Author Topic: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant  (Read 16407 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline madires

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4904
  • Country: de
  • A qualified hobbyist ;)
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #50 on: June 21, 2016, 02:09:04 pm »
ok so there is one, checked their web ... 190euro for a lite version for individuals... not bad... clicked download... and ....no...  thank you.... release from 23rd December 2013 ???  seriously ? furthermore - in requirements they say kernel 2.0.0+ and motif (no version mentioned)...  considering the really ancient kernel requirement, the motif version required will be ancient too - so there is a high risk of not being usable with recent linux distributions..

so sorry, but Eagle looks much better from this perspective...

It says  2.0.0+, so any later kernel should be fine. And openmotif shouldn't be any problem. The current version is 2.3.4 and 2.3.1 was released in 2008 or so
 

Offline madires

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4904
  • Country: de
  • A qualified hobbyist ;)
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #51 on: June 21, 2016, 02:10:45 pm »
Their Light version costs €159 which, if the limitations are reasonable is fine. But once you outgrow that the next step up (the "Economy Version") is €2690 and it goes on up from there. By the way, what ARE the limitations of the Light version? I browsed around (quickly) and couldn't find a comparison of the various versions.

Found it:
- 180mm*120mm
- 2 layers
 

Offline HighVoltage

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4379
  • Country: de
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #52 on: June 21, 2016, 02:31:18 pm »
Reading all this, I am glad I never used Eagle
There are 3 kinds of people in this world, those who can count and those who can not.
 

Offline H.O

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 636
  • Country: se
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #53 on: June 21, 2016, 03:30:47 pm »
Reading all this, I am glad I never used Eagle
I use EAGLE and I'm glad. It has allowed me to do a lot of things I could never have done without it. It has never ever crashed or trashed my work. It has never ever done anything to make me say - WTF did it do now. Sure, it's lacking advanced features like push and shove and more basic features like being able to view the board from the bottom and their license model with the space restriction sort of sucks but it has served me well and I must say that if you're smart enough to design electronic circuits then you're bloody well smart enough to learn EAGLE.

Sitting down with for 15 minutes, not bothering to open the manual or look up a tutorial and then going online making forum posts about how bad the thing is because it didn't work the way you wanted or a certain function wasn't in the menu you looked. It's like you're supposed to bash EAGLE, like you're supposed to bash BASIC, like you're supposed to bash Chinese T&M manufacturers - I don't get it.

I KNOW very well that there are other tools that are more capable and more competent than EAGLE but I'm old enough to realise that they too come with their respective learning curve, limitiations, and cost.


 
The following users thanked this post: rob77, XFDDesign, ebastler

Offline Robaroni

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 352
  • Country: us
  • Retired EE
    • Design Specialties
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #54 on: June 22, 2016, 12:39:01 am »
Reading all this, I am glad I never used Eagle
I use EAGLE and I'm glad. It has allowed me to do a lot of things I could never have done without it. It has never ever crashed or trashed my work. It has never ever done anything to make me say - WTF did it do now. Sure, it's lacking advanced features like push and shove and more basic features like being able to view the board from the bottom and their license model with the space restriction sort of sucks but it has served me well and I must say that if you're smart enough to design electronic circuits then you're bloody well smart enough to learn EAGLE.

Sitting down with for 15 minutes, not bothering to open the manual or look up a tutorial and then going online making forum posts about how bad the thing is because it didn't work the way you wanted or a certain function wasn't in the menu you looked. It's like you're supposed to bash EAGLE, like you're supposed to bash BASIC, like you're supposed to bash Chinese T&M manufacturers - I don't get it.

I KNOW very well that there are other tools that are more capable and more competent than EAGLE but I'm old enough to realise that they too come with their respective learning curve, limitiations, and cost.

OK, how many programs have you used and learned? Are you using Eagle professionally? It's not about what an individual can learn, I'm sure the talented people around here can easily learn it BUT do we want to? Do I want to learn a program that doesn't even have SPICE included? Nope.

Most of the ULPs (User Language Programs) in Eagle are included with any good EDA program AND supported by the vendor. Cadsoft doesn't support those ULPs. And I've had Eagle crash and not capable of integrating older versions. I've had board houses that had problems with Eagle Gerbers. That's when I stopped using it and they had to refund the full amount I had just paid for the pro version. I've never lost a schematic with my present EDA going on several years now and sending gerbers is a quick couple of clicks. Oh, I forgot Eagle is "award winning", every year by the same magazine.

One good thing, Ed Robledo. But I don't even know if he's still there.

Rob
 

Offline H.O

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 636
  • Country: se
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #55 on: June 22, 2016, 05:25:56 am »
Well, if you don't WANT to learn then then don't. If it doesn't have the features you want or need then clearly it's not for you but that doesn't mean it sucks for everybody else as well.
And if you sit down with it with the mindset that it's going to suck, then it will suck. But so will most things.
 
I'm not pushing it onto anyone, have no personal attachment to it or CADSoft, all are free to choose whichever they want. It's just the constant bashing I have a problem with, especially when the reasons given for it to be "shit" often, but not always, clearly is because the user in question doesn't know or can't figure out how to do a certain things. Oh, tried EAGLE once 10 years ago, hated it, don't ever touch it, it'll destroy your life....

Of course it has bugs, all software has, and apparently you've hit more of them I have.

It's the only PCB design tool I've used, when I started using it there was nothing else around, I've had no real reason to abandon it but that may change of course. It's however not the only CAD program I've used and I don't find EAGLE any harder to use than AutoCAD, Inventor or EPLAN. I don't use EAGLE professionally (AutoCAD and EPLAN I do but they're not PCB tools) and I only do 2 layer boards with it. So there you go, I probably don't qualify.
 

Offline Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5760
  • Country: nl
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #56 on: June 22, 2016, 08:21:01 am »
It's just the constant bashing I have a problem with, especially when the reasons given for it to be "shit" often, but not always, clearly is because the user in question doesn't know or can't figure out how to do a certain things. Oh, tried EAGLE once 10 years ago, hated it, don't ever touch it, it'll destroy your life....
+1
everyone is different and has different demands, wishes and how things should be. Eagle has clearly proven in the past and still is, that it has deserved a place in pcb cad programs.
Its market share has surpassed many older and vanished programs, perhaps there are better programs out there and if you want to start from scratch please do, I am happy with the current licensing model, much more happy than many commercial compiler sellers are offering for non commercial clients.
 

Offline Robaroni

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 352
  • Country: us
  • Retired EE
    • Design Specialties
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #57 on: June 22, 2016, 11:52:44 am »
Well, if you don't WANT to learn then then don't. If it doesn't have the features you want or need then clearly it's not for you but that doesn't mean it sucks for everybody else as well.
And if you sit down with it with the mindset that it's going to suck, then it will suck. But so will most things.
 
I'm not pushing it onto anyone, have no personal attachment to it or CADSoft, all are free to choose whichever they want. It's just the constant bashing I have a problem with, especially when the reasons given for it to be "shit" often, but not always, clearly is because the user in question doesn't know or can't figure out how to do a certain things. Oh, tried EAGLE once 10 years ago, hated it, don't ever touch it, it'll destroy your life....

Of course it has bugs, all software has, and apparently you've hit more of them I have.

It's the only PCB design tool I've used, when I started using it there was nothing else around, I've had no real reason to abandon it but that may change of course. It's however not the only CAD program I've used and I don't find EAGLE any harder to use than AutoCAD, Inventor or EPLAN. I don't use EAGLE professionally (AutoCAD and EPLAN I do but they're not PCB tools) and I only do 2 layer boards with it. So there you go, I probably don't qualify.

