[Archimedes' Lever]

Even if Jim's properly right-thinking great-granddaughter becomes president, I
bet she'll keep SS and medicare around.

Bwuahahahahahaha! Not in a million years.

 

[Joerg]

krw wrote:
krw wrote: [...]

Word? What junk! Its paragraph management is the pits. Controlling
lists is impossible. Excel is the only M$ software I can even stomach
(it's even "good"). I'll get into Access when I get some time. We'll
see.

I've never had it hick up on me, at least not much. This included some
really fat module specs with nested TOC, almost like books.
Just managing simple bulleted lists is horrid. Paragraph style
management is impossible. ...
I never had too many problems with that. The occasional crash, yes.
It's not that it hangs. It simply doesn't work.

Strange, it does work for me. However, I have never accepted versions
any younger than 2003 and probably will not for a while. Just as I do
not run Vista and never will, in this office. MS-Office 2007 was IMHO
not very good.

XP and 2003.

Try 2000, or better yet Office-97. Like with many SW packages, older is
better. I still have Word 2000.

A small number. Far more are locked in.

May be small, but in those cases the whole company switched. Or in
business speak MS has left money on the table.

No schematic hierarchy? I'm just starting to use hierarchical design
on a test fixture I'm designing. I should have done it on the last
redesign of the main board but I was afraid to change anything I
didn't have to.

Yeah :-(

That blew my mind when evaluating and raised some serious doubts about
their competence level. They must be a bit out of touch with real
designers in industry. But then I realized that this CAD was nearly
perfect in all other aspects so I jumped, mainly because I was p....d
about Cadence forcing people to buy the maintenace contract with OrCad
(they lost my biz in consequence).

It's sort of ok for me because most of my work is redesign of "not so
optimal" client circuitry, parts of existing designs. The occasional
Goliath-design I do all on one page which gets split out into several
sheets at the end. That's IMHO the only way to keep my head above water
with Eagle, otherwise you lose track of what's where.

I wanted to jump ship one last time but could not find any decent CAD
that I'd be happier with than with Eagle. Plus they (slightly) hinted
that they had (finally!) grok'd the need for hierarchy, meaning there is
hope. But I will not upgrade until they've got that done.

I am certainly not going to become the IT guy (I have far more fun
things to do). The only "management" that counts is the owner. ;-)
He isn't about to spend more money on Southware seats right now.

If it's a small company forget it. Not going to happen, because the ROI
usually ain't there. For our 300-employee company it provided a
day-and-night difference. Huge.

 

[Joerg]

The problem with politics is that the theories are untestable. Which
is why some people prefer that subject to electronics, where they
might be demonstrably wrong.

Demonstrated as in phut ... *BANG*

Happens much less in politics. And if it ever does it usually means
there was a "leaded" attempt to change powers.

 

[Joerg]

Yeah, but not necessarily all that obvious: A lot of poorly-designed
electronics is sold every day, and unless the design is so bad that there's a
really huge failure rate (e.g., the Microsoft Xbox -- you've read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_technical_problems#Three_Flashing_Red_Lights
...or a similar synopsis, right?), few people ever know...

That's a horror story. Microsoft designing their own ASICs? That almost
had to go wrong.

But "few people ever know" isn't really the case. For example,
automotive electronics often develop a bad reputation. The failures are
simply too frequent and most of all too expensive. I am an EE but I
always (my whole life) tried to buy cars with the least amount of
electronics in there. Looking at cars in the neighborhood I think this
strategy of mine will not change in the next decade or two.

"Modern" developments such as DTV haven't exactly helped. There are
non-technical folks out here who staunchly insist that all the
newfangled flat-screen TVs are junk. It isn't true, other than the fact
that their GUI is too dumbed down the mfgs did a pretty good job. But
the ATSC standard stinks and that's what makes them fail all the time.
However, John and Jane Doe do not know that, they only see that this new
TV isn't as good as the old one they had to give away. It cost >3x as
much as the old ones did, making them really miffed about technology. I
know one guy who is just about ready to trigger a stampede (hey, didn't
I predict this was going to happen ...?). His TV selection was reduced
to very few worship channels (he isn't overly religious) and a couple of
Spanish speaking stations, that's it. No news, no movies, nada, zip.
Electronics at their best, in his eyes. At least that's how Joe and Jane
Doe feel.

Computers aren't far behind. Case in point: In the early 90's I had
email via CompuServe and my wife also used it. Good old DOS, cast-iron
robustness, not one failure or hickup in years. Now she has a modern
Windows puter, DSL, the works. Every other day it's "Hey, Joerg, there's
this warning message on the screen, everything froze, and it doesn't go
away. Can you fix that?" or "My computer just sits there and trundles
for the last hour or so".

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

Yeah, but not necessarily all that obvious: A lot of poorly-designed
electronics is sold every day, and unless the design is so bad that there's a
really huge failure rate (e.g., the Microsoft Xbox -- you've read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_technical_problems#Three_Flashing_Red_Lights
...or a similar synopsis, right?), few people ever know...

When I used to buy a receiver, I got a schematic with it. Now, they
are available, but the last one I bought was on microfiche and was $35.

I'll bet they are all pdf'd out now, and STILL charging!

The world's hardware makers used to be held culpable when their crap
failed (within its warranty).

We need a national good product/bad product web site.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

A car at least is arguably a pretty "tough" environment for electronics --
quite brutal compared to what an Xbox operates it.

There are entire lines of ceramic caps that are specifically for the
auto boys.

In every cap maker I looked at.

HV and auto have their own class segregation.

 

[Joerg]

Apparently few enough that design processes don't change much.


A car at least is arguably a pretty "tough" environment for electronics --
quite brutal compared to what an Xbox operates it.

But often the design folks really bungle it. Not electronic and just an
example, but this happened a lot: As a young engineer with fresh degree
in pocket I bought a Chrysler Horizon. The alternator performed several
unauthorized departures from its workplace, as a guy in a German NG put
it (when a brake did that on his van). One day I had it, looked at the
structure, did a back of the envelope calc on the stability of an
aluminum strut. Turns out it could not possibly survive, replaced with a
home-made steel strut of similar weight, never broke again. Then there
was the active antenna on the roof of another car that died in almost
every thunderstorm until I rolled my own. I could go on ...

I believe you were predicting a lot of public officials would be getting an
earful...

That's what those guys are doing.

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/hdtv/digital-tv-switch-confuses-customers-16090
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/jun/17/business/chi-wed-dtv-0617-jun17

 

[krw]

Demonstrated as in phut ... *BANG*

Happens much less in politics. And if it ever does it usually means
there was a "leaded" attempt to change powers.

Except that the "leaded" attempt to change powers goes more like
"*BANG* ... phut".

 

[krw]

krw wrote:
krw wrote:
krw wrote:
[...]

Word? What junk! Its paragraph management is the pits. Controlling
lists is impossible. Excel is the only M$ software I can even stomach
(it's even "good"). I'll get into Access when I get some time. We'll
see.

I've never had it hick up on me, at least not much. This included some
really fat module specs with nested TOC, almost like books.
Just managing simple bulleted lists is horrid. Paragraph style
management is impossible. ...
I never had too many problems with that. The occasional crash, yes.
It's not that it hangs. It simply doesn't work.

Strange, it does work for me. However, I have never accepted versions
any younger than 2003 and probably will not for a while. Just as I do
not run Vista and never will, in this office. MS-Office 2007 was IMHO
not very good.

XP and 2003.

Try 2000, or better yet Office-97. Like with many SW packages, older is
better. I still have Word 2000.

It's not my PC. I use either Frame6 or OO for personal stuff.

May be small, but in those cases the whole company switched. Or in
business speak MS has left money on the table.

The vast majority of businesses are locked into M$, right down to
their very existence. The smart ones are few.

Yeah :-(

That blew my mind when evaluating and raised some serious doubts about
their competence level. They must be a bit out of touch with real
designers in industry. But then I realized that this CAD was nearly
perfect in all other aspects so I jumped, mainly because I was p....d
about Cadence forcing people to buy the maintenace contract with OrCad
(they lost my biz in consequence).

I would never use software that was a guaranteed revenue sink, but I
have no say. The layout guy isn't stuck on Cadence either (he's used
many different packages at PPoE) so I'm not sure why we're using it.
We just figured out a back door to back annotate placement information
from Allegro into OrCad. Seems Cadence doesn't think this is an
important function. FOr some time the placement information in the
schematics was from a previous design. ...hardly useful and downright
dangerous.

