elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - EDA CAD Electronics - advice on selecting new PCB design package
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
Brad Velander
Guest
Guest
Wed Mar 15, 2006 10:31 am
Joel,
ACCEL was bought by Protel/Altium along with it's bigger brother PCAD in
2000. Shortly after the Altium purchase all ACCEL users were either orphaned
or upgraded to PCAD. ACCEL no longer exists unless you are still running a
pre-Altium version (version 15 if I remember correctly). It was a pretty
respectable package in it's day, somewhat simpler than PCAD and limited in
layers/nets/parts when compared to it's big brother but in it's day it met a
price/performance point that was quite good and very suitable for a lot of
small - medium companies.
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.
--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.
"Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesSpam_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:121eqjn7jhlqu29_at_corp.supernews.com...
Quote:
The main packages you didn't mention were Protel and Accel (now owned by
Protel). Back in the Protel 3 days, I used it a lot and really liked it;
I don't have any experience with newer versions.
---Joel Kolstad
Leon
Guest
Guest
Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:52 pm
Dax wrote:
Quote:
Missed Protel and P-CAD, sorry.
[deleted]
Quote:
No-Brainers
If a teen hobbyist came to me and wanted to learn PCB design, I'd steer
them toward Eagle (free version.) If an Engineering intern wanted the
same thing I'd start them with Protel 99 SE SP6 (free, unlimited 30-day
trial). Anyone else has to decide for themselves.
If a teen hobbyist came to me and wanted to learn PCB design, I'd steer
them toward Eagle (free version.) If an Engineering intern wanted the
same thing I'd start them with Protel 99 SE SP6 (free, unlimited 30-day
trial). Anyone else has to decide for themselves.
EasyPC is about the same price as Eagle (no free version, though) and
is *much* easier to use:
http://www.numberone.com
It's been around for over 20 years, I was one of their earliest
customers.
Leon
Dax
Guest
Guest
Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:38 pm
EasyPC is just the low-end hobbyist version of Pulsonix, isn't it?
Didn't Pulsonix grow out of EasyPC or something like that, Leon? I've
heard stories that it did. Maybe you can give us whole history?
I'd recommend Eagle over EasyPC because:
1. It's has a free version that is quite usable, see limitations below.
2. Large, active global user base to provide support.
3. There are significant 3rd party tools.
4. It has very few bugs, not something most EDA packages can brag
about.
Many hobbyist share their Project designs on the net in Eagle format.
Yes, EasyPC is easier to use but Eagle is *free*.
Quote:
From the cadsoft website:
************************************************************************************************
The following limitations apply to the EAGLE Light Edition in general:
* The useable board area is limited to 100 x 80 mm (4 x 3.2
inches).
* Only two signal layers can be used (Top and Bottom).
* The schematic editor can only create one sheet.
Apart from these three limitiations the EAGLE Light Edition can do
anything the Professional Edition can do. You can even load, view and
print drawings that exceed these limits!
************************************************************************************************
A 4" x 3.2" board with no pin, net, or component limit and two signal
layers. What more does a newbie need?
Leon
Guest
Guest
Wed Mar 15, 2006 6:45 pm
Joel Kolstad wrote:
Quote:
Dax,
I'm impressed by your broad experience with these difference CAD programs,
even if I don't agree with all of your opinions!
"Dax" <email_demonoid_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142400225.857041.79430_at_e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
OrCAD Capture is simply the best in it's class. It looks great and
works great.
As you say, "oh, come on!"
Here's a short list of things that are
annoying in OrCAD capture:
-- Tab-click works to select one of multiple overlapping objects, but this
doesn't work in conjunction with multiple select (ctrl+click)
-- The highest zoom level is artificially low
-- No means to set the "pick" radius
-- Pins for schematic symbols must be placed strictly around a rectangular
bounding box.
-- Pin styles are limited (there's a canned number of selections -- e.g.,
"short" and "long" for general purpose pin; no independent adjustment of pin
length)
-- Pin names can't be turned off on a pin-by-pin basis (it's all or
nothing! -- so you end up turning them all off and using text to display what
you want)
-- No ability to add or change keyboard mapping (!! -- this is, what, 2006?)