 I never said Eagle is the worst program around, it's OK for hobby boards. You can get free programs from Mouser and Digi-Key now with some pretty sophisticated roots that will give you pretty much the same thing.
And I used Eagle for several years until Element 14 bought it out, that's when I think it got worse. Ed personally told me they released 6 too soon and that's why it had compatibility issues with my older files. If it works for you  then use it. The original poster is the one who complained about the pricing structure, not me.

My point then and now is that 'free' programs especially have hooks in them to try and leverage you to buy the more expensive versions or sell you their line card of parts like Element 14 does. I don't think a couple of grand for a program with unsupported ULPs lacking simulation is a great deal but if you're happy then you don't need to defend it. The library structure, the file allocating system, the forward annotation, parts making, Gerbers, etc. are all really cumbersome to me, but I've used several EDAs so I know what a well laid out program can do.

Eagle wasn't stupid giving away a small board free version., Jobs did it a long time ago with Apple bringing it into schools. Kids learned Apple and bought it after they left school. He and Eagle knew you'd stick with what you learned, which is exactly what you did. Again, don't underestimate to hidden cost of learning a program, Eagle isn't free.

Rob
 

Offline timofonic

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 904
  • Country: es
  • Eternal Wannabe Geek
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #58 on: June 22, 2016, 01:32:35 pm »
Well, if you don't WANT to learn then then don't. If it doesn't have the features you want or need then clearly it's not for you but that doesn't mean it sucks for everybody else as well.
And if you sit down with it with the mindset that it's going to suck, then it will suck. But so will most things.
 
I'm not pushing it onto anyone, have no personal attachment to it or CADSoft, all are free to choose whichever they want. It's just the constant bashing I have a problem with, especially when the reasons given for it to be "shit" often, but not always, clearly is because the user in question doesn't know or can't figure out how to do a certain things. Oh, tried EAGLE once 10 years ago, hated it, don't ever touch it, it'll destroy your life....

Of course it has bugs, all software has, and apparently you've hit more of them I have.

It's the only PCB design tool I've used, when I started using it there was nothing else around, I've had no real reason to abandon it but that may change of course. It's however not the only CAD program I've used and I don't find EAGLE any harder to use than AutoCAD, Inventor or EPLAN. I don't use EAGLE professionally (AutoCAD and EPLAN I do but they're not PCB tools) and I only do 2 layer boards with it. So there you go, I probably don't qualify.

 I never said Eagle is the worst program around, it's OK for hobby boards. You can get free programs from Mouser and Digi-Key now with some pretty sophisticated roots that will give you pretty much the same thing.
And I used Eagle for several years until Element 14 bought it out, that's when I think it got worse. Ed personally told me they released 6 too soon and that's why it had compatibility issues with my older files. If it works for you  then use it. The original poster is the one who complained about the pricing structure, not me.

My point then and now is that 'free' programs especially have hooks in them to try and leverage you to buy the more expensive versions or sell you their line card of parts like Element 14 does. I don't think a couple of grand for a program with unsupported ULPs lacking simulation is a great deal but if you're happy then you don't need to defend it. The library structure, the file allocating system, the forward annotation, parts making, Gerbers, etc. are all really cumbersome to me, but I've used several EDAs so I know what a well laid out program can do.

Eagle wasn't stupid giving away a small board free version., Jobs did it a long time ago with Apple bringing it into schools. Kids learned Apple and bought it after they left school. He and Eagle knew you'd stick with what you learned, which is exactly what you did. Again, don't underestimate to hidden cost of learning a program, Eagle isn't free.

Rob
Welcome to vendor lock-in, it's mostly done by for formats and other ways. It's the most annoying plague in software and it happens very aggressively in EDA :)
 

Offline XFDDesign

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 435
  • Country: us
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #59 on: June 22, 2016, 02:53:10 pm »
OK, how many programs have you used and learned? Are you using Eagle professionally? It's not about what an individual can learn, I'm sure the talented people around here can easily learn it BUT do we want to? Do I want to learn a program that doesn't even have SPICE included? Nope.


Protell98->Altium (still my favorite), Mentor Graphics Pads coupled with OrCad (I still loathe PADS to this day), Circuitmaker/traxmaker (pre 2k), Eagle, Cadence Allegro.

Is that a sufficient list for dickwaving?

I'm quite bored of these people who want one package that does everything, does it well, does all their work for them, and does it almost by reading their mind all while being "about" free.

Eagle is a tool. PADS is a tool. Altium is a tool. Allegro is a tool. It is absolutely about what an individual chooses to learn. Their choice is a judgement made on the goal of the action that needs to be performed. If I had a limitless budget, I would go to Altium every time, because it does so much and does it well. On my "professional" projects at home (i.e. moonlighting) I use Eagle. It lets me get the job done for a reasonable investment. At my day job, we use the brutally cumbersome Allegro package for formal entry by the CAD group. For projects that I work on, prior to going into the formal system, I use Eagle Pro "professionally" to turn boards from idea into product quickly. I pick the right tool for the job that gets it done as properly and quickly as possible. This distraction at "SPICE" is nonsense. Even if it were not, Eagle has integrated with LTSpice to a degree, so that useless complaint is a non-start.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2016, 07:43:31 pm by XFDDesign »
 

Offline Karel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1434
  • Country: 00
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #60 on: June 22, 2016, 05:09:30 pm »
Welcome to vendor lock-in, it's mostly done by for formats and other ways. It's the most annoying plague in software and it happens very aggressively in EDA :)

Another reason why we use Eagle. And no, we are not hobbyists...
The schematic, board and library files are in xml and fully open and described.
There's a dtd file in the doc directory.

Quote
  EAGLE version 7.5.0 DTD
  Copyright (c) 2015 CadSoft Computer GmbH
  http://www.cadsoft.de

  This file describes the XML file format used by EAGLE version 7.5.0,
  hereafter referred to as the "EAGLE File Format".
  It is made available under the creative commons "CC BY-ND 3.0" license
  (see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0).
  You may use this file to implement a program that reads and/or writes files
  in the EAGLE File Format. If your program writes files in the EAGLE File
  Format, these files must be readable by EAGLE version 7.5.0
  without any error messages or warnings.
 
The following users thanked this post: XFDDesign

Offline timofonic

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 904
  • Country: es
  • Eternal Wannabe Geek
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #61 on: June 22, 2016, 10:07:56 pm »
Welcome to vendor lock-in, it's mostly done by for formats and other ways. It's the most annoying plague in software and it happens very aggressively in EDA :)

Another reason why we use Eagle. And no, we are not hobbyists...
The schematic, board and library files are in xml and fully open and described.
There's a dtd file in the doc directory.

Quote
  EAGLE version 7.5.0 DTD
  Copyright (c) 2015 CadSoft Computer GmbH
  http://www.cadsoft.de

  This file describes the XML file format used by EAGLE version 7.5.0,
  hereafter referred to as the "EAGLE File Format".
  It is made available under the creative commons "CC BY-ND 3.0" license
  (see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0).
  You may use this file to implement a program that reads and/or writes files
  in the EAGLE File Format. If your program writes files in the EAGLE File
  Format, these files must be readable by EAGLE version 7.5.0
  without any error messages or warnings.

Who cares about this theorical openness if their projects can't be imported by mostly all EDA packages? I see no full support in KiCad, for example.

Is a DTD file enough for instant compatibility?
 

