Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placement D XP
I apologise to the administrator for implying that this list is not for discussing DXP, of course such topics are not banned and I did not mean it to read like that. I only wished to indicate that this list is no longer necessarily the best place for discussing DXP operational issues. I still think that the response from one of this lists members was uncalled for and extremely unprofessional. If this guy is like this with people he actually meets I would not be surprised if he has trouble keeping jobs for long. You have the logs, so you can tell better than me, but I don't think I've ever noticed a Protel ne Altium employee taking part in discussions on this list using their 'Protel' identity. On the other hand, the DXP forum seems to have much more feedback direct from engineers at Altium. Jason. -Original Message- From: Forum Administrator [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 July 2003 17:49 To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placeme nt D XP For the record, this forum is dedicated to discussion of ALL versions of Protel software as well as EDA design issues and EDA software from other vendors. As for drawing the attention of Altium's engineers, this forum enjoys a large following by members at Protel/Altium. The membership of this forum currently includes 21 protel.com.au subscribers and those span employees from the highest corporate level down through engineering and support. If you are looking for a direct reply from Protel, their own DXP forum is probably the best place but you might find it advantageous to post to both forums as some already do. Regards, Forum Administrator Association of Protel EDA Users [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers At 08:15 AM 7/9/2003, you wrote: Andrew, Seems somebody got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning After reading my post again, in-case I did make a mistake (it has been known on several occasions) I stand by my response, it was correct in every way and written by an experienced, user long term member of both lists. I was in no way rude or abusive to the original author, nor did I cast aspersions on the validity of PEDA, indeed, they are providing better support for Protel 99se and below in a way Protel, pre-Altium never managed (my experience in the UK anyway). I just pointed out you may get a response from people who know more about DXP on a list maintained for DXP users. Posting on the official DXP list will also draw potential problems to the attention of Altium's engineers who own and monitor the DXP list. We all know that DXP is (on the surface at least) very different to 99se, and these questions on how do I. come up all the time. It is very important that Altium are aware of such discussions so that they can put effort into improving the documentation. I think other, (less aggressive) long term users of both lists will agree. Jason. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 July 2003 13:57 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Protel EDA Forum... was RE: [PEDA] adjacent component placement D XP Mr Morgan, Since when is this the Protel 99SE list? For your future information, this is the Protel EDA Forum, as clearly and explicity stated in the footer appended to each and every list message, and kindly maintained by Techserv, Inc for the quasi-public dissemination of issues related to any and all versions of Protel EDA software, including, but not limited to P99SE...AND DXP. I think I speak for a portion of this list (though clearly not all) when I say that I would appreciate it if you would attempt to remember this before spouting off erroneous garbage like the bull sheisa you post below. In any case, I speak for myself. Finally, I want to be clear to Dr Roberts that this is not the exclusive territory of P99SE users, and Dr Roberts is welcome to post queries or otherwise participate in this forum as she likes. As Jason indicated, there is another forum, sponsored by Altium, which is dedicated to DXP, but I feel the need to attempt to un-obfuscate the distinction between these forums. Altium's is one which is a quarantined, corporate sponsored list, with all of the implications that go with that status. Techserv's is an open user's forum for ANY and ALL Protel EDA products, regardless of any ignornat comments made by it's novice or jaded participants. thank you, Andrew Jenkins -Original Message- From: Jason Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 4:46 AM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Firstly you posted to the wrong list, this list is for Protel 99se, and not DXP, there is a separate list for DXP issues, see http://forums.altium.com/cgi-bin/msgbylist.asp?list=dxp To answer your question, its the same as in 99se, you create a component-component clearance rule that uses the same component type
Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placement D XP
