******************************************************* Todays forums are sponsored by Ian Martin Limited Engineering/Technical Placement Specialists www.ianmartin.com *******************************************************
At 11:05 PM 10/5/01 +1000, Ian Wilson wrote: I would like to encourage you to name names. Anyone else want to man the rack while I attend to the thumb screws? :-) >Seriously, I see the capabilities of competitive packages very relevant to >this Protel forum. Does anyone else agree that we should name names? The narrow view of this list, with which I do not agree, is that it is exclusively for support issues, i.e., how do I do this? or is this a bug, and is there a workaround? A wider view is that it reflects a full user group, which has, in addition to user support, the encouragement of Protel toward improving the product, and any other matter that would be of interest to users, including social functions. Because serving all of these functions can increase the list traffic such that many users feel impelled to unsubscribe, there has been some movement toward making the Forum a pure support list and moving other traffic elsewhere; the original side-list was Techserv's developer's list, then the yahoogroups lists were started, and then Techserv started the Open Forum, duplicating [EMAIL PROTECTED] However, unless and until we have a system which by default subscribes all new subscribers to a major set of all the lists (some lists exist for special purposes such as archives where general subscription would *not* be appropriate), thus allowing members to *unsubscribe* from what they don't want while still keeping what they want, it is important that this list (Techserv Forum) be somewhat open. Techserv, in the past, has not agreed, but *usually* leaves the list alone.... It is my view that discussing the capabilities of competing CAD systems *is* appropriate, for two reasons. The first is because some subscribers are, as in this case, trial users considering Protel purchase, and the second is that the capabilities of competing systems can point the way to Protel improvements. Few of us would consider leaving Protel entirely even if the magic CAD system that did everything efficiently, for a low price, suddenly appeared, unless the price was *so* low that we simply could not risk doing otherwise. It is highly unlikely that such a system is, in addition, going to be easy enough to learn that we could readily afford to make the change; after all, our investment in training dwarfs the cost of the software (True with Protel, not necessarily true with your very expensive packages, where those costs can be comparable.) Now, I know of only one moderately priced (i.e., comparable to Protel) CAD system that processes and thoroughly checks negative planes, and it is CAMCAD. We have previously described how CAMCAD does this, it is not a simple task (I think the CAMCAD approach is essentially to run a flood router on the plane). In the long run, such checking is essential; negative plane checking is a major hole in our DRC. There may be others. $400 per year is not CAMCAD, I don't think; that cost level is perhaps one-third to one-half of Protel's cost in the long run. It is low enough that I might buy a license just to play with it. There are also other factors in choosing a CAD system, including the availability of design services using the system or of trained designers available to work with it, as well as available support. Until the cost gets really large, usually the other factors outweigh the cost, for professional use. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Abdulrahman Lomax Easthampton, Massachusetts USA * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