It's sort of ok for me because most of my work is redesign of "not so
optimal" client circuitry, parts of existing designs. The occasional
Goliath-design I do all on one page which gets split out into several
sheets at the end. That's IMHO the only way to keep my head above water
with Eagle, otherwise you lose track of what's where.

I'm trying to convince the others to clean up their schematics now.
THey use C-size paper as a scratch pad of tiny circuits. Some will be
a few inches square with I/O wherever they fall. It's impossible to
follow[*] and IMO has been the source of several ECOs. I prefer 11x17
(fits in a notebook) with inputs all on the left and outputs on the
right (BI-DIs are usually "outputs"). I still have to see how
debugging goes with a hierarchical design before I argue the case for
all designs. The design I'm doing isn't fully hierarchical either,
since I'm not sure how that'll go.

[*] It's OK after you know it well enough to not need the schematic.

I wanted to jump ship one last time but could not find any decent CAD
that I'd be happier with than with Eagle. Plus they (slightly) hinted
that they had (finally!) grok'd the need for hierarchy, meaning there is
hope. But I will not upgrade until they've got that done.

I'll pick my battles. So far, OrCad isn't one.

If it's a small company forget it. Not going to happen, because the ROI
usually ain't there. For our 300-employee company it provided a
day-and-night difference. Huge.

Quite small. A hundred full time employees (give or take), more
during the summer and early fall. The engineering department is two
hardware engineers, three firmware types, a layout engineer,
mechanical engineer, technician, admin, and a manager.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

Except that the "leaded" attempt to change powers goes more like
"*BANG* ... phut".

Is that like the lead that comprises a nice high powered rifle slug?
Is that what a "leaded attempt" to change powers is?

 

[Joerg]

[...]

Yeah :-(

That blew my mind when evaluating and raised some serious doubts about
their competence level. They must be a bit out of touch with real
designers in industry. But then I realized that this CAD was nearly
perfect in all other aspects so I jumped, mainly because I was p....d
about Cadence forcing people to buy the maintenace contract with OrCad
(they lost my biz in consequence).

I would never use software that was a guaranteed revenue sink, but I
have no say. The layout guy isn't stuck on Cadence either (he's used
many different packages at PPoE) so I'm not sure why we're using it.
We just figured out a back door to back annotate placement information
from Allegro into OrCad. Seems Cadence doesn't think this is an
important function. FOr some time the placement information in the
schematics was from a previous design. ...hardly useful and downright
dangerous.

It's sort of ok for me because most of my work is redesign of "not so
optimal" client circuitry, parts of existing designs. The occasional
Goliath-design I do all on one page which gets split out into several
sheets at the end. That's IMHO the only way to keep my head above water
with Eagle, otherwise you lose track of what's where.

I'm trying to convince the others to clean up their schematics now.
THey use C-size paper as a scratch pad of tiny circuits. Some will be
a few inches square with I/O wherever they fall. It's impossible to
follow[*] and IMO has been the source of several ECOs. I prefer 11x17
(fits in a notebook) with inputs all on the left and outputs on the
right (BI-DIs are usually "outputs"). I still have to see how
debugging goes with a hierarchical design before I argue the case for
all designs. The design I'm doing isn't fully hierarchical either,
since I'm not sure how that'll go.

My first project after becoming self-employed in 1989 was a huge board,
3HE full-depth, filled to the brim with SMT. So I pretty much dove right
into a hierarchical design and loved it. IMHO it's the only way to make
sure others understand large sets of schematics.

[*] It's OK after you know it well enough to not need the schematic.

I wanted to jump ship one last time but could not find any decent CAD
that I'd be happier with than with Eagle. Plus they (slightly) hinted
that they had (finally!) grok'd the need for hierarchy, meaning there is
hope. But I will not upgrade until they've got that done.

I'll pick my battles. So far, OrCad isn't one.

It just p....d me off when they wanted to foist a service pack on me.

Quite small. A hundred full time employees (give or take), more
during the summer and early fall. The engineering department is two
hardware engineers, three firmware types, a layout engineer,
mechanical engineer, technician, admin, and a manager.

