hum ?? Current download version is Revision 3.0 :: Build 2150 :: 10-Mar-2004 not found 36 mo and not 51 mo ?? Pierre "Leon Heller" <leon_heller@hotmail.com> a �crit dans le message de news:405335cf$0$28269$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...> > "ABCDEF" <F5BJR@10online.fr> wrote in message > news:c2vb13$au7$1@apollon.grec.isp.9tel.net... > > i have downloaded at link for 3.0 .. > > > > but that is always the 2.1 version !! > > > This has been raised on the Pulsonix User Group forum. I've checked andthe> download is really Version 3.0 Build 1563. They updated the web page in a > hurry and got the version number wrong when they rebuilt the software.I've> told them about it and they should be rectifying it on Monday. > > Leon > >
ANN: new Pulsonix version 3 PCB software released
Started by ●March 12, 2004
Reply by ●March 13, 20042004-03-13
Reply by ●March 13, 20042004-03-13
"ABCDEF" <F5BJR@10online.fr> wrote in message news:c2vgnh$lpu$1@aphrodite.grec.isp.9tel.net...> hum ?? > > Current download version is Revision 3.0 :: Build 2150 :: 10-Mar-2004 > > not found 36 mo and not 51 mo ??I downloaded the demo, it acts as a full version with the license file. It is definitely identified as version 2.1 Build 1563. Leon Leon
Reply by ●March 13, 20042004-03-13
Leon Heller posted in sci.electronics.cad , in article <4052d7a8$0$10149$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>, at Sat, 13 Mar 2004 09:43:04 - 0000:> If you want another shock look at this abortion: > > http://www.otl.co.uk/ > > The developer seems to have a very high opinion of it, but it doesn't even > have rubber-banding on the connections!And it does not run on Windows 98 (yeah, I know Kevin will flame me after this). For other shock i'd look at VUTRAX, that has a GUI which I would call a CUI (Confusing User Interface), IMHO. Their help system is a pain on the a**. -- Chaos Master� - Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil irc.brasnet.org - #xlinuxnews and #poa marreka.no-ip.com (ainda n�o pronto) LRU #327480 "quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward
Reply by ●March 13, 20042004-03-13
"Chaos Master" <wizard_of_yendorIHATESPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c30b4j$22gb0t$3@ID-88878.news.uni-berlin.de...> Leon Heller posted in sci.electronics.cad , in article > <4052d7a8$0$10149$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>, at Sat, 13 Mar 200409:43:04 -> 0000: > > > > If you want another shock look at this abortion: > > > > http://www.otl.co.uk/ > > > > The developer seems to have a very high opinion of it, but it doesn'teven> > have rubber-banding on the connections! > > And it does not run on Windows 98 (yeah, I know Kevin will flame me afterthis).> > For other shock i'd look at VUTRAX, that has a GUI which I would call aCUI> (Confusing User Interface), IMHO. Their help system is a pain on the a**.A friend of mine has used the original DOS version of Vutrax for about 25 years. It's probably because he comes from Yorkshire. 8-) I find it very strange that several PCB packages don't conform to the usual intuitive way of selecting objects - just put the pointer on them and click the mouse button. That's the way most other applications work these days. Leon
Reply by ●March 13, 20042004-03-13
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 02:44:23 -0000, the renowned "Leon Heller" <leon_heller@hotmail.com> wrote:> >"Chaos Master" <wizard_of_yendorIHATESPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:c30b4j$22gb0t$3@ID-88878.news.uni-berlin.de... >> Leon Heller posted in sci.electronics.cad , in article >> <4052d7a8$0$10149$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>, at Sat, 13 Mar 2004 >09:43:04 - >> 0000: >> >> >> > If you want another shock look at this abortion: >> > >> > http://www.otl.co.uk/ >> > >> > The developer seems to have a very high opinion of it, but it doesn't >even >> > have rubber-banding on the connections! >> >> And it does not run on Windows 98 (yeah, I know Kevin will flame me after >this). >> >> For other shock i'd look at VUTRAX, that has a GUI which I would call a >CUI >> (Confusing User Interface), IMHO. Their help system is a pain on the a**. > >A friend of mine has used the original DOS version of Vutrax for about 25 >years. It's probably because he comes from Yorkshire. 8-) > >I find it very strange that several PCB packages don't conform to the usual >intuitive way of selecting objects - just put the pointer on them and click >the mouse button. That's the way most other applications work these days. > >LeonBackward compatibility has its downside. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Reply by ●March 13, 20042004-03-13
Leon Heller <leon_heller@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4053c705$0$28271$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com... [clip]> A friend of mine has used the original DOS version of Vutrax for about 25 > years. It's probably because he comes from Yorkshire. 8-)[clip].> > Leon >It's tight fisted sods like him that gives the rest of us poor buggers a bad name :-) regards john (born and bred in gods own)
Reply by ●March 14, 20042004-03-14
