DOS OrCAD gray market (was: ORCAD vs EAGLE)

[JeffM]

In news:udJ3h.2117$vP1.2012@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com
Joerg wrote:

For simulations I like LTSpice a lot better
and for schematics Eagle or the older OrCad versions.
In the case of OrCad preferably the old DOS version
which I still have.
It was (and is) better than anything I have seen after that.

Was there any DRM / copy protection / dongle
associated with DOS OrCAD?

Considering the use of its name in some circles
as a generic term for "ECAD" (Velcro, Styrofoam, Kleenex),
I assume there is an underground market for DOS OrCAD.

Since it is abandonware, is there a host of folks
who have never used it before and who are still seeking it out?
Is there an established gray market to meet such a need?

 

[Joerg]

Hello Jeff,

For simulations I like LTSpice a lot better
and for schematics Eagle or the older OrCad versions.
In the case of OrCad preferably the old DOS version
which I still have.
It was (and is) better than anything I have seen after that.


Was there any DRM / copy protection / dongle
associated with DOS OrCAD?

In some countries they sold the with dongles, in others without. But
these were the days when CAD costs were much more reasonable than today.
I paid $500 for my license about 15 years ago.

Considering the use of its name in some circles
as a generic term for "ECAD" (Velcro, Styrofoam, Kleenex),
I assume there is an underground market for DOS OrCAD.

I doubt it. The main reason why I stopped using DOS OrCad was the
increasing difficulty to adapt to new printers. It was still IMHO the
best schematic capture program ever.

Since it is abandonware, is there a host of folks
who have never used it before and who are still seeking it out?
Is there an established gray market to meet such a need?

No idea whether there is. Yahoo has a DOS-OrCad forum but it's rather
quiet there.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[qrk]

On 6 Nov 2006 08:42:38 -0800, "JeffM" <jeffm_@email.com> wrote:

In news:udJ3h.2117$vP1.2012@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com
Joerg wrote:
For simulations I like LTSpice a lot better
and for schematics Eagle or the older OrCad versions.
In the case of OrCad preferably the old DOS version
which I still have.
It was (and is) better than anything I have seen after that.

Was there any DRM / copy protection / dongle
associated with DOS OrCAD?

Considering the use of its name in some circles
as a generic term for "ECAD" (Velcro, Styrofoam, Kleenex),
I assume there is an underground market for DOS OrCAD.

Since it is abandonware, is there a host of folks
who have never used it before and who are still seeking it out?
Is there an established gray market to meet such a need?

Funny, the EDA guys that sell Orcad jokingly said something
disparaging about my "illegal" copy of Orcad SDT 386+. Joke is on
them, it's a legal copy.

The OldDosOrcad Yahoo group has 137 members, some who are very
knowledgable about SDT and PCB.

The European versions had a dongle. The American version was
unprotected. The 'merican version can still be found floating about if
you are resourceful enough. Some scanned manuals can be found.

DOS Orcad schematic program is still actively being used by a handful
of us. New high-resolution (up to 1600x1200) VESA video drivers have
been released by a very talented DE hacker so you can use your spiffy
LCD monitor at its native resolution. Modified utilities are also
available which allow you to stack power pins on top of another (saves
space on the symbol), HP PCL printer drivers going up to 600 dpi for
B-size paper, and a utility to convert PCL to PCX. You can also find
parts libraries from various users. There are folks out there that
still use the old DOS Orcad PCB program. Stable as a rock!

SDT is still a very usable program. Very stable, no bugs, and fast.
Although, I do miss some of the features Capture has. I use SDT for
100% of my projects which range from analog stuff with lots of parts
(+1500 per board) to digital stuff using 950+ pin FPGAs. If customers
want a Capture compatible schematic, the modern Capture can convert an
old SDT schematic without problem.

Recommended that you run DOS Orcad products under Virtual PC which is
now free from Microsoft.

---
Mark

 

[Chuck Harris]

DOS Orcad schematic program is still actively being used by a handful
of us. New high-resolution (up to 1600x1200) VESA video drivers have
been released by a very talented DE hacker so you can use your spiffy
LCD monitor at its native resolution. Modified utilities are also
available which allow you to stack power pins on top of another (saves
space on the symbol), HP PCL printer drivers going up to 600 dpi for
B-size paper, and a utility to convert PCL to PCX. You can also find
parts libraries from various users. There are folks out there that
still use the old DOS Orcad PCB program. Stable as a rock!

