>Thanks to all that replied to my post so far.
>
>I've noticed a couple of things.  1) No one mentioned Ivex or EWB. Why?

Don't know either of these packages, but if the EWB PCB package is anything
like the EWB simulation package I have, then I would not touch it.

>2) It seems over the years big companies have bought up the little
>companies to put them out of business (and to also keep the cost of
>good tools very high).

I doubt this is the reason. These tools are expensive to develop, and I
suspect what the large (and presumably more successful) companies are really
buying is the customer base to convert to their better package.

>3) No one has seemed to address the library problem.  Everyone needs
>schematic symbols, PCB footprints, and some need spice models.  Yet
>all of these programs have their own libraries.  Why isn't there a
>standard format that manufactures of components can use to build symbols
>and data files for their parts?  Why isn't there (unless there is and
>I don't know of it) a professional association pushing for such standards?
>If such standards existed, then software makers would be competing on
>feature sets and user interface issues.

Actually when you look at what comes in the packages it is quite reasonable.
Would you seriously look at buying a package if it is going to charge you
another 10% because it has symbols for Pentium Processors, ARM processors,
every possible configuration of FPGA ..... etc, the list goes on. All
packages I have seen come with basic items such as passives, a reasonable
list of common semiconductors (basic gates, op-amps etc) and then have the
ability for the purchaser to define their own symbols for the complex parts.
There is a fair chance that any complex symbols which the package supplier
will give you will not conform to your way of "doing schematics" anyway, so
will need redrawing to your way of doing things. Do you prefer the power
pins on the chip, or on a separate "power block"? Do you like your micros
drawn as the pin layout or as a functional layout? The variations are almost
endless. This is why the layout tools suppliers do not go this "extra couple
of miles" as often you would be paying for something you are going to re-do
anyway.

Orcad certainly comes with a very complete set of IC pads for layout. There
would not be many components I would need to do footprints for, mostly
connectors or very new surface mount items where a new package development
has produced a strange footprint. I would be surprised if any other package
really came without most IC footprints in it.

I also cannot understand why one of the posters has a problem with Orcad
layout. I have been using it as a self taught package, with minimal help
from work colleagues, and once you get the idea of how the layers work
together it really is quite good.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu