Stability of older Orcad/PSpice combos?

[John KD5YI]

On 4/28/2011 5:59 PM, John Larkin wrote:

I know you didn't ask *me*, but...

How do you feel about upside-down grounds?


-
---
-----
|
|
|
|

I'd rather have the usual kind, but I don't have a problem with this
one. In fact, I'd prefer it to one that has one or two 90 degree bends
in the connecting wire.

Or a connection that looks like


------------o
/|\
/ | \
/ | \
| | |
| | |
| | |


?

I used connections similar to this on my schematics to emphasize that
the wires need to be connected at one and only one point, usually to a
ground lug. The technician building the gear knew exactly what I wanted
and he knew I would inspect for it.

John

John

 

[[email protected]]

John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 22:51:59 -0500, "[email protected]"

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:06:50 -0700, John Larkin

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 18:00:29 -0500, "[email protected]"

josephkk wrote:

[...]

Looking at this again, i suggest that you have some version of DLL hell. I
do not have any problems with Acrobat on any machine, Windoes or Linux.
This is often the root cause of Flash problems as well.

Why is Foxit stable then and Acrobat isn't? And Cadsoft Eagle is rock
solid and Orcad isn't? No matter how impatient I am (and with software
and GUIs I am not the most patient guy) I have not managed to bring
Eagle to crash on me. I can bring Foxit to choke and huff and puff, but
not really into a CTRL-ALT-DEL situation.
I should think that's obvious. Neither Foxit nor Eagle have DLLs with
conflicts. In fact, this points to conflicts between Orcad and Acrobat.
No Acrobat, here, and I can get OrCAD crashes quite consistently. Fewer with
16.3 than 15.7 but it'll still crash. When it does, it's more often without a
save, now.
Does it have periodic autosave? PADS does.
It causes crashes.


Oh.


Yep. Found that out the hard way. Now that I have set auto-backup to 300
minutes (essentially meaning never because by then I am on the next
schematic) the number of crashes is lower. I also learned to smell
wooziness and do a quick shut-down. For example when placed probes
refuse to turn from gray to some bonbon color.

I've heard mostly horror stories about Orcad. The only thing I've ever
used it for, long ago, was schematic entry for FPGA design. It seemed
to me to be a horror. Sometimes wires would actually enter connection
dots but be a few pixels short of completing the connection. They
managed to automate the cold solder joint!

I absolutely have contempt for a schematic entry program that allows
things that are visually connected to be not really connected.

I don't like connection-by-netname, either, but I've been known to do it
(local power is one reason).

And for
tools that crash, and crash more if you enable auto-backup. PADS does
neither.

Some of us don't get to choose our tools.

I do what I enjoy, not what anybody tells me to do. I like to draw, so
I do it. Sue me.

Old office:

ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Auto.jpg

New, office, with lighthouse:

ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/RainyDay.jpg

Two lighthouses, actually.



How do you feel about upside-down grounds?


-
---
-----
|
|
|
|

They look too much like antennas. I don't much like upside-down power bars
either, but bending a wire around to a negative power supply isn't any
prettier.

Or a connection that looks like


------------o
/|\
/ | \
/ | \
| | |
| | |
| | |

If that suggest reality, I have no issue with it. Some don't like angled
signals, at all, but often it makes a lot of sense (cross-coupling and bridge
structures, come to mind). If I can suggest a physical property in the
schematic by drawing something unusual, I'll do it.

 

[Joerg]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 22:51:59 -0500, "[email protected]"

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:06:50 -0700, John Larkin

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 18:00:29 -0500, "[email protected]"

josephkk wrote:

[...]

Looking at this again, i suggest that you have some version of DLL hell. I
do not have any problems with Acrobat on any machine, Windoes or Linux.
This is often the root cause of Flash problems as well.
Why is Foxit stable then and Acrobat isn't? And Cadsoft Eagle is rock
solid and Orcad isn't? No matter how impatient I am (and with software
and GUIs I am not the most patient guy) I have not managed to bring
Eagle to crash on me. I can bring Foxit to choke and huff and puff, but
not really into a CTRL-ALT-DEL situation.
I should think that's obvious. Neither Foxit nor Eagle have DLLs with
conflicts. In fact, this points to conflicts between Orcad and Acrobat.
No Acrobat, here, and I can get OrCAD crashes quite consistently. Fewer with
16.3 than 15.7 but it'll still crash. When it does, it's more often without a
save, now.
Does it have periodic autosave? PADS does.
It causes crashes.