-- Macro language is half-baked; many functions you'd like to use (e.g., "zoom
area" with mouse input providing the bounding box) don't exist
-- No "area de-select" option
-- No polygon shape select
-- No way to toggle area select from "everything wholly within the selected
area" to "everything touching the selected area" from the keyboard
-- No tool-tips/status bar display/whatever of a net's name, class, etc. when
you select it (must double-click to bring up a modal dialog to obtain this
information)
-- Busses can only contain homogenous items, e.g., Data[0:7] -- you can't
create a "mixed" bus that also bundles in, e.g., CS, Rd, Wr!
-- No tabbed window view
I realize that many people aren's used to these features and therefore just
don't know what they're missing, but I find the biggest annoyance when using
multiple CAD programs is that you really start to miss nice features from one
in another. Better programs (e.g., those with full macros and keyboard
re-assignment) often let you emulate the other programs' functionality to a
large extent; such is not the case with OrCAD.
Compare that to the Cadence website where everything related to
support is under lock and key with a password unless you have a support
contract.
Did you mean Mentor? Mentor won't even let you access their web site
knowledge base for, e.g., PADS without a support contract. (I've mentioned
before that I really tend to think that PADS is somewhat like Oracle -- it's
really not that much better than the competition, but information about it is
purposely kept somewhat obscure so that there's an entire artificial industry
in training, support contracts, etc.)
I rated Electronics Workbench v9, the Frankenstein of EDA packages,
above Proteus and Eagle because EW is solidly in the professional
class.
Just curious -- what *does't* Proteus do that you'd like it to? I've never
used it, but on paper it looks pretty good. I certainly don't downgrade a
package because it also happens to cater to hobbyists (e.g., printing out
drill hole targets for manual PCB fabrication, as you mention).
I'm impressed by your broad experience with these difference CAD programs,
even if I don't agree with all of your opinions!
"Dax" <email_demonoid_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142400225.857041.79430_at_e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
OrCAD Capture is simply the best in it's class. It looks great and
works great.
As you say, "oh, come on!"
Here's a short list of things that are
annoying in OrCAD capture:
-- Tab-click works to select one of multiple overlapping objects, but this
doesn't work in conjunction with multiple select (ctrl+click)
-- The highest zoom level is artificially low
-- No means to set the "pick" radius
-- Pins for schematic symbols must be placed strictly around a rectangular
bounding box.
-- Pin styles are limited (there's a canned number of selections -- e.g.,
"short" and "long" for general purpose pin; no independent adjustment of pin
length)
-- Pin names can't be turned off on a pin-by-pin basis (it's all or
nothing! -- so you end up turning them all off and using text to display what
you want)
-- No ability to add or change keyboard mapping (!! -- this is, what, 2006?)
-- Macro language is half-baked; many functions you'd like to use (e.g., "zoom
area" with mouse input providing the bounding box) don't exist
-- No "area de-select" option
-- No polygon shape select
-- No way to toggle area select from "everything wholly within the selected
area" to "everything touching the selected area" from the keyboard
-- No tool-tips/status bar display/whatever of a net's name, class, etc. when
you select it (must double-click to bring up a modal dialog to obtain this
information)
-- Busses can only contain homogenous items, e.g., Data[0:7] -- you can't
create a "mixed" bus that also bundles in, e.g., CS, Rd, Wr!
-- No tabbed window view
I realize that many people aren's used to these features and therefore just
don't know what they're missing, but I find the biggest annoyance when using
multiple CAD programs is that you really start to miss nice features from one
in another. Better programs (e.g., those with full macros and keyboard
re-assignment) often let you emulate the other programs' functionality to a
large extent; such is not the case with OrCAD.
Compare that to the Cadence website where everything related to
support is under lock and key with a password unless you have a support
contract.
Did you mean Mentor? Mentor won't even let you access their web site
knowledge base for, e.g., PADS without a support contract. (I've mentioned
before that I really tend to think that PADS is somewhat like Oracle -- it's
really not that much better than the competition, but information about it is
purposely kept somewhat obscure so that there's an entire artificial industry
in training, support contracts, etc.)
I rated Electronics Workbench v9, the Frankenstein of EDA packages,
above Proteus and Eagle because EW is solidly in the professional
class.
Just curious -- what *does't* Proteus do that you'd like it to? I've never
used it, but on paper it looks pretty good. I certainly don't downgrade a
package because it also happens to cater to hobbyists (e.g., printing out
drill hole targets for manual PCB fabrication, as you mention).
A friend of mine uses Proteus where I used to work. It's full of bugs,
but he manages to get round them and produce decent designs with a
great deal of work. Sometimes he even has to get the PCB supplier to
pre-process the Gerbers (expensive) , because he can't get it to
produce the right shapes. Support is non-existent from the UK supplier.
I tried using it once to modify a board while he was on holiday - just
altering a few vias and tracks was a nightmare.
They got Eagle for everyone else but I refused to use it, and they let
me use my own copy of Pulsonix after a big row with management. Doing
anything in Eagle required about twice as many keystrokes and mouse
operations as with Pulsonix, agravating my RSI problems. I got them to
give in on Health and Safety grounds.
It also kept crashing on me.
One of the engineers who knew Eagle well spent two weeks laying out a
PCB, I could have done it in one day with Pulsonix.
Leon
Joel Kolstad
Guest
Guest
Wed Mar 15, 2006 6:55 pm
Hi Leon,
"Leon" <leon_heller_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142444708.121931.183950_at_j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
They got Eagle for everyone else but I refused to use it, and they let
me use my own copy of Pulsonix after a big row with management. Doing
anything in Eagle required about twice as many keystrokes and mouse
operations as with Pulsonix, agravating my RSI problems.
me use my own copy of Pulsonix after a big row with management. Doing
anything in Eagle required about twice as many keystrokes and mouse
operations as with Pulsonix, agravating my RSI problems.
So wouldn't you also like to see a Pulsonix option whereby "auto weld" worked
(1) when multiple components where being pasted and (2) for connecting pins to
the middle of nets (rather than just the ends or other component pins as it
does now)?
I spend a noticeable amount of time in Pulsonix copying and
pasting something and then drawing a bunch of short wire segments hooking
everything up; none of Protel, PCAD, and OrCAD require this.
Another nice time saver from OrCAD is "repeat paste" where it repeats the last
paste command at the offset between the original component and where you first
pasted it. Pulsonix does have the somewhat similar option to "copy matrix,"
but when you just need to repeat pasting a component some, say, 3-4 times it's
more effort to set up than just manually pasting.
---Joel
Joel Kolstad
Guest
Guest
Wed Mar 15, 2006 7:23 pm
Dax,
I'm impressed by your broad experience with these difference CAD programs,
even if I don't agree with all of your opinions!
"Dax" <email_demonoid_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142400225.857041.79430_at_e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
OrCAD Capture is simply the best in it's class. It looks great and
works great.
works great.
As you say, "oh, come on!"
Here's a short list of things that are
annoying in OrCAD capture:
-- Tab-click works to select one of multiple overlapping objects, but this
doesn't work in conjunction with multiple select (ctrl+click)
-- The highest zoom level is artificially low
-- No means to set the "pick" radius
-- Pins for schematic symbols must be placed strictly around a rectangular
bounding box.
-- Pin styles are limited (there's a canned number of selections -- e.g.,
"short" and "long" for general purpose pin; no independent adjustment of pin
length)
-- Pin names can't be turned off on a pin-by-pin basis (it's all or
nothing! -- so you end up turning them all off and using text to display what
you want)
-- No ability to add or change keyboard mapping (!! -- this is, what, 2006?)
-- Macro language is half-baked; many functions you'd like to use (e.g., "zoom
area" with mouse input providing the bounding box) don't exist
-- No "area de-select" option
-- No polygon shape select
-- No way to toggle area select from "everything wholly within the selected
area" to "everything touching the selected area" from the keyboard
-- No tool-tips/status bar display/whatever of a net's name, class, etc. when
you select it (must double-click to bring up a modal dialog to obtain this
information)
-- Busses can only contain homogenous items, e.g., Data[0:7] -- you can't
create a "mixed" bus that also bundles in, e.g., CS, Rd, Wr!
-- No tabbed window view
I realize that many people aren's used to these features and therefore just
don't know what they're missing, but I find the biggest annoyance when using
multiple CAD programs is that you really start to miss nice features from one
in another. Better programs (e.g., those with full macros and keyboard
re-assignment) often let you emulate the other programs' functionality to a
large extent; such is not the case with OrCAD.
Quote:
Compare that to the Cadence website where everything related to
support is under lock and key with a password unless you have a support
contract.
support is under lock and key with a password unless you have a support
contract.
Did you mean Mentor? Mentor won't even let you access their web site
knowledge base for, e.g., PADS without a support contract. (I've mentioned
before that I really tend to think that PADS is somewhat like Oracle -- it's
really not that much better than the competition, but information about it is
purposely kept somewhat obscure so that there's an entire artificial industry
in training, support contracts, etc.)
Quote:
I rated Electronics Workbench v9, the Frankenstein of EDA packages,
above Proteus and Eagle because EW is solidly in the professional
class.
above Proteus and Eagle because EW is solidly in the professional
class.
Just curious -- what *does't* Proteus do that you'd like it to? I've never
used it, but on paper it looks pretty good. I certainly don't downgrade a
package because it also happens to cater to hobbyists (e.g., printing out
drill hole targets for manual PCB fabrication, as you mention).
---Joel
Joel Kolstad
Guest
Guest
Wed Mar 15, 2006 7:32 pm
Dax,
"Dax" <email_demonoid_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142437129.788063.308600_at_p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
EasyPC is just the low-end hobbyist version of Pulsonix, isn't it?
Not really. My understanding is that EasyPC and Pulsonix started out as two
completely different codebases, different companies, different programmers.
At some point Pulsonix purchased EasyPC, development is now all done in the
same building, and therefore there's lots of sharing of bits of code between
the two. (Kinda like how PCAD started getting a lot of Protel features once
Protel purchased Altium.) Leon can surely provide more details...
It is surprising to me that EasyPC seems to have very little marketing (not
even its own web site!?)...
Quote:
Many hobbyist share their Project designs on the net in Eagle format.
Yes, EasyPC is easier to use but Eagle is *free*.
Yes, EasyPC is easier to use but Eagle is *free*.
EasyPC, even in its stripped down forms (e.g., the 1000 pin version) is still
spendy enough that you have a solid point. On the other hand, programs such
as RimuPCB are so cheap that I think they're still well within a hobbyist's
budget... and at least appear to still get you that "easier to use" feature.
---Joel
RST Engineering (jw)
Guest
Guest
Wed Mar 15, 2006 8:26 pm
I hope I'm not being too parochial, but it seems that almost all of the
mid-range and low-end packages are done in a country outside of the USA.
Eagle is German
Pulsonix & EZPC are UK
Rimu is NZ
Protel is OZ
I'm just curious why?
Jim
Joel Kolstad
Guest
Guest
Wed Mar 15, 2006 9:03 pm
"RST Engineering (jw)" <jim_at_rstengineering.com> wrote in message
news:2c2cc$44185c52$42512db5$17281_at_DIALUPUSA.NET...
Quote:
I'm just curious why?
It might have something to do with the labor market. Labor rates in the US
are quite high, so in a market where there isn't a whole lot of volume,
product prices end up high as well. It is surprising to me that in a country
like NZ -- which is a lot closer to China than the US is -- material goods
such as PCs, power tools, etc. cost noticeably more than in the US, yet labor
is a lot cheaper.
At this point, to some degree it's probably self-perpetuating... if you're in
the US and think you're going to write some EDA software, you're probably
immediately struck that your closest market (the US) is dominated by the
high-end, high-cost package, and that's very difficult to compete with. The
Internet has negated this to some extent, however.
Finally... there are a few low-end US vendors out there... or at least there
were! Ivex (Winboard) was US, no? And there's AMS down in Florida... I used
their software once, and it had some incredible limitations such as only
allowing 10 different pad shapes (!), but it did get the job done at the time
(a decade back -- these days freeware alternatives are far better).
DJ Delorie
Guest
Guest
Wed Mar 15, 2006 9:47 pm
"RST Engineering \(jw\)" <jim_at_rstengineering.com> writes:
Quote:
I hope I'm not being too parochial, but it seems that almost all of the
mid-range and low-end packages are done in a country outside of the USA.
mid-range and low-end packages are done in a country outside of the USA.
gEDA is done primarily in the USA.
RST Engineering (jw)
Guest
Guest
Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:01 pm
Hey, I didn't mean to start a fight. I simply noted that almost all of the
medium to low range software was not only written outside the US, but sold
from outside the US. The only exception that I know about was
Circuitmaker/Traxmaker in Utah, but they were bought and killed off by
Protel.
And AMS may have had an office in Florida, but I think I can safely assure
you that the real main office was not in Florida.
It just seemed odd, that's all. No offense intended.
Jim
"Christian HOSTELET" <christian.hostelet-paspam-@free.fr> wrote in message
news:441882d1$0$13011$626a54ce_at_news.free.fr...
Quote:
Why those non-US citizens are able to design and produce some good pieces
of software without the help of the great USA?
