Re: [PEDA] Speaking of Protel Bugs.

On 11:11 PM 24/07/2002 -0700, JaMi Smith said: Thank you Brian JaMi Brian is not talking about the same thing - this always seems to get confused. Brain is talking about Protel's on-going issue with auto-pan. I think we all call that broken bug time- about on a par with Excel's scrolling.

Re: [PEDA] Speaking of Protel Bugs.

I recommend the pragmatic approach. From Linux experiments I meanswhile have : 1 spare Serial mouse 1 spare PS/2 mouse 1 spare USB Mouse 1 spare Graphic card 1 spare SCSI card It takes less nerves than your approach and solves the problem faster - perhaps. Rene JaMi Smith wrote: [ mouse

Re: [PEDA] Speaking of Protel Bugs.

Ian, I understand that, but the parallel is so obvious that I decided that I didn't need to prefix the comment with although it is not the exactly the same thing -. I actually started to do just that, write a prefix, and then said no, it's so obvious, you don't need that But the minute

Re: [PEDA] Refdes on other Layers

25/07/2002 06:11:53, Waldemar Kulajew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- snipp -- In any case, we now see why changing the layer of a refdes is a VERY BAD idea, at least with the current software! you talked about this behavior during this thread. I searched the Buglist buthave not found

[PEDA] Pad and Via clearance compared to PowerPlaneLayer (neg. layer)

Hi, Can you help / explain me about these two issues on this file http://groups.yahoo.com/group/protel-users/files/junk/ There is two issues on that file: 1. The BIG pad (50,30) connected to 1.8 net (split plane), should DRC detect short circuit, because pad is NOT totally inside 1.8 split

Re: [PEDA] Hot Linking

Tim Fifield wrote: I want to export a schematic to a database so that I can try some hot linking. The protel handbook (pg. 163) says: Select File Export to Database to pop up the Export Database dialog. Tim, There are, unfortunatelly, 2 things mixed up together. Hot Linking is something a

Re: [PEDA] Refdes on other Layers

Re: [PEDA] Pad and Via clearance compared to PowerPlaneLayer (neg. layer)

25/07/2002 09:23:29, Juha Pajunen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. The BIG pad (50,30) connected to 1.8 net (split plane), should DRC detect short circuit, because pad is NOT totally inside 1.8 split plane? Why it is connected to 1.8 net, whole pad IS NOT inside split plane? Yes - I think these

Re: [PEDA] Hot Linking

It's really hard to relax when every time I try to import a schematic Protel crashes... I get an Access violation at module. Any ideas of what's happening? Should I increase my swap file? Tim -Original Message- From: Wojciech Oborski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July

Re: [PEDA] Pad and Via clearance compared to PowerPlaneLayer (neg. layer)

I second Steve's comment and would only add that including a . in a net name could further the risk. I would have called this net something like V1_8 or P1_8V. In general and as a rule I never use any of the following in a net name or ref des ! @ $ % ^* ( ) - + = | \ } ] {

Re: [PEDA] Kudos

I read the article on LinuxCAD, I won't be purchasing it any time soon. I've use Qcad from qcad.org, it comes free with Mandrake. It took some time to figure out how to use it, but once you figure out the methodology they use, it works pretty good. Here's the rating I found off their

Re: [PEDA] Pad and Via clearance compared to PowerPlaneLayer (neg. layer)

Something else odd about this file. The split plane poly lines you have are individually moveable, as if they were free tracks. If I place another split plane poly on there, I cannot 'detact' one of the lines like I can with yours. ? -Original Message- From: Juha Pajunen

Re: [PEDA] Kudos

Group, Just out of curiosity, I thought I would ask for a copy of the EULA from LinuxCad... It is company policy that software licences be reviewed here before purchase in order to avoid gotchas. Well, I received this response from LinuxCad: At 03:22 PM 7/25/2002 -0400, LinuxCad Sales wrote

Re: [PEDA] Kudos

Thanks for the tip. The guy sounds like a moron... -Original Message- From: Frank Gilley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 12:49 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Kudos Group, Just out of curiosity, I thought I would ask for a copy of the EULA

[PEDA] Software Forge and LinuxCad (was: Kudos)

Group, (Sorry for the Repost, but I forgot to change the subject...and just in case you had it in the back of your mind to even think about ordering this...) Just out of curiosity, I thought I would ask for a copy of the EULA from LinuxCad... It is company policy that software licences be

Re: [PEDA] Kudos

It is company policy that software licences be reviewed here before purchase in order to avoid gotchas. snip That's a good company policy. Incidentally, how did you get a copy of the EULA for Microsoft products? From Microsoft's website:

[PEDA] Software Forge and LinuxCad (was: Kudos)

Hahahah, very good Ivan. Actually, we ask for a copy in advance just for a cursory examination to determine if there is anything glaring or weird. This only works on companies where you have a choice of what to buy. Monopolies don't count. Naturally, no matter what is in a MS EULA, you have

Re: [PEDA] Refdes on other Layers

We had no problems with designators on mech layers. Igor -Original Message- From: Steve Wiseman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 25 July 2002 6:06 PM To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Refdes on other Layers 25/07/2002 06:11:53, Waldemar Kulajew [EMAIL PROTECTED]