I upgraded from Tango DOS to Accel Tech PCAD TANGO ( the limited version) V12, circa 1996, and only one copper pour was allowed, which was relaxed in later versions, don't ask me which, it's MUCH too long ago...............................
Lukas
"EDA for Dummies" --->
For comparison, the lowest of the low end. Seems to be popular among the kiddies. Has that Fisher-Price look. Does not come with Play Dough desktop PCB fabrication machine :)
ROFL: "Try DipTrace and you will be surprised! DipTrace is a complete state-of-the-art PCB Design System."
$145 for 500 pins, 2 layer version $595 for unlimited version
On 21 Mar 2006 11:32:13 -0800 in sci.electronics.cad, "Dax" wrote,
Silly, Play-Doh is no good for PCBs. Play-Doh is for making prototype cases. (And it's Hasbro, not FP.
Actually, there's one company that came up with a way to make PCBs using a play-doh like conductive goo. Mill/drill recesses in blank (i.e. no copper) FR4 where you want "traces", squeegie the goo into the recesses, bake so it hardens. Presto! Solderable traces, "plated through" vias, etc, without etching.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find anyone who commercialized the process. It probably would have cost too much for the equipment anyway :-P
I suspect it probably would have done OK, since the costs seem comparable to using an LPKF machine (not at all cheap), and they've been in business for quite some time now. I'd guess the hard part is initially getting the product to market and gaining market share.
Well great job Dax, I hadn't thought of trying the internet "wayback machine". Most everytime I have tried it, they didn't have anything for the sites I was looking for. After any number of unsuccessful tries I sort of gave up ever looking.
So I guess most everything is answered, It was called "...Tango PCB", 6 routing/signal layer limit, 400 components confirmed, more than one pour (I was quite sure I saw two inside the one board I looked at. Although I thought it could have been a split plane or a pour/fill combination).
The real name configuration is closest to what Lukas had suggested with The PCAD and Tango tools both being subproducts of the ACCEL EDA tool family.
-- Sincerely, Brad Velander. "Dax" wrote in message news:1142951307.950271.80080@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > ACCEL Tango PCB vs. ACCEL P-CAD PCB from the old Accel website in 1999: > > http://web.archive.org/web/19990202043848/www.acceltech.com/product_info/accel_eda/atpvsappv13.html > > Nothing about pour limits. Just licensing, components and layers > limits. > > Index page for snooping around the old Accel website using the Internet > Archive Wayback Machine: > > http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.acceltech.com > > Some of the PDF brochure links are active into the archive so the old > sales lit can be viewed. >
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote: : Right......... gimmee the names of some well known companies using gEDA : on serious, mission critcal projects????
Don,
While browsing for something else, I happened to find this company which lists gEDA alongside PADS as one of their preferred tools:
Page down to the "tools" section.
Looks like gEDA is gaining traction in the commercial world.
Stuart
I said "well known companies".................
And gEDA ain't gaining "traction" in the commercial world. OK, tell me some points about gEDA that would attract me to use it instead of one of the standard paid-for products..... And don't tell me it's free. The fact that it's free is paradoxically a deterent to a serious user.
Prescott
I've looked at gEDA as well, and compared to PCAD, which I use, it is near unusable. I'd love to get rid of annual maintenance fees like everyone else, but switching to GEDA will definitely be a step backwards in productivity for me.
OTOH anyone who uses one of these packages for commercial work should not really be concerned about up front cost and maintenance fees and such, IMHO. It's a business expense like anything else, and you amortize the initial purchase cost over a few contracts, and maintenance should really be covered by one medium sized job.
Even a low cost EDA package like Cadsoft's Eagle pretty much blows gEDA out of the water. Their professional package at US$1200 seems to be a vary fair deal. One design job takes care of that....... They don't seem to list maintenance fees, so I can't comment on that, but even at say US$300/year, that cost can easily be covered by one small design job per year.....
That does not mean that I'll never consider switching, but gEDA has a loong ways to go before it'll be mature enough to be considered as a serious contender.
I DO like the concept of course, and wish the developers all the best in their endeavors.
Lukas
Why?
OK check out the specifications at
Lukas
No, I mean why do *you* find it a step backwards? A long list of features that people may not use isn't a realistic target. What do
*you* find useful in PCAD that gEDA doesn't have? I'm not trying to convince you to switch, I'm trying to figure out what's going to be important to work on in gEDA.(and yes, this is as close to real marketing research as gEDA gets ;)
A quick glance shows the following PCAD limits:
The first is a compile-time constant for PCB, you can have as many as you want. The others PCB already exceeds.
(not that I'm saying PCB is *better* than PCAD, just that there are at least a few example specs that PCB is better at).
The points you raise really don't mean much in practice:)
If you want, I can go through the GEDA specs some time and compile a list of features that I perceive as lacking. It'll take me at least a week to get to that though, my workload is pretty heavy at this point. Is there a concise doc somewhere that lists everything, or do I have to hunt?
mmm
Lukas
DJ, Stuart, sci.electronics.cad readers,
Hey, didn't we just do this last week? Darn those time warps! I'd like to make another attempt to answer your questions about gEDA and marketing it. First, I do want to thank the gEDA community for all of the hard work, and to assure all of you that my comments are not meant as put-downs, but suggestions for improvement. Ready? Good!
First, the business essence of software is productivity. There are a few parts to this. First is how long it takes to learn a tool. This is a one-shot cost, but it is part of the cost of software, which means free isn't (free) when you look at the big picture. I would give Eagle a C-, gEDA a D+. What the gEDA community needs to do is to make it easier to learn and use. Not that it is hard, and Stuart's Circuit Cellar articles will help -- even if they are a year old (which I find hard to believe, but I'll take DJ at his word). A specific suggestion is to copy a well know user interface such as either Autocad or Microsoft Draw. Not that I'm in love with either, but it will reduce the learning curve.
Next is the time it takes to do something. This is more a matter of experience, but some tools are just easier to use. For example, the much maligned VB6 is easy to learn and use for GUI's and database applications under Windows. It is not my language of choice for heavy lifting -- I'll use C/C++ for that. The gEDA community should always be asking itself "how can we make doing simple jobs easy, and difficult jobs not so hard."
The final aspect to productivity is feature set. After all, if it can't do the job it isn't productive. This is a marketing question more than technical or usability. My sense is that gEDA should aim for the market sweet spot which I suppose is something like:
To re-cap, gEDA needs to be more productive, which means easier to learn/use with a common and consistent user interface, moderate feature set.
On to a few other issues. Top of this list is W I N D O W S version!!! I'm not a great fan of Windows, but it is on over 85% of technical desktops. This is a market ripe for the picking. You will need that familiar/consistent U.I. and a setup program along with (my words) "gEDA for Dummies". This is a lot of work, but who says you have to give it away. If you can make the Windows user more productive with gEDA than Eagle, then charge for it, or for support.
Finally, work with someone to get a Knoppix (or other Linux LiveCD) to include the full gEDA suite. Again, more work.
Gee, I started out to write a few sentences and look what happened! Kind of like software isn't it (it never ends, especially if the users find it useful).
Good luck, and for me it is back to Eagle to get some cards designed.
Regards, Dave
Nor do bullet lists on corporate web pages, which makes it hard for us developers to know what people would really benefit from.
Heh. Documentation is *high* on our list of things to improve. At the moment, the best bet is to read the various tutorials to get a feel for the workflow; Circuit Cellar has published one of a two-part article on the workflow; there's online tutorials as well.
No rush, of course!
IMHO the best way to "learn" gEDA is to pick a small project that isn't time-constrained and try using gEDA to accomplish it.
A few other factors that will influence market penetration for "newcomers" like gEDA.
The larger EDA compnaies sell their product on teh golf course and dining & wining at corporate level.
They attend trade shows, advertise etc., so mainatain a high visibilitty and thus credibility to teh corporate muck a mucks.
They provide instant phone based tech support
The list can go on and on.
Without real financial backing for proper marketing, any new package may as well resign itself to servicing hobbyist and micro to small scale commercial users.
If you read the trade rags, you'll see that EDA revenues have been pretty disappointing lately in general. Most of the players are offering deep discounts to attract new users, cuttign even more into their potential revenue. I imagine that most of them rely on annual maintenance/subscriptions as their main source of revenue these days. It will be extremely difficult for a new player to siphon some of that business away without at least SOME pretensions of being a real company that can provide critical support on demand, and has some staying power.
The only real new recent player I'm aware of is probably Pulsonix, and I have absolutely no idea how well theyr'e doing financially.
My 2 cents,
Lukas
Yeah. My participation is partly a "what should we work on" and partly a campaign to make sure people (1) don't underestimate what we do have, and (2) be specific about what we don't have. If I can "train" people to provide feedback that helps us make gEDA better, rather than just say "gEDA sucks!", then we won't waste as much time arguing and gEDA would improve.
At the moment, I'm filing all my replies in the "future file". I still have my day job (embedded software tools :) and my wife still wants her projects done too.
Ready!
Publishing cycles, timing of articles to match issue themes, etc. As proof, the examples use the Xaw PCB, but the GTK pcb is almost a year old. Heck, we've already replaced the "old" GTK design with the new HID GTK design!
The PCB HID project (now complete!) made some changes to the way mouse buttons work to improve usability. The lesstif HID is nearly 100% user customizable, so if you like a particular way of doing things, you can set it up that way.
I suspect a good User's Guide would make the most sense for this item, though. The GUI isn't something easily changed, because it's so subjective.
Ok, so now we need feedback about (1) which are the simple jobs that aren't as easy as they could be, and (2) which difficult jobs should be automated most?
Most of our work is based on what we, the developers, feel we need to do our boards. Me, personally, I find the best feedback comes from people who *don't* know what the software's limits are, and just "expect" it to do something. I consider those expectations to be a better guide than reactions to what the tools actually do.
For example, my preference is to put effort into the trace optimizer, because our autorouter isn't that good and hand-routing doesn't always leave pretty results. I'd rather throw down ugly (perhaps drc-failing) traces, and let the optimizer clean it up. I don't want to have to measure track spacing or wade through pages of DRC logs, I want a button that says "Fix everything!".
Yeah, marketing is hard to do when you don't already have people using your software. Hence my requests here.
That's an acronym I'm not familiar with.
One thought we had was for "New layout" to offer a list of templates, pre-populated with the standard connectors, dimensions, etc. Building a PCI card? Pick one of the standard sized PCI card templates.
I assume you mean usability in that range; we have no technical limit.
We have all but the last, and the HID interface lets us do the last with OpenGL if someone takes the time to add it.
Yeah, we know. HID lets us drop in a Windows GUI for the PCB editor. Both gschem and PCB have been ported to windows before (via Cygwin) but a native (minGW perhaps) port would be best. We just need to find someone willing and able to add it.
We've discussed this before too.
Thanks for the feedback!
In addition, the users are just as demanding as ever. "You should fix this!" "You should add this!" It doesn't help when you are working on the tools in your spare time. I hope you can understand my frustration ;-)
See my comments with LL>> inline
LL> Absolutely, you really have to get down and dirty in the trenches with an app before yea can make any real comments.
LL>> Heh no/poor documentation is a real negative if you want to attract user:)
LL>> Time is a problem for me right now, work is coming in at a furious pace.....
LL>> Still can't get to it....
Well, DJ beat me to the punch! I was going to also ask for specifics from Lukas. Thanks, DJ! Getting specific info (instead of generalized grousing) helps the developers know what users want. We are always interested in specific, actionable suggestions & bug reports. We can't do much with general complaints.
Dave Boland wrote: [ ... major snip! .. ] : What the gEDA community needs to do is to make it : easier to learn and use. Not that it is hard, and Stuart's : Circuit Cellar articles will help -- even if they are a year : old (which I find hard to believe, but I'll take DJ at his : word).
Actually, it's true -- I wrote the articles appearing in March & April CC during the spring of 2005. Since they are long, and are meant to run back-to-back, CC had a hard time scheduling them -- hence the delay. In the meantime, PCB has changed considerably. In particular, it got a GTK-based GUI. Then, DJ and company entirely refactored (and rewrote) the code to allow for installation of any arbitrary GUI.
Nonetheless, the articles are still very useful, since the way you drive the software hasn't changed -- only the look of the GUI. The point behind the articles was exactly what you asked for: "GEDA for dummies".
: The final aspect to productivity is feature set. After all, : if it can't do the job it isn't productive. This is a : marketing question more than technical or usability. My : sense is that gEDA should aim for the market sweet spot : which I suppose is something like: : * Cross section of 4S4P
4 routing layers & 4 plane layers? Check.: * Size of double EuroCard (forget these dimensions)
PCB supports unlimited board size.
: * Nodes numbering into 2048, perhaps higher
Check.
: * Schematic capture,
Gschem. Present on gEDA Suite Install CD.
: layout,
PCB. Present on gEDA Suite Install CD.
: spice,
Ngspice, gnucap. Present on gEDA Suite Install CD.
: electrical analysis of stripline/microstrip
Wcalc. Present on gEDA Suite Install CD.
: 3D view of layout.
Well, we don't do this. Kicad does:
Personally, I am skeptical of the utility of this feature, unless you also have a 3D CAD program and are designing a major system. GEDA is useful at the low to mid-level market spot. This means 6U Eurocards, test boards, single boards for instrumentation, 4 or 6 layer embedded computer boards, PC-104 stuff, etc. Nothing offering a major mechanical challenge.
If you are desinging major rack-based systems and have a mechanical engineering team worried about mechanical interferences, you are in a different league. Buy a few seats of Mentor ViewDraw/Expedition and SolidWorks if you're really doing the big stuff. Just MHO.
: Listed these in : order of importance to me. Not a big fan of autorouters.
: To re-cap, gEDA needs to be more productive, which means : easier to learn/use with a common and consistent user : interface, moderate feature set.
Ummm, please download it and give it a try, then let us know what is not easy to learn/use. Again, specific observations are appreciated. We can't do anything with general complaints ("easier to learn/use").
: On to a few other issues. Top of this list is W I N D O W S : version!!! I'm not a great fan of Windows, but it is on : over 85% of technical desktops. This is a market ripe for : the picking. You will need that familiar/consistent U.I. : and a setup program along with (my words) "gEDA for : Dummies". This is a lot of work, but who says you have to : give it away. If you can make the Windows user more : productive with gEDA than Eagle, then charge for it, or for : support.
Unless somebody picks up the ball, this probably won't happen. GEDA is -- and will likely remain -- an open-source/free-software effort. That means that it is produced by volunteers who do it for fun, and because they use the tools themselves for board design/circuit simulation/what4ever. None of the current developers are interested in a Windows port.
As for making money with it, somebody else pointed out that the EDA market is in the doldrums, which I am well aware of since I read EE Times too. Accordingly, I don't see room for yet another commercial low-to-mid level board design suite. GEDA is an open-source project which works quite well, and is gaining traction with folks who are Linux/open-source adept, and appreciate the fact that it is freely available for download at no cost. Since engineers tend to be smart, Linux adept, & able to figure things out, learning to use gEDA should be straightforward and fun for them. That is, Engineers are *exactly* the right audience for an open-source EDA project. OTOH, trying to turn it into yet another commercial product is a non-starter. Just MHO.
Of course, if we got a call from a VC who wanted to fund something, we wouldn't immediately hang up the phone on them . . . . ;-)
: Finally, work with someone to get a Knoppix (or other Linux : LiveCD) to include the full gEDA suite. Again, more work.
See above. I do know that there is some user interest in a Knoppix-style live CD. I am the one who did the install CD with the Python-based install wizard. I am too busy -- and not interested enough -- to spin a live CD. This project awaits a new volunteer. Meanwhile, you can always download the install CD and just install the gEDA Suite on any old Linux box you have laying around. If you don't have any Linux boxes available, and are unwilling to build one, then perhaps gEDA isn't for you anyway. :-)
Stuart
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.