Offline Robaroni

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 352
  • Country: us
  • Retired EE
    • Design Specialties
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #62 on: June 22, 2016, 10:48:51 pm »
OK, let me put this in a different light.
FOR ME and in MY OPINION, after using several CAD, CAM and EDA programs over the last 25 years, I find Eagle to be a cumbersome, at best, hobby program to be avoided. You couldn't give it to me for free. OOOPPPs! It is free.
There, all fixed.
Enjoy your Eagle! ;D
Rob
 

Offline Robaroni

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 352
  • Country: us
  • Retired EE
    • Design Specialties
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #63 on: June 22, 2016, 10:54:03 pm »
OK, how many programs have you used and learned? Are you using Eagle professionally? It's not about what an individual can learn, I'm sure the talented people around here can easily learn it BUT do we want to? Do I want to learn a program that doesn't even have SPICE included? Nope.


Protell98->Altium (still my favorite), Mentor Graphics Pads coupled with OrCad (I still loathe PADS to this day), Circuitmaker/traxmaker (pre 2k), Eagle, Cadence Allegro.

Is that a sufficient list for dickwaving?


I think you need to add Ivex and Electronics Workbench for a full dickwave.>:D
Rob
 

Offline timofonic

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 904
  • Country: es
  • Eternal Wannabe Geek
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #64 on: June 23, 2016, 12:37:03 am »
OK, how many programs have you used and learned? Are you using Eagle professionally? It's not about what an individual can learn, I'm sure the talented people around here can easily learn it BUT do we want to? Do I want to learn a program that doesn't even have SPICE included? Nope.


Protell98->Altium (still my favorite), Mentor Graphics Pads coupled with OrCad (I still loathe PADS to this day), Circuitmaker/traxmaker (pre 2k), Eagle, Cadence Allegro.

Is that a sufficient list for dickwaving?


I think you need to add Ivex and Electronics Workbench for a full dickwave.>:D
Rob
Would you like to add interesting and active feedback to KiCad? Chris Pavlina is working on UI stuff, for example.
 

Offline Karel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1434
  • Country: 00
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #65 on: June 23, 2016, 06:37:05 am »
Who cares about this theorical openness

We do. It's one of the reasons we use Eagle. And it's not theoretical by the way.

if their projects can't be imported by mostly all EDA packages?

Altium Designer can import Eagle files. I don't know about others.

I see no full support in KiCad, for example.

Is that the fault of Eagle or Kicad?

Is a DTD file enough for instant compatibility?

Together with the rest of the official Eagle documentation, yes.
 

Offline KE5FX

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1111
  • Country: us
    • KE5FX.COM
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #66 on: June 23, 2016, 07:04:50 am »

Who cares about this theorical openness if their projects can't be imported by mostly all EDA packages? I see no full support in KiCad, for example.

Is a DTD file enough for instant compatibility?

EAGLE's XML format is a staggeringly powerful feature, if you're a programmer.  I wouldn't use a CAD package that didn't have an open file format.
 

Offline Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5760
  • Country: nl
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #67 on: June 23, 2016, 07:19:56 am »
I love the fact that the files are xml. While using svn or other versioning and revision control system you can directly see the differences between previous files and best adjust the lines back that you want without changing the rest of the files.
 

Offline rob77

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1848
  • Country: sk
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #68 on: June 23, 2016, 09:10:15 am »
I love the fact that the files are xml. While using svn or other versioning and revision control system you can directly see the differences between previous files and best adjust the lines back that you want without changing the rest of the files.

furthermore if you're on linux you can conveniently search in those xml files using standard OS tools like grep. you can easily write your own programs or scripts to manipulate xml files... you can't do that with closed binary formats...

basically we can safely state that every software using open formats will be most likely used by coders and advanced user which are able to write scripts....  for the typical end-users the open formats have no added value.
 

Offline Kjelt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5760
  • Country: nl
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #69 on: June 23, 2016, 09:22:25 am »
basically we can safely state that every software using open formats will be most likely used by coders and advanced user which are able to write scripts....  for the typical end-users the open formats have no added value.
Agree, the more open a system is the more people can contribute and make a solution for their problems that not surprisingly also can solve someone elses problem.
 

