| ??? 10/31/07 04:44 Modified: 10/31/07 04:50 Read: times |
#146394 - YMMV Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Joseph Hebert said:
Hi Richard,
I learned on OrCAD SDT, on a 286 machine that was "state of the art," (No snickers please, it was an IBM PS2 Model 50). I've actually "drawn" component symbols with a text editor. (Do you remember drawing the bit maps line by line with '#'s and '.'s?) Yes, I've done it that way, but the LIBEDIT tool makes it much easier. The DOS-OrCAD that's on the Yahoo site is not the old '286-compatible version, though I still like that one. The pcb editor/autorouter requires some experience to drive it to 100% completion, though I disagree about the difficulty of hand routing the last .05%. What's up there is the 386+ version of everything. I used that version once for comparison with the fully paid-up version of bEAGLE. I was able to enter the schematic in about as much time as it took me to build the two schematic symbols I had to make up, which was about half an hour. Of course, it had taken me about a week to enter the schematic in bEAGLE, since their libraries are so poor, and they lack package outlines for most of tha parts I needed to use. What's more, you have to build a package outline (footprint) for each and every part, and can't simply bind the schematic symbol to a standard footprint as you would in a sensible program. It took bEAGLE nearly two weeks to route the board, and then took me another ten days' full time work to fix all the messes it made. OrCAD PCB386+ took about 30 minutes to route the entire board, using 2 layers fewer than what bEAGLE demanded, though I used essentially, (within .01" in all cases) the same parts placement. I did have to edit a couple of things, taking about 15 minutes. Back annotation was, of course, automatic, and was reflected in the schematic right away. I normally don't route my own boards, but do it sometimes just for practice. And I remember exporting to TANGO PCB to edit my PWB layout. I tried using that fancy-shmancy newfangled autorouter. It would do about 90% - 95% of the work, in about 15 to 30 minutes if memory serves. Then it would quit. The problem was alway that the last 5% - 10% took hours to do by hand. It was actually faster to do it all by hand, right from scratch. Yes, the original PCB was a mite weak. By the time PCB-II was out, many of the problems were mitigated, though not entirely fixed. the '386+ version is much better. This isn't about the router, though. In this context, it needn't exist. The subject is the schematic capture package, and I've encountered none better ... anywhere ... under ANY OS. Then I bought my Protel 99SE. I do not recommend any of the high-dollar packages to or for anyone. Nonetheless, the first board I did with it was a redo of one I had done by hand. It took me between 4 and 6 hours over two days to do by hand. It took Protel 99SE about 1 minute and 45 seconds to complete. Yep. 100% complete. I'm not saying that it could do any board to 100% complete, but it's never failed to do any of mine. Yep, I've got that one around somewhere, too, but it's too slow on the schematic end, and produces ugly schematics, just as most of those Windows-based packages do. They're slow, have sadly inadequate library management, and, even if they cost only $1.00US they're too expensive. The moral of the story is that I understand your affinity for the old school programs. I really do. And I share your disdain for much of this "latest and greatest" stuff. I've already decided that when the day comes that I am forced to accept Vista, when the day comes that Bill Gates tells me that I have no choice but to upgrade to VISTA, I will upgrade to Linux instead. Yes. I really do understand. Gee ... not even the U.S. Government is ready to accept Vista, since all its security features have an SPA-accessible back door just to make sure all your software is "legit." That said, trust me when I tell you that you couldn't pay me to do a board with the old software again. You simply don't have enough money. It doesn't matter how much money you have, because there isn't that much money. Well, I feel the same way about most Windows-based schematic programs. I'm grateful that I can use the DOS-OrCAD schematic package with the v15 OrCAD Unison suite for Windows, as it can import from the DOS-OrCAD software and then run Allegro and PSpice, both of which I find quite useable. I don't publish from the Windows schematic package, though, as the drawings still look amateurish. Joe I guess the most significant thing is that it won't cost anyone anything to give the DOS-OrCAD suite a try, since it doesn't cost anything yet is not limited in any way. RE |
