Eagle 4.11 = POS

alexs · Nov 14, 2003

Tried the freeware/limited version, have this to say:

- Mostly non-Windows conforming user interface and shortcut keys - never heard of ctrl-C & ctrl-V...
- Drag & Crash library parts editor - used to rebooting Win 98SE but rare to find a trash & crasher like Eagle.
- Really ugly Eurostyle logic and inductor symbols, nearly impossible to reuse or edit symbols or graphic primitives.
- Cut & Paste, clipboard, "group"/move and selection dont function as expected. Guess someone really hates Microsoft...
& mainstream ECAD de facto standards.
- key/mouse functions confusing & cranky, don't work, buggy/crashy (see above).
- Tutorial is a joke, very difficult to follow, English is confusing. Explanation of the basics and editing of parts
libraries severely deficient.

IMHO Eagle has been struggling to gain USA market share & for very good reason.

It needs to be significantly rewritten to dump or at least hide the lame command-line driven option -- leftover from the
good old DOS days? -- and make parts easier to create & edit (without crashing). Windows-standard key-mouse-clipboard
functionality would be a plus, at the very least as a setup option. Provide a real tutorial that non-insiders can
follow. Have a native English-speaker reformat & proofread the tutorial (I volunteer for the job).

The author(s) need to step back and study the competition's features & usability, as well as buy some code devel &
debugging tools. Also they need to understand that the freeware version must be useful and simple to use (and stable),
being the springboard to the profitable versions. Learning curves must be saved for the rich feature set, not for the
annoyance of having to unlearn simple, intuitive basic operations that experienced ECAD users have come to expect.

Looking into CADint.se now... another sale lost for Eagle.

alexs

Garrett Mace · Nov 14, 2003

The author(s) need to step back and study the competition's features &
usability, as well as buy some code devel &
debugging tools. Also they need to understand that the freeware version
must be useful and simple to use (and stable),
being the springboard to the profitable versions. Learning curves must be
saved for the rich feature set, not for the
annoyance of having to unlearn simple, intuitive basic operations that
experienced ECAD users have come to expect.

Looking into CADint.se now... another sale lost for Eagle.

alexs

Beggars can't be choosers. While Eagle is certainly something you need to
spend more than half an hour getting used to, it does have some well-done
features and a good price. All the home shops have to do a little more work
to pull together a useful parts library, but hey, they aren't $5,000 to
$20,000 poorer. I've not noticed many crashes on a modern OS like 2000 or
XP.

Leon Heller · Nov 14, 2003

alexs wrote:

Tried the freeware/limited version, have this to say:

- Mostly non-Windows conforming user interface and shortcut keys - never heard of ctrl-C & ctrl-V...

[deleted]

Exactly what I don't like about Eagle. They tried to make me use it
where I used to work; I complained so much about it that they let me use
my own copy of Pulsonix. My most telling argument was that Eagle often
took twice as many keystrokes and mouse clicks for a given operation.

Have a look at Pulsonix: http://www.pulsonix.com. It's more expensive
than Eagle but was designed from scratch for Windows, and is very easy
to use. Pulsonix also fixes bugs very quickly.

Leon

Chris Carlen · Nov 15, 2003

alexs wrote:

Tried the freeware/limited version, have this to say:

- Mostly non-Windows conforming user interface and shortcut keys - never heard of ctrl-C & ctrl-V...
- Drag & Crash library parts editor - used to rebooting Win 98SE but rare to find a trash & crasher like Eagle.
- Really ugly Eurostyle logic and inductor symbols, nearly impossible to reuse or edit symbols or graphic primitives.
- Cut & Paste, clipboard, "group"/move and selection dont function as expected. Guess someone really hates Microsoft...
& mainstream ECAD de facto standards.
- key/mouse functions confusing & cranky, don't work, buggy/crashy (see above).
- Tutorial is a joke, very difficult to follow, English is confusing. Explanation of the basics and editing of parts
libraries severely deficient.