Are you suggesting this is not a "normal" situation? If yes, please think
twice.
Jim
--
Christian - Grenoble
Christian HOSTELET
Guest
Guest
Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:10 pm
"RST Engineering (jw)" <jim_at_rstengineering.com> a écrit dans le message de
news: 2c2cc$44185c52$42512db5$17281_at_DIALUPUSA.NET...
Quote:
I hope I'm not being too parochial, but it seems that almost all of the
mid-range and low-end packages are done in a country outside of the USA.
Eagle is German
Pulsonix & EZPC are UK
Rimu is NZ
Protel is OZ
I'm just curious why?
mid-range and low-end packages are done in a country outside of the USA.
Eagle is German
Pulsonix & EZPC are UK
Rimu is NZ
Protel is OZ
I'm just curious why?
Why what?
Why those non-US citizens are able to design and produce some good pieces of
software without the help of the great USA?
Are you suggesting this is not a "normal" situation? If yes, please think
twice.
Quote:
Jim
--
Christian - Grenoble
Brad Velander
Guest
Guest
Thu Mar 16, 2006 8:24 am
Jim,
What about PADs, PCAD, OrCAD just to name a few? While these days it may
be hard to tell where they are actually programmed, I have heard rumors that
Cadence has shifted OrCAD support./maintanence to India. Altium may be doing
the PCAD development and support either from their San Diego digs or in Oz.
PADs, even back when they were their own company (US) , some modules were
being programmed in Russia and I believe some in Bulgaria by what I was told
by various insiders.
As for your question why? Economics 101, specialized programs with a
limited market to be done for a competive price point. And at that there are
probably more cracked/stolen versions around than paid for legal versions.
So Economics, economics, economics. Why are stereos made in Malaysia,
Thailand, India, China?
--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.
"RST Engineering (jw)" <jim_at_rstengineering.com> wrote in message
news:2c2cc$44185c52$42512db5$17281_at_DIALUPUSA.NET...
Quote:
I hope I'm not being too parochial, but it seems that almost all of the
mid-range and low-end packages are done in a country outside of the USA.
Eagle is German
Pulsonix & EZPC are UK
Rimu is NZ
Protel is OZ
I'm just curious why?
Jim
mid-range and low-end packages are done in a country outside of the USA.
Eagle is German
Pulsonix & EZPC are UK
Rimu is NZ
Protel is OZ
I'm just curious why?
Jim
Brad Velander
Guest
Guest
Thu Mar 16, 2006 9:17 am
Joel,
Ivex has moved around a lot, originally they were just a few miles away
from me in the Vancouver, B.C., area. Then I had heard that they moved to
the States. However if it must be known, the original software was
originally written and designed in India by an Indian Telecom company (a
state company?). I heard a rumor at one point that the owners of Ivex had
moved the progamming/development to Korea but I never confirmed that.
--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.
"Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesSpam_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:121gpa25ti3h7e7_at_corp.supernews.com...
Quote:
"RST Engineering (jw)" <jim_at_rstengineering.com> wrote in message
news:2c2cc$44185c52$42512db5$17281_at_DIALUPUSA.NET...
Finally... there are a few low-end US vendors out there... or at least
there were! Ivex (Winboard) was US, no? And there's AMS down in
Florida... I used their software once, and it had some incredible
limitations such as only allowing 10 different pad shapes (!), but it did
get the job done at the time (a decade back -- these days freeware
alternatives are far better).
news:2c2cc$44185c52$42512db5$17281_at_DIALUPUSA.NET...
Finally... there are a few low-end US vendors out there... or at least
there were! Ivex (Winboard) was US, no? And there's AMS down in
Florida... I used their software once, and it had some incredible
limitations such as only allowing 10 different pad shapes (!), but it did
get the job done at the time (a decade back -- these days freeware
alternatives are far better).
Paul Burke
Guest
Guest
Thu Mar 16, 2006 9:46 am
RST Engineering (jw) wrote:
Quote:
I hope I'm not being too parochial, but it seems that almost all of the
mid-range and low-end packages are done in a country outside of the USA.
mid-range and low-end packages are done in a country outside of the USA.
Business culture, if you select Protel and it's no good, it's Protel's
fault, but if you select Eagle and it's no good, it's your fault?
The attitude that "you get what you pay for" stronger in the USA?
Tax regime?
Paul Burke
elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - EDA CAD Electronics - advice on selecting new PCB design package
