Orcad Pspice purchase

On 1/20/2021 7:29 PM, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund wrote:


I assume *a* client/customer is tied to OrCAD's products.  Purchasing
their PSPICE will only scratch *that* itch -- any future customers may
end up having other EDA tool choices.

What I found worked for me was to pitch the customer to purchase any
tools that I would need and let me use them for the duration of the
project(s).  My argument:  if *I* buy the tool, I'm just going to
pass some/all of the cost on to you, regardless; and, when I'm done,
you will be left WITHOUT the tool for your future needs!

Or, let me use tools that *I* already have and you figure out how to
adapt to them.

You still end up taking a hit as each job can expose you to a
completely different toolchain that ends up affecting your efficiency.
But, you can, otherwise, end up spending a huge piece of change on
a variety of different tools (and their respective "updates") if
you have a varied client base.

On 1/20/2021 11:25 PM, Don Y wrote:






It's weird sometimes what costs clients seem to feel is appropriate to  
pass onto the contractor.

I did a brief interview with a small company who wanted some on-site  
work done and was basically asking me _my_ ideas on how to do this in a  
contract-reduced way and how to keep the other employees safe from me  
and vice versa.

I wasn't offered the job but wouldn't have taken it anyway, I think they  
could sense I was taken aback by this line of questioning. Like you're  
the boss, boss, these logistical questions are your job to have answers  
to, not mine.

On 1/21/2021 9:34 AM, bitrex wrote:






That being said Orcad is a pretty industry-standard tool, having it  
available could probably be part of how a place indirectly evaluates  
whether you're a Real Professional or just a moonlighter.

On 1/21/2021 7:42 AM, bitrex wrote:



That can be said of any (non-low-cost) EDA tool.

What if I'm running version X and they have version Y?
Note that *neither* may be able to handle the files
created by the other (this was true of OrCAD 7 & 9 -- IIRC,
there was *no* 8)?

You have three options:
- mimic the tools of every client you're interested in serving
- let the client sort out how to adapt to YOUR tools
- "no-bid" the job

There are simply too many different toolchains available and
too many incompatible releases.

I've had clients running ComputerVision workstations.  Do
they really expect me to have one on-hand to cater to *their*
needs?

The problem is considerably better when it comes to document
prep and/or Software Engineering as *those* tools are often
much cheaper and less "unique" in their UXs.

One plus-side of all this is it lets you "real world" (vs. some
contrived "demo") evaluate a tool so you know what *you* want
to invest in!

On 1/21/2021 10:04 AM, Don Y wrote:




You're overthinking it they'd just want to evaluate if you're a big  
baller tech man or a penny-pincher who doesn't roll Benz. Contractors  
who are any good (from this perspective) own at least $20,000 worth of  
software, whatever it is, and roll Benz.

On 1/21/2021 10:04 AM, Don Y wrote:




I mean if you can think of a better way to evaluate how good an  
independent contractor is at his job than how much disposable income he  
seems to have I'd love to hear it

On 1/21/2021 8:21 AM, bitrex wrote:


If he has *the* tools (not necessarily THEIR tools) and skillsets
necessary to do the job -- along with recommendations from others
who've previously hired him/her to perform *any* work (even if
not strictly similar to the work being considered).

I'd never designed an autopilot -- before designing an autopilot.

I'd never written a User Manual -- before writing a User Manual.

I'd never designed a CPU -- before designing a CPU.

etc.

One of my earliest employers made it clear how *he* approached
hiring:  "If I want someone to go to work *today*, I hire with
*specific* experience  (do you know how to use tool X, etc.).
But, if I want someone who will be effective *tomorrow* (and
thereafter), I hire someone who knows how to learn (as demonstrated
by evidence of prior learning)"

This approach has served me well, in the past -- as, almost always,
I'm looking to do something that I've not done before AND clients
are trying to do something that they (or, sometimes ANYONE) haven't
done before!  Most projects I've been involved with haven't been
"short term";  if you want someone to layout a board, hire a board-guy.
If you want someone to code a particular algorithm, hire a coder.

You hire me when you want me to make the tradeoffs necessary to
get to a particular end result (when you haven't prematurely
biased the implementation)

On 1/21/2021 10:36 AM, Don Y wrote:





God bless, that's a tough hustle.

Most projects I've been involved with haven't been



Tends to be easier money but not nearly as personally satisfying. I tend  
to get the impression that employers looking for candidates with  
specific tools are looking for that kind of work.

On 1/21/2021 8:45 AM, bitrex wrote:


Not at all!  There are always folks working on new/exciting projects that
aren't just one of an endless line of rehashes of a previous product!

If you want "variety", you're not likely to find it "staying put".

If you want to broaden your experiences and skillsets, dong the same
thing (in different guises) over and over is not likely to work.

I've found the *technical* challenges are almost always easily met.
The tougher issue is understanding the needs of different markets
and consumers.

Your network switch has a bunch of idiot lights that, most of the
time, can be ignored; SOME times they are invaluable!  How would
you examine them if you didn't have eyes?

How would a hotel front desk clerk tell which rooms were occupied,
ready-to-let, in need of housekeeping services, out-of-order, etc.
with the same handicap?  (surely, being able to see shouldn't be
OTHERWISE necessary for that sort of position!)  Would you have to
purchase some sort of special *custom* display in order to accommodate
such a hire (as req'd by ADA)?  Or, is there a BETTER way of conveying
that information that doesn't rely on visual acuity (and can benefit
sighted users as well -- you just never thought beyond the "obvious"
solution)??



Yes.  They need a body at desk number 37.

On 1/21/2021 10:36 AM, Don Y wrote:








I don't have an engineering degree so I tend to do the less glamorous  
type of work but there always seems to be a good deal of it available  
that needs doing. With the short-term projects the client generally  
expect you to have the tools for the particular job or why are you applying.

On 1/21/2021 8:50 AM, bitrex wrote:


Exactly.  They're in a (often TEMPORARY) pinch and want to move on, quickly.

The folks I work with tend to be in a different bind -- limited financial
reserves (i.e., there's no product bringing in cash to fund their work so
time is the enemy in that time tends to correlate with expense).

There, having more than one skillset is a boon; no need to put TWO bodies
on the payroll if one can handle multiple aspects of the design/fabrication.
(what should incur recurring costs "in hardware" -- and, what type of
hardware -- and which should bear those costs up front, in software?  who's
going to write the specification(s)?  validation suites?  documentation?
who do we know who can build the mechanical prototype?  electrical?  etc.)

The problem I most often encounter is extricating myself from the effort
once I've done what *I* wanted to do (yeah, I know there's more to be
done but I didn't sign up for a *career* making product X).  I learned
early on to avoid T&M contracts for exactly this reason (ill-defined task
extents)

On 1/21/2021 10:04 AM, Don Y wrote:




It's not a ComputerVision workstation bro, it's Orcad, if you're in the  
realm of contracting that views that as an essential tool it's like  
being a professional graphic designer and saying you don't own Photoshop.

On 1/21/2021 8:31 AM, bitrex wrote:


OrCAD didn't exist in the mid 80's -- bro.

On 1/21/2021 10:38 AM, Don Y wrote:




Time 2 get out of da 80s

On 1/21/2021 8:40 AM, bitrex wrote:


It was kinda hard to get out of the 80's *in* the 80's!

Don Y wrote:




Well, you eventually managed it, after all.  Just takes patience. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

On 1/21/2021 3:30 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:


"Time limited effort"

On 1/21/2021 1:55 PM, Don Y wrote:




I don't remember the bulk of the decade very well as I was still  
learning to tie my shoelaces in the early part.

There was big hair. My mother told me the Challenger had exploded that  
Jan morning when I was in second grade, I was very sad (can't remember  
exactly why I wasn't at school that day but I don't think they had  
second graders watching launches on TV in any case.) Went to my bedroom  
to investigate by looking at my little Shuttle model I figured it must  
have something to do with the wings, but unfortunately that was the  
correct conclusion for the next accident, not the first.

Ronald Reagan spent a lot of time trying to get us to be super soldiers  
to fight the Soviets and then left us with nothing to do with our skills.

On 1/22/2021 1:26 AM, bitrex wrote:




Not much remarkable about a Space Shuttle from the perspective of a 2nd  
grader at that time, like you have planes that fly in the air and planes  
that fly to outer space, why wouldn't you have outer space-planes.