Re: PROTEL or EAGLE PCB-CAD - comparisons ???

Started by Fredrik Krook January 18, 2004
Noone have yet to answer my question!: Does anyone have the symbol and
footprint for the 18F8720 or NOT? And are willing to share it??? If someone
had given it to me the designed board would be the raward for letting me use
the symbol... The board is to be used as a labboard for 18F8720 and
16F877...

If there where one then the person would have had the layout of the finished
board and schematics as a thanks for letting me use that symbol &
fotprint... ----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 6:43 PM
Subject: [piclist] Re: PROTEL or EAGLE PCB-CAD - comparisons ??? > Eagle is a total PITA to learn. Its like the anti-UI. However, once
> you figure it out its incredibly powerfull and most circuit board
> houses take Eagle files directly. I can create a complex part in
> Eagle in about the same 20 minutes. Especially if there is already a
> part drawing in a lib somewhere (which there is for most PICs).
>
> --- In , "Dave Mucha" <davemucha@j...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It would probably take me 20 minutes to create a new library part
> > like that
> > > with the Pulsonix software I use, it shouldn't take much longer
> > with Protel.
> > > Eagle is probably harder. Most of that time will be typing in the
> > pin names
> > > as there are wizards to create the footprint and schematic
> symbols.
> >
> >
> > I've tried Eagle and found it counter-intuitive, tried Protel and
> > some of the others demo versions and then came to WinQCad as the
> > simple one to use.
> >
> > Is there a review of these programs that list the benefits and
> > problems ?
> >
> > I like WinQCad for the simplicty of the schematic layout and how
> easy
> > it is to make parts for the library. I also like the Autotrace
> > feature, but that lacks the ability to modify traces and then
> resume
> > from that point.
> >
> > Dave > to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and follow the
instructions
>
>


**************************************************************************
Krooksgraden.se
*************************************************************************



I have the 80 pin TQFP in Cadence format, I don't think that will help.
Do you want each member to answer, "no"? --- Fredrik Krook <> wrote:
> Noone have yet to answer my question!: Does anyone have the symbol
> and
> footprint for the 18F8720 or NOT? And are willing to share it??? If
> someone
> had given it to me the designed board would be the raward for letting
> me use
> the symbol... The board is to be used as a labboard for 18F8720 and
> 16F877...
>
> If there where one then the person would have had the layout of the
> finished
> board and schematics as a thanks for letting me use that symbol &
> fotprint... > ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phil" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 6:43 PM
> Subject: [piclist] Re: PROTEL or EAGLE PCB-CAD - comparisons ??? > > Eagle is a total PITA to learn. Its like the anti-UI. However,
> once
> > you figure it out its incredibly powerfull and most circuit board
> > houses take Eagle files directly. I can create a complex part in
> > Eagle in about the same 20 minutes. Especially if there is already
> a
> > part drawing in a lib somewhere (which there is for most PICs).
> >
> > --- In , "Dave Mucha" <davemucha@j...>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It would probably take me 20 minutes to create a new library
> part
> > > like that
> > > > with the Pulsonix software I use, it shouldn't take much longer
> > > with Protel.
> > > > Eagle is probably harder. Most of that time will be typing in
> the
> > > pin names
> > > > as there are wizards to create the footprint and schematic
> > symbols.
> > >
> > >
> > > I've tried Eagle and found it counter-intuitive, tried Protel and
> > > some of the others demo versions and then came to WinQCad as the
> > > simple one to use.
> > >
> > > Is there a review of these programs that list the benefits and
> > > problems ?
> > >
> > > I like WinQCad for the simplicty of the schematic layout and how
> > easy
> > > it is to make parts for the library. I also like the Autotrace
> > > feature, but that lacks the ability to modify traces and then
> > resume
> > > from that point.
> > >
> > > Dave
> >
> >
> > to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and follow the
> instructions
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
**************************************************************************
> Krooksgraden.se
>
*************************************************************************
>
>


__________________________________