IMHO Eagle has been struggling to gain USA market share & for very good reason.

It needs to be significantly rewritten to dump or at least hide the lame command-line driven option -- leftover from the
good old DOS days? -- and make parts easier to create & edit (without crashing). Windows-standard key-mouse-clipboard
functionality would be a plus, at the very least as a setup option. Provide a real tutorial that non-insiders can
follow. Have a native English-speaker reformat & proofread the tutorial (I volunteer for the job).

The author(s) need to step back and study the competition's features & usability, as well as buy some code devel &
debugging tools. Also they need to understand that the freeware version must be useful and simple to use (and stable),
being the springboard to the profitable versions. Learning curves must be saved for the rich feature set, not for the
annoyance of having to unlearn simple, intuitive basic operations that experienced ECAD users have come to expect.

Looking into CADint.se now... another sale lost for Eagle.

alexs

Eagle runs through a typical workweek on Linux without crashing but a
few times a year.

The CLI is a timesaver, if you learn to use it. On a large 1600x1200
screen, the mousing all over the place to change tools all the time is a
drag. Easier to type in an abbreviated command.

Nothing's perfect, but I like Eagle. It's worth the money.

Good day!

--
_____________________
Christopher R. Carlen
crobc@earthlink.net
Suse 8.1 Linux 2.4.19

Stuart Brorson · Nov 15, 2003

alexs <alexs@seanet.com> wrote:
: Tried the freeware/limited version, have this to say:

[ . . . lots of criticism snipped . . . .]

: Looking into CADint.se now... another sale lost for Eagle.

Why not try gEDA? It's the same price as the Eagle freeware edition,
but it works like a champ & doesn't have any of the bugs you mention.

http://geda.seul.org/

Stuart

Helmut Sennewald · Nov 15, 2003

"Stuart Brorson" <sdb@cloud9.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:vrcosv1g11k941@corp.supernews.com...

alexs <alexs@seanet.com> wrote:
: Tried the freeware/limited version, have this to say:

[ . . . lots of criticism snipped . . . .]

: Looking into CADint.se now... another sale lost for Eagle.

Why not try gEDA? It's the same price as the Eagle freeware edition,
but it works like a champ & doesn't have any of the bugs you mention.

http://geda.seul.org/

Hello Stuart,
do you really believe the whole story from alexas?
I don't think so. In this case, the man sitting in front of
the computer is the problem and not the software he tries to use.
There are many thousands user of EAGLE who mastered the GUI.

I am shure he has never tried to use any of the expensive PCB CAD
packages from Mentor, Cadence and so on. They are even harder to learn.
Nobody would therefore claim that they are bad. Their software
is really great for the experienced user.
My tipp: If you ever have to learn a new software, never think
back how it was in the other CAD software package you have learned.
Just be open minded.

Best Regards
Helmut

Garrett Mace · Nov 17, 2003

Hello Stuart,
do you really believe the whole story from alexas?
I don't think so. In this case, the man sitting in front of
the computer is the problem and not the software he tries to use.
There are many thousands user of EAGLE who mastered the GUI.

I am shure he has never tried to use any of the expensive PCB CAD
packages from Mentor, Cadence and so on. They are even harder to learn.
Nobody would therefore claim that they are bad. Their software
is really great for the experienced user.
My tipp: If you ever have to learn a new software, never think
back how it was in the other CAD software package you have learned.
Just be open minded.

I would also like to add, that if the original poster wants a PCB CAD
program that follows all the "standard" Microsoft interface characteristics,
there is the "Paintbrush" program included with every installation of
Windows.

alexs · Nov 17, 2003

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 07:15:42 GMT, "Garrett Mace" <g.ryan@macetech.com> wrote:

Hello Stuart,
do you really believe the whole story from alexas?
I don't think so. In this case, the man sitting in front of
the computer is the problem and not the software he tries to use.
There are many thousands user of EAGLE who mastered the GUI.

Ah, yes, blame the user for Eagle's crashing undertested software.
Buggy POS ... Buggy POS ... Buggy POS ... Buggy POS ... get it?

I am shure he has never tried to use any of the expensive PCB CAD
packages from Mentor, Cadence and so on. They are even harder to learn.
Nobody would therefore claim that they are bad. Their software
is really great for the experienced user.

So "shure", huh? I have used Tango, Protel, OrCAD in both DOS and Windows,
P-CAD (gag), Viewlogic (double-gag), and believe it or not, Mac-CAD,
before finally settling in very comfortably with PADS for both schematic
and PCB. Yes, it is costly and its parts editor could be streamlined,
but it blows the socks off the others I have used. It is very stable
and very powerful.

Regrettably, Mentor, or whoever the owner-du-jour of PADS are,
have a regressive licensing/revenue model that inhibits all but
rich-bucks corporations, or startups with deep-pocketed investors,
from using it; hence, the market for all these sub-$2000 upstarts.

My tipp: If you ever have to learn a new software, never think
back how it was in the other CAD software package you have learned.
Just be open minded.

Again, the point is not the features or cost of the package, but
rather how easy it is to do a given task. Expecting standard cut & paste
ops to work across all apps is not too much to ask; nor is expecting
stability on the important chore of making new parts.

I would also like to add, that if the original poster wants a PCB CAD
program that follows all the "standard" Microsoft interface characteristics,
there is the "Paintbrush" program included with every installation of
Windows.

Ha. Ha. What a DH.

Just remember that OrCAD lost and never recovered their lead in PC-based
ECAD because their moronic engineers refused to abandon the DOS interface
when the industry gave them plenty of warning that Windows was becoming
the defacto standard GUI -- something cadsoft have yet to realize, sadly.

IMO Eagle will always be limited to nerds and cranks, so long as it features
a learning curve resembling a brick wall, and maintains the attitude that
learning how to code for the Windows clipboard is just too much bother.
And crashes? First impressions are lasting ones.

PADS is, for the time being, among the PC-ECAD leaders, but Eagle is presently
a far distant follower -- and I don't see that changing with the 4.11 POS.

Chris Carlen · Nov 17, 2003

alexs wrote:

Just remember that OrCAD lost and never recovered their lead in PC-based
ECAD because their moronic engineers refused to abandon the DOS interface
when the industry gave them plenty of warning that Windows was becoming
the defacto standard GUI -- something cadsoft have yet to realize, sadly.

That's because they *have* realized that the defacto standard GUI for
serious technical computing in the near future *isn't* going to be
Windows, but will be more balanced than it is now, between Windows and
Linux. Thus it is wise to develop a software architecture that is
portable between the two.

IMO Eagle will always be limited to nerds and cranks, so long as it features
a learning curve resembling a brick wall, and maintains the attitude that
learning how to code for the Windows clipboard is just too much bother.
And crashes? First impressions are lasting ones.

Brick wall? My wife can use Eagle to help me capture schematics, route
boards, and even make library packages. She has no CAD experience or
electronics background. But she does have the ability to comprehend
that there are other ways to interface to a program besides the
"Windows...defacto standard GUI."

As for your stability problems, like I said before, the program runs for
days on end without problems on my Linux workstations. I suggest you
try at least an NT class Windows, if you aren't amenable to the use of
Linux.

Hope you find the perfect ECAD program.

Good day!

--
____________________________________
Christopher R. Carlen
Principal Laser/Optical Technologist
Sandia National Laboratories CA USA
crcarle@sandia.gov

Chuck Harris · Nov 17, 2003

alexs wrote:

Just remember that OrCAD lost and never recovered their lead in PC-based
ECAD because their moronic engineers refused to abandon the DOS interface
when the industry gave them plenty of warning that Windows was becoming
the defacto standard GUI -- something cadsoft have yet to realize, sadly.