SDT is still a very usable program. Very stable, no bugs, and fast.
Although, I do miss some of the features Capture has. I use SDT for
100% of my projects which range from analog stuff with lots of parts
(+1500 per board) to digital stuff using 950+ pin FPGAs. If customers
want a Capture compatible schematic, the modern Capture can convert an
old SDT schematic without problem.

Recommended that you run DOS Orcad products under Virtual PC which is
now free from Microsoft.

Actually, the whole '386 suite runs perfectly under dosemu, and freedos,
using linux. Traceback's vesa drivers are needed for this to work at more
than 800x600 resolution.

-Chuck Harris

 

[Frank Miles]

In article <MOK3h.2163$vP1.1380@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

[snip]

The main reason why I stopped using DOS OrCad was the
increasing difficulty to adapt to new printers. It was still IMHO the
best schematic capture program ever.

If you have a version of OrCAD that supports a "generic" PostScript printer,
it works even today.

-f
--

 

[Joerg]

Hello Frank,

The main reason why I stopped using DOS OrCad was the
increasing difficulty to adapt to new printers. It was still IMHO the
best schematic capture program ever.

If you have a version of OrCAD that supports a "generic" PostScript printer,
it works even today.

Yeah, it does, kind of. But I had printers lock up on it. On the little
HP 5L this means reaching in back to pull the power cord since they
failed to provide a reset button. Not even a power switch :-(

Here it has to be said that my Eagle version has a glitch as well. Often
nothing will happen after print. Then I have to de-select and re-select
the printer and it'll work. Doesn't happen with any other program. But
at least it won't lock up the printer.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[Joerg]

Hello Mark,

... , HP PCL printer drivers going up to 600 dpi for
B-size paper, and a utility to convert PCL to PCX. ...

Sweet. Thanks for the hint, didn't know that. So I could use the old SDT
again.

... There are folks out there that
still use the old DOS Orcad PCB program. Stable as a rock!

Agree. SDT has never crashed on me. Not once.

SDT is still a very usable program. Very stable, no bugs, and fast.
Although, I do miss some of the features Capture has. I use SDT for
100% of my projects which range from analog stuff with lots of parts
(+1500 per board) to digital stuff using 950+ pin FPGAs. If customers
want a Capture compatible schematic, the modern Capture can convert an
old SDT schematic without problem.

Yes, but I found it a problem that I could not read anything back from
clients after they ever so slightly touched the schematic with a new
version. I guess that's part of the "upgrade strategies" these days.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[Charlie Edmondson]

Joerg wrote:

Hello Frank,


The main reason why I stopped using DOS OrCad was the increasing
difficulty to adapt to new printers. It was still IMHO the best
schematic capture program ever.


If you have a version of OrCAD that supports a "generic" PostScript
printer,
it works even today.


Yeah, it does, kind of. But I had printers lock up on it. On the little
HP 5L this means reaching in back to pull the power cord since they
failed to provide a reset button. Not even a power switch :-(

Here it has to be said that my Eagle version has a glitch as well. Often
nothing will happen after print. Then I have to de-select and re-select
the printer and it'll work. Doesn't happen with any other program. But
at least it won't lock up the printer.

Just to put my two cents in, but didn't SDT not have a zoom in feature

beyond it native resolution? (you think I should know for sure, but I
haven't used it for 15 years...) I remember finding it pretty unusable
for any resolution beyond 800x600...

Charlie

 

[qrk]

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:47:41 GMT, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Hello Mark,


... , HP PCL printer drivers going up to 600 dpi for
B-size paper, and a utility to convert PCL to PCX. ...


Sweet. Thanks for the hint, didn't know that. So I could use the old SDT
again.

The VESA drivers and other utilities are in the files section of
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/OldDosOrcad/ .

... There are folks out there that
still use the old DOS Orcad PCB program. Stable as a rock!


Agree. SDT has never crashed on me. Not once.


