Hi,

who says DOS is dead? Maybe he is called B. Gates? Forget it. 

The facts:

- Windows is, was and remain the most unreliable platform of the world.
People like me wanting do serious developping tasks instead of dealing
with silly messages and crazy icons won't prefer it. On the other hand,
the risk is simply too high to lose my precious work.

- Caldera offers Open DOS, free for non-commercial, with version number
7.02 , in a lot of point of view is far better than MS-DOS.

- IBM offers PC-DOS 2000 as a future-oriented product, with Y2K
compliance, REXX support and much more.

There is a German proverb: Totgesagte leben lŠnger (abt. people said dead
live longer).

I can say: DOS is transparent. Windows is not.

Here is my two cent.

Imre


On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, Lawrence Lile wrote:

> Myke wrote the most amazing thing I've read all day:
> 
> 
> > Would it be worthwhile creating a set of requirements for the tool
> > to be adopted as a standard?  I'm not sure suggesting packages and
> > deciding on the best one is the best way to go about it.
> >
> > For a schematic capture tool, I would suggest creating requirements
> > for the following areas:
> >
> > Platforms (Hardware and Operating Systems)
> 
> Minimum requirements would be WIN95, WINNT, and Unix.  MAYBE support
> for WIN3.1, but that's dying.  DOS is dead.
> 
> 
> > Input (File/Netlist/Component Types)
> >
> > Features (Multi-Page/Colours/Cut and Past/Projects/etc.)
> >
> > Outputs (Gif/Windows Meta/PS/Netlist types/VHDL/Windows Clipboard)
> 
> ADD TO THIS:  DXF output, GERBER output, and perhaps PDF.
> 
> >
> > Simulator (UMPS/Others...)
> >
> >
> > For a Board Layout tool the requirements could be taken into the
> > following areas:
> >
> > Input (Netlist Types/Design on the fly/Multiple Projects)
> >
> > Component Design (Hole diameters/Solder Mask Apertures)
> 
> IMPORT of component outlines from DXF!!!!  Many times I've put a
> custom component on a board and had to re-draw it with a clumsy
> schematic tool when a CAD model already exists.  AARRGH!  Every one
> of my designs has at least one custom component.
> 
> >
> > Features (Layer Count/Graphics Importing/Autorouter/Additional
> > Design Importing/trace widths)
> 
> IMPORT should include DXF for at least board outlines and mounting
> holes.  FULL connectivity with a mechanical CAD system is a
> requirement in a real design team.  Importing board outlines and
> outputting them back to the mechanical team is a MUST. It's why I
> haven't bought a decent EDA package yet.
> 
> >
> > Output (Gerber/Gif/PS/Windows Meta/Windows Clipboard)
> 
> Output should include DXF (did I already say this?)
> 
> >
> >
> > And the final criteria being cost.  Ideally, I would like to see <
> > $100 USD per year for a product that could create a two layer 8.5"
> > by 11" board with up to 10K nodes (basically a PC-AT motherboard).
> >
> 
> I'd pay up to $400 for such a package.  I'd Beta test it free.  Most
> of the big name packages  (PADS, PROTEL) have gone way beyond my
> price range and requirements.  Fancy tools that don't crank out my 4"
> x 4" single sided designs with one PIC and a relay any faster than
> they did ten years ago, while ignoring features I really need.  .
> 
> 
> >
> > With these requirements in place, we could do one of two things:
> >
> > a) approach a company already doing work in this area and ask them
> > to develop a product that meets our requirements.  There is over
> > fifteen hundred people on the PICList, that should be some kind of
> > critical mass for a company to work through a product.
> 
> Let's do it!  CAMCAD, EAGLE, and many others might jump at the
> chance.  Meanwhile we might be able to tell them what real designers
> in our niche need.  38 layer boards???? Forget them!!
> 
> >
> > As a subpart of this, we could ask for a company to modify an
> > existing product to meet these requirements.
> >
> 
> 
> > b) take the GNU approach with everybody on the list creating a bit
> > of the project and working it through from there.  I particularly
> > like this because it spreads out the worst part of the work,
> > entering in all the component information could be done by many
> > people.
> >
> >
> > I'm not trying to say that Eagle is not an excellent product.  I
> > have not tried it, and as my previous note indicated, I have been
> > working mostly with Ulti-mate.  What I'm trying to do is see if
> > there is a common set of requirements that we can agree upon (after
> > all, this is a "Common Schematic Platform").
> >
> >
> 
> I'd love to be using it.
> 
> 
> > I will be out of town for a couple of days, but if this idea has
> > merit, I would be willing to provide space on my web page for doing
> > the polling.
> >
> > myke
> 
> Thanks, Myke.
> 
> -- Lawrence Lile
> 
>      "The ideal design has zero parts"  -
>             (attributed to Harold Hallikainen)
> 
> Download AutoCad blocks for electrical drafting at:
> http://home1.gte.net/llile/index.htm
> 
>