New electronic design and layout software

[Kevin Aylward]

Paul Burridge wrote:

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 01:54:21 -0000, "John Jardine"
john@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

I think this identifies the problem I have with the MS stuff. Over
the years I've taken a simplistic view that I should need *no*
knowledge of the OS. It should just be there as a background utility
programme that takes care of running the keyboard, discs, screen,
time sharing, etc. A newer, fancier windows OS programme should (in
my warped thinking!) just require inserting the disc and pressing
the 'install' button. Hey presto, jobs a good 'un!. Unfortunately I
find the windows OS is constantly in my face. From the time I'm
attempting to switch the PC on/off through to the lockouts, Bsods
etc when I'm trying to run a programme. I'm sure that the newer
windows offer improvement over '98 but am very reluctant to go
through the due installation process. Perhaps more so reading that
the new stuff won't even work if you change the PC parts or without
being in constant contact with MS. (how do people with no phone or
Internet go on?).

I'd formed the view that there was some kind of supernatural jinx on
me and computers until I read that article I referred everyone to (the
"I hate microsoft" web site). Upon reading that, it was such a relief
to learn that I was not alone! It hadn't dawned on me until then that
I'd never had a computer crash until the advent of Windows.
You're right to say the OS ought to just 'get on with the job' quietly
in the background and leave us to concentrate on the apps. Sadly,
that's not the way it works with Windows. I know I for one have
struggled valiantly over many solid weeks and months in total over the
last 10 years trying to fix bits of it that have gone tits-up as they
do - all too frequently.

Since you obviously haven't used XP much, if at all, complaining that
all Windows is bad, is based on ignorance. As I have noted. I do
extensive and serious work on XP. It is essentially, a pretty good OS.
It works. It don't crash. You don't seem to get the picture on just how
technically different XP is from 98/ME etc. How many times do I have to
point out that you have only 64k for *all* of the gui headers in pre
XP/NT, and that they don't multitask for shit, i.e writing a:\ drive
locks everything out.

Stop pissing about with crap, and accept the facts. Its time to move on.
98 is dead. End of story.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/NewBeginning.mp3

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Simon Clark wrote:

Kevin,

I have only had a little skim so far, but it has some immediate very
irritating quirks. What's with the help window always on top deal.
arhh.....says he as finger nails go down the blackboard. One wants
to be able to click back and forth from schematic to the help. You
also need to get the help to be context sensitive into whatever
dialog is in view.

I can understand your point about the help staying on top but the
common alternatives are: -

1. The help is hidden as soon as you click on the application so you
cant follow the help and work at the same time.

You don't hide the help window completely. It should overlap the app
window.

2. The help system resizes your application windows automatically and
sits to one side.

Do you have a preference or an alternative?

The help should just be like any other application. The main app and
the help should be able to be arranged in an offset overlapping manner
so that one can click on what ever window what wants to view. This is
pretty much a standard way of working with multiple application windows.

Context sensitive help IS really useful. I'll see if it can get it
into the next release.

Indeed. Its a nightmare to have to search for help on the dialog in
view.

I couldn't figure out how to simply edit an existing symbol. What's
wrong with a simple right click on the part in the library with "Edit
Symbol" on it? The only way I managed to get the symbol editor up
was to create a new one. What about a double click on the components
to pop up its properties etc.., All standard windows standards.

Properties are always shown in the properties toolbox in relation to
what is currently selected. Double clicking on an item to open a modal
(cant do anything else until it's closed) dialog boxe tends to be one
of the less intuitive ways of working with graphical software.

Its a *standard* windows way of working. Its "intuitive" because
everyone knows that that double-clicking on things does things.

But you didnt answer the question. How do you open up the symbol editor.
There just seems to be a lack of menu items to do things.

On the
other hand, selecting an item and seeing it's properties at all times
is very useful. If you're interested in an items properties you just
select it. Also, from the same properties window, being able to simply
edit a property for example, or being able to edit the same property
in one hit when many items have been selected is a fast, easy,
powerful and intuitive way to work.

I never saw this docked property window. It was complexly overlapped by
the tool bar docked window. I had to turn off the tool bar window to see
it. That's not a bad idea, in general.

Help Window state is not saved. e.g. evertime the help restarts, it
comes up with its default (and crap) size and position. what about
save grid on/off state?

I'll look into this along with context sensitive help.