SDT is still a very usable program. Very stable, no bugs, and fast.
Although, I do miss some of the features Capture has. I use SDT for
100% of my projects which range from analog stuff with lots of parts
(+1500 per board) to digital stuff using 950+ pin FPGAs. If customers
want a Capture compatible schematic, the modern Capture can convert an
old SDT schematic without problem.


Yes, but I found it a problem that I could not read anything back from
clients after they ever so slightly touched the schematic with a new
version. I guess that's part of the "upgrade strategies" these days.

Modern Capture can save to a version 7.2 format. Any of the newer
versions can read 7.2. Have your clients do a "save as" to 7.2.

---
Mark

 

[Joerg]

Hello Charlie,

The main reason why I stopped using DOS OrCad was the increasing
difficulty to adapt to new printers. It was still IMHO the best
schematic capture program ever.



If you have a version of OrCAD that supports a "generic" PostScript
printer,
it works even today.


Yeah, it does, kind of. But I had printers lock up on it. On the
little HP 5L this means reaching in back to pull the power cord since
they failed to provide a reset button. Not even a power switch :-(

Here it has to be said that my Eagle version has a glitch as well.
Often nothing will happen after print. Then I have to de-select and
re-select the printer and it'll work. Doesn't happen with any other
program. But at least it won't lock up the printer.

Just to put my two cents in, but didn't SDT not have a zoom in feature
beyond it native resolution? (you think I should know for sure, but I
haven't used it for 15 years...) I remember finding it pretty unusable
for any resolution beyond 800x600...

Mine sure could. It allowed factors of 2, 5, 10 and 20 which I found
plenty sufficient.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[Joerg]

Hello Mark,

SDT is still a very usable program. Very stable, no bugs, and fast.
Although, I do miss some of the features Capture has. I use SDT for
100% of my projects which range from analog stuff with lots of parts
(+1500 per board) to digital stuff using 950+ pin FPGAs. If customers
want a Capture compatible schematic, the modern Capture can convert an
old SDT schematic without problem.


Yes, but I found it a problem that I could not read anything back from
clients after they ever so slightly touched the schematic with a new
version. I guess that's part of the "upgrade strategies" these days.


Modern Capture can save to a version 7.2 format. Any of the newer
versions can read 7.2. Have your clients do a "save as" to 7.2.

But my SDT is the great-great-grandfather of 7.2 :-(

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[Chuck Harris]

Joerg wrote:

Hello Charlie,



Just to put my two cents in, but didn't SDT not have a zoom in feature
beyond it native resolution? (you think I should know for sure, but I
haven't used it for 15 years...) I remember finding it pretty
unusable for any resolution beyond 800x600...


Mine sure could. It allowed factors of 2, 5, 10 and 20 which I found
plenty sufficient.

Yes, but all of those sizes made the text and sheet -smaller. What if it
is already too small for your tired eyes to read, and it it 1:1 ?

This wasn't much of a problem in days of yore but as the screen resolution
took great leaps, it becomes a problem.

-Chuck

 

[Charlie Edmondson]

Chuck Harris wrote:

Joerg wrote:

Hello Charlie,



Just to put my two cents in, but didn't SDT not have a zoom in
feature beyond it native resolution? (you think I should know for
sure, but I haven't used it for 15 years...) I remember finding it
pretty unusable for any resolution beyond 800x600...


Mine sure could. It allowed factors of 2, 5, 10 and 20 which I found
plenty sufficient.


Yes, but all of those sizes made the text and sheet -smaller. What if it
is already too small for your tired eyes to read, and it it 1:1 ?

This wasn't much of a problem in days of yore but as the screen resolution
took great leaps, it becomes a problem.

-Chuck
Exactly. You could zoom out, but not in. I couldn't see my part

numbers or other attributes they were so small.

Charlie

 

[Joel Kolstad]

"Charlie Edmondson" <edmondson@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:4550f705$1@news.cadence.com...

Exactly. You could zoom out, but not in. I couldn't see my part numbers or
other attributes they were so small.

Ah... so THAT'S (probably) why even the current version of ORCAD doesn't let
you zoom in particularly far!

It can be annoying on a 1600x1200 or higher resolution monitor to see all the
fine detail; I've always felt that ORCAD's "zoom in" feature stopped at an
artificially low point.

 

[qrk]

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:42:52 -0800, Charlie Edmondson
<edmondson@ieee.org> wrote:

Joerg wrote:

Hello Frank,


The main reason why I stopped using DOS OrCad was the increasing
difficulty to adapt to new printers. It was still IMHO the best
schematic capture program ever.


If you have a version of OrCAD that supports a "generic" PostScript
printer,
it works even today.


Yeah, it does, kind of. But I had printers lock up on it. On the little
HP 5L this means reaching in back to pull the power cord since they
failed to provide a reset button. Not even a power switch :-(

Here it has to be said that my Eagle version has a glitch as well. Often
nothing will happen after print. Then I have to de-select and re-select
the printer and it'll work. Doesn't happen with any other program. But
at least it won't lock up the printer.

Just to put my two cents in, but didn't SDT not have a zoom in feature
beyond it native resolution? (you think I should know for sure, but I
haven't used it for 15 years...) I remember finding it pretty unusable
for any resolution beyond 800x600...

Charlie

I use SDT at 1024x768 resolution under Virtual PC. Easy to read all
the text. SDT at 1280x1024 is perfectly usable on a 19" LCD monitor.
SDT has a super zoom feature only in the library editor that I know
of. 1600x1200 on a 20" monitor is to small for my eyes, plus, redraw
time starts getting poky.

---
Mark

 

[qrk]

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 19:50:03 GMT, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

Hello Mark,


SDT is still a very usable program. Very stable, no bugs, and fast.
Although, I do miss some of the features Capture has. I use SDT for
100% of my projects which range from analog stuff with lots of parts
(+1500 per board) to digital stuff using 950+ pin FPGAs. If customers
want a Capture compatible schematic, the modern Capture can convert an
old SDT schematic without problem.


Yes, but I found it a problem that I could not read anything back from
clients after they ever so slightly touched the schematic with a new
version. I guess that's part of the "upgrade strategies" these days.


Modern Capture can save to a version 7.2 format. Any of the newer
versions can read 7.2. Have your clients do a "save as" to 7.2.


But my SDT is the great-great-grandfather of 7.2 :-(

There are ways of upgrading you to cutting-edge mid-90s DOS software
(SDT 386+)! I believe that would update you to großpapa.

---
Mark

 

[Joerg]

Hello Mark,

SDT is still a very usable program. Very stable, no bugs, and fast.
Although, I do miss some of the features Capture has. I use SDT for
100% of my projects which range from analog stuff with lots of parts
(+1500 per board) to digital stuff using 950+ pin FPGAs. If customers
want a Capture compatible schematic, the modern Capture can convert an
old SDT schematic without problem.


Yes, but I found it a problem that I could not read anything back from
clients after they ever so slightly touched the schematic with a new
version. I guess that's part of the "upgrade strategies" these days.


Modern Capture can save to a version 7.2 format. Any of the newer
versions can read 7.2. Have your clients do a "save as" to 7.2.


But my SDT is the great-great-grandfather of 7.2 :-(


There are ways of upgrading you to cutting-edge mid-90s DOS software
(SDT 386+)! I believe that would update you to großpapa.

My old SDT is version 3.22 but I guess any update to the last DOS
version would have to be from the gray market. If there is a legal path
that would be ok. So far I have kept all SW legit, biz as well as
personal, and I want to keep it that way until I keel over.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

 

[Joerg]

Hello Chuck,

Just to put my two cents in, but didn't SDT not have a zoom in
feature beyond it native resolution? (you think I should know for
sure, but I haven't used it for 15 years...) I remember finding it
pretty unusable for any resolution beyond 800x600...


Mine sure could. It allowed factors of 2, 5, 10 and 20 which I found
plenty sufficient.


Yes, but all of those sizes made the text and sheet -smaller. What if it
is already too small for your tired eyes to read, and it it 1:1 ?

This wasn't much of a problem in days of yore but as the screen resolution
took great leaps, it becomes a problem.

Well, I can't really tell because I was never a fan of pushing the
screen resolution to the limits. Even today I prefer 800*600. It's
enough of a challenge that parts become smaller. On my last designs they
were 90% 0402 sizes. The eyes don't exactly become better with age ;-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com