I do not believe you for a moment. Your statement could not be read any way other than the way you intended it to be read. And I quote Firstly you posted to the wrong list, this list is for Protel 99se, and not DXP That statement cannot be read any other way than to authoritatively indicate to readers and writers alike that they should not be posting any DXP related topics to this group, thereby doing the work of Altium's executive board is isolating the independent user's group from be able to openly scrutinize the corporate mismanagement of this expensive EDA package. I'll respect the Neo-Eurocratic (or should I say Plutocratic) nature of this group and so leave, as I have realized that it is now thoroughly corrupted by the same old-world scheming values that have caused so much strife there, here, and elsewhere in the world. Your remarks were offensive to the truth, but it is also clear from the response that you are in like company here. As with all things, one must either embrace or avoid company of a particular sort. And in this case, I will no longer attempt diplomacy to embrace this group, as its premise that diplomacy trumps truth is disgusting. aj -Original Message- From: Jason Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 4:58 AM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placement D XP I apologise to the administrator for implying that this list is not for discussing DXP, of course such topics are not banned and I did not mean it to read like that. I only wished to indicate that this list is no longer necessarily the best place for discussing DXP operational issues. I still think that the response from one of this lists members was uncalled for and extremely unprofessional. If this guy is like this with people he actually meets I would not be surprised if he has trouble keeping jobs for long. You have the logs, so you can tell better than me, but I don't think I've ever noticed a Protel ne Altium employee taking part in discussions on this list using their 'Protel' identity. On the other hand, the DXP forum seems to have much more feedback direct from engineers at Altium. Jason. -Original Message- From: Forum Administrator [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 July 2003 17:49 To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placeme nt D XP For the record, this forum is dedicated to discussion of ALL versions of Protel software as well as EDA design issues and EDA software from other vendors. As for drawing the attention of Altium's engineers, this forum enjoys a large following by members at Protel/Altium. The membership of this forum currently includes 21 protel.com.au subscribers and those span employees from the highest corporate level down through engineering and support. If you are looking for a direct reply from Protel, their own DXP forum is probably the best place but you might find it advantageous to post to both forums as some already do. Regards, Forum Administrator Association of Protel EDA Users [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers At 08:15 AM 7/9/2003, you wrote: Andrew, Seems somebody got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning After reading my post again, in-case I did make a mistake (it has been known on several occasions) I stand by my response, it was correct in every way and written by an experienced, user long term member of both lists. I was in no way rude or abusive to the original author, nor did I cast aspersions on the validity of PEDA, indeed, they are providing better support for Protel 99se and below in a way Protel, pre-Altium never managed (my experience in the UK anyway). I just pointed out you may get a response from people who know more about DXP on a list maintained for DXP users. Posting on the official DXP list will also draw potential problems to the attention of Altium's engineers who own and monitor the DXP list. We all know that DXP is (on the surface at least) very different to 99se, and these questions on how do I. come up all the time. It is very important that Altium are aware of such discussions so that they can put effort into improving the documentation. I think other, (less aggressive) long term users of both lists will agree. Jason. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 July 2003 13:57 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Protel EDA Forum... was RE: [PEDA] adjacent component placement D XP Mr Morgan, Since when is this the Protel 99SE list? For your future information, this is the Protel EDA Forum, as clearly and explicity stated in the footer appended to each and every list message
Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placement D XP
Enough! Can we please end this thread? At 09:52 AM 7/10/2003, you wrote: I do not believe you for a moment. Your statement could not be read any way other than the way you intended it to be read. And I quote Firstly you posted to the wrong list, this list is for Protel 99se, and not DXP That statement cannot be read any other way than to authoritatively indicate to readers and writers alike that they should not be posting any DXP related topics to this group, thereby doing the work of Altium's executive board is isolating the independent user's group from be able to openly scrutinize the corporate mismanagement of this expensive EDA package. I'll respect the Neo-Eurocratic (or should I say Plutocratic) nature of this group and so leave, as I have realized that it is now thoroughly corrupted by the same old-world scheming values that have caused so much strife there, here, and elsewhere in the world. Your remarks were offensive to the truth, but it is also clear from the response that you are in like company here. As with all things, one must either embrace or avoid company of a particular sort. And in this case, I will no longer attempt diplomacy to embrace this group, as its premise that diplomacy trumps truth is disgusting. aj -Original Message- From: Jason Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 4:58 AM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placement D XP I apologise to the administrator for implying that this list is not for discussing DXP, of course such topics are not banned and I did not mean it to read like that. I only wished to indicate that this list is no longer necessarily the best place for discussing DXP operational issues. I still think that the response from one of this lists members was uncalled for and