It is sort of funny you think that about OrCAD. During the time frame
when the windows GUI was starting to become popular, OrCAD sent its
customer base survey after survey asking what the users liked, and
disliked, and whether or not they wanted to see a Windows version.

The results came in time after time that the users liked the keyboard
shortcuts, liked the snappy(quick) display, and the easy scrolling,
and they hated the idea of a windows GUI. It was a running theme
in the little newsletter that OrCAD sent to its customers.

Well, when OrCAD finally come out with the windows GUI, it was awful!
There really wasn't much choice but for it to be awful, because the
windows GUI was too clumsy for cad layout. You feel like you are rowing
the boat with all the drag down menus. For the first time in my life, I
started to develop carpel tunnel syndrome from excessive mousing. I
hated the Windows GUI so much that I ditched OrCAD's windoze version,
and went back to the old DOS version. (which I am still using)

And I wasn't alone, you should have heard the bitchfest from the
customers when the windoze GUI was stuffed down their throats by OrCAD.
The new display didn't automatically scroll, it took forever to draw,
there were too many menus, and they were too deep, it didn't support
all the plotters that the DOS version did, it didn't support the
digitizing tablets, too much screen was wasted in frames and icons,
it crashed regularly... the list went on and on.

OrCAD lost their user base because they didn't listen to what the users
wanted, but rather listened to what the consultants hired by the PHB's
said they would want.

That's the way it was, and that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

-Chuck

Ian · Nov 17, 2003

I still use Orcad SDT for schematic capture because as far as I know nothing
comes anywhere near it for speed of use, being intuitive, and general all
round brilliant program.

I would like to be corrected, but are there ANY Windows schematic capture
packages that come anywhere near SDT?

Ian Phillips

"Chuck Harris" <cfharris@erols.com> wrote in message
news:bpb6dm$a81$1@bob.news.rcn.net...

alexs wrote:

Just remember that OrCAD lost and never recovered their lead in PC-based
ECAD because their moronic engineers refused to abandon the DOS
interface
when the industry gave them plenty of warning that Windows was becoming
the defacto standard GUI -- something cadsoft have yet to realize,
sadly.

It is sort of funny you think that about OrCAD. During the time frame
when the windows GUI was starting to become popular, OrCAD sent its
customer base survey after survey asking what the users liked, and
disliked, and whether or not they wanted to see a Windows version.

The results came in time after time that the users liked the keyboard
shortcuts, liked the snappy(quick) display, and the easy scrolling,
and they hated the idea of a windows GUI. It was a running theme
in the little newsletter that OrCAD sent to its customers.

Well, when OrCAD finally come out with the windows GUI, it was awful!
There really wasn't much choice but for it to be awful, because the
windows GUI was too clumsy for cad layout. You feel like you are rowing
the boat with all the drag down menus. For the first time in my life, I
started to develop carpel tunnel syndrome from excessive mousing. I
hated the Windows GUI so much that I ditched OrCAD's windoze version,
and went back to the old DOS version. (which I am still using)

And I wasn't alone, you should have heard the bitchfest from the
customers when the windoze GUI was stuffed down their throats by OrCAD.
The new display didn't automatically scroll, it took forever to draw,
there were too many menus, and they were too deep, it didn't support
all the plotters that the DOS version did, it didn't support the
digitizing tablets, too much screen was wasted in frames and icons,
it crashed regularly... the list went on and on.

OrCAD lost their user base because they didn't listen to what the users
wanted, but rather listened to what the consultants hired by the PHB's
said they would want.

That's the way it was, and that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

-Chuck

Bob Stephens · Nov 17, 2003

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 2

Well, when OrCAD finally come out with the windows GUI, it was awful!
There really wasn't much choice but for it to be awful, because the
windows GUI was too clumsy for cad layout. You feel like you are rowing
the boat with all the drag down menus. For the first time in my life, I
started to develop carpel tunnel syndrome from excessive mousing. I
hated the Windows GUI so much that I ditched OrCAD's windoze version,
and went back to the old DOS version. (which I am still using)

And I wasn't alone, you should have heard the bitchfest from the
customers when the windoze GUI was stuffed down their throats by OrCAD.
The new display didn't automatically scroll, it took forever to draw,
there were too many menus, and they were too deep, it didn't support
all the plotters that the DOS version did, it didn't support the
digitizing tablets, too much screen was wasted in frames and icons,
it crashed regularly... the list went on and on.

OrCAD lost their user base because they didn't listen to what the users
wanted, but rather listened to what the consultants hired by the PHB's
said they would want.

That's the way it was, and that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

-Chuck

Chuck,

I couldn't agree more. I LOVED Orcad SDT and LOATHED their first Windows
offering. I wish I had the latitude to continue with SDT, but the world
moves...

Bob

Jim Thompson · Nov 17, 2003

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:40:51 -0000, "Ian" <lightdept@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

I still use Orcad SDT for schematic capture because as far as I know nothing
comes anywhere near it for speed of use, being intuitive, and general all
round brilliant program.

I would like to be corrected, but are there ANY Windows schematic capture
packages that come anywhere near SDT?

Ian Phillips

[snip]

PSpice Schematics is even better than SDT.

That's why Cadence/OrCAD is dropping it next year... it makes Capture
look like the POS that it is.

(And POS doesn't stand for "point-of-sale"

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

qrk · Nov 18, 2003

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:14:49 -0700, Jim Thompson
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:40:51 -0000, "Ian" <lightdept@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:

I still use Orcad SDT for schematic capture because as far as I know nothing
comes anywhere near it for speed of use, being intuitive, and general all
round brilliant program.

I would like to be corrected, but are there ANY Windows schematic capture
packages that come anywhere near SDT?

Ian Phillips

[snip]

PSpice Schematics is even better than SDT.

That's why Cadence/OrCAD is dropping it next year... it makes Capture
look like the POS that it is.

(And POS doesn't stand for "point-of-sale"

...Jim Thompson
I prefer SDT 386+ over Schematics for general use, especially since we

modified Composer.exe to handle coincident pins (place all the power
pins on top of each other). I use macros with SDT which makes it very
easy to use. Unfortunately, it's hard to find video boards that will
handle Vesa 102 mode these days. Post processing is a bit clunky in
SDT. Batch files cure that problem. The modern Capture sucks compared
to SDT and Schematics, IMunHO.
Mark

alexs · Nov 18, 2003

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 09:55:37 -0800, Chris Carlen <crcarle@BOGUS.sandia.gov> wrote:

Brick wall? My wife can use Eagle to help me capture schematics, route
boards, and even make library packages. She has no CAD experience or
electronics background.

Oh, gee, even your wife can use it?

As for your stability problems, like I said before, the program runs for
days on end without problems on my Linux workstations. I suggest you
try at least an NT class Windows, if you aren't amenable to the use of
Linux.

The parts editor crashing bug is consistent and reproduceable. If the
Linux version is so stable, why is the demo so unstable?

alexs · Nov 18, 2003

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:09:40 -0500, Chuck Harris <cfharris@erols.com> wrote:

OrCAD lost their user base because they didn't listen to what the users
wanted, but rather listened to what the consultants hired by the PHB's
said they would want.

I still have my SDT III and am seriously considering falling back to it,
using Protel Autotrax and a netlist patch program to translate. Lacks
a Gerber viewer but I have an ancient version of CAM350 that serves.

All this overblown Windows crabbing is a real headache.

That's the way it was, and that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

I suppose you have insider knowledge of the goings-on at OrCAD at the time.

Chuck Harris · Nov 18, 2003

alexs wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:09:40 -0500, Chuck Harris <cfharris@erols.com> wrote:

That's the way it was, and that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

I suppose you have insider knowledge of the goings-on at OrCAD at the time.

