On Aug 21, 6:15 pm, Peter Bennett <pete...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:43:40 -0700 (PDT), James Arthur

> <dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I have, like, and recommend Sprint-Layout, but AFAICT it does
> >not support netlists or netlist import from a schematic program.
> >I throw up the parts an' route 'em manually, which is what I'd do
> >anyhow (autorouters have never pleased me).

> >S-L lets you quickly click in rats-nest wiring to remind you
> >of where and what to route; I like that feature a lot.

> You say that Sprint-Layout does not support netlists, but the above
> paragraph implies to me that there is _some_ transfer of connection
> data from the related schematic program.

> So, is there, or is there not, the ability to transfer component and
> connection data from the schematic to PCB, whether by an explicit
> netlist or otherwise?  (Protel/Altium links between sch and pcb
> without explicitly generating netlists.)

Not that I can detect.

Here's the website:
  http://www.abacom-online.de/uk/html/sprint-layout.html

What I called call the rats-nest feature they call "connections /
rubberbands"; click point A, click point B, and a fine line appears
from A to B.  You then route either manually or with the pin-to-pin
autorouter (works, could route better, IMO).  Click the "remove
connections" button and the rubberbands for completed routes are
automatically removed (the thin reminder line disappears), leaving
the unfinished routes.  The feature is described briefly on the
webpage above.

I find it super helpful; it keeps you from forgetting connections or
from making wrong ones.  It's manual, but I like it.

Sprint-Layout does have a full complement of output files--
Gerber, Excellon, and isolation paths for PCB milling--
but no import or export of netlists AFAICT.

You could always e-mail them and ask to be
sure.  I don't use those features, so I might've
missed something.

> >If you want netlists don't forget FreePCB (www.freepcb.com), mentioned
> >by rickman. That looks pretty nice.  Also consider
> >PCB from the gEDA project,http://www.geda.seul.org/

Oh yes, another for the "free" list is KiCAD, which I assume
everyone has heard of.  I haven't tried it.

http://www.lis.inpg.fr/realise_au_lis/kicad/

Sprint-Layout works well for me so I'm likely
to stick with it, but it would be interesting to
hear reports about the other packages.

Cheers,
James Arthur

On 22 Aug, 06:44, James Arthur <dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 6:15 pm, Peter Bennett <pete...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>
> - Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
>
> > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:43:40 -0700 (PDT), James Arthur
> > <dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >I have, like, and recommend Sprint-Layout, but AFAICT it does
> > >not support netlists or netlist import from a schematic program.
> > >I throw up the parts an' route 'em manually, which is what I'd do
> > >anyhow (autorouters have never pleased me).
> > >S-L lets you quickly click in rats-nest wiring to remind you
> > >of where and what to route; I like that feature a lot.
> > You say that Sprint-Layout does not support netlists, but the above
> > paragraph implies to me that there is _some_ transfer of connection
> > data from the related schematic program.
> > So, is there, or is there not, the ability to transfer component and
> > connection data from the schematic to PCB, whether by an explicit
> > netlist or otherwise? =A0(Protel/Altium links between sch and pcb
> > without explicitly generating netlists.)
>
> Not that I can detect.
>
> Here's the website:
> =A0http://www.abacom-online.de/uk/html/sprint-layout.html
>
> What I called call the rats-nest feature they call "connections /
> rubberbands"; click point A, click point B, and a fine line appears
> from A to B. =A0You then route either manually or with the pin-to-pin
> autorouter (works, could route better, IMO). =A0Click the "remove
> connections" button and the rubberbands for completed routes are
> automatically removed (the thin reminder line disappears), leaving
> the unfinished routes. =A0The feature is described briefly on the
> webpage above.
>
> I find it super helpful; it keeps you from forgetting connections or
> from making wrong ones. =A0It's manual, but I like it.
>
> Sprint-Layout does have a full complement of output files--
> Gerber, Excellon, and isolation paths for PCB milling--
> but no import or export of netlists AFAICT.
>
> You could always e-mail them and ask to be
> sure. =A0I don't use those features, so I might've
> missed something.
>
> > >If you want netlists don't forget FreePCB (www.freepcb.com), mentioned
> > >by rickman. That looks pretty nice. =A0Also consider
> > >PCB from the gEDA project,http://www.geda.seul.org/
>
> Oh yes, another for the "free" list is KiCAD, which I assume
> everyone has heard of. =A0I haven't tried it.
>
> http://www.lis.inpg.fr/realise_au_lis/kicad/
>
> Sprint-Layout works well for me so I'm likely
> to stick with it, but it would be interesting to
> hear reports about the other packages.
>
> Cheers,
> James Arthur

Pulsonix exports netlists in these formats:

Accel PCB
PADS PCB
Zuken Rinf (Cadstar and Visula)
P-CAD PCB
OrCAD II DOS
Viewdraw

Any netlist format can be generated using the Report Maker.

Leon

"Leon" <l...@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
news:a...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Pulsonix exports netlists in these formats:

[deleted]

...Except that, unlike many pay-ware schematic capture programs, it can't 
import "was/is" (ECO) files to update the schematic based on connectivity and 
component changes made in your (non-Pulsonix) layout package of choice.

Granted, for many people this is probably a rather minor quibble -- if you've 
already given up cross-probing and pin/gate swapping (as happens with most 
scenarios where you're using schematic capture from a different vendor than 
PCB layout), not being able to back annotate probably isn't that much more of 
a loss.

---Joel

Chris H wrote:
> In message 
> <f...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, 
> steve <b...@yahoo.com> writes
>> On Aug 3, 1:27 pm, "Alt Beer" <exam...@example.com> wrote:
>>> "Blackwater" <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:4...@news.east.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>> > Is there any hope ? Something I've missed ? Winders ? Linux ?
>>> > Address of the "Society For The Prevention of Software Rip-Offs" ???
>>>
>>> CIRCAD Version 5 (OmniGlyph)http://www.holophase.com/index.html
>>> One of the easiest to learn.  I was laying out boards after a few mins.
>>> Logical user interface.  Eagle V4 it drives me nuts, tried it several 
>>> times
>>> and gave up each time.  The user manual and tutorial also crap.
>>
>> I had the same experience with Eagle, too bad they can't offer an
>> optional front end that follows the windows standard (for us folks
>> that prefer window applications).
>>
>> Using Eagle is like driving in England on the other side of the rode
>> while standing on my head with a mirror as my only view of road, I
>> really have no interest in learning how to do that.


Heh heh.  I have always used Eagle on Linux, and found no confusion.  I 
think this is due to the fact that just about every program on Linux is 
written with a different GUI toolkit.  You never even know when 
double-click vs. a single-click will make something happen.  So you 
learn to be flexible.  The result is that something as subtle as Eagle's 
inconsistency with standard Windoze apps. grammar easily goes unnoticed.

What's even more fun is when the same app. changes GUI toolkits from one 
version to another.  That seems to have happened with OpenOffice, now 
using the KDE dialog boxes.  On my newest Linux machines it seems every 
program has a different file dialog compared to my older Linux version. 
  Completely ridiculous.  But, at least it's not Windoze.



-- 
Good day!

____________________________________
CRC
c...@BOGUSsbcglobal.net
NOTE, delete texts: "REMOVETHIS" and
"BOGUS" from email address to reply.

"Chris Carlen" <c...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message 
news:esAsk.19328$m...@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
> I think this is due to the fact that just about every program on Linux is 
> written with a different GUI toolkit.  You never even know when double-click 
> vs. a single-click will make something happen.

Ding ding ding!  Yeah, you've sure got that right.  An incosistent user 
interface is one of the major hurdles to get "mass market" acceptance of Unix.

Things are much better these days than, e.g., 5-10 years ago, though.

Unix has a similar problem with configuration files... everyone and their 
brother invented their own format for storing settings (since there's still no 
standard central repository for settings as the registry in Windows provides), 
and while most are simple enough to figure out via examination of what's 
already there, many are somewhat "brittle" as well (the common example being 
how easy it is to break X windows by, e.g., leaving out a semi-colon in 
Xorg.conf ... sheesh...)

It took years for those in the Unix world to even get together on something as 
simple as how new programs should be programmatically added to a "start" menu; 
happily the Gnome and KDE guys both seem to play nice on this issue today.

Joel Koltner wrote:
> Unix has a similar problem with configuration files...
> everyone and their brother invented their own format for
> storing settings (since there's still no standard central
> repository for settings as the registry in Windows
> provides),

Like the registry, which is *so* much better ;)

> and while most are simple enough to figure out via
> examination of what's already there,

[Using a simple text editor]

> many are somewhat "brittle" as well (the common example
> being how easy it is to break X windows by, e.g., leaving
> out a semi-colon in Xorg.conf ... sheesh...)

Fortunately, the Windoze registry is intuitive *and* robust.

> It took years for those in the Unix world to even get
> together on something as simple as how new programs
> should be programmatically added to a "start" menu; 
> happily the Gnome and KDE guys both seem to play nice on
> this issue today.

As opposed to the years that it took Mirco$oft to figure out
how to do preemptive multi-tasking?

But I digress :-P

-- 
Michael N. Moran           (h) 770 516 7918
5009 Old Field Ct.         (c) 678 521 5460
Kennesaw, GA, USA 30144    http://mnmoran.org

"So often times it happens, that we live our lives in chains
  and we never even know we have the key."
"Already Gone" by Jack Tempchin (recorded by The Eagles)

The Beatles were wrong: 1 & 1 & 1 is 1

"Michael N. Moran" <m...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message 
news:%aBsk.16396$k...@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Like the registry, which is *so* much better ;)

It's better than the *NIX approach in that there are standard tools and APIs 
for creating, editing, and saving individual entries, branchs, etc.  Is it 
great?  No.  But I haven't seen any "great" answers to the problem -- storing 
configuration settings is such a general problem that there really aren't any 
great one-size-fits-all solutions, I expect.

> Fortunately, the Windoze registry is intuitive *and* robust.

Actually, yes -- the arrangement is reasonably intuitive, and it keeps backup 
copies of itself around to provide some degree of robustness.  (And as with 
*NIX text configuration files, you can certainly make as many manual backups 
as you feel like.)

> As opposed to the years that it took Mirco$oft to figure out
> how to do preemptive multi-tasking?

No one considered Windows 3.1/95/98 to be in the same class of operating 
systems as *NIX, you know. :-)  That started with Windows NT, which had plenty 
of "real OS" programmers on the team (including David Cutler, who had done 
plenty of VMS development... and one might argue he learned from many of his 
mistakes there? :-) ).

I wouldn't argue that Microsoft is particularly good at innovation... but they 
are good at noticing what's becoming popular in the market and then copying 
those features for their own OS.

---Joel

On 2008-08-25, Michael N. Moran <m...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> many are somewhat "brittle" as well (the common example
>> being how easy it is to break X windows by, e.g., leaving
>> out a semi-colon in Xorg.conf ... sheesh...)
>
> Fortunately, the Windoze registry is intuitive *and* robust.

Thanks. That made me laugh out loud. :)

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow! An INK-LING?  Sure --
                                  at               TAKE one!!  Did you BUY any
                               visi.com            COMMUNIST UNIFORMS??

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:49:35 -0700, Joel Koltner <z...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Michael N. Moran" <m...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message 
>news:%aBsk.16396$k...@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> Like the registry, which is *so* much better ;)

>It's better than the *NIX approach in that there are standard tools and APIs 
>for creating, editing, and saving individual entries, branchs, etc.  Is it 
>great?  No.  But I haven't seen any "great" answers to the problem -- storing 
>configuration settings is such a general problem that there really aren't any 
>great one-size-fits-all solutions, I expect.

>> Fortunately, the Windoze registry is intuitive *and* robust.

>Actually, yes -- the arrangement is reasonably intuitive, and it keeps backup 
>copies of itself around to provide some degree of robustness.  (And as with 
>*NIX text configuration files, you can certainly make as many manual backups 
>as you feel like.)

>> As opposed to the years that it took Mirco$oft to figure out
>> how to do preemptive multi-tasking?

>No one considered Windows 3.1/95/98 to be in the same class of operating 
>systems as *NIX, you know. :-)  That started with Windows NT, which had plenty 
>of "real OS" programmers on the team (including David Cutler, who had done 
>plenty of VMS development... and one might argue he learned from many of his 
>mistakes there? :-) ).

Oh yeah, and if it gets corrupted, you lose your entire system.  
Fucking wonderful.

On Aug 25, 11:45=A0am, Chris Carlen <crobcREMOVET...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

> >> Using Eagle is like driving in England on the other side of the rode
> >> while standing on my head with a mirror as my only view of road, I
> >> really have no interest in learning how to do that.
>
> Heh heh. =A0I have always used Eagle on Linux, and found no confusion. =
=A0I
> think this is due to the fact that just about every program on Linux is
> written with a different GUI toolkit. =A0You never even know when
> double-click vs. a single-click will make something happen. =A0So you
> learn to be flexible. =A0The result is that something as subtle as Eagle'=
s
> inconsistency with standard Windoze apps. grammar easily goes unnoticed.
>
> What's even more fun is when the same app. changes GUI toolkits from one
> version to another. =A0That seems to have happened with OpenOffice, now
> using the KDE dialog boxes. =A0On my newest Linux machines it seems every
> program has a different file dialog compared to my older Linux version.
> =A0 Completely ridiculous. =A0But, at least it's not Windoze.
>
> --
> Good day!
>
> ____________________________________
> CRC
> crobcREMOVET...@BOGUSsbcglobal.net
> NOTE, delete texts: "REMOVETHIS" and
> "BOGUS" from email address to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I guess I'll never understand the attraction of linux, guys I know
will spend all afternoon just to get something to start up, usually
some bizarre entry in a config file needs to changed, Windows may be
crappy/buggy/inefficient but at least it works