Wires need rubberbanding.

This has been picked up on another thread and there will be a solution
in the next beta release.

How do you change and see the net names?

You can change (or force) a named net by placing label text that sits
on a wire.

This is really pedestrian and old hat. In all seriousness, I suggest you
download SuperSpice and see how it works. e.g. double click on a wire or
mouse over it and press "q". From this, it seems like you don't have a
wire graphic object with a data structure containing the netname.

(Can I assume from what you've said in your next point that
you don't want a tool tip to pop up and tell you the name of the net?
I guess not!)

I was referring to those daft "tip of the day" type popups, not floating
labels. I have floating labels optionally enabled in SS. Netnames appear
automatically in the main window status bar when you mouse over them.

But you didnt answer the question. How do you see unamed nets?

Oh cut out the tips. I have yet to know of *anyone* who wants these
daft things popping up, ever.

Tool tips were added because its useful to be able to see, at a
glance, information about an item of interest. When a component is
dropped onto a schematic it's great to be able to see, without opening
a dialog box and without even looking away from where you're working,
properties that are not obvious. If you move the mouse over a resistor
and it tells you it's an MF25 or a 3W wirewound then you have instant
access to important technical information about the design. If you
move the mouse over a pin and it tells you it's an output then you
know not to connect it to another output for example.

See above, that was not what I was refering to. SS has this, and this is
useful.

Oh... The grid state does not get saved on restart.

Where the button to "create netlist"? No entry for netlist in the help.
Couldn't get an added component to give a new netlist. Again, there
seems to be a lack of menu items to do things.


Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/NewBeginning.mp3

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 17:57:58 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Since you obviously haven't used XP much, if at all, complaining that
all Windows is bad, is based on ignorance.

There you go again: "based on ignorance" etc.. Your standard
one-liner.

As I have noted. I do
extensive and serious work on XP.

You do? What version do you use?
Are you saying you don't play any games on it at all? Serious stuff
only?

It is essentially, a pretty good OS.
It works. It don't crash. You don't seem to get the picture on just how
technically different XP is from 98/ME etc. How many times do I have to
point out that you have only 64k for *all* of the gui headers in pre
XP/NT, and that they don't multitask for shit, i.e writing a:\ drive
locks everything out.

Stop pissing about with crap, and accept the facts. Its time to move on.
98 is dead. End of story.

I have moved on but am still unhappy. Maybe one day I'll have the time
to sit down and install and use Linux. Until then, I'm stuck with one
crash after another.
--

The BBC: Licensed at public expense to spread lies.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Paul Burridge wrote:

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 17:57:58 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Since you obviously haven't used XP much, if at all, complaining that
all Windows is bad, is based on ignorance.

There you go again: "based on ignorance" etc.. Your standard
one-liner.

Nope. I hardly ever use that phrase.

As I have noted. I do
extensive and serious work on XP.

You do? What version do you use?

What ever is current. I always keep it updated.

Are you saying you don't play any games on it at all?

Yep. I *never* play games on it, and I mean never. There was a time
about 10 years ago when I played chess. I am simple not a game man at
all. Never even *tried* Doom. I don't play games. Period.

Serious stuff
only?

Yep. Writing software, technical papers etc, and for the last couple of
months sequencing and recording my music, which I use for
semi-professional playing in pubs.

It is essentially, a pretty good OS.
It works. It don't crash. You don't seem to get the picture on just
how technically different XP is from 98/ME etc. How many times do I
have to point out that you have only 64k for *all* of the gui
headers in pre XP/NT, and that they don't multitask for shit, i.e
writing a:\ drive locks everything out.

Stop pissing about with crap, and accept the facts. Its time to move
on. 98 is dead. End of story.

I have moved on but am still unhappy.

But you state that you don't use XP, so how can you have moved on?

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/NewBeginning.mp3

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

 

[John Jardine]

Kevin Aylward <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:KYH4c.400$MS4.317@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...

Paul Burridge wrote:
On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 01:54:21 -0000, "John Jardine"
john@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

I think this identifies the problem I have with the MS stuff. Over
the years I've taken a simplistic view that I should need *no*
knowledge of the OS. It should just be there as a background utility
programme that takes care of running the keyboard, discs, screen,
time sharing, etc. A newer, fancier windows OS programme should (in
my warped thinking!) just require inserting the disc and pressing
the 'install' button. Hey presto, jobs a good 'un!. Unfortunately I
find the windows OS is constantly in my face. From the time I'm
attempting to switch the PC on/off through to the lockouts, Bsods
etc when I'm trying to run a programme. I'm sure that the newer
windows offer improvement over '98 but am very reluctant to go
through the due installation process. Perhaps more so reading that
the new stuff won't even work if you change the PC parts or without
being in constant contact with MS. (how do people with no phone or
Internet go on?).

I'd formed the view that there was some kind of supernatural jinx on
me and computers until I read that article I referred everyone to (the
"I hate microsoft" web site). Upon reading that, it was such a relief
to learn that I was not alone! It hadn't dawned on me until then that
I'd never had a computer crash until the advent of Windows.
You're right to say the OS ought to just 'get on with the job' quietly
in the background and leave us to concentrate on the apps. Sadly,
that's not the way it works with Windows. I know I for one have
struggled valiantly over many solid weeks and months in total over the
last 10 years trying to fix bits of it that have gone tits-up as they
do - all too frequently.

Since you obviously haven't used XP much, if at all, complaining that
all Windows is bad, is based on ignorance. As I have noted. I do
extensive and serious work on XP. It is essentially, a pretty good OS.
It works. It don't crash. You don't seem to get the picture on just how
technically different XP is from 98/ME etc. How many times do I have to
point out that you have only 64k for *all* of the gui headers in pre
XP/NT, and that they don't multitask for shit, i.e writing a:\ drive
locks everything out.

Stop pissing about with crap, and accept the facts. Its time to move on.
98 is dead. End of story.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/NewBeginning.mp3

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.


XP is not good enough. XP2005 will not be good enough, nor will XP2006.

Y'know, the incredibly expensive one, where we had to dial into Redmond each
morning to receive our 'trusted partner secure access code' before we were
allowed to use our PC and where we had to pay for 'my trusted partner,
feature enhancements' to address the ever-so-minor software 'issues'.
MS went on my shit list 10 years ago, they won't ever be coming off. My life
game is to offer trust until proved otherwise, there's no remission. The MS
marketing and sales operations lie to me. The sychophantic UK trade press
and hack journo's in the back pocket of MS, lie to me. The companies
offering second rate windows products lie to me.
I've now read enough MS promulgated BS and hype to be able to casually name
the hacks who cheerfully accept MS corporate hospitality on the one hand,
yet tell us they offer 'independant' viewpoints on the other. I know which
UK magazines are solely dependant on MS for their viability. I've now
reached the point where I'm suspicious of the motivation of any (UK) so
called 'respected source', official or government department, when it
concerns MS and involves BS words with more than 4 syllables.
I don't now even believe that Gates was capable of writing that first
'Basic' we're gushingly told is what started it all.
I know I'm on a hiding to nothing. I know '98 will lapse into obscurity. I
know MS will still be making big profits over the next 3-4 years. I know
most of the people can be fooled all the time.
The writing's on the wall though ... . MS understands this as well.
MS and I know for sure that the open source thingies will eventually
supplant the MS (OS) products and I and no doubt many others will be
pleased when this happens.

regards
john

 

[Chaos Master]

Kevin Aylward posted in sci.electronics.cad , in article
<KYH4c.400$MS4.317@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>, at Sat, 13 Mar 2004 17:57:58 -
0000:

Since you obviously haven't used XP much, if at all, complaining that
all Windows is bad, is based on ignorance. As I have noted. I do
extensive and serious work on XP. It is essentially, a pretty good OS.
It works. It don't crash. You don't seem to get the picture on just how
technically different XP is from 98/ME etc. How many times do I have to
point out that you have only 64k for *all* of the gui headers in pre
XP/NT, and that they don't multitask for shit, i.e writing a:\ drive
locks everything out.

Stop pissing about with crap, and accept the facts. Its time to move on.
98 is dead. End of story.

The main problem of XP is that old hardware is not compatible with WinXP.

And 98 stills allows you to boot under MS-DOS.

The most annoying (i could say "irritating as shit") thing is the activation
stuff. What the fuck does Bill want to know that I installed new hardware? To
offer me the latest buggy drivers?

My $0.02.

