gEDA for Windows?

It's one of my goals to compile the Windows version of some of the gEDA tools, starting with the schematics editor and the pcb layout tool. I'm not part of the core team of developers, but I do contribute some source code to the project, with that goal.

I think there is a good chance. Not only that, I'll be glad to answer Windows-related questions posted here or at the gEDA user mailing list. I expect others would help as well.

Almost possible, I'll say. Much work has already been done, but a few minor user-visible issues remain. I would not wish to make available a Windows version until most of these are solved, it could impact negatively on the reputation of the project as a whole. But it's only a matter of Time.

Very understandable.

That would be great.

I know that feeling...

Regards,

Cesar

So there is hope. That is great to hear.

It may be ok to release something that's not perfect if it clearly says so on the download page. Maybe with some hints as to what might not quite work yet.

Almost every week someone tells me to use Linux and all the crashes and stuff would go away. Then I ask them whether my .NET driven scope would still work. "Umm, probably not."

Incompatibility actually goes as far as Vista. Several of the SW packages I use are almost guaranteed not to work there. At least that's what the mfgs said. Luckily one can still buy XP (done that again about a month ago).

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

That's optimistic anyway -- buggy software has a lot more to do with the guy who programmed it than the particular operating system it's running on. Windows "blue screens" (OS crashes) are about as rare as Linux kernel panics (crashes) these days. (Although when it comes to Vista they made so many changes that you can't really accept Microsoft's claim that it's a "compatible" operating system with XP... :-( )

Have you looked at virtualization software such as VMware? Let's you run Windows and Linux (and other OSes) all side by side on the same box.

According to compatibility notices from several mfgs of software I use it definitely isn't 100% compatible. Which is why I don't use Vista.

I've only heard that it can take a long time to make everything work in the box, virual RS232 over USB and such vital things. But no, I haven't tried yet. Basically Windows does everything I need.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Yes... if you need the virtual computer to control Real Hardware (not just hard drives, your Ethernet card, keyboard/mouse, etc.), you are better off just getting a second machine. For something like gEDA though, a virtual Linux box could work quite well.

BTW, you might find this site useful if you haven't come across it before:

. The KiCAD guys made a smart move in using wxWidgets for their GUI -- it makes it pretty trivial to support releases on multiple platforms. Hmm... I see that Magic is still around for VLSI design... that's cool -- as an undergraduate I remember some people using it. I used John Beetem's Galaxy program in a couple of digital design classes way back when, but it seems to have died when he left the University over a decade ago now.

2nd machine is out, there are already three PCs here and they must run Windows. To be honest I don't know how to roach a virtual Linux box onto a Windows machine.

Quote "To save development time, we will base this version on Eagle and re-use as much Eagle functionality as possible."

Umm, why are they doing this? Wouldn't that be a waste of grant funds since a commercial product already exists? Might as well use Eagle which I do right now. One reason why I want to bail is that Eagle does not support hierarchical sheet structures and Cadsoft does not seem to grasp the need for that. V5 doesn't have it either so I won't upgrade. I guess the Fritzing guys don't understand that either.

If I switch I'd like that to be to something that has a potential to become mainstream here in the US, not Europe. One other problem with Eagle is an utter lack of marketing efforts in the US. In consequence none of my clients has ever heard of it, let alone uses it. Same for my layouter :-(

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

They sound a little naive, IMO. See:

... I'm sure they genuinely think they can address some perceived "need" that no one else, no date, has... and do so before their grant runs out, or at least make enough progress to get it renewed. :-)

Hmm... that is a bit of a tough problem, especially if you're trying to keep the costs down -- it seems U.S.-based EDA tools are almost always noticeably more expensive than their European or pan-Asian counterparts (there's a surprisingly large amount of cool stuff that comes out of Oz and Kiwiland these days... probably China and Japan too if I knew the language...). (This is especially odd when you have trash like ORCAD Capture which is "maintained" in India today -- just where are all those maintenance fees going, anyway?)

I think the first time I saw their ad was in a Nuts & Volts magazine years ago. I wonder if they ever moved up to at least, e.g., Circuit Cellar Ink?

---Joel

Possibly it's about grants, don't know.

Paying for the corporate Lamborghinis maybe :-)

Actually CAD is cheaper here. Always was. When I lived in Europe I bought OrCad here for half of what it cost over there. Even Eagle is cheaper here than in Germany (where it is written!). What I do not understand is why the industry in the US blindly plunks down whatever OrCad costs, a program that is IMHO not nearly as good anymore as it was in the DOS days. It's price has tripled since the early 90's.

I've never seen an Eagle ad in the US. I stumbled upon it by pure coincidence when browsing for a new CAD after OrCad blue-screened on me one too many times.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

CAD programming can be highly complex.

When i wrote my program I had to get into things I hadnt done in 10 years of programming professionally. I had to use factorial arrays for autoplacing. I had to get into some quite deep algorithms for auotrouting. Even clearance checking took some jiggery pokery to get the check down to a sensible time.

What is probably most staggering is the original program was 330,000 lines of Assembler !

Right from the start I had to get involved with a Gerber/Excellon reader to ensure the output from my program was correct as there werent many gerber readers in those days.

Marra, as seems to often happen your response here isn't really related to the discussion and comes off just as an advertisement for your own software.

Neither programming nor designing electronics isn't much fun if you aren't doing new things are a semi-regular basis. :-)

Too bad you haven't shown us any results of your autorouter vs. anyone else's (or even your user's manual...). My experience is that most of the "included with the base package" autorouters produce results that are lousy enough that most people would probably prefer to route by hand. I have seen spendy autorouters that are pretty good (i.e., one who takes the time to master them would definitely save significant time in the long run) -- especially for large digital designs.

---Joel

Joerg:

No of course not. It's just your lasiness.

Marra:

Then tell me how to hardware-control the ICOM R-1500 or the Instek GDS-2204 from a non-Windows platform.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/