Stability of older Orcad/PSpice combos?

[Charlie E.]

Agreed -- their choice of editing techniques definitely conflicts with itself
at times, and I end up using Ctrl+Z a lot too! (I also miss features like
"lasso select" and "unselect a a rectangular or lassed group of parts from
within the larger group already selected" that some other programs have.)

That's the fruit of a program that's being maintained by a bunch of people
without, as far as I can tell, any one guy (or small core set of developers)
who have a clear vision of exactly what it is they're trying to do in the
first place...

But, at least now you can use undo multiple times! That was the
feature that lost us the PSpice development team... ;-)

Charlie

 

[Joerg]

PSpice Schematics just works too.

But I don't understand (not unusual with you ... when I select an
area, it's a rectangle... there are often things inside that rectangle
that I DON'T want to move, so I unselect them.

What's your problem?

When I draw a rectangle I expect only the stuff inside such rectangle to
be moved. However, Orcad also moves the far-side connection of any wires
sticking out of this rectangle, no matter how far those junctions are
from the rectangle. CAD isn't supposed to move stuff outside the
rectangle. Suppose every time you move a garden hose it would push the
hose bib out of the wall, that would be comparable ;-)

But it's water under the bridge, I am running the last simulations (for
now).

Stop using Crapture ;-)

Can't right now, as explained before. But it's a rental license so the
problem will automagically fix itself in the not too distant future

 

[John KD5YI]

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

Prove it, Rat_Bastard. Otherwise, STFU.

 

[Joerg]

Good point...

Those transitions years where half the time you'd do something and you'd
get the pop-up, "BTW, this operation isn't undoable and, in fact,
executing it will remove the entire undo history... is that OK?" were
kinda annoying!

Were? In PSpice they are still there but you can click a check box
"Don't show this again". To my surprise that little check box actually
worked

 

[[email protected]]

Ok, but why on earth do I have to uncheck wires when such behavior is
never desired by anyone in his right mind?

Got me! It's not rational but it's a "rule" that's not all that onerous.

The guys who write this stuff should occasionally do an actual design

You want software dweebs to do hardware design? Horrors! ;-)

 

[[email protected]]

I don't like that restriction at all. There are times when I want a dangling
line because something is about to go there. There are other times when I
*really* want a dangling line (to emphasize that a net connected by name).

That strikes me as a bit draconian, but I understand the reasoning.

I prefer programs that can be set to simply highlight not-fully-connected
wires in a different color from the rest of them: I typically use black for
fully-connected wires and almost-fluorescenct purple for the partially
connected ones; they're impossible to miss. (Sometimes I'll be in the middle
of drawing a long signal and I do prefer to be able to stop it mid-stream, go
off and look in another corner of the schematic or something, and then go back
and finish the signal.)

How do you do that?

 

[The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra]

Gosh. Seen a doctor lately?

John

Leave it to John to come back with a retarded post.

YOU made the remark. I REFUTED it. Proven wrong, you move on, as
usual, to petty insult attempts, and abject avoidance of the issue you
just got so very wrong, as usual.

What a punk like you needs is a big, fat lip.

 

[The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra]

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.

A zero setting usually means NONE.

AND if you are always crashing so much TRY it. What the **** could it
hurt?

 

[The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 06:00:29 -0700, John Larkin
[snip]
---
Back in the day...
---

Your pal JT does 4-ways, too.

Wonder how many schematics did Larkin have to look through to find one
that I accidentally did a 4-way? Larkin should cite same or STFU.

...Jim Thompson

There are a few of them, but one is in a chip layout. There is even
one on your most recent patent co-filing.

The circuit I posted over a year ago.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/48373875@N06/5235491102/in/photostream/lightbox/

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5089/5235491102_08a17e9bb5_b_d.jpg

 

[John KD5YI]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 06:00:29 -0700, John Larkin
[snip]

Wonder how many schematics did Larkin have to look through to find one
that I accidentally did a 4-way? Larkin should cite same or STFU.

...Jim Thompson

There are a few of them, but one is in a chip layout. There is even
one on your most recent patent co-filing.

The circuit I posted over a year ago.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/48373875@N06/5235491102/in/photostream/lightbox/

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5089/5235491102_08a17e9bb5_b_d.jpg

Just because you posted a link to it doesn't make it yours. How do you
prove ownership?

 

[Joerg]

[...]

Ok, but why on earth do I have to uncheck wires when such behavior is
never desired by anyone in his right mind?

Got me! It's not rational but it's a "rule" that's not all that onerous.

Ah, I see, it's like the tax code then

You want software dweebs to do hardware design? Horrors! ;-)

Well, at least some hobby stuff. When CAD software comes from people who
are from the trade it shows. And when it comes from people not from the
trade that also shows. Big time.

 

[Joerg]

A zero setting usually means NONE.

Or a fast and irrecoverable loop writing the file constantly because
that entry wasn't thought about? My confidence level in the quality of
this software ain't that high anymore.

AND if you are always crashing so much TRY it. What the **** could it
hurt?

Right now I am running sims all day long. This Orcad fuss has cost me
enough time as it is so I don't want it to crash again because I moved
some settings around. Don't touch a running system

 

[The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra]

Prove it, Rat_Bastard. Otherwise, STFU.

Here is ONE:

Path:
aioe.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: John KD5YI <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Schematic layout conventions
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:00:25 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 05:00:28 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
posting-host="R1JcZqQrnJVzF0KrDRtdjQ";
logging-data="21266";
mail-complaints-to="[email protected]";
posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19k99MKT69QhwWntK1Fv/QR"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15)
Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TcsZLNiUu+cEDgFUXVRmR+mMh/k=
Xref: aioe.org sci.electronics.design:165826

I used to put cutting data into a VAX for a set of three plasma
cutters, (around 1990) all cutting stainless, for institutional
(hospital) and government fully welded HVAC ductwork.

It would 'nest' all the pieces we entered such that the minimum scrap
was generated. Plasma moves a bit faster than flame, and the stock is a
lot thinner, of course.

The robot had to be calibrated for flame tool speed, and the cutting
probably had to be real time monitored by someone with a kill switch
because torches sometime stop cutting and simply flare wide.

"Probably"? You don't know? This is another piece of dreamed-up pile of
crap by AlwaysWrong.

HERE is TWO: (this is YOU mentioning someone else mentioning it)

Path:
aioe.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: John KD5YI <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Stability of older Orcad/PSpice combos?
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 20:48:04 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 01:48:09 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
posting-host="R1JcZqQrnJVzF0KrDRtdjQ";
logging-data="11561";
mail-complaints-to="[email protected]";
posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+20G+drPfhwSTaoj+XVJJT"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17)
Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:j6Uu551GB1Tm64NOmeImu0GOi44=
Xref: aioe.org sci.electronics.design:166255

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.

...Jim Thompson

HERE is THREE:

Path:
aioe.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: John KD5YI <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Schematic layout conventions
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 21:16:26 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<Vy%[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 02:16:32 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
posting-host="R1JcZqQrnJVzF0KrDRtdjQ";
logging-data="29805";
mail-complaints-to="[email protected]";
posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19FPHPRtox46493IwBOdkqI"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17)
Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Tu9BHe2FjShlSY6y0mPx/DKGrAM=
Xref: aioe.org sci.electronics.design:166263

John, YOU are the hen here.

You got miffed when the roosters came out and cockled about your
mistake, and YOU began clucking and have yet to cease.

You are WRONG, John. You also indicate to the ENTIRE world that you
ignore standards and conventions at every turn. You even declared such.

That is pretty much the epitome of the definition of the word
"pathetic", John.

You are uneducable.. Sadly, not because you are stupid, but because
you choose to ignore the world for your "Larkin's Rose" colored view of
things.

You could not be more incorrect. You are busted.

I guess that settles it, John. The "Rat" has spoken. It must be so.

Since you are "busted", according to the "Rat", will you now turn
yourself in to the "Faux Pas" police? I am sure that the sewer "Rat"
will not give up until he drowns in his own excretions.


HERE is FOUR:

Path:
aioe.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: John KD5YI <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Schematic layout conventions
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 21:21:32 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 02:21:36 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
posting-host="R1JcZqQrnJVzF0KrDRtdjQ";
logging-data="30666";
mail-complaints-to="[email protected]";
posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/vS/eMvwMtt0dhRI9mSEtK"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17)
Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gAGzQYeeYJ/bjDZBPSis6kJyekk=
Xref: aioe.org sci.electronics.design:166267

This is typical Larkin horseshit.