--
Chaos MasterŽ - Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
irc.brasnet.org - #xlinuxnews and #poa
marreka.no-ip.com (ainda năo pronto)
LRU #327480

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 19:41:46 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Paul Burridge wrote:
On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 17:57:58 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Since you obviously haven't used XP much, if at all, complaining that
all Windows is bad, is based on ignorance.

There you go again: "based on ignorance" etc.. Your standard
one-liner.

Nope. I hardly ever use that phrase.

Self-unaware. I guess we all are to some extent. But you more than
most...

You do? What version do you use?

What ever is current. I always keep it updated.

FFS, Kev. You *must* know which bloody version you're using. Just
click on "Help/about"! What does it say??

Are you saying you don't play any games on it at all?

Yep. I *never* play games on it, and I mean never. There was a time
about 10 years ago when I played chess. I am simple not a game man at
all. Never even *tried* Doom. I don't play games. Period.

Thanks for an unequivocal answer for a change.

Serious stuff
only?


Yep. Writing software, technical papers etc, and for the last couple of
months sequencing and recording my music, which I use for
semi-professional playing in pubs.

And you still say you're using XP??

But you state that you don't use XP, so how can you have moved on?

<boggle>
--

The BBC: Licensed at public expense to spread lies.

 

[Meindert Sprang]

"Chaos Master" <wizard_of_yendorIHATESPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c30a2p$22gb0t$2@ID-88878.news.uni-berlin.de...

The main problem of XP is that old hardware is not compatible with WinXP.

And 98 stills allows you to boot under MS-DOS.

Good point. That's why I keep one 98 or ME machine at hand.

The most annoying (i could say "irritating as shit") thing is the
activation
stuff. What the fuck does Bill want to know that I installed new hardware?
To
offer me the latest buggy drivers?

There's one simple solution for that: use windows 2000.

Meindert

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 00:34:56 +0000, Paul Burridge
<pb@osiris1.notthisbit.co.uk> wrote:

FFS, Kev. You *must* know which bloody version you're using. Just
click on "Help/about"! What does it say??

If you're still having problems, Kev, let me know and I'll take you
through the process step-by-step. :->
--

The BBC: Licensed at public expense to spread lies.

 

[Don Prescott]

Yes, I want both the hobbyist and professional to be able to
use and afford performance EDA.

So, about how much did you figure on charging for this product?

I haven't the time to go through "Performance EDA" in detail, but as
you see by other messages your product doesn't exactly set the world
on fire... What I'd say is download the low-price products you are
gonna compete against and then ask yourself:

If I was trying to convince someone about to buy this product, say
Easy-PC For Windows, how would I convince him to buy mine instead...?
What's your USP (unique selling proposition)with Performance EDA...?
You can't go for price. There's several products that are low-price
nowadays, and chiselling a few quid off is unlikely to sway many
people. To get a foothold in an established business you've got to
have something special. Otherwise your gonna be a "me too" going
nowhere. Think of Dyson... He turned the long established vacuum
cleaner market on it's head with the innovative bagless cleaner.

I'm getting a slight deja vu here. Two years ago, the guy running
AutoTRAX EDA planned to grab 50% of the world's PCB Layout business by
now and dreamed of putting Protel out of business...! Two years on and
he's almost giving it away...

"Many are called, few are chosen"

Don Prescott

 

[Leon Heller]

"Don Prescott" <DMBPrescott@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7fb54666.0403150101.520cdc9e@posting.google.com...

Yes, I want both the hobbyist and professional to be able to
use and afford performance EDA.

So, about how much did you figure on charging for this product?

I haven't the time to go through "Performance EDA" in detail, but as
you see by other messages your product doesn't exactly set the world
on fire... What I'd say is download the low-price products you are
gonna compete against and then ask yourself:

If I was trying to convince someone about to buy this product, say
Easy-PC For Windows, how would I convince him to buy mine instead...?
What's your USP (unique selling proposition)with Performance EDA...?
You can't go for price. There's several products that are low-price
nowadays, and chiselling a few quid off is unlikely to sway many
people. To get a foothold in an established business you've got to
have something special. Otherwise your gonna be a "me too" going
nowhere. Think of Dyson... He turned the long established vacuum
cleaner market on it's head with the innovative bagless cleaner.

I'm getting a slight deja vu here. Two years ago, the guy running
AutoTRAX EDA planned to grab 50% of the world's PCB Layout business by
now and dreamed of putting Protel out of business...! Two years on and
he's almost giving it away...