Oh.

Yep. Found that out the hard way. Now that I have set auto-backup to 300
minutes (essentially meaning never because by then I am on the next
schematic) the number of crashes is lower. I also learned to smell
wooziness and do a quick shut-down. For example when placed probes
refuse to turn from gray to some bonbon color.

I hope you're backing up to other media. ...

Oh yeah, three different media. With Orcad me no take no chances no more

... Your ass is about to be grass ;-)

What, you had that turning gray of probe pins happen, too?

I got a chuckle out of the "smoke parameters". But it doesn't have a
BANG device.

 

[Joerg]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 22:51:59 -0500, "[email protected]"

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:06:50 -0700, John Larkin

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 18:00:29 -0500, "[email protected]"

josephkk wrote:

[...]

Looking at this again, i suggest that you have some version of DLL hell. I
do not have any problems with Acrobat on any machine, Windoes or Linux.
This is often the root cause of Flash problems as well.
Why is Foxit stable then and Acrobat isn't? And Cadsoft Eagle is rock
solid and Orcad isn't? No matter how impatient I am (and with software
and GUIs I am not the most patient guy) I have not managed to bring
Eagle to crash on me. I can bring Foxit to choke and huff and puff, but
not really into a CTRL-ALT-DEL situation.
I should think that's obvious. Neither Foxit nor Eagle have DLLs with
conflicts. In fact, this points to conflicts between Orcad and Acrobat.
No Acrobat, here, and I can get OrCAD crashes quite consistently. Fewer with
16.3 than 15.7 but it'll still crash. When it does, it's more often without a
save, now.
Does it have periodic autosave? PADS does.
It causes crashes.

Oh.

Yep. Found that out the hard way. Now that I have set auto-backup to 300
minutes (essentially meaning never because by then I am on the next
schematic) the number of crashes is lower. I also learned to smell
wooziness and do a quick shut-down. For example when placed probes
refuse to turn from gray to some bonbon color.

I've heard mostly horror stories about Orcad. The only thing I've ever
used it for, long ago, was schematic entry for FPGA design. It seemed
to me to be a horror. Sometimes wires would actually enter connection
dots but be a few pixels short of completing the connection. They
managed to automate the cold solder joint!

PADS just doesn't allow unconnected wire ends. Maybe all the
connection-dot whiners here still are using Orcad. Or diazo machines.

Eagle doesn't either as long as stay-on-grid is turned on. If it ain't
you can move a part and if the wires tag along it's connected.

Orcad also seems fussy about replacing parts. Delete one, pick new part,
move over, click to place ... refuses. Same symbol, no dice. First the
wires need to be deleted, part placed, then new wires drawn. Probably I
didn't use some magic trick but man, that's the opposite of intuitive.

 

[[email protected]]

John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 22:51:59 -0500, "[email protected]"

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:06:50 -0700, John Larkin

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 18:00:29 -0500, "[email protected]"

josephkk wrote:

[...]

Looking at this again, i suggest that you have some version of DLL hell. I
do not have any problems with Acrobat on any machine, Windoes or Linux.
This is often the root cause of Flash problems as well.
Why is Foxit stable then and Acrobat isn't? And Cadsoft Eagle is rock
solid and Orcad isn't? No matter how impatient I am (and with software
and GUIs I am not the most patient guy) I have not managed to bring
Eagle to crash on me. I can bring Foxit to choke and huff and puff, but
not really into a CTRL-ALT-DEL situation.
I should think that's obvious. Neither Foxit nor Eagle have DLLs with
conflicts. In fact, this points to conflicts between Orcad and Acrobat.
No Acrobat, here, and I can get OrCAD crashes quite consistently. Fewer with
16.3 than 15.7 but it'll still crash. When it does, it's more often without a
save, now.
Does it have periodic autosave? PADS does.
It causes crashes.

Oh.

Yep. Found that out the hard way. Now that I have set auto-backup to 300
minutes (essentially meaning never because by then I am on the next
schematic) the number of crashes is lower. I also learned to smell
wooziness and do a quick shut-down. For example when placed probes
refuse to turn from gray to some bonbon color.

I've heard mostly horror stories about Orcad. The only thing I've ever
used it for, long ago, was schematic entry for FPGA design. It seemed
to me to be a horror. Sometimes wires would actually enter connection
dots but be a few pixels short of completing the connection. They
managed to automate the cold solder joint!

PADS just doesn't allow unconnected wire ends. Maybe all the
connection-dot whiners here still are using Orcad. Or diazo machines.

Eagle doesn't either as long as stay-on-grid is turned on. If it ain't
you can move a part and if the wires tag along it's connected.

Orcad also seems fussy about replacing parts. Delete one, pick new part,
move over, click to place ... refuses. Same symbol, no dice. First the
wires need to be deleted, part placed, then new wires drawn. Probably I
didn't use some magic trick but man, that's the opposite of intuitive.

Copying a part over an old part should work. You can't copy it somewhere else
and drag it into position, though. OrCAD won't let you move anything that
would change a connection (i.e. a move can't cause a change in the netlist);
copy can.

 

[Joerg]

Check that you have Options->Preferences->Miscellaneous->Wire
Drag->Allow Component Move With Connectivity Changes checked? (It isn't
checked after a default installation.)

Just tried it but unchecked it again. It does then accept parts to be
scooted into position but when moving them it breaks connections. Not so
cool. Cadence should buy a copy of Eagle and see how it's done

Also, in case you aren't aware of this... if you Alt-drag a part, it'll
purposely *not* drag its wires along with it. (...and Ctrl+dragging a
part duplicates it, as happens in most Windows programs.)

Another annoying "feature" of Orcad is that it pushes wires upon block
moves. Meaing some cleanup after evey move, including some contortion
art. Makes no sense. SDT didn't do that, but that was from the good old
times.

 

[[email protected]]

Check that you have Options->Preferences->Miscellaneous->Wire Drag->Allow
Component Move With Connectivity Changes checked? (It isn't checked after a
default installation.)

It wasn't in earlier releases but I think it is now. I've never changed that
option and no one would have done it for me.

Also, in case you aren't aware of this... if you Alt-drag a part, it'll
purposely *not* drag its wires along with it. (...and Ctrl+dragging a part
duplicates it, as happens in most Windows programs.)

....which is stupid because Ctrl+drag is also how you select components in an
area. OrCAD likes to confuse the two and you get an area selected and copied
on top of itself (and both still selected). Good thing Ctrl-Z is handy.

 

[[email protected]]

Just tried it but unchecked it again. It does then accept parts to be
scooted into position but when moving them it breaks connections. Not so
cool. Cadence should buy a copy of Eagle and see how it's done



Another annoying "feature" of Orcad is that it pushes wires upon block
moves. Meaing some cleanup after evey move, including some contortion
art. Makes no sense. SDT didn't do that, but that was from the good old
times.

You can Cntl-uncheck wires before the move. Uncheck them in the segment
*before* the segment you don't want to "push". Also, only push in one
direction at a time. It's dumb but not as bad as you indicate. OTOH, bundle
(bus) operation is backwards. There, you want to select the segment. ...and
taps still get messed up no matter what you do.

 

[John KD5YI]

John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 22:51:59 -0500, "[email protected]"

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:06:50 -0700, John Larkin

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 18:00:29 -0500, "[email protected]"

josephkk wrote:

[...]

Looking at this again, i suggest that you have some version of DLL hell. I
do not have any problems with Acrobat on any machine, Windoes or Linux.
This is often the root cause of Flash problems as well.
Why is Foxit stable then and Acrobat isn't? And Cadsoft Eagle is rock
solid and Orcad isn't? No matter how impatient I am (and with software
and GUIs I am not the most patient guy) I have not managed to bring
Eagle to crash on me. I can bring Foxit to choke and huff and puff, but
not really into a CTRL-ALT-DEL situation.
I should think that's obvious. Neither Foxit nor Eagle have DLLs with
conflicts. In fact, this points to conflicts between Orcad and Acrobat.
No Acrobat, here, and I can get OrCAD crashes quite consistently. Fewer with
16.3 than 15.7 but it'll still crash. When it does, it's more often without a
save, now.
Does it have periodic autosave? PADS does.
It causes crashes.

Oh.

Yep. Found that out the hard way. Now that I have set auto-backup to 300
minutes (essentially meaning never because by then I am on the next
schematic) the number of crashes is lower. I also learned to smell
wooziness and do a quick shut-down. For example when placed probes
refuse to turn from gray to some bonbon color.

I hope you're backing up to other media. ...

Oh yeah, three different media. With Orcad me no take no chances no more

... Your ass is about to be grass ;-)

What, you had that turning gray of probe pins happen, too?

No, Remember I don't use Crapture, but can convert my schematics to
Crapture upon request... without ever opening Crapture ;-)

The word "crapture" has become trite, especially when used three times
in one sentence.

Please, Jim, tell me you're not developing a feces fetish like your most
recent admirer.

 

[GoldIntermetallicEmbrittlement]

In your experience, what was a relatively stable (as in "not many
crashes") version I could try to go back to?

The older ones are definitely more stable. They got heavy on theft
deterrence, and those checks, and that detection engine is part of why
the newer versions suck so badly. They suck so bad, they suck at
sucking.

Anyway, 13 thru 15 are nice. 15 works good on a laptop (hey, if I own
the license, I should be able to run it anywhere).

We used to buy software dongle replacements from a house in Canada.

 

[GoldIntermetallicEmbrittlement]

It sounds like a hardware problem like not enough RAM, or a dying
hard drive. If you don't have enough RAM, the drive is constantly
reading and writing swap files. That pushes the hardware to it's limits
and causes more errors. Also, it may be old enough to have failing
electrolytics on the motherboard. I recently picked up three Acer
Aspire L100 mini desktops with bad capacitors. All three were running
512 MB of RAM. One also had a bad hard drive. There are just over a
year old.

That is the most retarded prognosis I have ever seen.

I'll bet his box will run blu-ray video stream level stuff, no problem.
That is GPU AND CPU intensive decode and render routines, AND reads AND
writes to swap AND ALL the RAM. I'll bet his hardware is fine.

Your prognosis is pathetic.

RAM OR a hard drive? Which is it, boy? What a joke.

IF his hard drive was giving errors, they would still be there. He
would have said something.

I'll bet those machines you have were NEVER cleaned by their owner, and
they ran hot most of their life, and even up until failure. (He'll come
back and claim that they were 'clean as a whistle'). Good chance that
you failed them too. With a garage full of junk, it would appear that
what you have is anything but "The Midas Touch".

 

[The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra]

Yep. Found that out the hard way. Now that I have set auto-backup to 300
minutes (essentially meaning never because by then I am on the next
schematic) the number of crashes is lower.

Have you tried zero?

 

[The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra]

On 4/28/2011 5:59 PM, John Larkin wrote:

I used connections similar to this on my schematics to emphasize that
the wires need to be connected at one and only one point, usually to a
ground lug.

It is an improper node formation.

Both because it is off by one character, AND because it breaks design
rules, conventions AND standards.

No need for that. They fall on a string, and you place the entire
string within a bounding box. You can also create a ground node
component to handle it.

The technician building the gear knew exactly what I wanted
and he knew I would inspect for it.

Oh boy! You are an inspector too!

Any good assembler or technician or whomever one gets to build one's
'gear' would easily interpret a proper drawing just fine. Without the
dopey inspector wanna be.

It is even easier to show in a block diagram where each wire gets a
part number. THEN you can route all of them to the same "GND" "box".

That is how large system integrations get done. The components are
already built, so they are all represented by a box. Vendor items like
downlink converters, uplink converters, and RF Amplifiers, and on the
data side, routers and switches, servers, and accelerators, etc. all get
boxes that get filled in with component PN, and the rack and slot
location they get put in,. So all the wiring gets wire numbers.

So the entire drawing of a million dollars worth of "gear" is boxes
with lines connecting to them. Those wires have source and destination
tags on them, including the ground fault returns from each chassis. They
typically get tied to the ground bus bar that runs the length of the
rack. THAT IS THE SAME NODE, even if it is not the same stud.

Now, INSIDE a chassis is a different story. You DO, in many cases (but
by no means all), want all internal ground ties at a singular location.

THAT should typically be an Assembly drawing detail, NOT a schematic
detail. A schematic is an electrical drawing. You are mixing details
from a mechanical assembly drawing and schematic representation.

A bounded box DOES denote a singular tie point. That is why they make
them. That is what they are for.

Your 'method' works, but is not the formal method. The formal method
would include a written note about the requisite, And the bounded box
method.

The "StarTard" method,though able to be interpreted is neither correct
nor aesthetic.

 

[John KD5YI]

It is an improper node formation.

Both because it is off by one character, AND because it breaks design
rules, conventions AND standards.

No need for that. They fall on a string, and you place the entire
string within a bounding box. You can also create a ground node
component to handle it.


Oh boy! You are an inspector too!

Any good assembler or technician or whomever one gets to build one's
'gear' would easily interpret a proper drawing just fine. Without the
dopey inspector wanna be.

It is even easier to show in a block diagram where each wire gets a
part number. THEN you can route all of them to the same "GND" "box".

That is how large system integrations get done. The components are
already built, so they are all represented by a box. Vendor items like
downlink converters, uplink converters, and RF Amplifiers, and on the
data side, routers and switches, servers, and accelerators, etc. all get
boxes that get filled in with component PN, and the rack and slot
location they get put in,. So all the wiring gets wire numbers.

So the entire drawing of a million dollars worth of "gear" is boxes
with lines connecting to them. Those wires have source and destination
tags on them, including the ground fault returns from each chassis. They
typically get tied to the ground bus bar that runs the length of the
rack. THAT IS THE SAME NODE, even if it is not the same stud.

Now, INSIDE a chassis is a different story. You DO, in many cases (but
by no means all), want all internal ground ties at a singular location.

THAT should typically be an Assembly drawing detail, NOT a schematic
detail. A schematic is an electrical drawing. You are mixing details
from a mechanical assembly drawing and schematic representation.

A bounded box DOES denote a singular tie point. That is why they make
them. That is what they are for.

Your 'method' works, but is not the formal method. The formal method
would include a written note about the requisite, And the bounded box
method.

The "StarTard" method,though able to be interpreted is neither correct
nor aesthetic.

Said the Rat_Bastard who knows nothing and cannot prove he is even
working for a legitimate company.

 

[The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra]

Thanks for the opinion, but I actually asked John Fields how he felt
about the two examples I posted. No answer.

John

I was responding to the other idiot's stupidity, not you, idiot.

LEARN TO READ, IDIOT!

 

[The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra]

The word "crapture" has become trite, especially when used three times
in one sentence.

Please, Jim, tell me you're not developing a feces fetish like your most
recent admirer.

Actually, fucktard, it is you that has mentioned it now six times
minimum in the last 24 hrs.

 

[The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra]

Well, you did disappear from the conversation. I was afraid you'd had
a stroke or something, fell and couldn't get up.

John

When I examine the timeline of posts, I see no such absence.

Other than that of your intellect, that is, if it ever existed, that
is.

 

[Joerg]

You can Cntl-uncheck wires before the move. Uncheck them in the segment
*before* the segment you don't want to "push". Also, only push in one
direction at a time. It's dumb but not as bad as you indicate. OTOH, bundle
(bus) operation is backwards. There, you want to select the segment. ...and
taps still get messed up no matter what you do.

Ok, but why on earth do I have to uncheck wires when such behavior is
never desired by anyone in his right mind? The guys who write this stuff
should occasionally do an actual design

 

[Joerg]

Have you tried zero?

Oh no, I am not going to try anything like that with software that has
behaved unstable right from the beginning. That's like walking a plank
and trying to see what happens if you step onto the edge.

 

[Joerg]

Amateur. I regularly select a block, then unselect "stubs" that I
don't want to drag (or move).

Try Eagle some day. It doesn't require such nonsense, it just works. It
is IMHO a much better schematic editor.

Exactly what good does it do that wires push into the rest of the
schematic without first unselecting them?