"Chaos Master" <wizard_of_yendorIHATESPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c30b4j$22gb0t$3@ID-88878.news.uni-berlin.de...> And it does not run on Windows 98 (yeah, I know Kevin will flame me afterthis). What is it with those guys that stick religiously to Windows 98? It is, along with ME, one of the crappiest versions of windows. I have run on 95 for years which was challenging some times, but it worked. Then I switched to NT4, which was a big improvement After NT4 I went to 2000, which was about the best thing (apart from using Linux) I have ever done, rock solid, stable and fast. On two other machines I sometimes use, is 98 and ME. And it always strikes me how unstable and sloooow these machines are compared to windows 2000. The memory management of 98 and ME is so bad that working with large files results in many swapping actions which slow the computer down tremendously. The same operations on an 2000 machine with a slower processor and the same amount of memory perform much faster. And then I haven't mentioned the times 98 and ME crash, for no apparent reason. Sticking to 98 and ME is the worst thing you can do. Do yourself a favour and take that time to start fresh with 2000. You'll love it. Meindert
Reply by ●March 14, 20042004-03-14
Chaos Master wrote:> Leon Heller posted in sci.electronics.cad , in article > <4052d7a8$0$10149$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>, at Sat, 13 Mar 2004 > 09:43:04 - 0000: > > >> If you want another shock look at this abortion: >> >> http://www.otl.co.uk/ >> >> The developer seems to have a very high opinion of it, but it >> doesn't even have rubber-banding on the connections! > > And it does not run on Windows 98 (yeah, I know Kevin will flame me > after this).Why?:-) I will note that I have not yet "upgraded" my MS VC++ to the latest with .net. This is because it wants to eliminated support for 95/ME etc. Too many are still using the older systems for me to restrict SS in that way just yet. .net, is of course, just another attempt for MS to flog, essentially, useless new product. Kevin Aylward salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. http://www.anasoft.co.uk/NewBeginning.mp3 "quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.
Reply by ●March 14, 20042004-03-14
Meindert Sprang wrote:> "Chaos Master" <wizard_of_yendorIHATESPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:c30b4j$22gb0t$3@ID-88878.news.uni-berlin.de... > >>And it does not run on Windows 98 (yeah, I know Kevin will flame me after > > this). > > What is it with those guys that stick religiously to Windows 98? It is, > along with ME, one of the crappiest versions of windows. I have run on 95 > for years which was challenging some times, but it worked. Then I switched > to NT4, which was a big improvement After NT4 I went to 2000, which was > about the best thing (apart from using Linux) I have ever done, rock solid, > stable and fast. On two other machines I sometimes use, is 98 and ME. And it > always strikes me how unstable and sloooow these machines are compared to > windows 2000. The memory management of 98 and ME is so bad that working with > large files results in many swapping actions which slow the computer down > tremendously. The same operations on an 2000 machine with a slower processor > and the same amount of memory perform much faster. And then I haven't > mentioned the times 98 and ME crash, for no apparent reason. Sticking to 98 > and ME is the worst thing you can do. Do yourself a favour and take that > time to start fresh with 2000. You'll love it. > > MeindertWindows 95 and 98 let you control the serial and parallel ports without hassle. Many programs that do physical I/O won't run on NT derivatives. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●March 14, 20042004-03-14
"Meindert Sprang" <mhsprang@NOcustomSPAMware.nl> wrote in message news:40540fb0$1@news.nb.nu...> "Chaos Master" <wizard_of_yendorIHATESPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:c30b4j$22gb0t$3@ID-88878.news.uni-berlin.de... > > And it does not run on Windows 98 (yeah, I know Kevin will flame meafter> this). > > What is it with those guys that stick religiously to Windows 98? It is, > along with ME, one of the crappiest versions of windows. I have run on 95 > for years which was challenging some times, but it worked. Then I switched > to NT4, which was a big improvement After NT4 I went to 2000, which was > about the best thing (apart from using Linux) I have ever done, rocksolid,> stable and fast. On two other machines I sometimes use, is 98 and ME. Andit> always strikes me how unstable and sloooow these machines are compared to > windows 2000. The memory management of 98 and ME is so bad that workingwith> large files results in many swapping actions which slow the computer down > tremendously. The same operations on an 2000 machine with a slowerprocessor> and the same amount of memory perform much faster. And then I haven't > mentioned the times 98 and ME crash, for no apparent reason. Sticking to98> and ME is the worst thing you can do. Do yourself a favour and take that > time to start fresh with 2000. You'll love it.I installed XP a few days ago after using 98 and ME for several years and have been pleasantly surprised. It's much faster than ME, hasn't crashed since I installed all the updates (it was very flaky at first) and runs all the software I use without any problems. Leon