He's still fixing bugs, I don't think it is really usable yet.

Leon

 

[Simon Clark]

The price will be Ł350 (inc VAT for UK and Europe) for the
full-unlimited product with every feature enabled. The policy for the
evaluation version is that library editors have no restrictions. You
can, without any license or cost install the software on as many PC's,
as you like to create, edit and manage libraries. The only restriction
is that projects are limited to a single A4 sheet. The board can be
laid out and saved but it cannot be exported for manufacture. There
are no specific timeout restrictions so people who want to take their
time to evaluate it fully can do so when it's convenient for them.

It seems to me that the biggest hurdle I need to get over as far as
this forum is concerned is in the first 5 minutes of use. It appears
that the lack of buttons and menu options is tricking people into
thinking that there's not much substance to the product and it's
probably been the source of some of the more dismissive comments. A
‘getting started guide' might help, but as you know, people don't
always want to, or care to read these things.

It was mentioned that it's not clear how to see and change name nets
(which you can do). In my view nets should be a thing of the past.
They originated in EDA tools that were not, or could not be
integrated. I've been there, used the DOS version of OrCad for example
and then exported nets to PAD's. Usually it went well but I'd often
need to spend another day, creating, checking and matching up
footprints for the components in the net list. What a job! Performance
EDA has a workflow architecture that means that you don't need to know
about nets other than the fact they exist. It makes the transition
between capture and layout totally transparent and absolutely
reliable. Through proper integration and embedding, it's possible for
example to capture a schematic in one country and send it to anyone
else with on the planet via email. Without them having a single
library file on their system, they are still guaranteed to be able to
create a board layout at the touch of a button.

Yes, this product is different from the norm, there's no need to get
involved in some of the more procedural and time-consuming nightmares
for starters. That's one reason why there are fewer menu items and
pushbuttons. You don't actually need or want all that clutter do you?
Who really wants a button for resistor and a button for a capacitor
and a button for an inductor and a button for an NPN and a button for
a MOSFET etc…? Designers I know think in terms of placing a 10K MF25
on the collector of a ZTX653 if that's what they've got in mind to do.
In Performance EDA you just do a quick find on ‘ZTX' and every ZTX is
shown. OK, drag it onto the schematic. Done! There's no need to name
it, select a footprint, remember if it's an NPN or a PNP, give it a
reference or wonder what gain it has or it's Ic or Vcbo. It's all done
for you in a way that lets you concentrate on important design time
issues without needing to refer to manuals or datasheets. Again, enter
10K in the find dialog, every 10K resistor is shown. Drag an MF25 onto
the schematic. Done! Oops, forgot, I think I need a 14K resistor.
Select the resistor, right click on it and select Replace... Up pops a
dialog with every MF25 resistor. 10K is selected but there's no 14K
resistor shown because its not part of that series. OK, select 13K or
15K and close the dialog. No errors and no mistakes. In the meantime,
the electrical rules checker, (because it works in real-time on every
operation) is showing you that some passive pins have been left
unconnected. OK, better connect these components together and move on.
It's that easy!

As for the Windows 98 issue, it does seem to be a hot potato for
designers but it's a waste of time IMHO supporting it from a hard-core
graphics point of view (other than DirectX games I guess). I did run
Performance EDA over the weekend on '98 and it was not nice, just as I
remembered! Actually, to be honest, it ran like other EDA software
products still do on NT/2K/XP. Their graphics engines are shamefully
slow.

So overall, the criticism of the help system and lack of rubber-banded
wires are the only real issues that have come up so far. These can
easily be addressed before the next release. Neither are showstoppers
for a first beta test release IMHO. Someone did find a real bug with
the escape key in the schematic editor for which there is a simple
workaround.

So how do I convince you to buy this product? By providing you with
the tools that make it easier for you to do your job. By making it
less of a manual process to design on a daily basis. By removing error
prone procedures from the stages of design capture, board layout and
manufacture. Finally, but not stitching you up with add on's or charge
per pin.

Sure, you can pick holes in it today. But you can also do that with
ANY EDA product that's out there. What I'm expecting in the feedback I
get right now, which I have been getting, is a feeling for what
stopping me answering your question. So far the feedback has been very
helpful.

Once again, thanks for your time.

Regards,
Simon

 

[Simon Clark]

He's still fixing bugs, I don't think it is really usable yet.

