PCB design software - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Ash16
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: July 25, 2014, 11:33:28 am
content: what is better for you altium, cadence or pads? and what's the difference when it comes in pricing?thanks

author: Legit-Design
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2014, 11:45:37 am
content: Kicad is the best, it's free and open source. Nothing can beat open source.

author: sleemanj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2014, 11:52:34 am
content: Quote from: Legit-Design on July 25, 2014, 11:45:37 amDipTrace is the best, it has a free version and doesn't have a retarded user interface. Nothing can beat DipTrace

author: f1rmb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2014, 01:33:49 pm
content: Hi,Dave CAD ?I think the one you're used to, and fits your needs, IS the better.Cheers---Daniel

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2014, 09:27:47 pm
content: I'd choose a package which can link to a component database which has partnumbers, stock and PCB footprints. Orcad (Cadence) can spit out an bill-off-materials in Excel with one click. That is a major time saver!

author: akis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2014, 02:38:49 pm
content: Everything I have tried so far has had a retarded user interface except Diptrace. Diptrace also is not perfect, however it is the closest to Windows GUI I have seen. I just cannot cope with having to "enter another world" when confronted with the other packages which must have been written by people living on parallel universes with different laws of physics. On this universe we use a mouse, we expect to left click and interact, right click for popup menu shift click to select , scroll wheel to zoom in/out, left click and hold to drag, you see what I mean?

author: digsys
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 26, 2014, 02:48:07 pm
content: Have a look at Proteus - excellent interface and pricing. I've used it for 20+ yrs

author: PChi
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 26, 2014, 07:38:58 pm
content: I have used PADS and I don't like it. The documentation is poor and the PADS to Gerber file generation I found to be horrible.I have briefly used Altium for drawing schematics. It didn't float my boat.I have never used Cadence.KiCad isn't perfect but it works and if you aren't doing matched impedance traces and fancy stuff it's OK.Ultimately which one you support is a a little like religion.

author: marshallh
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 01:01:17 am
content: Use whichever one works best for your situation.What is your situation? How much can you spend? What level of complexity are you dealing with? Any "gotta have" features like reliable trace length? Does it have to be rock solid or can it crash every few hours?

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 09:14:05 am
content: Quote from: Legit-Design on July 25, 2014, 11:45:37 amIf i had to chose between kicad and a three week dead horse sprayed in skunk , i'd go for the dead horse...-edited- before this ends up in another religious battle...

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 09:16:51 am
content: Quote from: Ash16 on July 25, 2014, 11:33:28 amIt's simple. Use what fits you the best. Allegro is very powerful but difficult to use if you don't do it for a living. Same for mentor (nite : orcad is not truly cadence and pads is not truly mentor... They were borged. The real cadence tool is allegro and mentor is dxdesigner)As for altium. It was used to design both mars rovers and Tesla designs all their electronics with it. I'll take that as a vote of confidence...

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 09:18:30 am
content: Quote from: free_electron on July 27, 2014, 09:14:05 amHorse does not taste too bad. Ask all those who had those yummy instant meals in the EU which were made from it. Bit sweet, and if it was a race horse might be a little toxic as well from the steroids and such used on them. Better tasting than donkey or goat in any case. Was in the butchery a few weeks ago and the game meat was horse, easy to see from the colour and texture. I wanted some Impala though, so got plain beef and some chicken, along with smoked turkey.

author: sleemanj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 09:27:09 am
content: Quote from: free_electron on July 27, 2014, 09:14:05 amYou know you are posting this onAn SMF 2.x Forum (open source)Written in PHP (open source)Running on Apache (open source)With MySQL (open source)On top of some Linux distribution (open source)How is that dead horse smelling?

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 09:32:06 am
content: Modem used on the home or SOHO or enterprise side likely is using open source. Along with pretty much all of the routing along the way and the assorted firewalls and load balancers. Even the server likely is using open source virtualisation somewhere. Reporting and such likely heavily relies on open source tools as a backend.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 09:33:31 am
content: I didn't mean eating the horse (i've eaten horse when i was still in europe. It is sweeter and stringier meat. More gamey) i meant : use a three week dead, skunk sprayed horse to draw pcb's...And to all who want to start a flamewar on kicad :kicad is a horror of a contraption, thrown together by coders who have never designed a board in their life. The user interface is a disaster, you need to assign footprints post schematic, it is glued together from different modules that are not integrated , no back annotation, no integrated libraries no nothing. Technologically it sits somewhere between smartwork and hiwire. Even orcad sdt 3 under dos back in 1989 had more functionality and was easier to use.Last time i checked kicad doesn't even know how to create a power or ground plane, let alone a split plane. That is functionality that pcb tools have had since the 80's...Come on people.. Really ? How can you defend a pcb cad tool that can't even do the basic stuff like assign a pcb footprint in the schematic.-edited- to avoid stranding in another trap...

