Post by thread:What Schematic/PCB software to use

I was all set to buy PADDS (after previous threads in this group and other cad newsgroups advice; I am using DOS TANGO & ORCAD now), so I signed up for the 3 day course on using PADDS as everyone has different preferences and I wanted to see if I could live with the product. Conclusions: PADDS is NOT (IMHO) user friendly, but it is stable and after I used it, and went through a lot of pain, I probably could do some useful work. PADDS also comes with the best router around but routers are not very useful on analog, which I do a lot of. Few people, (actually no-one I could find) like or even use the schematic draw portion of PADDS. The manufacture claims that the schematic problems will be fixed in the next major rewrite which is coming out "soon" which means two years after that, we can use it too. Everyone I talked to, used some other schematic package and generated a net list to import to PADDS with the usual incompatibility problems that this process usually has. I looked briefly at EAGLE and appreciate the two positive comments aired on this newsgroup. I could not get any previous comments on the package. It seems a bit "new kid on the block" to me and I am/was afraid to buy it. Orcad has a very bad reputation on the CADS newsgroups. They are a big company and hopefully they will get their act together before all their users give up in disgust. My front runner right now is ACCEL. Because I know TANGO, the learning curve is not too difficult for me, and they seem to have the interface between schematic and PCB package fairly refined. I tried a small board from schematic to finished PCB and the process seemed to go well, including the back annotation. The negative is the package is very expensive (again IMHO), even more expensive than PADDS because I need to make boards with more than 1500 holes some times, and the next upgrade (I think to 6000 holes) is a few grand. I am by no means an expert on this subject and would appreciate any comments on the above. I am just a user who has to upgrade eventually, and can't afford to make a very expensive mistake. Mike Montaigne {Quote hidden}> ---------- > From: Bob Blick[SMTP:spam_OUTbobTakeThisOuTTED.NET] > Sent: Friday, June 26, 1998 5:55 PM > To: .....PICLISTKILLspam@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU > Subject: Re: What Schematic software use???? > > On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Lawrence Lile wrote: > > > > Pads is, IMHO, a klunky piece of software at best. My version (an > > old DOS version) crashes all the time, so I can't use it. Newer > > versions are ported into windows with the DOS interface, making them > > even klunkier. I would at least use a piece of software that was > > written for windows to begin with. > > I use PADS, and am current with my maintenance contract on it, so I > can > safely comment about the new versions. I have never had a crash. The > windows 95 interface is pretty complete, though I have not tested OLE > to a > great extent. It does all the testing and engineering changes to and > from > schematic and pcb, warns me if I have clearance or other errors, does > not > route shorts into the board, every board I design comes out of the PCB > house looking and working like I designed it. > > The downside is cost. PADS has raised their prices incredibly in the > years > I've been using it. My yearly maintenance bill this year will be > around > $1400. Every year I promise myself I will change to something else, > and I > think this is the year. I think Eagle looks pretty good, for a > "semi-pro" > package. I've tried the demo, but I'd like to test the real thing for > a > while, too bad it doesn't come with a trial period. I should have > tried > out the cracked version when it was floating around(hey, a legitimate > use > for cracked software!). > > Autocad is fine if you know it well and do very simple boards. > Otherwise > use a dedicated schematic-pcb-autorouter package. It automates things > nicely and you don't need to stay quite so alert to errors. I like to > sleep soundly. > > Just my two cents... > > Cheers, > Bob >

I like you have used Orcad for many years. Its a DOS verion. It is not to stable on a WIN95 system. After nine years of dealing with Orcad's bugs, I gave up. I am now using Protel and so far it seems easier to use and can produce a good board. The learning curve was reasonable and the price was OK for the depth of the produce. Orcad's upgrade price is too, too high. Other "professional" packages are too expensive. I think they are supporting the overhead of too many corp. buyouts. The software design cost does not justify a $10K price for for a good stable package. Paul Smargiassi Montaigne, Mike wrote: {Quote hidden}> > I was all set to buy PADDS (after previous threads in this group and > other cad newsgroups advice; I am using DOS TANGO & ORCAD now), so I > signed up for the 3 day course on using PADDS as everyone has different > preferences and I wanted to see if I could live with the product. > Conclusions: PADDS is NOT (IMHO) user friendly, but it is stable and > after I used it, and went through a lot of pain, I probably could do > some useful work. PADDS also comes with the best router around but > routers are not very useful on analog, which I do a lot of. Few > people, (actually no-one I could find) like or even use the schematic > draw portion of PADDS. The manufacture claims that the schematic > problems will be fixed in the next major rewrite which is coming out > "soon" which means two years after that, we can use it too. Everyone I > talked to, used some other schematic package and generated a net list to > import to PADDS with the usual incompatibility problems that this > process usually has. I looked briefly at EAGLE and appreciate the two > positive comments aired on this newsgroup. I could not get any previous > comments on the package. It seems a bit "new kid on the block" to me > and I am/was afraid to buy it. Orcad has a very bad reputation on the > CADS newsgroups. They are a big company and hopefully they will get > their act together before all their users give up in disgust. My front > runner right now is ACCEL. Because I know TANGO, the learning curve is > not too difficult for me, and they seem to have the interface between > schematic and PCB package fairly refined. I tried a small board from > schematic to finished PCB and the process seemed to go well, including > the back annotation. The negative is the package is very expensive > (again IMHO), even more expensive than PADDS because I need to make > boards with more than 1500 holes some times, and the next upgrade (I > think to 6000 holes) is a few grand. I am by no means an expert on this > subject and would appreciate any comments on the above. I am just a > user who has to upgrade eventually, and can't afford to make a very > expensive mistake. > > Mike Montaigne > > > ---------- > > From: Bob Blick[SMTP:bobKILLspamTED.NET] > > Sent: Friday, June 26, 1998 5:55 PM > > To: .....PICLISTKILLspam.....MITVMA.MIT.EDU > > Subject: Re: What Schematic software use???? > > > > On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Lawrence Lile wrote: > > > > > > Pads is, IMHO, a klunky piece of software at best. My version (an > > > old DOS version) crashes all the time, so I can't use it. Newer > > > versions are ported into windows with the DOS interface, making them > > > even klunkier. I would at least use a piece of software that was > > > written for windows to begin with. > > > > I use PADS, and am current with my maintenance contract on it, so I > > can > > safely comment about the new versions. I have never had a crash. The > > windows 95 interface is pretty complete, though I have not tested OLE > > to a > > great extent. It does all the testing and engineering changes to and > > from > > schematic and pcb, warns me if I have clearance or other errors, does > > not > > route shorts into the board, every board I design comes out of the PCB > > house looking and working like I designed it. > > > > The downside is cost. PADS has raised their prices incredibly in the > > years > > I've been using it. My yearly maintenance bill this year will be > > around > > $1400. Every year I promise myself I will change to something else, > > and I > > think this is the year. I think Eagle looks pretty good, for a > > "semi-pro" > > package. I've tried the demo, but I'd like to test the real thing for > > a > > while, too bad it doesn't come with a trial period. I should have > > tried > > out the cracked version when it was floating around(hey, a legitimate > > use > > for cracked software!). > > > > Autocad is fine if you know it well and do very simple boards. > > Otherwise > > use a dedicated schematic-pcb-autorouter package. It automates things > > nicely and you don't need to stay quite so alert to errors. I like to > > sleep soundly. > > > > Just my two cents... > > > > Cheers, > > Bob > >

Montaigne, Mike wrote: {Quote hidden}> > I was all set to buy PADDS (after previous threads in this group and > other cad newsgroups advice; I am using DOS TANGO & ORCAD now), so I > signed up for the 3 day course on using PADDS as everyone has > different > preferences and I wanted to see if I could live with the product. > Conclusions: PADDS is NOT (IMHO) user friendly, but it is stable and > after I used it, and went through a lot of pain, I probably could do > some useful work. PADDS also comes with the best router around but > routers are not very useful on analog, which I do a lot of. Few > people, (actually no-one I could find) like or even use the schematic > draw portion of PADDS. The manufacture claims that the schematic > problems will be fixed in the next major rewrite which is coming out > "soon" which means two years after that, we can use it too. Everyone > I > talked to, used some other schematic package and generated a net list > to > import to PADDS with the usual incompatibility problems that this > process usually has. I looked briefly at EAGLE and appreciate the two > positive comments aired on this newsgroup. I could not get any > previous > comments on the package. It seems a bit "new kid on the block" to me > and I am/was afraid to buy it. Orcad has a very bad reputation on the > CADS newsgroups. They are a big company and hopefully they will get > their act together before all their users give up in disgust. My > front > runner right now is ACCEL. Because I know TANGO, the learning curve > is > not too difficult for me, and they seem to have the interface between > schematic and PCB package fairly refined. I tried a small board from > schematic to finished PCB and the process seemed to go well, including > the back annotation. The negative is the package is very expensive > (again IMHO), even more expensive than PADDS because I need to make > boards with more than 1500 holes some times, and the next upgrade (I > think to 6000 holes) is a few grand. I am by no means an expert on > this > subject and would appreciate any comments on the above. I am just a > user who has to upgrade eventually, and can't afford to make a very > expensive mistake. > > Mike Montaigne > > > ---------- > > From: Bob Blick[SMTP:EraseMEbobspam_OUTTakeThisOuTTED.NET] > > Sent: Friday, June 26, 1998 5:55 PM > > To: PICLISTspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU > > Subject: Re: What Schematic software use???? > > > > On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Lawrence Lile wrote: > > > > > > Pads is, IMHO, a klunky piece of software at best. My version (an > > > old DOS version) crashes all the time, so I can't use it. Newer > > > versions are ported into windows with the DOS interface, making > them > > > even klunkier. I would at least use a piece of software that was > > > written for windows to begin with. > > > > I use PADS, and am current with my maintenance contract on it, so I > > can > > safely comment about the new versions. I have never had a crash. The > > windows 95 interface is pretty complete, though I have not tested > OLE > > to a > > great extent. It does all the testing and engineering changes to and > > from > > schematic and pcb, warns me if I have clearance or other errors, > does > > not > > route shorts into the board, every board I design comes out of the > PCB > > house looking and working like I designed it. > > > > The downside is cost. PADS has raised their prices incredibly in the > > years > > I've been using it. My yearly maintenance bill this year will be > > around > > $1400. Every year I promise myself I will change to something else, > > and I > > think this is the year. I think Eagle looks pretty good, for a > > "semi-pro" > > package. I've tried the demo, but I'd like to test the real thing > for > > a > > while, too bad it doesn't come with a trial period. I should have > > tried > > out the cracked version when it was floating around(hey, a > legitimate > > use > > for cracked software!). > > > > Autocad is fine if you know it well and do very simple boards. > > Otherwise > > use a dedicated schematic-pcb-autorouter package. It automates > things > > nicely and you don't need to stay quite so alert to errors. I like > to > > sleep soundly. > > > > Just my two cents... > > > > Cheers, > > Bob > > Have you considered TraxMaker? This is the improved version 2.06 just recently released. If you remember ProTel Easytrax from the DOS days, you will like TraxMaker. check out http://www.microcode.com They also have a simulator/schematic package that ties into TraxMaker; it's called CircuitMaker. -Dave Miga, EDS Inc. http://www.eds-inc.com

Dave Miga wrote: > Have you considered TraxMaker? This is the improved version 2.06 just > recently released. If you remember ProTel Easytrax from the DOS days, > you will like TraxMaker. check out http://www.microcode.com They also > have a simulator/schematic package that ties into TraxMaker; it's called > CircuitMaker. -Dave Miga, EDS Inc. http://www.eds-inc.com I recently upgraded to Microcode's Traxmaker & CircuitMaker Pro versions. I had been using a DOS version of Protel's Autotrax and since the schematic package was so bad I used the DOS version of Tango for those. I was told that Microcode bought the rights to Autotrax, and I've noticed that I can read my old PCB files with Traxmaker. It doesn't support back annotation and I can't really comment on the router since I haven't used it, but otherwise the package seems solid so far. It doesn't have all the bells and whistles that you find in the higher priced software, but I almost never used any of them even when they have been available. The package was about US $1400.00, but they have others available if you don't need their professional version. Mark Walsh

Paul wrote... > I like you have used Orcad for many years. Its a DOS verion. It is > not to stable on a WIN95 system. After nine years of dealing with I have used Orcad SDT3 on a Win95 system for 2 years now with no ill effects BUT only in VGA 640*480 16 colour mode. Otherwise its fine. I concur with your comments on pricing, the upgrade option is well beyond my finances. > Orcad's bugs, I gave up. I am now using Protel and so far it seems > easier to use and can produce a good board. The learning curve was > reasonable and the price was OK for the depth of the produce. Orcad's > upgrade price is too, too high. Other "professional" packages are too > expensive. I think they are supporting the overhead of too many corp. > buyouts. The software design cost does not justify a $10K price for > for a good stable package. > > Paul Smargiassi > ****************************************************** * Antonio (Nino) Benci * * Electronic Services Manager * * Monash University - Dept of Physics * * Wellington Rd, Clayton. 3168 * * Victoria, Australia. * * TEL - 61 3 9905 3649, FAX - 61 3 9905 3637 * * This is my real email address______________________* * EMAIL - @spam@nino.benciKILLspamsci.monash.edu.au * * WWW - http://www.physics.monash.edu.au/ * ******************************************************

I was using SDT386 and PCB386, it was the last dos upgrade before they stopped supporting the program. I would work in VESA supper VGA (600x800) mode but nothing higher after WIN95. Compiling a netslist was an if'y thing. Had to reboot in different modes to get it to run. I could not plot. If a printing error occured, I would be thrown into windows and the program would crash. I never got it to run under NT. I am a consultant and offen work by the project. A program like Orcad could greatly reduce my income. Never again. Paul Smargiassi Antonio Benci wrote: {Quote hidden}> > Paul wrote... > > > I like you have used Orcad for many years. Its a DOS verion. It is > > not to stable on a WIN95 system. After nine years of dealing with > > I have used Orcad SDT3 on a Win95 system for 2 years now with no ill > effects BUT only in VGA 640*480 16 colour mode. Otherwise its fine. I > concur with your comments on pricing, the upgrade option is well > beyond my finances. > > > Orcad's bugs, I gave up. I am now using Protel and so far it seems > > easier to use and can produce a good board. The learning curve was > > reasonable and the price was OK for the depth of the produce. Orcad's > > upgrade price is too, too high. Other "professional" packages are too > > expensive. I think they are supporting the overhead of too many corp. > > buyouts. The software design cost does not justify a $10K price for > > for a good stable package. > > > > Paul Smargiassi > > > ****************************************************** > * Antonio (Nino) Benci * > * Electronic Services Manager * > * Monash University - Dept of Physics * > * Wellington Rd, Clayton. 3168 * > * Victoria, Australia. * > * TEL - 61 3 9905 3649, FAX - 61 3 9905 3637 * > * This is my real email address______________________* > * EMAIL - KILLspamnino.benciKILLspamsci.monash.edu.au * > * WWW - http://www.physics.monash.edu.au/ * > ******************************************************

I missed the start of this thread - what was the URL where I can download "Eagle" schematic software? Thanks Craig At 02:12 PM 7/7/98 +0200, you wrote: {Quote hidden}>At 14:48 6.7.1998 -0400, you wrote: >>process usually has. I looked briefly at EAGLE and appreciate the two >>positive comments aired on this newsgroup. I could not get any previous >>comments on the package. It seems a bit "new kid on the block" to me >>and I am/was afraid to buy it. Orcad has a very bad reputation on the > >Eagle is not sooo new. We are using the Eagle software for more than 4 years. >I think that the problem why this package is not generally known is the >fact that Eagle is written by German company and their marketing >(especially in US) is not so strong. > >Bye PavelK > >************************************************************************** >* Pavel Korensky * >* DATOR3 LAN Services spol. s r.o. * >* Modranska 1895/17, 143 00, Prague 4, Czech Republic * >* * >* PGP Key fingerprint: F3 E1 AE BC 34 18 CB A6 CC D0 DA 9E 79 03 41 D4 * >* * >* SUMMA SCIENTIA - NIHIL SCIRE * >************************************************************************** > >

We have been using PADS PCB (now PowerPCB) for over 10 years, and PADS LOGIC (schematic entry) since they created it. LOGIC has _ALWAYS_ been better that ORCAD as far as preventing various "drafting" mistakes like dangling or unconnected connection lines. We also use the ability to back-annotate from PCB to the schematic (which gets MUCH harder when you use a schematic package from another vendor). Finally, the new versions allow you to cross-probe between the SCH and PCB files (i.e. tag a net in PCB and it highlights in the schematic). Even if you don't use the autorouter, the autorouter-like functions are very nice. For example, it can automatically push (or shove) existing tracks apart to make room for the track you are routing. Granted, specially in analog, you may have to clean up the moved track, but it saves time because you don't have to stop routing the first track, select the existing track and re-route it, then go back and select the original track again. The drawbacks are price, price and price (cheap by Mentor standards, but expensive compared to some pared-down systems). The user-interface takes a little getting used to, but is much better than the old DOS menu system. On Monday, July 06, 1998 2:49 PM, Montaigne, Mike [SMTP:RemoveMEmontaignemTakeThisOuTAECL.CA] wrote: {Quote hidden}> I was all set to buy PADDS (after previous threads in this group and > other cad newsgroups advice; I am using DOS TANGO & ORCAD now), so I > signed up for the 3 day course on using PADDS as everyone has different > preferences and I wanted to see if I could live with the product. > Conclusions: PADDS is NOT (IMHO) user friendly, but it is stable and > after I used it, and went through a lot of pain, I probably could do > some useful work. PADDS also comes with the best router around but > routers are not very useful on analog, which I do a lot of. Few > people, (actually no-one I could find) like or even use the schematic > draw portion of PADDS. The manufacture claims that the schematic > problems will be fixed in the next major rewrite which is coming out > "soon" which means two years after that, we can use it too. Everyone I <<--- snip -->>

Hi back from holiday's about to do some pcb stuff i did look at there webpages is verry interesting but does anybody work with Electonicworkbench from interactive.com it is schematics spice and pcb design i work on an apple machine but software fore this work is expensive for apple and i think outdated any body with recommendations? Marcel Electronic Workshop Scoop Amsterdam spamBeGonemarbelspamBeGonexs4all.nl Pavel Korensky wrote: {Quote hidden}> At 09:53 7.7.1998 -0400, you wrote: > >I missed the start of this thread - what was the URL where I can download > >"Eagle" schematic software? > > > >Thanks > > > >Craig > > look at http://www.cadsoft.de or http://www.cadsoft.com > There should be some demo on their site. > > Best regards > > PavelK > > ************************************************************************** > * Pavel Korensky * > * DATOR3 LAN Services spol. s r.o. * > * Modranska 1895/17, 143 00, Prague 4, Czech Republic * > * * > * PGP Key fingerprint: F3 E1 AE BC 34 18 CB A6 CC D0 DA 9E 79 03 41 D4 * > * * > * SUMMA SCIENTIA - NIHIL SCIRE * > **************************************************************************

> Van: marcel <RemoveMEmarbelTakeThisOuTXS4ALL.NL> > Aan: PICLISTEraseME.....MITVMA.MIT.EDU > Onderwerp: Re: What Schematic/PCB software to use - some additional comments > Datum: maandag 13 juli 1998 2:52 > > Hi back from holiday's about to do some pcb stuff i did look at there > webpages > is verry interesting but does anybody work with Electonicworkbench > from interactive.com it is schematics spice and pcb design > i work on an apple machine but software fore this work is expensive for apple > > and i think outdated any body with recommendations? To my amasement EWB uses the PCB software from ULTIBOARD. I have to work with that stuff (UltiCap & UltiBoard). I _STRONGLY_ advice anyone to stay away from this un-developped, un-debugged and overrated piece of software. They have not even learned in 12 _YEARS_ to write a decent tutorial/ reference manual. The PCB version I've got has got a win95 help-file ... Allmost all subjects are still 'under construction' and the rest just states that they found the best sulution to {whatever}. What the solution is/was they don't state ... Be perfect when you use Ulti Cap/Board stuff, because to edit something that is already on the board is a heck of a job. Ever tried to move a 45-degree ange wire ? Seen it degrade to a stair-case ? Well, I have. Nowerdays I think i'ts easier to remove the trace & to re-draw it. I could go on-and-on :-( Greetz, Rudy Wieser P.s. They (UltiBoard) have got a Help-desk. The want You to upgrade to the next version, or to wait for the next-even-better version. :-(((

>>i work on an apple machine but software fore this work is expensive for apple >> >>and i think outdated any body with recommendations? >> >Buy a used PC! >The CAD programs usually need a lot less power than for instance the editor >MS Word... > >/Morgan >/ Morgan Olsson, MORGANS REGLERTEKNIK, SE-277 35 KIVIK, Sweden \ >\ EraseMEmrtiname.com, ph: +46 (0)414 70741; fax +46 (0)414 70331 / Mac users Don't buy a PC.................... There is freeware PCB called 'layout' available Although I have a copy I have not used it as yet, but have heard good reports also I use EWB on a 6030 Mac and find it adequate if a bit slow on the old girl, it really flies on a Power Mac. Availability? Email me direct. Regards David Remove (NOSPAM)Before replying. I halve a spelling checker; It came with my pea sea. It plainly marks four my revue Mistakes I dew not sea. I've sent this message threw it, And I'm shore pleased to no It's letter perfect in its weigh; My checker tolled me sew.