Leon,

I am still fixing bugs and adding features as discussed elsewhere
because it is still a BETA release. If you can find the time to look
at it and bear this in mind, you might find that it is more usable
than you first thought.

Thanks,
Simon Clark

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Simon Clark wrote:

The price will be Ł350 (inc VAT for UK and Europe) for the
full-unlimited product with every feature enabled.

Imo, this is a bit high for an upstart.

The policy for the
evaluation version is that library editors have no restrictions. You
can, without any license or cost install the software on as many PC's,
as you like to create, edit and manage libraries. The only restriction
is that projects are limited to a single A4 sheet. The board can be
laid out and saved but it cannot be exported for manufacture.

This means that people would be daft to buy it. The proof is in eating
the pudding. Until someone gets a board back from manufacture, there is
no *proof* that the software works. You need to understand that a demo
need to demonstrate *everything*.

There
are no specific timeout restrictions so people who want to take their
time to evaluate it fully can do so when it's convenient for them.

It seems to me that the biggest hurdle I need to get over as far as
this forum is concerned is in the first 5 minutes of use. It appears
that the lack of buttons and menu options is tricking people into
thinking that there's not much substance to the product and it's
probably been the source of some of the more dismissive comments.

You have still not explained how to simple open up the symbol editor for
a part, so the problems with the lack of menus and buttons is real.

A
'getting started guide' might help, but as you know, people don't
always want to, or care to read these things.

It was mentioned that it's not clear how to see and change name nets
(which you can do).

How?

In my view nets should be a thing of the past.

You would be de-facto wrong.

They originated in EDA tools that were not, or could not be
integrated. I've been there,

used the DOS version of OrCad for example

Apparently missing things though.

and then exported nets to PAD's. Usually it went well but I'd often
need to spend another day, creating, checking and matching up
footprints for the components in the net list.

You obviously miss a major point about designing circuits. Circuits have
net names to describe their *function*. Its *indispensable* in
explaining and documenting how the circuit works. For example, out1,
vloopfilter, vco, etc. I am truly staggered by your comment here. It
shows a complete lack of real experience on how these things are done,
and will continually be done. The fact that one might not have to do
manual checks is simply irrelevant. That's not why signals are named.
Net names serve a *fundamental* design purpose, not checking purpose.
That's why simply moving the mouse over a net in SuperSpice, displays
its net name and voltage in the windows status bar.

What a job! Performance

EDA has a workflow architecture that means that you don't need to know
about nets other than the fact they exist.

Complete nonsense. See above. You did note that you may include spice at
a later date. Like, and read my lips, without net names, you couldn't
have spice product at all. How would you know where in the circuit you
were probing, what waveform trace is being displayed?

It makes the transition
between capture and layout totally transparent and absolutely
reliable. Through proper integration and embedding, it's possible for
example to capture a schematic in one country and send it to anyone
else with on the planet via email.

Simply clueless. Look, dude I have used Cadence Analog Artist for
several years for i.c. design. There is full and closed schematic to
layout checking, so according to your view, we dont need to name
(signal) nets. How come, it was forced company policy to name all nets?

You seem to be missing the boat. There is way more to this than having
the schematic be used only for laying out a PCB. The schematic is a
*design* document. How do you think you going to get through a design
review? like, err... "that signal that connects to the base of q1 and r6
and lead to ic 6b, pin 2, is too low". Get real.

Without them having a single
library file on their system, they are still guaranteed to be able to
create a board layout at the touch of a button.

Nope. Nothing in life is guaranteed except death. You claim this, but we
don't believe you. Until we get a board back from manufacture, your
claims are meaningless. Why should anyone believe you?. So far its a me
too product, but with missing bits.

Yes, this product is different from the norm, there's no need to get
involved in some of the more procedural and time-consuming nightmares
for starters. That's one reason why there are fewer menu items and
pushbuttons. You don't actually need or want all that clutter do you?

You need to have the things that you actually use available. Imo, so
far, your product is missing them.

Who really wants a button for resistor and a button for a capacitor
and a button for an inductor and a button for an NPN and a button for
a MOSFET etc.?

I do, as do many others. Quick access to the common components is great.
You obviously don't spend 40 hours a day actually using these tools.
Those of us that do, actually use these features.

Designers I know think in terms of placing a 10K MF25
on the collector of a ZTX653 if that's what they've got in mind to do.

PCB designers might well do, but never the circuit designer. You need to
understand that it is the circuit designer *not* a PCB tech that usually
draws the schematic in many, if not all cases. The schematic is drawn
from a design point of view. The circuit designer then passes on the
schematic to the layout dude. The circuit designer don't care in much
detail about what actual physical part is being used until later.

You need to understand that it can be several months of circuit design
before the schematic is ready for layout. This schematic drawing is all
done by a design engineer, so that's who the schematic capture must be
targeted for in ease of use. Who do you think has most input in the
purchase of EDA software tools. A PCB tech, or a design engineer?

In Performance EDA you just do a quick find on 'ZTX' and every ZTX is
shown. OK, drag it onto the schematic. Done! There's no need to name
it, select a footprint, remember if it's an NPN or a PNP, give it a
reference or wonder what gain it has or it's Ic or Vcbo. It's all done
for you in a way that lets you concentrate on important design time
issues without needing to refer to manuals or datasheets. Again, enter
10K in the find dialog, every 10K resistor is shown.

Nope its far simpler to simply place a resistor from a toolbar button.
Why search for it at all. Most parts of a design will use the *same*
resistor type. All the user wants to do is manually set its value.

Again, the schematic capture, imo, needs to address the circuit designer
wants, because overwhelmingly, that is who is going to be using the
scematic capture part of the tool.

Drag an MF25 onto
the schematic. Done! Oops, forgot, I think I need a 14K resistor.
Select the resistor, right click on it and select Replace... Up pops a
dialog with every MF25 resistor. 10K is selected but there's no 14K
resistor shown because its not part of that series. OK, select 13K or
15K and close the dialog. No errors and no mistakes. In the meantime,
the electrical rules checker, (because it works in real-time on every
operation) is showing you that some passive pins have been left
unconnected. OK, better connect these components together and move on.
It's that easy!


So overall, the criticism of the help system and lack of rubber-banded
wires are the only real issues that have come up so far. These can
easily be addressed before the next release. Neither are showstoppers
for a first beta test release IMHO. Someone did find a real bug with
the escape key in the schematic editor for which there is a simple
workaround.

So how do I convince you to buy this product? By providing you with
the tools that make it easier for you to do your job. By making it
less of a manual process to design on a daily basis. By removing error
prone procedures from the stages of design capture, board layout and
manufacture.
Finally, but not stitching you up with add on's or charge
per pin.

Sure, you can pick holes in it today. But you can also do that with
ANY EDA product that's out there. What I'm expecting in the feedback I
get right now, which I have been getting, is a feeling for what
stopping me answering your question. So far the feedback has been very
helpful.

You haven't answered the questions yet.

How do I edit an existing symbol?
How do I view a net name?

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

 

[Don Prescott]

The price will be Ł350 (inc VAT for UK and Europe) for the
full-unlimited product with every feature enabled.

So, it's going to be at the upper end of the low-price products. I
think you'll have a tough time selling it at this price. AutoTRAX
tried this price and gave up 'cos there was no takers. Companies are
unlikely to buy it, your only hope is the hobbyist market and they
expect the whole shooting match for Ł50 max...

It was mentioned that it's not clear how to see and change name nets
(which you can do). In my view nets should be a thing of the past.

Nets are a thing of the past egh....Mmmm, how do you handle net
classes then..?

So how do I convince you to buy this product? By providing you with
the tools that make it easier for you to do your job.

How exactly does your Ł350 set of tools make it any easier than say my
Ł350 Easy-PC set of tools..? Thems the questions you need to ask
yourself

By making it less of a manual process to design on a daily basis.
By removing error prone procedures from the stages of design capture, board > layout and manufacture.

Again, vague generalities. How does your product make it less of a
manual process? What error prone proceedures are you removing from
design capture, board layout and manufacture...?

You're trying to get into a tough marketplace here. Marketing 101:
Nobody's going to come and buy your product 'cos you're super
enthusiatic about it. It's gotta have features that similarly priced
products don't have. From what I've seen Performance EDA doesn't have
em... OK, tell me I'm wrong....

Don Prescott

 

[Simon Clark]

1. Yes, boards HAVE been manufactured using Performance EDA. Two of
the sample projects that come with the beta software are examples.

2. I explained in a previous thread how to set net names. My point is
that you don't need to know about nets if you don't want to. That's
all.