author: sleemanj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 09:56:25 am
content: Quote from: free_electron on July 27, 2014, 09:33:31 amI agree that kiCad stinks, but it's not because it is open source, it's because it's (interface especially) is badly designed.Closed source software can (and often does) have retarded interfaces and poor feature sets too.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 10:09:20 am
content: Quote from: sleemanj on July 27, 2014, 09:27:09 amSo what if all of that stuff is open source ? It doesn't matter ! I can write posts equally fine if it were made with closed source. By the way , fixed that basic programming error (a mistake that a programmer past kindergarten should no longer be allowed to make) in openssl , that went undiscovered for more than two years, yet ? So far for "it's better because we have the source"... Two years... Really ? Peer review my hiney ...If you wanna go that route : if it weren't for the closed source bios on the motherboard , and the secret closed firmware in the harddisk , that server that runs all the forum code wouldn't even boot.. What about the closed source design files for the processor. (Is it starting to dawn how irellevant these discussions are ? The bios, the drive code, heck even the little code in the chip that scans your keyboard or runs your mouse is closed source. )I admit i made a mistake in my first post. I wrote 'open source'. I should have written 'kicad'. (I edited it now so this doesn't end up in another philisophical or theological quagmire) But i got carried away because of the wording. "Kicad free and open source. Open source is the best." It's not because something is open source , or closed source, that it is, by default, the best.Having the source is irellevant. Having access to a lump of plastic and a stick of metal does not make it a working screwdriver. I need a screwdriver. I don't need access to a factory to build screwdrivers and have no interest in learning how to make screwdrivers, or improve the manufacturing process for them. I have a screw that needs turning, gimme a screwdriver. If you can give me one with a motor so it reduces the effort needed in my part i will take that one.And don't start singing about the benefits of a hammer and a nail...Clear now ?

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 10:35:07 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on July 27, 2014, 10:23:20 amAnd explain how this is relevant to pcb design ?Do you care if your pcb layout tool has hidden functions ?Do you sit there and analyse the code as you are drawing a trace to verify it is following your mousecursor trajectory in the most optimum way and is not wasting time running idle loops ?So in what way is 'having the source' helpful ?Do you really think that average joe shmo (i AM average joe shmoe when it comes to writing code) can fix a bug in the routing algorithm should he find one ?So explain me why having the source to a pcb design program is useful ? I am not a programmer. I can't even read that code , my knowledge of 'c' or 'python' or whatever is a bare minimum and i have no interest to endeavour in that field. And knowing a programming language is not sufficient to understand a routing algorithm, that's a whole different thing.I am tasked with creating a pcb design : Have schematic, need layout. How does the source to the program help me ? I don't see it.What i do care about is : does the program work well, easy to use , automates the tedious things like schematic to pcb link and back annotation. Bom creation, correct gerber output. Automatic creation of power and ground planes, footprint assignment, design rule checks and all thing related to making my life as board designer easier and more productive.If it falls short in any of the board related aspects, even then does having access to the source not help me. I can't write code for the missing functionality anyway. Others may , i don't.Imagine for a second the following scenario: you are put in front of a room with 500 seasoned pcb designers that all have at least 10 years experience with doing layout of boards and are all currently using closed source layout tools. There is a mixture of tools (so e use orcad, some mentor, some allegro, some altium, so e zuken and so on). None of em are programmers.Explain to them the advantage of having the sourcecode to whatever software it is they are currently using.Note that this not a discussion if kicad is better than their current tool, it is a discussion about how having the source is beneficial to these people.The original topic question was : pads, orcad or altium. So adding a statement 'sourcecode is better' is like selling a bycicle to a fish...I agree that kicad may be a welcome tool for a hobbyist who lives on a budget of zero. But not because it is open source.. It's because it doesn't cost anything. If i give the same hobbyist a free tool with much more functionality that is easier to use, watch what will happen...

author: PChi
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 12:19:36 pm
content: I'mm sure this isn't the first time this topic has been raised.There is a Wikipedia page athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_EDA_software.I guess the place to start is to list functions.Based on free_electron's ideasCan the PCB CAD do:-Assign footprints on the schematic (important to some but not to me).Library availability ( I alays do my own library parts)Links to mechanical design software (Not critical for DIY, important for handheld products).Electrical and thermal simulation software (Not been too impressed by what I have seen but could be important)Power Plane (DIY, I have only designed 2 layer PCBs)Split plane.Back annotation (I am happy to sort that out by changing the schematic then top down modify).User Interface (PADS has modeless commands that don't seem to be included in drop down menus).Help information (They can fail to provide much help).CostNumber of layers.Board area restrictions.Rule checking capabilities.Auto route capability.The list goes on.etc.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 05:07:36 pm
content: nice weaseling out of it...i stand firm behind my view of open source. Some of it is good. Some of it is not so good. Most of it is totally useless in its current state.Linux as a server OS : great ! super !Linux as a desktop ? not so good . Inkscape as a Illustrator replacement ? meh .. Gimp as photoshop replacement ? close, but no cigar.Kicad ? Total drab.My "frustration" (for lack of a better word to describe it) comes from the fact that i am used to the professional (for lackof a better word. Call it the advanced tools if you want) tools. Whenever i compare the alternatives from the open source community they are simply not up to par. (and every few months , or years i do play with these tools. heck i love free, as in gratis, stuff too, so if it can replace something that costs money : i'm all ears). I gave inkscape another try last week. it's not up to par to what i am used from illustrator. plain and simple.With the amount of effort and the amount of man hours and developers that sit on Kicad i'd expect that thing to be lightyears ahead of anything else, including the hi-end commercial stuff, out there.It doesn't even know how to do a groud plane.. really ? after how many years ? Orcad under DOS in 1986 could do it already. These things are needed by the PCb designers. base functionality.The problem with that open source stuff is that , while all started with good intent, it is started by people that do not understand the problem they are trying to solve. I'm good at coding , i'm gonna make a board design tool. I've never made a board in my life , don't even know what a tedious job it is to have to hand assign footprints and pull correct BOM's , but i'm going to code for the sake of coding. That is why a lot of the open source stuff is in the state it is in. And then there is the constant forking of things. instead of all working together to create a finished, polished product we end up with clones of clones of half finished stuff.Like i said , not all of it is bad or junk. But when it comes to productivity tools : most of it is just not up to snuff.

author: krish2487
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 07:48:52 pm
content: QuoteThat has never been, nor shall ever be a problem with "open source". That is the fault of the programmer(s). PERIOD.As you yourself have mentioned, being a good coder does not make one adept at designing EDA software. Nor even remotely competent to decide the requirements and specifications for the same.The entire spirit of open source is that you are not dependant on a third party to change a functionality in the program for you.The attitude is that "Hey, my immediate requirement is that this peice of software performs this functions. If I am able to get it to do that then I am satisfied. Maybe there will be others who will want to build on what work I have done to make it better and/or faster. For them, this is the source. Use it as per you liking"You cant code.. too bad.. pay someone to do it.Or start a kickstarter equivalent of software to fund a kicad clean up.... no wait!!! that is what CERN has started out to achieve.Try doing that (customizing, I mean) with a feature of altium that you dont like, or hire someone to do it for you.. or better still get Altium to take you seriously and convert your inputs and suggestions into a patch for altium. Lets see how far you get...Regarding your gripe with the UI of kicad, did you ever consider that it might not be clunky and counter intuitive for others and maybe kicad satisfies their needs just perfectly, or for someone who is just starting out with PCB design it is perfectly intuitive.Again, you are happy with orcad/altium because you have been working with them for a couple decades. If you had started the journey with kicad, would your views be the same?Do not give my hypotheticals like it has no split plane features or matched impedance routing.. they were what you have probablyneededin the course of your work. It is not that orcad in the late 80s had this feature nor that a beginner who is starting out with his first pcb design needs to route matched impedance traces. It is a WIP for the software and a learning curve for the user. ALWAYS.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 27, 2014, 10:08:10 pm
content: Quote from: krish2487 on July 27, 2014, 07:48:52 pmtrue. But the programmers writing closed source are up to the job apparently. they hire the ones that know how to do it.Quotenot true. i am not a coder. using open source for me does not alter my dependency on a programmer to alter functionality. my guess is 90% of the worlds computer users are not coders , have never written a program , let a lone something like an excel macro. We have NO interest in programming. we want to DO something , with the least amount of effort possible.Quotegladly. Great attitude : "look at me i'm a coder, i understand the source". great, thank you , can we move on now ? i need a pcb at the end of the day. 4 layers , one ground plane , one split power plane and a full bill of material with order codes.QuoteBig round of applause ! And we're off.. eh ... nowhere ...They quickly found out how much effort it costs, how scarce the programmers with the right know-how are, and how much 'money' the cheapskates are willing to pitch in... zilch , nothing ,zero , nada. They got enough money for what ? paying their programmers for three days ?so that avenue is closed as well... developing code based on goodwill and charity doesn't work. people need money to live. We're not all skinny, pasty looking, nerds that live in a cellar surviving off volt cola and twinkies. the people of CERN stated that clearly up front : we need funding or it ain't gonna happen.QuoteAll serious cad tools these days have scripting languages. just write a script to do it. no need to delve into tons and tons of code and figure out how those guts work. simply write the missing bit. Or , suggest stuff on the manufacturers user forum. if enough people vote for it it will get implemented. no problem. All serious pcb tool makers listen.Quoteit's not just the UI. it is the lack of basic functionality.- no planes.- no split planes.- no library that contains a link to a pcb footprint- no storage for BOM information- make schematic in tool x , apply footprints in tool y , place and route in tool z. it is cumbersome , annoying and a waste of time to do this stuff over and over for every single project. this is a massive waste of time and counterproductive.QuoteIf i had never used something with more functionality no. if i used even a very old commercial pcb tool, yes.Heck the first PCB tools were written in fortran on a vax . they were distributed as source for free , and knew how to do planes.Quotethese are not hypotethicals. it is BASE FUNCTIONALITY. not having planes is like having a a simple image drawing tool that does not let you pick a color... come on people, really ?EVERY pcb tool out there , even the very old ones have these concepts as they are base functions.if you are going to omit planes. why not omit via's ? you can use pads ! why do you need tracks where you can set the width ? just draw a bunch of parallel lines until you reach the desired width.here is a couple of non hypotheticals :why do you need rotation capability ? just draw symbols in 4 directions: that is how smartwork did it. you would type DIP 40 600 E. this meant i need a dip , 40 pins , 600 mils row pitch drawn towards the east. north being top of the screen so east meant the pin one was at cursor and the pins would go to the right and then fold over.). worked perfectly fine in its time.why do you need traces at all ? just place dots. that is again how smartwork did it. F1 place small dot , F2 remove small dot , F3 place wide dot , F4 remove small dot , F5 change from wide to small and back. you were drawing on a grid that was 50 mil pitch so you could run exactly 1 trace between ic pins. it worked perfectly fine in it's time.Why do you need a library editor ? just make a textfile using dots and asterisks to draw a symbol. send it through a little script and a symbol comes out. that is how orcad did it ! worked perfectly fine in its time.why do you need an undo function ? just don't make any mistakes. Calma had that problem they were using a digitizing tablet that understood scribbles. problem was, the contacts would go bad and sometimes the tablet understood : move selection to this point. so it would mess up the entire layout. there was no undo. all you could do was restore your last save point. so the users of that system learned to save, and save often.why even bother with having netlists ? let's just wire boards without schematics.While we are on that route ,let's just breadboard the damn thing. Screw those pcb layouts all together , we'll use eyelets and flying wires.At the way they are progressing Kicad 2020 will be a lump of charcoal and wall in some cave.But we are now 2014 ... if you come up with software that still has the stuff like the above (and these were real ! NOT hypothetical !) .Well, prepare to take it in the face... plain and simple.To make matters worse : instead of adding the base capabilities, what do they spend effort on ? making sure the tool can produce fancy 3d renderings. That is completely useless. 3d is only useful if it can mesh with the mechanical world in terms of STEP import / export and editing while in 3D ( things like body placement, spatial collision detection, and extraction of reference points to create footprints.) 3D renderings are nice but they are functionally useless to the process of designing a PCB. So massive effort is poured in things that bring no value in terms of functionality.Quotemissing base functionality is not a learning curve.i have used many tools over many years. seen them evolve. Kicad still sits in the dark ages.the ONLY way to pull Kicad out of the dark ages is to put the people writing it in front of a couple (not just one, a couple, as they all have certain strengths and weaknesses) of real layout tools, show them what those can do. but FIRST : sit them next to a person doing PCB layout on a daily basis and analyse the workflow and what is needed.-edit-i just found this gem based off a post here on the forum a few minutes ago :"PCBnew does not allow to place arbitrary vias, that is, I cannot add a via unless I'm drawing a track. This makes it impossible to stitch two ground planes on separate layers together. There are workarounds but they are too cumbersome to use in board designs where a large number of stitches is desired.Judging from PCBnew's manual this is intended behaviour. It should, however, be considered as a misfeature as this is very basic functionality found in practically every other PCB design program." the workaround is annoying and cumbersome and, if you repour the polygons , the via's isolate themselves so they are useless.That one really takes the cake. unbelievable. How can you seriously still defend such a tool and the way it is being developed ?

author: krish2487
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2014, 02:11:59 pm
content: You are missing the point, again. I am not defending Kicad. FWIW, I use Altium at work and I am very comfortable with it. I also use eagle and kicad depending on whether my board is within eagles free limits for personal projects.Why all the three you ask?Just because, as you rightly mentioned, they all have their strengths and weaknesses. I am fairly comfortable with these three packagesand 99.99% of my work what I do, I am abale to achieve with themQuoteThe last I heard, Altium did not give a rats ass about daves (and quite a lot of others on this forum) about a hobbyist version of altium.I dont think they ever will.QuoteI meant that to familiarize yourself with the workflow and UI. Functionality has nothing to do with it.QuoteYou contradict yourself when you say 90% of the world cannot program, or even write an excel macro, but then seem to offer scripting languages as a viable alternative for changes/ features in altium in a later post.QuoteI completely agree.What I am trying to say, is that, most most of the people here(me included) on this forum have great respect for your electronic abilities and your posts and explanations for test gear specifically, are one of their kind and brilliant.Your outright bashing of kicad, however, borders on (for the lack of a better word) vengeful.It might eventually evolve into a half decent EDA tool. give it sometime.

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2014, 02:33:20 pm
content: Diptrace is a no-brainer for an entry to mid-level PCB package. I found Kicad to be unimpressive to say the least. Ditto for Eagle.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2014, 03:16:08 pm
content: Quote from: krish2487 on July 28, 2014, 02:11:59 pmyes inded. why all three. imagine for a second you had a free ( as in zero paid , throw in the source if you want) tool that had the same functionality as Protel 99 ( now 15 years old ) .. yould you still use anything else ?Quotemost likely. and that is why we need the open source community's effort ( whoa what happens now ? free_electron made a turnaround ? wait until later it will become clear.. )Quotedon't confuse being able to write a 20 line script in basic to make a spiral inductor (for which i had to 'steal' the algorithm, i don't know the maths how to do that) with being able to code that in c , drop it inside the source tree, assign a button and a user interface to it so it sits on the main toolbar. that's a day and nght difference. i found an existing basic script to do that, modded it a bit for my purpose and ran it. tht does not make me a coder !now, awhen it comes to actually fixing a bug inside the codechain . that is several orders of magnitude away ! so for me that sourcecode is useless. if i find a bug i have no clue where to even begin looking in the millions of lines of code.QuoteAnd i agree. it IS vengeful. Vengeful , because after 10 years if messing around by whole armies of coders it is still nowhere near the capabilites of Protel 99se, now a 15 year old program.i'm using protel 99se as the yardstick in what a good hobbyist or entry-level program would be. i would not even include simulation or autorouting or 3d operations. just take the schematic and pcb of protel 99se.it has , 16 layers and 16 planes, mechanical layers, push and shove interactive routing, integrated libraries and can link to a simple excel spreadsheet to store ordering information to generate BOM's automatically. interactive design rule checker, and schematic rules to pcb. it is one integrated program, not a collection of modules glued together with helper scripts.it can do anything even an advanced board designer would need. it would be a dream to have. Imagine all that , for the round sum of 0 dollars. it would blow away any and all competitio.There are , even today, thousands and thousands of Protel 99Se licences still in use. Why ? because even for todays technology it is perfectly useable.So yeah i am vengeful, vengeful because we (as in we the hobbyists) don't have anything even close to that, and for all the wasted time and effort. we're still mucking about with crayola's. I have the greatest respect for the star programmer behind it. writing such a program is not easy. i wouldn't even know where to begin. But at the same time i loathe them , becasue they set out without understanding what it is they need to make. If this was a commercial endeavour they would all have been fired for bad project management and not understanding their intended audience. they code for the sake of coding. and that seems to be the root plague in the open source world.It might eventually evolve into a half decent EDA tool. give it sometime.it's already had 10 years... my patience is very thin now.

author: rob77
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2014, 04:38:52 pm
content: nice reading this threadbtw... are you using guys Eagle ? i'm using it and it works for me... it's a pain in the ass sometimes (often) but still works for me (free edition - i'm not designing anything bigger than the limits of the free edition).

author: krish2487
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2014, 05:05:37 pm
content: QuoteI stand corrected.I have not used protel before and had to actually look up and read up about protel 99 in order to understand what you meant.I admit, kicad seems woefully inadequate now.Dammit free-electron, you ve added one more program to the 3 EDA tools mentioned above.

author: IanJ
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2014, 08:45:38 pm
content: Hi all,One reason I don't/won't use Kicad is because it's open source................Reason: A major open source HTPC app we've used in our home on a daily basis to watch TV, record TV, watch video's, listen to MP3's etc is MEDIAPORTAL. Having been with it for 4 years and through many upgrades etc it's been a NIGHTMARE. As developers come & go bugs go unfixed for years and whilst on the other hand new guys come in the add new functionality. They also continually break the plugin functionality by making fundemental changes and in some cases some of the plugin developers have moved on and nobody picks up the baton. Net result I got SICK OF IT................so unless Kicad really comes through with game changing all-round great functionality then I won't be touching it.I'd rather pay for my software knowing there's a whole company behind it to fix anything that breaks etc.Ian.Mediaportal -http://www.team-mediaportal.com/

author: davorin
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2014, 08:57:40 pm
content: Speaking of media players...I switched from Popcorn Hour to Geexbox....although Popcorn is a commercial product...but instead of fixing bugs with a current device they we're just occupied with releasing new devices....which would have other bugs they eventually never will be fixed (o;I rather stay with an open source media player...and if it works....never touch a running system :-)Personally I worked with several PCB products....starting with OrCad Schematics/PCB, then Zukken, over to PowerPCB which became PADSm a little of Zukken, the famous Eagle, and ended up with DipTrace, as I can run it on OSX, Windows and OSX, with the same license...Well..have to admit I got the non-commercial full version with 40% discount (o;Only thing I miss is high-speed, especially nowadays where HDMI and PCIe devices become more and more affordable...

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2014, 10:25:18 pm
content: Quote from: krish2487 on July 28, 2014, 05:05:37 pmglad i could help add to the confusionSo now you understand what i use as a yardstick you also understand why i resent Kicad and am 'vengeful' against it. Protel 99SE is now 15 years old. We've had all these years of active development on Kicad and it can't even do the base things OrCad under DOS back in 1988 already could do. Fast forward to a 15 year old tool and it falls behind woefully.. So excuse me if i get really grumpy if someone mentions KiCad...i need to take another look at gEDA. Maybe that is more up to par. i don't knowIt is the ancestor of Altium Designer (Autotrax-> Protel SCH / Protel PCB -> Protel95 -> Protel99 -> Protel 99SE -> Protel DXP -> ALtium DXP2004 -> Altium 6 -> Altium Summer -> Altium Designer .... )

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2014, 01:12:10 am
content: Quote from: rob77 on July 28, 2014, 04:38:52 pmWorks great for this hobbyist and since it's the de facto standard for OSH so it's easy to find information or component libraries. I tried Diptrace and Kicad but they did not work for me as well (stability, component libraries, etc)Not sure how adequate it is for serious professional use though.

author: photon
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2014, 01:39:11 am
content: Quote from: rob77 on July 28, 2014, 04:38:52 pmTo pick up on the comment about scripting languages, I think it is a nice solution to the open/closed source problem. EDA tool vendors have been embedding scripting languages for about 10 years now and it has improved their tools substantially. I'm thinking about Synopsys DC and PT which I know about. Here the C code is gigantic and is only released at most twice a year (the test suite must take 3 months to run to completion:) However, a script can be written in and hour an emailed to a customer. After a while there is a huge body of interesting and useful scripts that the vendor can share.It's interesting that the first programmer to embed a scripting language in a tool (that I know of, please correct) is Richard Stallman, the father of open source. The tool is his Emacs editor.