[PEDA] Protel99SE SP6 - board doesn't match schematic, no DRC errors

Thu May 28 09:01:00 CDT 2009

Dear Mario:

Thank you for all your posts. I am a user happy user of Protel 99 since its
early versions and ancestors ( Easytrax, Autotrax, etc ). I started my
carrer with the old Wintek's Smartwork !!! Just imagen this old 54 year old
dinosaur !!

IMO, 99 is a very nice program full of noticeable bugs and a very poor human
and graphics interface. So noticeable that, as an electronic engineer,
hardware and software designer with 30 years experience, I cannot figure out
how Protel designers and Beta testers haven't seen so many problems and
correct them before release. For me, it is a matter of poor design and bad
manners. No offense, just trying to speak sincerely.

I have Altium installed and I agree with you that the differences in
conception, performance, power and behaviour are so big that it is has no
point in making any kind of comparisons. But, as in my case,  there are
still  ***lots*** of Protel 99 users, for many reasons. In my country (
Argentina ), 60% of the designers and PCB manufacturers still use it and
also use Altium. The other 40% share the use of Orcad in all versions,
Eagle, Autotrax 2.8 and so on.

I've been so busy in many other things that I didn't spend enough time to
switch to Altium and forget 99 at all. In many ways, I am so used to this
tool the same way I am used to my old beloved blue jeans. So used that I
know about almost any single bug and how to overcome them when possible.

Despite the poor, unstable, sometimes irrational overall program structure,
one of the big problems is the bad error detection and treatment in all
modules. So as our friend said, if you created a bad library component,
nobody will tell you in advance and you'll get these kind of weird results
that we are also used too. Strange, dead-end or fatal error messages that
can make you loose your last changes or your complete work. You could even
need to reinstall the complete program to solve some unfortunate, frequent
crash. So, I believe that 99 demands special attention from the user's side
in terms of reinforcing double checking, in order to do what the software
doesn't for you, and it should.

I always think about how the machines were at the moment that Protel 99 was
designed and released, compared to our actual hardware ( memory size, speed,
etc ), and this makes it easier to forgive these guys. In terms of bad
behaviour and instability, Windows and earlier versions ( 95, 98, ME, etc)
take care of the rest.

Apart from all this, this is a Protel 99 forum. I believe that you are
completely right to encourage users to upgrade to Altium and offer your
help. It absolutely makes sense. But still, for some reason, we are using 99
and in my case I like to "listen" to this Protel 99 channel instead of being
listening an Altium forum.

I think that soon, I will be definitely switch to Altium, and just use
Protel for compatibility with old designs.

Kind regards

Roberto

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Mario Irigoyen <mirigoyen1 at comcast.net>wrote:

> Hello fellow Protel users,
>
> I don't see all that much traffic from the group, except with a
> complaint or a problem. Because of this I can conclude that there aren't
> that many 99SE users or they aren't having sufficient problems that
> elicit writing to the group.
>
> Ladies and gentlemen, 99SE is 10 YEARS OLD. It had its share of
> problems.
>
> Altium has spent the last 10 years improving, re-engineering, rewriting
> ... Protel into Altium Designer. It (AD) is by no means perfect but is
> vastly improved compared to 99SE.
>
> And, Altium is running an upgrade special.
>
> If you have not seen the latest Altium Designer, do yourself (and your
> company) a favor and take a good, close look.
>
> I am an independent provider of Altium Designer services, design,
> training ...
> Please contact me if you need anything in that regard.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mario Irigoyen
> MI Design & Services
> 630-759-4960
> MIDesign at comcast.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: peda-bounces at techservinc.com [mailto:peda-bounces at techservinc.com]
> On Behalf Of Robert Gillatt
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 3:26 AM
> To: 'Protel EDA Discussion List'
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel99SE SP6 - board doesn't match schematic,no
> DRC errors
>
> Been there, got the T-shirt. Protel is notorious for such
> idiosyncracies. If
> you get a pad mapping wrong and miss it in the library check, the
> autorouter
> will start to lay a track and leave it unconnected in the middle of the
> board, no warnings either.
> The moral is check and recheck the Gerbers, which is a good idea
> whatever
> tools you are using.
>
> Cheers
> Rob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leonard Gabrielson [mailto:leonard_gabrielson at yahoo.com]
> Sent: 27 May 2009 17:55
> To: Protel EDA Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel99SE SP6 - board doesn't match schematic,no
> DRC
> errors
>
> Yeah,
> Great.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steven J. Ackerman" <sjackerman at comcast.net>
> To: <peda at techservinc.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:20 AM
> Subject: [PEDA] Protel99SE SP6 - board doesn't match schematic, no DRC
> errors
>
>
> > Just a heads-up - although this is probably old news to list members.
> >
> > We've used Protel Schematic v3.4 and Protel PCB v2.8 to design several
>
> > hundred boards - mainly double-sided, mixed SMT and through-hole, some
>
> > with hundreds of parts, all sizes - no problems.
> >
> > I did our second 4-layer PCB with Protel99SE SP6. Just received the
> > prototypes back. When building the first board by hand, two components
>
> > were on the schematic, but not on the PCB. Bringing up the board in
> > Protel and jumping to the component by name, the missing components
> > were off the board, and off the screen - perhaps with a negative Y
> > coordinate. No ratsnest wires, the router indicated that the board was
>
> > 100% routed, no DRC errors - sweet.
> >
> > Did a select outside the board area, move selection, and surprise -
> > the missing two components moved into the visible area - ratsnest
> > wires appeared and now the board is no longer 100% routed - it's magic
>
> > !
> >
> > I don't know how the two components got 'placed' off of the viewable
> > screen, or why a zoom all didn't show them, or why the autorouter all
> > didn't complain, or why the DRC passed...
> >
> > I no longer trust Protel99SE to produce a board that matches the
> > schematic.
> >
> > I'm glad that these are prototypes, and I can tack these two missing
> > components on by hand.
> >
> > Great feature !
> >
> > Steven J. Ackerman, Consultant
> > ACS, Sarasota, FL
> > Web:  http://www.acscontrol.com
> > Blog: http://sjackerman.spaces.live.com/
> > Work: steve at acscontrol.com
> > Home: sjackerman at comcast.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum
> >
> > To Post messages:
> > mailto:PEDA at techservinc.com
> >
> > Unsubscribe and Other Options:
> > http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com
> >
> > Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004):
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
> >
> > Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current):
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/peda@techservinc.com
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum
>
> To Post messages:
> mailto:PEDA at techservinc.com
>
> Unsubscribe and Other Options:
> http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com
>
> Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
>
> Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/peda@techservinc.com
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum
>
> To Post messages:
> mailto:PEDA at techservinc.com
>
> Unsubscribe and Other Options:
> http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com
>
> Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
>
> Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/peda@techservinc.com
>
>