3. No, there is no menu item in the current release to open up the
symbol editor based on the current selection.

 

[Simon Clark]

em... OK, tell me I'm wrong....

Certainly not. Your input has been very fair and objective and has
given me much to consider as I prepare for the next release.

Thanks, it very much appreciated.

 

[John Jardine]

Kevin Aylward <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lSy5c.30$mF3.2@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...

Simon Clark wrote:
The price will be Ł350 (inc VAT for UK and Europe) for the
full-unlimited product with every feature enabled.
Simon Clark wrote:
The price will be Ł350 (inc VAT for UK and Europe) for the
full-unlimited product with every feature enabled.

[clip novel discussion with PCB programme writer who supports his initial

posting ]

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.


True!.

These things need programming from a designers perspective. The problems
I've come across with numerous PCB packages are ones that can only be
elucidated by adopting a mindset of the programmer who wrote the thing.
The key element is "programmer" not "designer". 2 radically different ways
of thinking. A programmer who hasn't spent time designing and building
electronics *cannot* offer a 'must have' PCB CAD programme (no matter what
price it finally sells out for).
Programmers seem to assume a circuit diagram (schematic) is just a 2D
netlist, a means to an end, a minor path through to the real and meaty part
of the PCB programme. The designer OTOH assumes the opposite and draws the
circuit as if a piece of art. The nearer the prog' can match the facility of
drawing on the back of a proverbial fag packet then the better. A designer
draws a unique collection of symbolic shapes, component values and their
interconnections. It's the end result of much blood sweat and tears. The
drawing side of the prog' must be upto the designers needs.
And also ... the PCB side ain't worth a rat's testicle, if you can't just
switch it on and knock up a simple single sided board using a few wire
links, in five minutes flat.

'Bout time Kev, that you started thinking in this direction. You've a foot
in both camps and know the level of flak the existing prog's catch. There's
even a good Spice module ready and waiting.
(I'll bet though, you've already given it serious thought
regards
john

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Simon Clark wrote:

1. Yes, boards HAVE been manufactured using Performance EDA. Two of
the sample projects that come with the beta software are examples.

Maybe, but we don't belive you. You need to accept hat anyone testing
your software with a view to buy wants to *test* it. What part of "test"
do you have trouble with?

2. I explained in a previous thread how to set net names.

You did not explain how to view names that had not be manually set with
a label. Again, how do you do this?

I also missed noting another failure to answer a question. I added a
part to an existing schematic, the net list did not show the update. How
do you actual go "create netlist"?

My point is
that you don't need to know about nets if you don't want to.

You always want to. There is not a chance in hell that no one wants to
look at the traces on the pcb and correlate them with the schematic
nets. The net name is a key design feature. It is absolutely
indispensable.

Again, how do you think one is going to easily debug (scope probe) the
pcb if a trace isn't identified on the schematic?

That's
all.

3. No, there is no menu item in the current release to open up the
symbol editor based on the current selection.

Jesus wept dude. An un editable symbol! Its so apparent that you have
been a software engineer for the last 15 years. Don't get me wrong here,
it does appear that you are a very technically competent software
engineer.

While I agree that many of the issues here are relatively minor from a
software point of view with regarding to fixing them, what they do show
quite clearly is that you have a very limited knowledge of even the most
basic tasks that the product is *required* to do. This makes one very
sceptical that the product can be satisfactory when finished. If you
haven't got the basics right, there is little chance that the 1000's of
other issues will be correct either. Its just a confidence issue.

I could go on...however John Jardine covered one of the key ideas to a
really good product, i.e. the writer is the user of the product by
profession, and only does software in his spare time


Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

 

[Paul Burke]

Don Prescott wrote:

You're trying to get into a tough marketplace here. Marketing 101:
Nobody's going to come and buy your product 'cos you're super
enthusiatic about it. It's gotta have features that similarly priced
products don't have. From what I've seen Performance EDA doesn't have
em... OK, tell me I'm wrong....

Here's a suggestion that I haven't seen implemented in a CAD system- the
integration of design notes with the CAD. And I mean everything from a
hyperlink straight from the schematic to a set of PDFs of, say, the
processor data sheet and appnotes, to a simple text note explaining why
a resistor must be 120k, and right back to the original specification,
notes from customer meetings, and your expense claims.

Paul Burke