extremely unprofessional. If this guy is like this with people he actually meets I would not be surprised if he has trouble keeping jobs for long. You have the logs, so you can tell better than me, but I don't think I've ever noticed a Protel ne Altium employee taking part in discussions on this list using their 'Protel' identity. On the other hand, the DXP forum seems to have much more feedback direct from engineers at Altium. Jason. -Original Message- From: Forum Administrator [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 July 2003 17:49 To: Protel EDA Forum Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placeme nt D XP For the record, this forum is dedicated to discussion of ALL versions of Protel software as well as EDA design issues and EDA software from other vendors. As for drawing the attention of Altium's engineers, this forum enjoys a large following by members at Protel/Altium. The membership of this forum currently includes 21 protel.com.au subscribers and those span employees from the highest corporate level down through engineering and support. If you are looking for a direct reply from Protel, their own DXP forum is probably the best place but you might find it advantageous to post to both forums as some already do. Regards, Forum Administrator Association of Protel EDA Users [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers At 08:15 AM 7/9/2003, you wrote: Andrew, Seems somebody got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning After reading my post again, in-case I did make a mistake (it has been known on several occasions) I stand by my response, it was correct in every way and written by an experienced, user long term member of both lists. I was in no way rude or abusive to the original author, nor did I cast aspersions on the validity of PEDA, indeed, they are providing better support for Protel 99se and below in a way Protel, pre-Altium never managed (my experience in the UK anyway). I just pointed out you may get a response from people who know more about DXP on a list maintained for DXP users. Posting on the official DXP list will also draw potential problems to the attention of Altium's engineers who own and monitor the DXP list. We all know that DXP is (on the surface at least) very different to 99se, and these questions on how do I. come up all the time. It is very important that Altium are aware of such discussions so that they can put effort into improving the documentation. I think other, (less aggressive) long term users of both lists will agree. Jason. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 July 2003 13:57 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Protel EDA Forum... was RE: [PEDA] adjacent component placement D XP Mr Morgan, Since when is this the Protel 99SE list? For your future information, this is the Protel EDA Forum, as clearly and explicity stated in the footer appended to each and every list
Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placement D XP
Mr Morgan,
Since when is this the Protel 99SE list?
For your future information, this is the Protel EDA Forum, as clearly and
explicity stated in the footer appended to each and every list message, and
kindly maintained by Techserv, Inc for the quasi-public dissemination of
issues related to any and all versions of Protel EDA software, including,
but not limited to P99SE...AND DXP.
I think I speak for a portion of this list (though clearly not all) when I
say that I would appreciate it if you would attempt to remember this before
spouting off erroneous garbage like the bull sheisa you post below. In any
case, I speak for myself.
Finally, I want to be clear to Dr Roberts that this is not the exclusive
territory of P99SE users, and Dr Roberts is welcome to post queries or
otherwise participate in this forum as she likes.
As Jason indicated, there is another forum, sponsored by Altium, which is
dedicated to DXP, but I feel the need to attempt to un-obfuscate the
distinction between these forums. Altium's is one which is a quarantined,
corporate sponsored list, with all of the implications that go with that
status. Techserv's is an open user's forum for ANY and ALL Protel EDA
products, regardless of any ignornat comments made by it's novice or jaded
participants.
thank you,
Andrew Jenkins
-Original Message-
From: Jason Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 4:46 AM
To: 'Protel EDA Forum'
Firstly you posted to the wrong list, this list is for Protel
99se, and not
DXP,
there is a separate list for DXP issues, see
http://forums.altium.com/cgi-bin/msgbylist.asp?list=dxp
To answer your question, its the same as in 99se, you create a
component-component clearance rule
that uses the same component type for each side of the rule.
I use this exact method for a mechanical part that sits over
some LEDs.
e.g.
Create a rule in Placement: Component Clearance: New Rule
HasFootprint('FOOTPRINT_1') vs HasFootprint('FOOTPRINT_1') you need to
specify Full Check
and a large negative clearance, e.g. -999mm
Make sure that the rule priority puts this rule above the
global clearance
rule, Press the Priorities
button to check.
Also, make sure that one of the electrical clearance rules
does not also
fail, though you should be
able to tell the difference of a component clearance fail and
a net fail by
the colours on the screen.
Jason.
-Original Message-
From: Dr Gwyn Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 09 July 2003 09:21
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Aled Williams
Subject: [PEDA] adjacent component placement DXP
Hi all,
Need to place a number of terminal blocks in a row, with the body of
each touching that of its neighbour, on a PCB being laid out
in Protel DXP.
Despite setting the electrical placement and component clearance DRCs
for these particular components to 0mm, Protel still flags this a
violation when they are placed next to each other. .
Anyone come across this problem/know of a workaround?
Many thanks
Gwyn Roberts
Univ of Wales, Bangor
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placement D XP
Personally, I don't mind seeing questions about DXP on this list. It's good to know what the issues are with DXP, because it gives insight as to how mature (or immature) DXP is, and if it's worth upgrading to. I can't answer any DXP questions because I don't have it, but I at least want to know of what others are suffering (or triumphing) through. That also goes for older versions: 98, 3.X, 2.X, Autotrax, etc. All Protel is fair game here, IMO. And conversion issues (Orcad, PADS, etc.) too. Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 8:56 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placement D XP Mr Morgan, Since when is this the Protel 99SE list? For your future information, this is the Protel EDA Forum, as clearly and explicity stated in the footer appended to each and every list message, and kindly maintained by Techserv, Inc for the quasi-public dissemination of issues related to any and all versions of Protel EDA software, including, but not limited to P99SE...AND DXP. I think I speak for a portion of this list (though clearly not all) when I say that I would appreciate it if you would attempt to remember this before spouting off erroneous garbage like the bull sheisa you post below. In any case, I speak for myself. Finally, I want to be clear to Dr Roberts that this is not the exclusive territory of P99SE users, and Dr Roberts is welcome to post queries or otherwise participate in this forum as she likes. As Jason indicated, there is another forum, sponsored by Altium, which is dedicated to DXP, but I feel the need to attempt to un-obfuscate the distinction between these forums. Altium's is one which is a quarantined, corporate sponsored list, with all of the implications that go with that status. Techserv's is an open user's forum for ANY and ALL Protel EDA products, regardless of any ignornat comments made by it's novice or jaded participants. thank you, Andrew Jenkins -Original Message- From: Jason Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 4:46 AM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Firstly you posted to the wrong list, this list is for Protel 99se, and not DXP, there is a separate list for DXP issues, see http://forums.altium.com/cgi-bin/msgbylist.asp?list=dxp * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placement D XP
Meeewww
(you can bar me if you like. Mr Morgan might be wrong but I can't stand
pomposity)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
om To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
09-Jul-2003 01:56Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA
Forum... was adjacent component placement D XP
PM
Please respond to
Protel EDA
Forum
Mr Morgan,
Since when is this the Protel 99SE list?
For your future information, this is the Protel EDA Forum, as clearly and
explicity stated in the footer appended to each and every list message, and
kindly maintained by Techserv, Inc for the quasi-public dissemination of
issues related to any and all versions of Protel EDA software, including,
but not limited to P99SE...AND DXP.
I think I speak for a portion of this list (though clearly not all) when I
say that I would appreciate it if you would attempt to remember this before
spouting off erroneous garbage like the bull sheisa you post below. In any
case, I speak for myself.
Finally, I want to be clear to Dr Roberts that this is not the exclusive
territory of P99SE users, and Dr Roberts is welcome to post queries or
otherwise participate in this forum as she likes.
As Jason indicated, there is another forum, sponsored by Altium, which is
dedicated to DXP, but I feel the need to attempt to un-obfuscate the
distinction between these forums. Altium's is one which is a quarantined,
corporate sponsored list, with all of the implications that go with that
status. Techserv's is an open user's forum for ANY and ALL Protel EDA
products, regardless of any ignornat comments made by it's novice or jaded
participants.
thank you,
Andrew Jenkins
-Original Message-
From: Jason Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 4:46 AM
To: 'Protel EDA Forum'
Firstly you posted to the wrong list, this list is for Protel
99se, and not
DXP,
there is a separate list for DXP issues, see
http://forums.altium.com/cgi-bin/msgbylist.asp?list=dxp
To answer your question, its the same as in 99se, you create a
component-component clearance rule
that uses the same component type for each side of the rule.
I use this exact method for a mechanical part that sits over
some LEDs.
e.g.
Create a rule in Placement: Component Clearance: New Rule
HasFootprint('FOOTPRINT_1') vs HasFootprint('FOOTPRINT_1') you need to
specify Full Check
and a large negative clearance, e.g. -999mm
Make sure that the rule priority puts this rule above the
global clearance
rule, Press the Priorities
button to check.
Also, make sure that one of the electrical clearance rules
does not also
fail, though you should be
able to tell the difference of a component clearance fail and
a net fail by
the colours on the screen.
Jason.
-Original Message-
From: Dr Gwyn Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 09 July 2003 09:21
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Aled Williams
Subject: [PEDA] adjacent component placement DXP
Hi all,
Need to place a number of terminal blocks in a row, with the body of
each touching that of its neighbour, on a PCB being laid out
in Protel DXP.
Despite setting the electrical placement and component clearance DRCs
for these particular components to 0mm, Protel still flags this a
violation when they are placed next to each other. .
Anyone come across this problem/know of a workaround?
Many thanks
Gwyn Roberts
Univ of Wales, Bangor
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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
Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placement D XP
I've got a question on Wrico Pens and Linen . . . : - ) - Original Message - From: Bagotronix Tech Support [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 7:33 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placement D XP Personally, I don't mind seeing questions about DXP on this list. It's good to know what the issues are with DXP, because it gives insight as to how mature (or immature) DXP is, and if it's worth upgrading to. I can't answer any DXP questions because I don't have it, but I at least want to know of what others are suffering (or triumphing) through. That also goes for older versions: 98, 3.X, 2.X, Autotrax, etc. All Protel is fair game here, IMO. And conversion issues (Orcad, PADS, etc.) too. Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 8:56 AM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placement D XP Mr Morgan, Since when is this the Protel 99SE list? For your future information, this is the Protel EDA Forum, as clearly and explicity stated in the footer appended to each and every list message, and kindly maintained by Techserv, Inc for the quasi-public dissemination of issues related to any and all versions of Protel EDA software, including, but not limited to P99SE...AND DXP. I think I speak for a portion of this list (though clearly not all) when I say that I would appreciate it if you would attempt to remember this before spouting off erroneous garbage like the bull sheisa you post below. In any case, I speak for myself. Finally, I want to be clear to Dr Roberts that this is not the exclusive territory of P99SE users, and Dr Roberts is welcome to post queries or otherwise participate in this forum as she likes. As Jason indicated, there is another forum, sponsored by Altium, which is dedicated to DXP, but I feel the need to attempt to un-obfuscate the distinction between these forums. Altium's is one which is a quarantined, corporate sponsored list, with all of the implications that go with that status. Techserv's is an open user's forum for ANY and ALL Protel EDA products, regardless of any ignornat comments made by it's novice or jaded participants. thank you, Andrew Jenkins -Original Message- From: Jason Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 4:46 AM To: 'Protel EDA Forum' Firstly you posted to the wrong list, this list is for Protel 99se, and not DXP, there is a separate list for DXP issues, see http://forums.altium.com/cgi-bin/msgbylist.asp?list=dxp * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placement D XP
I've got a question on Wrico Pens and Linen . . . : - ) Well, as long as we're going off the deep end, I have an old Toshiba P351 (circa 1986) 24-pin dot matrix printer (wide carriage) that still works great. But no W2K drivers exist for it. Win95 has a Toshiba driver that works well, but no equivalent for W2K. Any suggestions how I might print my Protel 99SE stuff on the Toshiba printer from W2K? Don't say print to pdf - print pdf on W95, I already thought of that. And don't any of you dare to call my printer obsolete! It's built like a tank, way more durable than anything currently available in any current technology (laser, inkjet, impact, etc.)! Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com - Original Message - From: JaMi Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: JaMi Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 3:16 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placement D XP I've got a question on Wrico Pens and Linen . . . : - ) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placement D XP
I have a couple of Toshiba T1000's (and Toshiba MS-DOS 3.30) that might work with it . . . - Original Message - From: Bagotronix Tech Support [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Protel EDA Forum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 12:36 PM Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placement D XP I've got a question on Wrico Pens and Linen . . . : - ) Well, as long as we're going off the deep end, I have an old Toshiba P351 (circa 1986) 24-pin dot matrix printer (wide carriage) that still works great. ~ ~ ~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Re: [PEDA] Protel EDA Forum... was adjacent component placement D XP
See what I mean about low SNR on this list... (now a dB lower with this comment) Ian * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