He goes from declaring that I have no math ability whatsoever, without
a shred of evidence, to this dumbed down version of the same insult
attempt.

All because the retarded bastard might have to admit that
I was doing math before he knew what math was.

How about a demonstration of your math prowess, you lying piece of shit?

HERE is FIVE:

Path:
aioe.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: John KD5YI <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: 4-20mA Precision Source Ideas - print.pdf (0/1) - print.pdf
(0/1)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:48:24 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 03:48:29 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
posting-host="R1JcZqQrnJVzF0KrDRtdjQ";
logging-data="22558";
mail-complaints-to="[email protected]";
posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/+scWRDYRVvJZNXwIms3+4"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17)
Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Cx5Xa5vaRFMfze01S+2IgCeYrBo=
Xref: aioe.org sci.electronics.design:166286

"such as it is"

I smell a retard in the thread...

No, your head is so far up your ass that you can smell nothing else but
your own excrement. After a while, your brains were replaced with your
excrement by osmosis. Hold your breath from now on, shit-for-brains.


YOU LOSE, JOHN KD5YI.

Your fetish has been exposed. You cannot escape, since the criteria is
the same for everyone.

 

[I AM THAT I AM]

Just because you

Just because you jack off at the mouth doesn't mean you get to attempt
to mentally masturbate someone.

**** off and die, idiot.

 

[The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra]

Or a fast and irrecoverable loop writing the file constantly because
that entry wasn't thought about?

You are a bona fide total retard.

 

[[email protected]]

PADS uses explicit offpage connectors for that.

But I don't want it off-page. Some signals need to be local in scope.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:

Joel Koltner wrote:

[...]

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.
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?

Got me! It's not rational but it's a "rule" that's not all that onerous.

Ah, I see, it's like the tax code then

Have you tried lifting the tax code? ;-)

Well, at least some hobby stuff. When CAD software comes from people who
are from the trade it shows. And when it comes from people not from the
trade that also shows. Big time.

Sure. You're hierarchy discussion is a good example. Though JL doesn't
believe in hierarchical design either and he's no software dweeb. ;-)

 

[Charlie E.]

Good point...

Those transitions years where half the time you'd do something and you'd get
the pop-up, "BTW, this operation isn't undoable and, in fact, executing it
will remove the entire undo history... is that OK?" were kinda annoying!

Yes, and when Microsim and Orcad merged, the thing that most horrified
the Microsim guys was teh condition of the Orcad code. Some of it was
good, but for years, when they bought a new company, or added a new
feature, it was shoehorned in, almost like a kludge, on top of the
existing code, so now you were kludging the kludges! Microsim had
faitly tight code (although, there were a few parts of the simulator
that had 'known difficultites!' that were of the 'don't touch'
variety.

After the merger, the PSpice Schematics folks got added to the Capture
folks. They started looking through the code, and saw some places
where they could make improvements, such as multiple undo. They were
told 'NO!' because the PTB were afraid it would break things. Then,
Cadence came in, and laid the entire Capture team in Oregon off, and
sent Capture development to India. However, the Capture guys in
Irvine form the Microsim team were still there, and they now had no
one to tell them no!

Within three month, a dozen features that had been demanded for years
were added to the code, as well as some known 'unfixable' bugs were
fixed. Management was delighted! When the version went to beta, they
announced the layoffs of the entire Irvine development team. After
all, since moving Capture to India had been so productive, why not
move PSpice too!

Charlie

 

[[email protected]]

In ORCAD, you don't -- it's a feature that Pulsonix has (it's just the
standard "configure your preferred colors" sort of dialogs, but it has
separate fields for "connected wires" and "disconnected wires"), which we use
for small test boards. (I once advocated using it for the regular production
designs as well, but this idea went over about as well as a lead brick.

Did they give a reason? Seems like it wouldn't be something that would
require "permission".

Granted, my social graces are pretty awful at times; the right person might
have been able to pull this off... although, um, that probably won't be many
of the people who hang out around *here*... maybe someone like Joerg or Phil
Hobbs... )

I could pull it off in our company (if we didn't use Crapture, of course). ;-)

 

[ehsjr]

[email protected] wrote:

Have you tried lifting the tax code? ;-)

Wait! Joerg's in the world's strongest man contest??

Ed