advice on selecting new PCB design package

[David Brown]

DJ Delorie wrote:

David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes:

I'm basing this on the single screenshot from the geda website, by
the way

The Gtk GUI still looks mostly like that. The new Motif HID looks more
like this: http://www.delorie.com/pcb/screenshot.png (although the
status line has more in it now).

The Motif HID is new so I haven't had much time to play with
look-n-feel. I kept it minimalist on purpose.

why on earth is the Xaw screenshot still there?

The Xaw GUI is, for some people, significanly faster than the Gtk one
on older hardware. We kept a branch for it so those users could still
use it.

I'd expect a set of toolbars with configurable buttons

Good suggestion.

(with a nicer button label font, if you want labels on the buttons at
all),

Gtk fonts are configurable on a user-level basis, just like Windows.
The Motif HID uses standard .Xdefaults, so you can set the fonts to
whatever you want (even a different font for each button).

Is there any reason for having several GUIs, instead of a single good
cross-platform gui?

A couple. First, lock-in. We already went through the pain of
changing the GUI layer once. Part of the goals behind the HID project
was to *hide* the GUI from the core, as the old gui code polluted the
core a lot, which made it harder to work on the core code. By
isolating the gui code behind an application-specific API, core
development is easier and GUI development stays "clean" of the core.

Second, we actually have eight HIDs at the moment, only two of which
are GUIs. Having two GUI hids proves that the API is properly
designed. We use the same API to handle exporting, printing,
importing, wizards, extensions, etc.

Third, we've discovered that not everyone LIKES the same layout.
Windows users shouldn't be burdened with the Unix conventions. Motif
users shouldn't be burdened by the Gtk style guides. Etc. Some users
want lots of buttons and knobs in the main window (like your toolbar).
Some users want as much screen space dedicated to their board as
possible. HID lets us support different *styles* of GUIs, not just
different toolkits.

Fourth, there's no such thing as a "single good cross-platform gui".
There are acceptable cross-platform guis, but they all result in some
compromise. With HID, you can always take advantage of whatever
extras your native toolkit offers, without having to dumb down to the
least common denominator.

At best, you are going to end up with a lot of
duplication of effort,

There's some duplicated effort, yes. We try to keep the duplicated
parts in the core, if they can be made gui-independent.

and at worst you'll get GUIs that look completely different on
different platforms, with significantly different functionality.

Well, that's one possiblility we consider a bonus

Imagine being able to plug in a pads-compatibility HID if you're a
pads house, or an orcad compatiblity HID if you're an orcad house.

I don't think I can come up with any sensible counter-arguments here
(except that the Xaw screenshot and information should be moved out of
the limelight - it's fine to make a plainer gui for slower PC's, but
it's poor advertising to have it first in the list!). It's clear there
is a lot more going on with gEDA development than is apparent from the
web site. I still don't think it is likely to be a realistic choice for
my use at the moment, but it's a lot closer than I thought, and appears
to be getting much more usable. It is perhaps the web site and
information that is most in need of updating, rather than the software
itself. Thanks for your time and information, and all your work on gEDA
(even if I don't use it myself, I still think it is an important
project). I'll be looking in at it again in the future.

mvh.,

David

 

[Stuart Brorson]

:> Is there any reason for having several GUIs, instead of a single good
:> cross-platform gui?

DJ know about this since he's the developer, but forgot to point it
out. I consider it a big advantage of the new PCB.

Fifth: by separating the layout engine from the GUI, you can run PCB
from the command line to perform various actions like creating
Gerbers and fab drawings. You don't need to start the GUI to operate
in this mode. This means you can use a Makefile to
automate your design flow. Very sweet, if you've got a complicated
design.

Moreover, a separated layout engine can conceivably be driven by a
script (i.e. TCL or Perl with a little bit of glue coding to talk to
the PCB API), which offers very interesting possibilities for
constructing repetitive layouts, large components with pre-built
pin-escaping, etc.

Who says the commercial vendors are more innovative?

Stuart

 

[DJ Delorie]

Stuart Brorson <sdb@cloud9.net> writes:

Fifth: by separating the layout engine from the GUI, you can run PCB
from the command line to perform various actions like creating
Gerbers and fab drawings. You don't need to start the GUI to operate
in this mode. This means you can use a Makefile to
automate your design flow. Very sweet, if you've got a complicated
design.

Sigh, NINE hids. I forgot about the "nogui" hid that's built-in. The
gedasymbols.org web site uses a no-gui copy of PCB to drive all the
online footprint viewers.

Yeah, it's converting stored footprints to web pages on demand, using
the same layout tool we design boards with.

We also use pcb itself to generate all the inline images in the
documentation, from .pcb files stored in the docs subdirectory.

Sigh^2, 13 hids. I forgot that a lot of the hid modules have multiple
hids within them, to serve different purposes. For example, the
gerber hid has one for collecting aperture data and one for the actual
plotting (because it's easier to implement that way, that's why).

 

[David Brown]

Stuart Brorson wrote:

:> Is there any reason for having several GUIs, instead of a single good
:> cross-platform gui?

DJ know about this since he's the developer, but forgot to point it
out. I consider it a big advantage of the new PCB.

Fifth: by separating the layout engine from the GUI, you can run PCB
from the command line to perform various actions like creating
Gerbers and fab drawings. You don't need to start the GUI to operate
in this mode. This means you can use a Makefile to
automate your design flow. Very sweet, if you've got a complicated
design.

I wasn't objecting to the separation of the gui from the backend code -
I think that's a good idea, and is something missing in many commercial
programs (I see it particularly with things like compilers that force
you to use their IDE instead of your favourite editor and make utility).
I was just wondering why you would want to develop several full-blown
gui front-ends to the back-end, and if it was worth the effort. It
turns out there are several good reasons, so fair enough.

Moreover, a separated layout engine can conceivably be driven by a
script (i.e. TCL or Perl with a little bit of glue coding to talk to
the PCB API), which offers very interesting possibilities for
constructing repetitive layouts, large components with pre-built
pin-escaping, etc.

Who says the commercial vendors are more innovative?

Some *are* quite innovative, but they have by no means a monopoly.

Stuart

 

[Andrew Tweddle]

Robert Lacoste wrote:

"megoodsen" <hq105862@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1140686047.914352.18380@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Hi,

In leui of a FAQ for this group, here goes with a likely hot
chestnut...

I'm looking for a good schematic capture and PCB design package to
replace our very flaky EasyPC.

We need both good schematic and PCB layout capabilities, ideally in one
system.

Best I outline the requirements...
We do pretty straightforward analogue and digital designs, and a lot of
microwave RF designs.
We create a lot of our own components (sch and PCB elements) as many of
the parts we use are very often not in any libraries.
Our boards (especially RF boards) are often multilayer, with blind
vias, have curved tracks of need-to-be defined width and length, and
always copper pours. (EasyPC copper pours lets us down a lot).
We also need to export boards (with components) to 3D mech CAD
(Solidworks) in some format.
We need good autorouting for non RF boards of course.

The players I am looking at are:
Electronics Workbench
Eagle
OrCAD
Cadstar
Pulsonix

I'd really appreciate comments from users of these packages about their
suitability for our tasks, and if they are stable in use etc.

thanks


Hi,

I have right now exactly the same problem, looking for a new CAD tool, for
nearly exactly the same kind of designs (mainly RF).

On my side I added one constraint : budget under 2-3K$.

Did you consider Eagleware Genesys Personal Edition

$US1000
but without all the nice design aids. The output format is Autocad,
which helps deal wioth mitered corners, curved tracks etc.
And it is a proper RF design support system ,not Just a PCB
layout/Schematic system.

Andrew

 

[Dax]

ROFL: "Try DipTrace and you will be surprised! DipTrace is a complete
state-of-the-art PCB Design System."

$145 for 500 pins, 2 layer version
$595 for unlimited version

Did you try it, or only looked at web-site and price?
I'm representative of a company developing this product, it is cheap
because is developed by small company in Russia, but number of people
switched to DipTrace from Eagle, P-CAD, etc. for their jobs. Just look
at testimonials on web-site - they are real, and there are many others
not published. However I think it is not a nice choice for very complex
jobs. We have a number of RF projects or Flex Circuits with 1000+ pins
made with DipTrace.

Try it? I have a cracked copy if v1.20 in my collection and yes, I gave
it a good run-through.

A number of people switched from a licensed version of P-CAD to a licensed version of >DipTrace?
Sorry, can't picture that...wait, let me take another hit off the ol'

pipe...nope, still nothing.

"Testimonials" are a crutch when you have nothing else to stand on.
They do not put you in a good light. Best to remove them from your
website.

"not a nice choice for very complex jobs"
Gee, ya think?

"We have a number of RF projects or Flex Circuits with 1000+ pins
made with DipTrace." Might be good to bundle them with the software as

sample files so we can be impressed, huh?

I also dug through Yahoo Group you use as a support forum. Looks like
you have big bug problems, my friend. To your credit, it appears they
are being fixed as fast as they're found.



Oh, oh. Old man starting to ramble...someone fetch his medicine.

it is cheap because is developed by small company in Russia...
Yep, you're Russian. I can almost hear the accent through the words on

the screen as well as identify your native language by your ESL. Used
to work long hours with a Russian also called Stanislav. He at one time
worked as a quality control engineer at a Russian semiconductor fab
plant. His specialty was x-ray diffraction crystallography. Claims to
have assisted to reverse engineer the i386 so it could be copied. I had
to interview him when he applied for an entry level job here in the
States. (You know, so many immigrants come over claiming ridiculously
inflated skills and education just to better their chances of gaining
entry.) I remember he was very nervous and there was stress in his
voice and his hands were shaking as he gestured. It was more like an
interrogation than an interview; I grilled him mercilessly on his
knowledge of solid state electronics. Lastly, I jotted down a calculus
expression I remembered from college and asked him to integrate. He did
so without error in under a minute. F-ing outstanding to answer all my
hideously technical questions while extremely stressed, in a second
language, quickly. We hired him as a full-time employee, of course, and
everyone was happy. He had been working at Wal-Mart on the shipping
dock running a fork-lift for the last two years putting his son through
a local state university. His wife was back in Russia, waiting for the
son to graduate and begin earning, before she came over.

 

[Stanislav]

Hi Dax
Dax wrote:

Try it? I have a cracked copy if v1.20 in my collection and yes, I gave
it a good run-through.

This is very out-dated version. 1.20 and 1.23 are two big differences
(more than a year of work).
Yes, it was very buggy and hadn't many features at that time, because
that was one of the first releases made by single guy. Now there is a
group of people (developers and beta-testers) engaging in this software
and real sales were started from 1.21.r4 when we fix major problems.

I also dug through Yahoo Group you use as a support forum. Looks like
you have big bug problems, my friend.

Please let me know the software vendor who hadn't bug problems.
Some programs are for a long time at the market and they are very clear
if developers fix problems asap, but I'm sure they were not clear from
the beginning.

To your credit, it appears they
are being fixed as fast as they're found.

Best regards!

 

[Dax]

Oh, I'm sorry, I understand now:

According to you, DipTrace v1.20 was unusable crap but v1.23 is great
stuff. I see. Thanks for clearing this up.

 

[Stanislav]

Hi Dax,

No, it was not unusable crap, but one of the first versions. It was
also possible to use it and some people do that today because it was
the last cracked version , then we've bought protection solution
(first one was home-made). 1.23 also has some issues of course, however
it is much better than 1.20 (1.20 was unprofitable for single person
because of its issues, today there is a profitable company engaging in
DipTrace).

If you don't like DipTrace and think it is lowest of the low-end, this
is your point and your right (there are people who share your opinion),
however just to let you know there are many others who have a different
thinking and switched to DipTrace from other programs (for example
search google for something like "diptrace eagle" for opinions on
forums).

Best regards!

 

[Simon Peacock]

I think the real problem here is trust. According to the revision number,
you made a minor change and all of a sudden it started working.

1.20 -> 1.23 is a small number. If you had changed to 2.00 then people
would have expected a large number of changes. That with a free
downloadable version to trial would allow those people who were bitten badly
by the first version to try and see what its like.

The basic problem is this isn't a one horse race. MS had no real
competition when they screwed the Windows 2.x release, but even still, there
was comment that any version of Windows wont mention 02 in later releases.
With CAD packages, a customer who is burnt badly is unlikely to come back.
That is why you must be very sure you have a stable version before
releasing. If not, you will be excluded until their preference company also
does something stupid (like over price themselves)


My two cents + GST

Simon


"Stanislav" <stas@novarm.com> wrote in message
news:1143666860.206899.233950@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Hi Dax,

No, it was not unusable crap, but one of the first versions. It was
also possible to use it and some people do that today because it was
the last cracked version , then we've bought protection solution
(first one was home-made). 1.23 also has some issues of course, however
it is much better than 1.20 (1.20 was unprofitable for single person
because of its issues, today there is a profitable company engaging in
DipTrace).

If you don't like DipTrace and think it is lowest of the low-end, this
is your point and your right (there are people who share your opinion),
however just to let you know there are many others who have a different
thinking and switched to DipTrace from other programs (for example
search google for something like "diptrace eagle" for opinions on
forums).

Best regards!

 

RST Engineering (jw) wrote:

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@news.free.fr...

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

Just a note, AMS only marketed EZRoute, it was designed/written in Florida. It's alive and well now known as EZRoute2000. If interested please look at www.ezr2000plus.com

Bill Jenkins, user / supporter of all versions since 1987

 

RST Engineering (jw) wrote:

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@news.free.fr...

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

PS as a non-US citizen, I' m proud to be able to sell and support EZRoute2000 software.
Bill

 

RST Engineering (jw) wrote:

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@news.free.fr...

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

PS as a non-US citizen, I' m proud to be able to sell and support EZRoute2000 software.
Bill

 

[Anton Erasmus]

On 23 Mar 2006 09:36:16 -0500, DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> wrote:

"Lukas Louw" <louw1@att.net> writes:
The points you raise really don't mean much in practice

Nor do bullet lists on corporate web pages, which makes it hard for us
developers to know what people would really benefit from.

If you want, I can go through the GEDA specs some time and compile a
list of features that I perceive as lacking. It'll take me at least
a week to get to that though, my workload is pretty heavy at this
point. Is there a concise doc somewhere that lists everything, or do
I have to hunt?

Heh. Documentation is *high* on our list of things to improve. At
the moment, the best bet is to read the various tutorials to get a
feel for the workflow; Circuit Cellar has published one of a two-part
article on the workflow; there's online tutorials as well.

No rush, of course!

IMHO the best way to "learn" gEDA is to pick a small project that
isn't time-constrained and try using gEDA to accomplish it.

Hi,

For me the biggest hurdle to switch to a different CAD package is what
do I do with all the stuff I have generated over the years. Hence for
me the number one feature I look at before spending any further time
evaluating a new CAD package, is it's import export filters. If one
can import old work, then one can be productive much quicker. The
export feature allows one to gradually switch over and/or still use
some features that is not yet available in the new CAD system.
When writing the import/export filters, one would also quickly pick up
the features which are missing in gEDA. Most PCB and Schematic CAD
packages has got an ASCII file format available which should be quite
easy to generate and to parse. One of my biggest gripes with most of
the commercial packages are that they do their utmost to not support
other file formats, so that one are forced to keep using their product
- not becuase it is the best, but because one has invested so much
effort in creating things in their format over the years.
In the mechanical CAD world, there are at least a few file formats
which seems to be universally supported. (DXF, IGES, STEP etc)
Being able to export CAD information in a nice VECTOR format which can
be imported into documentation is also highly desireble. Proper
implimations of EMF, WMF, SVF, EPS, CMX , ODG and PDF export filters
would make it possible to get the CAD drawings into most word
processors at a high quality without to much effort.
Being able to export one's work makes it much easier to risk the use
of a new package on a job. If it doesn't work out, then one can export
the files and continue on int the old CAD package. It also helps when
the customer wants the files in a specific CAD package format.

Regards
Anton Erasmus

 

[DJ Delorie]

Anton Erasmus <nobody@spam.prevent.net> writes:

Most PCB and Schematic CAD packages has got an ASCII file format
available which should be quite easy to generate and to parse.

gEDA's native file formats are all ASCII, and documented.

We're very light on the converters though. Mostly we convert to/from
netlists.

 

[Joel Kolstad]

"Dax" <email_demonoid@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142322650.273937.281350@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

A decent package with a fair price. The autorouter is acceptable. Not
bad at all. Suspect the software company has one principle
programmer/owner.

I don't believe they're *that* small; I get the impression it's probably more
like 2-4 programmers and another half dozen admin/sales/support people. Note
that they license their SPICE simulation and the auto-router.

Also comes with a one-man promoter and cheerleader
called Leon. Don't know his relationship with Pulsonix but the guy pops
up everywhere on the net with a good word for Pulsonix. (Google
keywords "Pulsonix" & "Leon" on the web and in the groups.)

I think Leon's just been using Pulsonix almost since it came out, it meets his
needs, and he has close enough ties to Pulsonix that a lot of what he'd like
to see added to it ends up in up, so he couldn't be happier.

As another Pulsonix user, I'd say that it is a good, "solid" product although
its interface is not quite as "seamless" as I'd like it to be. (For instance:
I'd prefer panning with the mouse to move the schematic the way the mouse is
moved rather than opposite it. I'd prefer to be able to copy & paste a bunch
of components and have them electrically connect themselves to what they're
dropped on... and this doesn't occur.) Still, these are "little things" that
one can learn to live with with only occasional cursing; Pulsonix has a lot of
the "fancy" features that the big boys do (support for net classes, "rooms,"
arbitrary attributes, etc.) that are seem quite uncommon in packages at its
price point. For the hobbyist, however, these features often go unneeded,
hence my suggestions in the past that people also look at the likes of Rimu
PCB, gnuEDA, etc.

OrCAD v10.5
Very respectable, professional package with the best autorouter
available. You could do a lot worse.

Haven't tried it for PCB layout, but for schematics I'd say it's "comfortable"
(it does get the job done with a minimal of annoyance) if not outstanding.
Hasn't had any significant updates in years; on-going development is now in
India. (Which is to say -- most likely by people who are programmers and not
PCB layout techs. This criticism is probably valid for many other packages as
well.)

PADS 2005
A very respectable package. The low-end of the high-end packages. A
terrific value for the money but not cheap.

I haven't used PADS enough to really get to like it, but I have used it enough
to know how annoying it can be. Ever tried the "make re-use" feature? It's
borderline worthless, yet it's part of a package that adds thousands of
dollars to the price tag.

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

 

[Brad Velander]

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@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:121eqjn7jhlqu29@corp.supernews.com...

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]

Dax wrote:

Missed Protel and P-CAD, sorry.

[deleted]

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.

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]

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*.

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?

 

[Joel Kolstad]

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@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142400225.857041.79430@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).

---Joel