Software for Schematic, PWB, and Spice?

[Guy Macon]

Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net> says...

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:14:39 -0800, Guy Macon wrote:

Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net> says...

Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:

System details: Compaq Proliant 5500R with quad Pentium Pro
processors (200Mhz, 1MB cache each) and 3GB of RAM. OS I
installed it on is Windows NT 4.0 SP6a with all of the latest
patches. (After I get it running in NT I plan on trying it
under WINE in Slackware Linux.)

I wouldn't buy a Compaq after what I learnt this weekend.
I'll post that OT in another thread.

I wouldn't buy anything they make today, but old Compaq
computers are real workhorses that will outlast lesser PCs.

Well, the speed tells me it's older than mine. I didn't know NT
could handle 4 MPUs, though. I thought it was limited to 2.

NT Workstation is limited to 2. NT Server handles 4.


--
Guy Macon, Electronics Engineer & Project Manager for hire.
Remember Doc Brown from the _Back to the Future_ movies? Do you
have an "impossible" engineering project that only someone like
Doc Brown can solve? My resume is at http://www.guymacon.com/

 

[Mat Nieuwenhoven]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 19:10:29 -0800, Peter Bennett wrote:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 21:22:39 +0100 (CET), "Mat Nieuwenhoven"
mnieuw@dontincludethis.zap.a2000.nl> wrote:


I use Eagle for both schematic and board, and it fullfills my humble needs.
For non-commericial use, there is a restricted version for free.
I think the quality of the component libraries that come with anything you
choose is very important, otherwise you'll spend quite some time making
'real-world' components.

Mat Nieuwenhoven


Conversely, I think the quality of the supplied libraries is fairly
unimportant, but the library editors _must_ be easy to use.

I've used various versions of Protel for many years, and I _still_
find that I generally have to make new schematic or PCB parts for
almost every job I do. There are so many different ICs available that
you just can't expect any CAD maker to cover them all in their
libraries (and when I use Altera FPGAs, I would want to make my own
schematic symbols, even if Protel provided a "generic" symbol for the
part - my symbols will have the pins labelled to suit my application,
not just as "I/O123", or somesuch.)

I agree about the ability to easily add/change library parts. But it should
come with all standard ICs, housings, lots of connectors etc. to start with.

73, Mat Nieuwenhoven PA0MNU

 

[JeffM]

I reckon that's now fixed. Look OK to you?
Terry Pinnell

That's better.

 

[Active8]

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:50:51 +0100, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net
wrote (in <1g43a72gimkyf.dlg@news.individual.net&gt about 'Software for
Schematic, PWB, and Spice?', on Tue, 30 Mar 2004:
I'd suggest that First Year Student get with some upperclassmen and
find out WTF software he will be required to purchase for his
courses and get it ahead of time so he can become familiar with it.

It'll be out of date by the time he's an upperclassman. (;-)

Lest he take that seriously, I think if they use Matcad this year,
for example, they'll be using it when and if he gets there. At worst
he'll need to upgrade, but I doubt it. Also, he can get the student
discount if it isn't already floating around campus freely or freely
floating around campus, take yer pick.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[@com.aol(reverse)]

Reg Edwards wrote:

Why did the great American people attach so much importance to president
Clinton's little white lies about harmless sex with his secretary during
working hours?

I have no idea what it has to do with the capture software, but what the
hell, I'll try to answer that.

First, I think many people just had a moral problem with it. Simply put,
you really shouldn't cheat on your wife. The person of the President is
obviously a role model who can realistically expect to be held to high
moral standards, particularly when he publicly embraces his religion.

Second, it showed lack of judgment. It was frankly stupid to pick an
indiscreet 22 year old intern with which to have an affair. Kennedy at
least slept with mature women who could be counted on to keep their
mouths shut. A president should not be foolish enough to put himself
into compromising situations that have the possibility of turning into
vast embarrassments, as this one eventually did.

Third, we'd been through this before with Bill, in (IIRC) the Gennifer
Flowers debacle. We thought we had a deal, something along the lines of
"we'll let this one go, but no more scandals - from now on you keep your
fly zipped, OK?"

But mostly, I think it was the lying under oath. It's important to
remember that when Clinton leaned into the camera and uttered those now
famous words "I did NOT have sex with that woman" he was effectively in
court, testifying under oath in a criminal trial related to sexual
harassment charges dating to his days as governor of Arkansas.

Purgery in a criminal suit is not a trivial matter. Particularly when an
elected official is on the stand.

The pundits were eager to dismiss it, but many people in America,
frankly, are tired of being lied to by politicians and are on a slow
boil about it. I think I speak for many when I say what pushed me,
personally, over the edge was the televised image of the President
feigning righteous indignation, directing his response straight to me
.... and lying out his ass.

- Steve

 

[Kevin Aylward]

@com.aol(reverse)" <""sswitaj\"@com.aol(reverse) wrote:

Reg Edwards wrote:
Why did the great American people attach so much importance to
president Clinton's little white lies about harmless sex with his
secretary during working hours?

I have no idea what it has to do with the capture software, but what
the hell, I'll try to answer that.

First, I think many people just had a moral problem with it. Simply
put, you really shouldn't cheat on your wife.

Agreed, but probably 50%+ do, as do the wives.

The person of the
President is obviously a role model who can realistically expect to
be held to high moral standards,

ROTFLMAO

Nope. Only the naive might believe twaddle like this.

particularly when he publicly
embraces his religion.

*All* religious people are hypocrites, so nothing new here.

Second, it showed lack of judgment. It was frankly stupid to pick an
indiscreet 22 year old intern with which to have an affair. Kennedy at
least slept with mature women who could be counted on to keep their
mouths shut. A president should not be foolish enough to put himself
into compromising situations that have the possibility of turning into
vast embarrassments, as this one eventually did.

Agreed. What a twat he was.

Third, we'd been through this before with Bill, in (IIRC) the Gennifer
Flowers debacle. We thought we had a deal, something along the lines
of "we'll let this one go, but no more scandals - from now on you
keep your fly zipped, OK?"

But mostly, I think it was the lying under oath.

Ahmmm...

It's important to
remember that when Clinton leaned into the camera and uttered those
now famous words "I did NOT have sex with that woman" he was
effectively in court, testifying under oath in a criminal trial
related to sexual harassment charges dating to his days as governor
of Arkansas.

I believe that the legal rational for this was that, arguably, "sexual
relations" meant normal sexual intercourse, in which case it would not
have technically been a lie.

Purgery in a criminal suit is not a trivial matter. Particularly when
an elected official is on the stand.

Unless the criminal case is about alleged rapes and so forth, a criminal
court has no business whatsoever in obtaining private and personal
information of this nature, whoever it is. The fact that something is
criminal, dose not make it "morally" correct. For example, both drug
laws and prostitution laws are, essentially, victimless "crimes". They
should not be crimes, so lying about such matters is perfectly justified
in my book.

The pundits were eager to dismiss it,

Indeed, as am I.

but many people in America,

frankly, are tired of being lied to by politicians and are on a slow
boil about it.

Show me a person who says he never lies, and I will show you a liar. If
you can show me a better case which one is more likely to lie then when
one wants to hide the fact that one is cheating on ones wife, I'd like
to know.

I think I speak for many when I say what pushed me,
personally, over the edge was the televised image of the President
feigning righteous indignation, directing his response straight to me
... and lying out his ass.

This is nothing new. All politicians lie as soon as their lips move, so
there is simply nothing of any new relevance on this particular case.
The only difference is that the lie was discovered.

You can argue until your blue in the face as to what things should be,
but they aint, and never will be. You can't get elected by telling the
truth. Its that simple.

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.

 

[Leon Heller]

"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote in message
news:L76dnfEK7eKkmPXdRVn-sA@speakeasy.net...

Leon Heller <leon_heller@hotmail.com> says...

The Yahoo Pulsonix Users Group I formed gets very little use, presumably
because the product is very easy to use and has very few bugs.

I just downloaded the Pulsonix demo, and every item in every
pulldown menu consists of the same three random characters.
When I close it and restart it I get a different set of three
random characters.

System details: Compaq Proliant 5500R with quad Pentium Pro
processors (200Mhz, 1MB cache each) and 3GB of RAM. OS I
installed it on is Windows NT 4.0 SP6a with all of the latest
patches. (After I get it running in NT I plan on trying it
under WINE in Slackware Linux.)

Before installing Pulsonix, I installed ExpressPCB, DIA, Vutrax,
Eagle and SwCAD, and they all work fine.

Any suggestions?

Pulsonix has fixed this problem and sent updated DLLs to Guy.

Leon

 

[@com.aol(reverse)]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

The person of the
President is obviously a role model who can realistically expect to
be held to high moral standards,

Nope. Only the naive might believe twaddle like this.

Hey! I'm improving! Usually I get called things like "cynical" and "jaded".

But you're missing the point. Western leaders are expected to *behave*
in a moral way, even if they're not.

When I go home to visit my Mom, I meekly go to church on Sunday. I don't
think for a second that she believes I'm religious or anything, it's
just part of the game.

It's important to
remember that when Clinton leaned into the camera and uttered those
now famous words "I did NOT have sex with that woman"...

I believe that the legal rational for this was that, arguably, "sexual
relations" meant normal sexual intercourse, in which case it would not
have technically been a lie.

Let's try a little experiment about legal rationale and see where it
gets us. Go home tonight and explain to your wife that your young office
assistant spent her afternoon under your desk - but that's OK, it wasn't
sexual - there was no penetration.

I’m thinking most people would consider a hummer from their secretary
some form of “sexual relations”, as the term is commonly used.

And let's not even start with the word "is".

Purgery in a criminal suit is not a trivial matter. Particularly when
an elected official is on the stand.

Unless the criminal case is about alleged rapes and so forth, a criminal
court has no business whatsoever in obtaining private and personal
information ...

But that's the point, he was testifying in relation to "Paula Corbin
Jones vs. William Jefferson Clinton", a 1996 lawsuit dating to his days
as governor where he was accused of sexually harassing/assaulting Jones,
a state secretary.

If you stand accused of assaulting one office worker, a history of
sexual dalliances with your other office workers is certainly germane.

(The Clinton team response to the Jones suit, BTW, was the dumbest piece
of lawering I've ever seen. Rather than quietly settling it and letting
it go away, the Clinton camp dug in for battle, fought every court
action with arguments of executive privilege, and publicly smeared
Jones. All of which only encouraged Jones to keep fighting and keep it
in the public eye for 3 years - long enough to let it get wrapped up in
the Whitewater investigations. Dumb)

- Steve Switaj

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that @com.aol(reverse) <""@sswitaj.?>
wrote (in <gPWac.6429$Tx6.1158@fe2.texas.rr.com&gt about 'Software for
Schematic, PWB, and Spice (getting OT)', on Thu, 1 Apr 2004:

(The Clinton team response to the Jones suit, BTW, was the dumbest piece of
lawering I've ever seen. Rather than quietly settling it and letting it go away,
the Clinton camp dug in for battle, fought every court action with arguments of
executive privilege, and publicly smeared Jones. All of which only encouraged
Jones to keep fighting and keep it in the public eye for 3 years - long enough
to let it get wrapped up in the Whitewater investigations. Dumb)

'Dumb' depends on your viewpoint. How much money did the Clinton legal
team make out of it?
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Kevin Aylward]

@com.aol(reverse)" <""sswitaj\"@com.aol(reverse) wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

The person of the
President is obviously a role model who can realistically expect to
be held to high moral standards,

Nope. Only the naive might believe twaddle like this.

Hey! I'm improving! Usually I get called things like "cynical" and
"jaded".

But you're missing the point. Western leaders are expected to *behave*
in a moral way, even if they're not.

And who might such a daft person be by way of example?

Again, what silly twat seriously expects politicians to behave in a
moral way. Get real dude. It aint goanna happen.

When I go home to visit my Mom, I meekly go to church on Sunday.

Oh dear.

I
don't think for a second that she believes I'm religious or anything,
it's just part of the game.

One I dont play anymore. I gave that up at five.

It's important to
remember that when Clinton leaned into the camera and uttered those
now famous words "I did NOT have sex with that woman"...

I believe that the legal rational for this was that, arguably,
"sexual relations" meant normal sexual intercourse, in which case it
would not have technically been a lie.

Let's try a little experiment about legal rationale and see where it
gets us. Go home tonight and explain to your wife that your young
office assistant spent her afternoon under your desk - but that's OK,
it wasn't sexual - there was no penetration.

I’m thinking most people would consider a hummer from their secretary
some form of “sexual relations”, as the term is commonly used.

I am explaining what the legal rational might have been. I was not
making a comment on whether it was an effective one or not. In my view
he would have been better saying "sexual intercourse", although this one
is still debatable. The best would have been, "I didn't fuck that
women". This would have been entirely accurate.

And let's not even start with the word "is".


Purgery in a criminal suit is not a trivial matter. Particularly
when an elected official is on the stand.

Unless the criminal case is about alleged rapes and so forth, a
criminal court has no business whatsoever in obtaining private and
personal information ...

But that's the point, he was testifying in relation to "Paula Corbin
Jones vs. William Jefferson Clinton", a 1996 lawsuit dating to his
days as governor where he was accused of sexually
harassing/assaulting Jones, a state secretary.

If you stand accused of assaulting one office worker, a history of
sexual dalliances with your other office workers is certainly germane.

Nope. Trials must be based on the evidence as it stands to that
particular case. This is fundamental in modern law. Prior history must
be excluded. If this were not the case, the authorities would simply
pick up any 10 times burglar they find, tell the jury, and have him
immediately convicted. Prior history can only have a place in the
sentencing after a conviction.

(The Clinton team response to the Jones suit, BTW, was the dumbest
piece of lawering I've ever seen. Rather than quietly settling it and
letting it go away, the Clinton camp dug in for battle, fought every
court action with arguments of executive privilege, and publicly
smeared Jones. All of which only encouraged Jones to keep fighting
and keep it in the public eye for 3 years - long enough to let it get
wrapped up in the Whitewater investigations. Dumb)

I agree, that Clintons defence was completely wrong. It only goes to
show that no mater what field an "expert" is in, only a few are.

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.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward <kevindotaylwardEXTR
ACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in <QDZac.1121$Ny4.1040@newsfep3-gui.server.nt
li.net&gt about 'Software for Schematic, PWB, and Spice (getting OT)', on
Thu, 1 Apr 2004:

Again, what silly twat seriously expects politicians to behave in a
moral way. Get real dude. It aint goanna happen.

What is astonishing is that they kick over the traces in the assumption
that no-one will find out. This applies to British Conservative
politicians particularly, but by no means only to them.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Dave Cole]

in article VYCac.1762$Tx6.765@fe2.texas.rr.com, @com.aol(reverse) at
""sswitaj"@com.aolreverse"> wrote on 3/31/04 12:11:

Reg Edwards wrote:
Why did the great American people attach so much importance to president
Clinton's little white lies about harmless sex with his secretary during
working hours?

I have no idea what it has to do with the capture software, but what the
hell, I'll try to answer that.

First, I think many people just had a moral problem with it. Simply put,
you really shouldn't cheat on your wife. The person of the President is
obviously a role model who can realistically expect to be held to high
moral standards, particularly when he publicly embraces his religion.

Second, it showed lack of judgment. It was frankly stupid to pick an
indiscreet 22 year old intern with which to have an affair. Kennedy at
least slept with mature women who could be counted on to keep their
mouths shut. A president should not be foolish enough to put himself
into compromising situations that have the possibility of turning into
vast embarrassments, as this one eventually did.

Third, we'd been through this before with Bill, in (IIRC) the Gennifer
Flowers debacle. We thought we had a deal, something along the lines of
"we'll let this one go, but no more scandals - from now on you keep your
fly zipped, OK?"

But mostly, I think it was the lying under oath. It's important to
remember that when Clinton leaned into the camera and uttered those now
famous words "I did NOT have sex with that woman" he was effectively in
court, testifying under oath in a criminal trial related to sexual
harassment charges dating to his days as governor of Arkansas.

Purgery in a criminal suit is not a trivial matter. Particularly when an
elected official is on the stand.

The pundits were eager to dismiss it, but many people in America,
frankly, are tired of being lied to by politicians and are on a slow
boil about it. I think I speak for many when I say what pushed me,
personally, over the edge was the televised image of the President
feigning righteous indignation, directing his response straight to me
... and lying out his ass.

- Steve

Steve,

I don't believe I've ever seen or heard this stated more clearly.
Bravo!
Dave Cole

 

[Leon Heller]

"Leon Heller" <leon_heller@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:406bc3b7$0$3308$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...

"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote in message
news:L76dnfEK7eKkmPXdRVn-sA@speakeasy.net...

Leon Heller <leon_heller@hotmail.com> says...

The Yahoo Pulsonix Users Group I formed gets very little use,
presumably
because the product is very easy to use and has very few bugs.

I just downloaded the Pulsonix demo, and every item in every
pulldown menu consists of the same three random characters.
When I close it and restart it I get a different set of three
random characters.

System details: Compaq Proliant 5500R with quad Pentium Pro
processors (200Mhz, 1MB cache each) and 3GB of RAM. OS I
installed it on is Windows NT 4.0 SP6a with all of the latest
patches. (After I get it running in NT I plan on trying it
under WINE in Slackware Linux.)

Before installing Pulsonix, I installed ExpressPCB, DIA, Vutrax,
Eagle and SwCAD, and they all work fine.

Any suggestions?

Pulsonix has fixed this problem and sent updated DLLs to Guy.

Guy confirmed that the problem has been fixed, in a message posted to the
Pulsonix Users Group:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PulsonixUG/message/254

He was very impressed with the rapid response from Pulsonix.

Leon