Not specifically. I did write some of their printer and plotter
drivers (Canon LBP8A1 and A2, which got included in the distribution;
tektronix 4662, 4663, which did not). I did spend quite a bit of time
on the phone with their programming staff, discussing technical issues.

But mostly, they had a little bulletin, that they sent out to all of
their service customers, that kept us current with the goings on.

And there was some correspondence with their president...Ken Somebody
or other, the memory fades...

...and then there was their bulletin board system...

And with their bulletins, came lots of nice little customer surveys that
asked questions like "do you want to see a windoze version of OrCAD
products?"

My recollection, and I admit it is faded, is that they were steadfast in
their belief that their own interface was best, and they were going to
stick with DOS, and then they got a new President, and a windows version
emerged.

-Chuck

Mike Engelhardt · Nov 19, 2003

Alexs,

...The parts editor crashing bug is consistent and reproduceable. If
the Linux version is so stable, why is the demo so unstable?

Why do people post this instead of reporting it?

--Mike

alexs · Nov 19, 2003

On 19 Nov 2003 03:24:51 GMT, "Mike Engelhardt" <pmte@concentric.net> wrote:

Alexs,

...The parts editor crashing bug is consistent and reproduceable. If
the Linux version is so stable, why is the demo so unstable?

Why do people post this instead of reporting it?

--Mike

LT-SPICE is well-written and evolving program, with a highly motivated,
involved and responsive sole (apparently) author. From what I can tell
the prog keeps pace with user input, and is going to make the longstanding
SPICE vendors very uncomfortable very soon.

Eagle and its authors, OTOH, seem stuck in the amber of their snotty attitude
about what's best for its users, and refuse to acknowledge public criticisms
or even display curiousity about Eagle's problems.

If the answer is "go run Linux", then that does not make one all warm and
fuzzy about their code base's stability, or about the ability of their
programmers (to say nothing of their superiority complex).

Besides, there are other players on the low-end ECAD field who probably
don't need my help in beta-testing their product.

David Moodie · Nov 19, 2003

"alexs" <alexs@seanet.com> wrote in message
news:b8ijrvcsvhca5mhgf1m9iin466bion7p3j@4ax.com...

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 09:55:37 -0800, Chris Carlen
crcarle@BOGUS.sandia.gov> wrote:

Brick wall? My wife can use Eagle to help me capture schematics, route
boards, and even make library packages. She has no CAD experience or
electronics background.

Oh, gee, even your wife can use it?

As for your stability problems, like I said before, the program runs for
days on end without problems on my Linux workstations. I suggest you
try at least an NT class Windows, if you aren't amenable to the use of
Linux.

The parts editor crashing bug is consistent and reproduceable. If the
Linux version is so stable, why is the demo so unstable?

Would you like to tell us all how to reproduce some of the crashes that
you've had with Eagle? the other issue may be the actual version you are
running , v4.11 is not all that long released, but has had a good beta test
period. Cadsoft are normally very fast at fixing genuine bugs which cause
crashes so I can't understand why they have ignored your problem...

I've been using it for about 6 years and have actually found it to be very
stable, the support is very good and if you've got a genuine bug then please
do all the users a favour and either report it to cadsoft direct or via
there news groups on the server
news.cadsoft.de in the group eagle.support.eng

regards

David

Eagle 4.11 = POS

alexs

Guest

Garrett Mace

Guest

Leon Heller

Guest

Chris Carlen

Guest

Stuart Brorson

Guest

Helmut Sennewald

Guest

Garrett Mace

Guest

alexs

Guest

Chris Carlen

Guest

Chuck Harris

Guest

Ian

Guest

Bob Stephens

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

qrk

Guest

alexs

Guest

alexs

Guest

Chuck Harris

Guest

Mike Engelhardt

Guest

alexs

Guest

David Moodie

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor