pad2pad vs better layout tools

I think you should change your email address to snipped-for-privacy@nigeria.con

martin

wtf?

:)

Your initial post does look a bit like a (thinly disguised) advert, that we get here all the time. You know: "I was surfing the net one day and came across this amazing new site...."

Anyway, Eagle seems to be the usual recommendation, so why not try that?

--

John Devereux

This is the big "why not":

**The Downside of EAGLE (DRM)** by Markus Zingg *-*-website+reuse+paying.*+*-I-will-switch+cracked-*+*.would.not.help.*+zzz+after-*-*-version-*+copied+*.*.unlock.*.designs+*-*-*-*-exchange-*-*-*-*-third-party+reused+qq+*-*-single-bit-*-*-*-*+useless+*-*-*-projects-could-no-longer-be-opened

*-*-website+reuse+paying.*+*-I-will-switch+cracked-*+*.would.not.help.*+zzz+after-*-*-version-*+copied+*.*.unlock.*.designs+*-*-*-*-exchange-*-*-*-*-third-party+reused+qq+*-*-single-bit-*-*-*-*+useless+*-*-*-projects-could-no-longer-be-opened

Yes, that's pretty evil. Forgot about that.

Geda/PCB then.

--

John Devereux

Ahhh. No this is a legit inquiry. I've got a project where I'll be doing a run of about 300 small PCB's, with more possible projects like that in the future. I like the P2P interface, but I don't want to be married to it because of the production costs. Thats why I'm looking for something else.

Usually, I'm thinking, when a new CAD package is developed, they borrow good ideas from existing, probably more expensive, packages. I'm just wondering if the P2P software resembles something commercial so I can just go and buy the real deal, and get the initial outlay over with, rather than pay out the nose over time.

Thanks for the clarification.

- Paul

I have not used pad2pad, but had a quick peek at the web site.

My main comment is that it does not do schematic capture (where the initial "rats nest" of connections is automatically generated from the schematic).

This might be OK for your needs (small boards), and will simplify the learning curve on any new software.

I know of the free software "PCB" for linux, that can be used like this.

I use "vutrax" for windows and linux, this can be used like this too. It is free for small PCBs. It has a steep learning curve but perhaps not too bad if you are not doing schematic capture.

--

John Devereux

PCB can be used either with a netlist-based rats nest, or standalone. It allows you to create the rats nest one connection at a time, pin to pin, then autoroute it.

Me, I always use it with gschem.

It sounds like you are seeking an identical *Look and Feel*. Let me disabuse you of this notion right now.

My experience with software has been that the reason developers start projects of which there are already exemplars is because they have BETTER ideas.

*Copying* someone else's idea is, IME, *not* the norm. Sure, you'll see some *features* that are analogous but *a direct copy* is what gets patent lawyers rabid. *Look and feel* is usually the FIRST thing that gets personalized.

This goes to something that bugs me about the way *using a computer* is taught: Specific applications from a specific vendor are taught instead of the highly portable notion of *concepts*.

In short, expect a learning curve if you are switching apps.

If you are looking for the lowest chance of getting the carpet pulled out from under you,

*open source software* (gratis and libre in the cases I note) has the fewest version/license shenanigans.

gEDA has already been mentioned. ("PCB" is one module of that; DJ is a developer.)

KiCAD is another open source package. (Windoze users generally lean that way.)

Hmm... the OpenOffice guys seem to have avoided that problem. I mean, not everything is identical to MS Office, but the "basic" interface is *nearly* identical.

I think it depends on the company and who's "driving" the design. For new start-ups, I would agree that often the idea is to take one's experience with current tools and provide something even better, but for big companies sometimes the design is driven largely by a rather uncreative marketing department that knows nothing better than to just copy their competitors' features more or less directly.

Hmm... actually, I think a lot more individuals are caught off-guard by the "viral" nature of popular open-source licenses than those who end up being surprised by any of the traditional commercial licenses. The biggest worry I see commercial users of commercial software worrying about is whether or not their supplier is going to go out of business and leave them high and dry, whereas the biggest worries I see commercial users of open source software worrying about is (1) whether they'll be forced to exposure what they consider their intellectual property as soon as they touch an open-source tool and (2) is there any guarantee of support? (Does anyone offer paid gEDA support yet? -- most companies seem to feel much more secure in calling Cadence's support center in India or wherever than they do in posting a question on an open forum and taking their chances...). Note that I'm not suggesting these worries are necessarily well-founded, just that they're out there.

Often with a "From" email address using the same domain name...

*-*-website+reuse+paying.*+*-I-will-switch+cracked-*+*.would.not.help.*+zzz+after-*-*-version-*+copied+*.*.unlock.*.designs+*-*-*-*-exchange-*-*-*-*-third-party+reused+qq+*-*-single-bit-*-*-*-*+useless+*-*-*-projects-could-no-longer-be-opened

Forget about that either.

--
Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Bedrijven en winkels vindt U op www.adresboekje.nl

Thanks for all of the responses, everyone. I'm currently evaluating gEDA and KiCAD. I'm surprised that there were not many recommendations toward the higher dollar CAD suites, but maybe that makes sense due to their inherent complexity.

KiCAD is showing a lot of promise, thanks again!

- Paul

Mr. Heller must be busy this week. 8-)

Although I like to beat up on Leon as much as the next guy :-), Pulsonix is actually relatively inexpensive compared to what most people would consider, "higher-dollar CAD suites" (stuff like ORCAD, Protel, and Altium).

---Joel