That's a small engineering group. We were in the high-tech world,
production very much automated, so our division of about 100 people
alone had more than a dozen design engineers. Cost was critical so when
el presidente wanted me to run a division I had very few conditions but
integrating engineering into the MRP system was one.

 

[krw]

krw wrote:

[...]

That is where Cadsoft Eagle really excels. You can script and program
BOMs to the hilt. Even if all non-insert parts would have to be listed
in Swahili that would be no problem. If only they hadn't screwed up the
hierarchy. There is none :-(
No schematic hierarchy? I'm just starting to use hierarchical design
on a test fixture I'm designing. I should have done it on the last
redesign of the main board but I was afraid to change anything I
didn't have to.

Yeah :-(

That blew my mind when evaluating and raised some serious doubts about
their competence level. They must be a bit out of touch with real
designers in industry. But then I realized that this CAD was nearly
perfect in all other aspects so I jumped, mainly because I was p....d
about Cadence forcing people to buy the maintenace contract with OrCad
(they lost my biz in consequence).

I would never use software that was a guaranteed revenue sink, but I
have no say. The layout guy isn't stuck on Cadence either (he's used
many different packages at PPoE) so I'm not sure why we're using it.
We just figured out a back door to back annotate placement information
from Allegro into OrCad. Seems Cadence doesn't think this is an
important function. FOr some time the placement information in the
schematics was from a previous design. ...hardly useful and downright
dangerous.

It's sort of ok for me because most of my work is redesign of "not so
optimal" client circuitry, parts of existing designs. The occasional
Goliath-design I do all on one page which gets split out into several
sheets at the end. That's IMHO the only way to keep my head above water
with Eagle, otherwise you lose track of what's where.

I'm trying to convince the others to clean up their schematics now.
THey use C-size paper as a scratch pad of tiny circuits. Some will be
a few inches square with I/O wherever they fall. It's impossible to
follow[*] and IMO has been the source of several ECOs. I prefer 11x17
(fits in a notebook) with inputs all on the left and outputs on the
right (BI-DIs are usually "outputs"). I still have to see how
debugging goes with a hierarchical design before I argue the case for
all designs. The design I'm doing isn't fully hierarchical either,
since I'm not sure how that'll go.

My first project after becoming self-employed in 1989 was a huge board,
3HE full-depth, filled to the brim with SMT. So I pretty much dove right
into a hierarchical design and loved it. IMHO it's the only way to make
sure others understand large sets of schematics.

When you say "hierarchical design" do you mean "turtles all the way
down", or do you just break common circuits into hierarchical blocks.
So fat, I've just done the circuits with more than one instance. Doing
turtles all the way seems like it would explode the schematic sheet
count, thus hinder communication.

[*] It's OK after you know it well enough to not need the schematic.

I wanted to jump ship one last time but could not find any decent CAD
that I'd be happier with than with Eagle. Plus they (slightly) hinted
that they had (finally!) grok'd the need for hierarchy, meaning there is
hope. But I will not upgrade until they've got that done.

I'll pick my battles. So far, OrCad isn't one.

It just p....d me off when they wanted to foist a service pack on me.

I understand. I'm not the one who pays that bill. All I do is enter
the schematics. If they're happy with the situation, I'm happy.

That's a small engineering group. We were in the high-tech world,
production very much automated, so our division of about 100 people
alone had more than a dozen design engineers. Cost was critical so when
el presidente wanted me to run a division I had very few conditions but
integrating engineering into the MRP system was one.

That's the one thing I don't understand with this company. Every time
I mention it I get a "yeah, it would be nice to have" answer. I'm not
even asking for real-time numbers. Next time the owner asks for cost
reductions (and he will soon) I'll sure have an answer.

 

[Joerg]

krw wrote:

[...]

I'm trying to convince the others to clean up their schematics now.
THey use C-size paper as a scratch pad of tiny circuits. Some will be
a few inches square with I/O wherever they fall. It's impossible to
follow[*] and IMO has been the source of several ECOs. I prefer 11x17
(fits in a notebook) with inputs all on the left and outputs on the
right (BI-DIs are usually "outputs"). I still have to see how
debugging goes with a hierarchical design before I argue the case for
all designs. The design I'm doing isn't fully hierarchical either,
since I'm not sure how that'll go.

My first project after becoming self-employed in 1989 was a huge board,
3HE full-depth, filled to the brim with SMT. So I pretty much dove right
into a hierarchical design and loved it. IMHO it's the only way to make
sure others understand large sets of schematics.

When you say "hierarchical design" do you mean "turtles all the way
down", or do you just break common circuits into hierarchical blocks.
So fat, I've just done the circuits with more than one instance. Doing
turtles all the way seems like it would explode the schematic sheet
count, thus hinder communication.

Turtles?

What I mean is this typical scenario, example ultrasound machine:

Top level diagram with a dozen blocks and all the interconnect buses.
Beamformer, pulse processor, Doppler detector, video processor, power
supply and so on.

Now you can click on, say, the beamformer. This will decend into another
block diagram but that one only contains blocks of this board. XMIT,
receive, pulsers, delay section, summation. The first two will again
have multiple blocks because there are dozens of channels but delay
section and summation will lead you directly into a schematic. Same for
the pulsers because all of them usually fit onto a page.

There is no other way to fully understand and comprehend how an
ultrasound system works, from the schematic level. A flat sheet
structure would consist of 200 or more sheets, impossible to navigate.

[...]

That's the one thing I don't understand with this company. Every time
I mention it I get a "yeah, it would be nice to have" answer. I'm not
even asking for real-time numbers. Next time the owner asks for cost
reductions (and he will soon) I'll sure have an answer.

Sometimes lessons need to be learned the hard way, even on a corporate
level ;-)

 

[Jim Thompson]

The problem with politics is that the theories are untestable. Which
is why some people prefer that subject to electronics, where they
might be demonstrably wrong.

John

And who is it I note hasn't posted any more "cheap" circuits ?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food

 

[krw]

krw wrote:

[...]

I'm trying to convince the others to clean up their schematics now.
THey use C-size paper as a scratch pad of tiny circuits. Some will be
a few inches square with I/O wherever they fall. It's impossible to
follow[*] and IMO has been the source of several ECOs. I prefer 11x17
(fits in a notebook) with inputs all on the left and outputs on the
right (BI-DIs are usually "outputs"). I still have to see how
debugging goes with a hierarchical design before I argue the case for
all designs. The design I'm doing isn't fully hierarchical either,
since I'm not sure how that'll go.

My first project after becoming self-employed in 1989 was a huge board,
3HE full-depth, filled to the brim with SMT. So I pretty much dove right
into a hierarchical design and loved it. IMHO it's the only way to make
sure others understand large sets of schematics.

When you say "hierarchical design" do you mean "turtles all the way
down", or do you just break common circuits into hierarchical blocks.
So fat, I've just done the circuits with more than one instance. Doing
turtles all the way seems like it would explode the schematic sheet
count, thus hinder communication.

Turtles?

I believe it comes from the Bhudist's vision of the Earth being
supported on the back of a turtle. Then, what is the turtle standing
on? Why another turtle! It's turtles all the way down.

http://www.search.com/reference/Turtles_all_the_way_down

What I mean is this typical scenario, example ultrasound machine:

Top level diagram with a dozen blocks and all the interconnect buses.
Beamformer, pulse processor, Doppler detector, video processor, power
supply and so on.

Power supplies normally get connected on globals.

Now you can click on, say, the beamformer. This will decend into another
block diagram but that one only contains blocks of this board. XMIT,
receive, pulsers, delay section, summation. The first two will again
have multiple blocks because there are dozens of channels but delay
section and summation will lead you directly into a schematic. Same for
the pulsers because all of them usually fit onto a page.

Sure, that's fine as long as you have the entry tool running. How
does it work on dead trees? Certainly IBM mainframe schematics were
hierarchical (mostly) but that was unwieldy 30 years ago, so they went
to flow charts, then about 15-20 years ago, VHDL. I'm wondering about
bringing up the boards and debugging. I don't generally have OrCad
pulled up on a tube in the lab. Manufacturing certainly doesn't.

There is no other way to fully understand and comprehend how an
ultrasound system works, from the schematic level. A flat sheet
structure would consist of 200 or more sheets, impossible to navigate.

I'm used to an entire cabinet of schematics. ;-)

[...]

That's the one thing I don't understand with this company. Every time
I mention it I get a "yeah, it would be nice to have" answer. I'm not
even asking for real-time numbers. Next time the owner asks for cost
reductions (and he will soon) I'll sure have an answer.

Sometimes lessons need to be learned the hard way, even on a corporate
level ;-)

Not so much "the hard way" (the world isn't going to end), but let's
make a deal... "You want to save money and I want to know how much of
*your* money I'm spending. Deal or no deal?"

 

[krw]

It would be nice if the schematic print outs of a hierachical schematic would
include, e.g., a page number so that you could very quickly traverse it
yourself (at least so long as you keep the sheets sorted -- don't drop'em!).

That's why I print 'B' size. At least I can put it in a notebook.

That being said, all of the PCs we have in our manufacturing area have a PADS
and ORCAD viewers on them (I find it incredible that Mentor *charges actual
money* for a PADS viewer that *does less than just using PADS in "demo mode"
with no license whatever*). The later isn't used very often at this point,
but the former is -- trying to find, e.g., D135 on a board with many hundreds
of discretes takes too long by had.

We don't, but it may be a necessary evil. I prefer paper, myself. I
print all documentation (printing Altera Cyclone-III device handbook
right now). I like to make notes and dog-ear the important parts.
Paper is far easier for me to read, as well.

 

[krw]

One other thing: Some schematic capture programs (Viewlogic and Pulsonix that
I know of, but there are probably others -- not ORCAD, of course, it hasn't
had any significant improvements in many years) will generate "smart" PDFs for
you that let you click around through the hierarchy using regular old Acrobat
Reader (or better yet, Foxit Reader) -- it'll also add component attributes to
the schematic components that can show up as mouse tips (stuff like
manufacurer, part #, etc.). Handy if you need to send off schematics to a
contract manufacturer or customer.

Not likely to do either (CM or customer), but that sounds like a good
reason to dump OrCad! Now to start spreading the nasty rumors...

 

[krw]

I find that -- using mostly the default symbol libraries that come with
ORCAD -- C-sized sheets printed out on 11x17 paper looks quite readable.
D-sized sheets are pretty borderline, although if you have a 13x19 ("super B")
printer it's still tolerable if necessary.

My schematic sheets are defined as 25.5" x 16.5", printed on 'B' size.
;-) Our printer is an HP DesignJet 500 - 24" roll. I print with a 1"
offset and slice off the right 6" side manually.

Yeah, I do too, at least if I'm going to be referring to it for any
significant period of time... but all the PCs having the ability to pull up
schematics and layouts is still quite valuable when you need to just briefly
reference some old project and has tossed out or don't know where the paper
copies are (or know that the design has been ECOed since you last saw it and
you had no reason to print the latest and greatest version).

I print most documentation "two up" (two pages stuck on each side of a sheet
of paper), after eliminating most of the margin (it's amazing how much margin
some data sheets have...).

The only duplex printer around is my P2015DN at home. :-( I just
bought another toner cartridge for it after printing the Altera
documentation. :-((

I wonder how well a tablet PC would work for some of this... if only the
screen resolutions were better... you really want at least 150+ DPI to be
"nicely" readable...

Too fragile, IMO. It would be better to have 24" monitors bolted
everywhere in sight. Hell, it would be nice to _have_ 24" monitors. I
have two 19" LCDs and the other engineer has two 19" CRTs (though he
does use 1600x1200). Times are pretty tight right now, but getting
better (it's the busy season).

 

[Charlie E.]

ORCAD is stuck in a time warp... it's had relatively few bugs fixed nor
features added in more than 5 years now. It is of course usable, but I'm
fairly certain that Cadence is getting very few new orders for ORCAD -- it's
people on maintenance (or I suppose purchasing more licenses if they already
have some) that keeps it alive. I believe they've actually dropped the price
in the past few years, recognizing that it's slowly losing value as it largely
lies around on life support.

Well, it is only maintained by a few guys in India, who have to handle
the entire Orcad/PSpice line. It is what is known as a Cash Cow - it
generated cash flow without significant investment...

Charlie

 

[Jim Thompson]

Well, it is only maintained by a few guys in India, who have to handle
the entire Orcad/PSpice line. It is what is known as a Cash Cow - it
generated cash flow without significant investment...

Charlie

But anyone who uses Crapture deserves it ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food