossible to accurately simulate large complex designs in spice alone if you're not designing an IC and don't have the process parameters . Matt Tudor , MSEE http://www.gigahertzelectronics.com - Original Message - From: Bagotronix Tech Support [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 12:04 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] SPICE sim question Straight-A students, indeed...!? Long ago, when I was first introduced to computer simulation tools, I was forewarned: A fool with a tool is still a fool. True, and when the tool is a computer, the fool has an electrified fooling machine. Don't get me wrong, I like SPICE and have used it in the past, but just can't justify the time for it these days. I would use it if good models were as easy as clicking on a website and the model inserts into my sim file. Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com - Original Message - From: Fred A Rupinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 8:00 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] SPICE sim question * Tracking #: 06D379F98D4AAE4FA0D5B6A107F024B64FCBD31E * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] SPICE sim question
That probably was exactly her point. While good engineers simulate _critical_ portions of their designs (should such portions exist in that particular design) , there's no need to simulate the whole schematic. Moreover, you stated that with experience you learn to recognize which portions merit simulation . The logical continuation here is that you also learn which don't warrant a simulation, and they're a lot more than the ones that do. The no simulaiton category is also growing with experience , so you simulate less and less of a design due to 2 factors, you both 1) learn to recognize more accurately what is really critical and 2), you learn solutions and already implement them for high sensitivity circuits from the schematic capture stage , which you also recognize due to experience. I've seen so many poor circuits due to inexperienced designers, like single ended stages where differential should've been a given, poor supply noise performance, high jitter, and they were coming from clueless engineers. All with lots of effort put into simulation , only simulation of useless and obvious features . The ones the clueless guys were capable of foreseeing . Best Regards, Matt Tudor, MSEE http://www.gigahertzelectronics.com - Original Message - From: Gary Packman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 5:54 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] SPICE sim question Mira, The few good designers I have know in my 25 years of design *always* simulate their designs. Engineers who cannot design a functioning product without a simulator shouldn't be engineers in the first place. However, every engineer that takes simulation seriously can *improve* any design with simulation. I don't consider simulation a debug tool, rather an optimizing tool. . Also, with more experience you learn to recognize which portions of a circuit actually merit simulation. Voltage dividers, not necessary. High-gain multi-stage process control amplifiers that must operate in a plus or minus 100 degree temperature environment, a must. Gary Packman * * * * * * * * * Tracking #: E646B3C8CF1E8D4190D29FA947CA2251064454FE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] AW: SPICE sim question
no, or not always, or not anymore ;) -first of all, the 1% and 5% being tolerances , are usually specified either at standard temperature (like 25deg C) , or across temperature range. IF the specs are at 25deg C , they don't imply any kind of temperature performance . There will be no relationship whatsoever between a resistor being 1% across temperature and being sold as 1% tolerance. Life is not that easy. There might be different temperature coefficients involved depending on the resistors' technology but that's another story ,they might even be non-linear with temperature . -long ago ,when resistor materials manufacturing costs were the predominant part in the resistor retail price (or so the legend said) , some vendors used to sort their resistors . That way, they were making only 5% parts. They were picking the parts which were within +/-2% and +/-1% from the 5% batch and marked them as 2% and 1% . I recall someone having fun one day , plotting a whole resistors box distribution only to figure out if they were selected as 1% or unselected. The idea was that if they were unselected, we could've selected them for 0.1%, otherwise the middle of the curve was gone and sold as 0.1% . Now, time is a lot more important than materials for resistors , processes are a lot more under control, so I doubt any resistor manufacturer is selecting 1% out of the 5% bin. They might do it for specialty parts , low volume and/or low yield high precision parts but not the 5%. - as a sidenote, the cherry picking procedure makes Monte-Carlo analysis somewhat useless, unless the problem was trivial . That is because the cherry picked parts don't obey any random distribution curve so the combinations Monte-Carlo is calculating in that case don't really exist. Best Regards, Matt Tudor , MSEE http://www.gigahertzelectronics.com - Original Message - From: Andy Gulliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 6:44 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] AW: SPICE sim question Also, in practice you'll be very lucky to find a resistor sold as 5% that is within 1% across temperature etc. - they're the ones that are being sold as 1% parts! Regards, Andy Gulliver * Tracking #: 1196B5D30963FF4A88A728F6367207E6F00B1513 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] SPICE sim question
I still have memories of some analog switching done with bipolars , only using reverse saturation (collector reversed with emmitter - picture a npn with the emmitter tied at a more positive potential than the collector) . The trick was yielding lower Uce in saturation. Lots of people were quick to point out that the schematic had an error ;) Best Regards, Matt Tudor , MSEE http://www.gigahertzelectronics.com - Original Message - From: Bagotronix Tech Support [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 10:33 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] SPICE sim question BTW, in engineering school I knew some straight-A students that did nothing but simulation. When they actually built the circuits, none of them ever worked as desired. .. There were 2 other guys that were electronics whizzes. Some of the A students came to us for help. One had an interesting design methodology: he would plug resistor values into the SPICE circuit and keep simulating it until it worked. Then he built it on a solderless breadboard. Guess what - it didn't work. At his request, I looked over his circuit. He had connected the transistors wrong. I pointed this out, and his response was shouldn't those transistors work any way you connect them?. Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tracking #: EFD8011DD1CE714E9035A1AC3B979E17105F468E * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] SPICE sim question
well, there were lots of these documents added , but the problem was it was all on _microfilms_ . Part numbering system, revisions, flowcharts, principles of operation , lots of stuff on tens and hundreds of archived mcrofilms. This was in a previous life while working for Control Data Corporation, PC's weren't invented yet. Matt Tudor , MSEE http://www.gigahertzelectronics.com - Original Message - From: Ian Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 8:08 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] SPICE sim question On 12:02 PM 2/07/2002 -0400, mariusrf said: I still have memories of some analog switching done with bipolars , only using reverse saturation (collector reversed with emmitter - picture a npn with the emmitter tied at a more positive potential than the collector) . The trick was yielding lower Uce in saturation. Lots of people were quick to point out that the schematic had an error ;) Best Regards, Matt Tudor , MSEE http://www.gigahertzelectronics.com Of course a well documented design would have recognised that many people would detect this as a possible error and so have an annotation on the Sch to inform the reader that the reverse C-E connection was deliberate and refer to the supporting documentation for further info. I am sure that this was added to the final release Sch, wasn't it :-) Ian Wilson * Tracking #: 61DAD9D5164115428CA95267469DA2DF5D64EC29 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