Offline Karel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1434
  • Country: 00
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #70 on: June 23, 2016, 11:09:26 am »
basically we can safely state that every software using open formats will be most likely used by coders and advanced user which are able to write scripts....  for the typical end-users the open formats have no added value.
Agree, the more open a system is the more people can contribute and make a solution for their problems that not surprisingly also can solve someone elses problem.

For example, this one couldn't be made with only ulp programming. It uses a (open-source) tool to read the xml-files directly:

http://www.teuniz.net/eagle/eaglelibcheck/
 
The following users thanked this post: MarkL

Offline timofonic

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 904
  • Country: es
  • Eternal Wannabe Geek
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #71 on: June 26, 2016, 11:25:17 pm »
basically we can safely state that every software using open formats will be most likely used by coders and advanced user which are able to write scripts....  for the typical end-users the open formats have no added value.
Agree, the more open a system is the more people can contribute and make a solution for their problems that not surprisingly also can solve someone elses problem.

For example, this one couldn't be made with only ulp programming. It uses a (open-source) tool to read the xml-files directly:

http://www.teuniz.net/eagle/eaglelibcheck/
I wonder if the same could be used to other file formats...
 

Offline Robaroni

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 352
  • Country: us
  • Retired EE
    • Design Specialties
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #72 on: June 27, 2016, 12:09:05 am »
Open source, closed source, I don't care. I don't want to write ULP's, I'm not in the EDA software writing business. I want a program that enables me to simulate and take it to a final PCB with the least hassle. One package with continuity, not something that a guy wrote in his basement that's not supported by the vendor. Here's an example, I was using an Eagle ULP someone wrote to convert drill files to Gcode for my CAM program. The thing would drill a hole on one side of the board and then go to the other side of the board, back and forth instead of the closest hole of the same size. No recourse, no vendor saying we'll correct it in the next revision.

Sharing? When my work is published, my editor only needs a PDF of the schematic. Someone wants a Gerber, he gets my Gerber. Period.

Rob
 

Offline Kilrah

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1812
  • Country: ch
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #73 on: June 27, 2016, 12:57:09 pm »
Would you like to add interesting and active feedback to KiCad? Chris Pavlina is working on UI stuff, for example.

I would. The one thing I can't understand is still missing is clipboard handling, i.e. cut/copy/paste of blocks within a page as well as between pages or even different projects.

I've never encountered any other program that doesn't implement that, and it's a major pain when maintaining several schematics with different variations of the same thing. Every change needs to manually be repeated in all of them...
 

Offline PCB.Wiz

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 382
  • Country: au
Re: Eagle debilitating licensing model rant
« Reply #74 on: July 02, 2016, 11:07:23 pm »
Welcome to vendor lock-in, it's mostly done by for formats and other ways. It's the most annoying plague in software and it happens very aggressively in EDA :)
Hehe, yes.

 Some of the less subtle lock-ins include closed binary-only formats, and timed-license files. Thankfully, those mostly are behind us, as the market place these days is too well connected to fall for those tricks.

 Hardware keys that incurred a charge of hundreds of dollars to migrate, was another favourite.

 More subtle, is deliberate crippling of lower-end tools, to force users to upgrade.

This also is getting harder, as tools like KiCad effectively now set the bar of what is tolerated at the base level.
Some of the 'tricks' a quick trawl of forums finds are
*  Removal of slots to force  Round holes only (Altium, CS) -amazing, yes they still try this, even though even KiCad supports slots just fine.
*  Removal of scripts from lowest end tools (Altium, Mentor) even though Eagle and KiCad have advanced scripting.

 The good news is, the libraries are getting more open, as Distributors start to offer Component Libraries, and each new update sees the EDA corporates forced to improve the specs of even their base line tools.
 Ironically, this is rather easier for them, than to improve specs of their high end tools, as the low-end cripple is often a deliberately added conditional ;)
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf