murphyd@csuchico.edu (Dave Murphy) (03/25/90)
Has anybody out there used LogicWorks 2.0? I need to use a digital
design program for a CSCI-280 Digital Design. I have seen LogicWorks
2.0 on the Mac and it is a VERY powerful program. I lets you build
your own macros and connect them up to MacPaint pictures.
I would like to know what features the Amiga version has, and if
it is fully compatible with the Mac version.
Thanx in advance!
____________________________________________________________
/// __ __ __ __ | \\\
/// /\ __|| || || | | David L. Murphy \\\
\\\ /// /--\miga |__ |__||__||__| | murphyd@csuchico.edu \\\ ///
\\\// | murphyd@cscihp.UUCP \\///andrey@tybalt.caltech.edu (Andre T. Yew) (03/26/90)
In article <1990Mar25.071227.19699@csuchico.edu> murphyd@csuchico.edu (Dave Murphy) writes: >Has anybody out there used LogicWorks 2.0? I need to use a digital >design program for a CSCI-280 Digital Design. I have seen LogicWorks >2.0 on the Mac and it is a VERY powerful program. I lets you build >your own macros and connect them up to MacPaint pictures. > >I would like to know what features the Amiga version has, and if >it is fully compatible with the Mac version. > >Thanx in advance! > ____________________________________________________________ > /// __ __ __ __ | \\\ > /// /\ __|| || || | | David L. Murphy \\\ > \\\ /// /--\miga |__ |__||__||__| | murphyd@csuchico.edu \\\ /// > \\\// | murphyd@cscihp.UUCP \\/// I've used LogicWorks 2.0 before on all forms of Macintosh computers. And all I can say about it is that it is not very stable. It has a lot of really neat features, but they all don't work. For example, in a CS class here, we had to build a calculator in LogicWorks, and I would say that more than 50% of the time we spent on it was spent on working around LogicWorks. For example, LogicWorks, many times, would tell us that an internal error had occurred, and that you should save your file as soon as possible, before the program corrects the mistake. We complied, and LogicWorks corrected the error, which somehow always involved moving various parts of the circuit on to the edge of the page. Well, since we had saved our work, we reloaded and found out that the internal error occurred exactly after we reloaded our circuit. Since we had several hundred devices, we really didn't feel like rebuilding our circuit, so we just replaced the parts on the circuit that were moved. Even then LogicWorks still crashed. And even when there were no errors mentioned by the program, LogicWorks still crashes. In fact, in a three-hour session of working on our calculator, we can expect at least 5 crashes that would force us to reboot. Ten crashes was not uncommon. Soon we became convinced of one of three things: 1) LogicWorks maliciously crashes just to raise the stress level of its users. 2) The programmers of LogicWorks are incompetant. 3) It is impossible to program stable applications on the Macintosh. For those people who like to trade favorite LogicWorks tricks, here are mine: saying LogicWorks has unexpextedly quit when we tell it to quit, placing a part on the screen only to have LogicWorks remove another, and having in Multifinder both Device Librarian up with a SuperPaint picture, and LogicWorks with our calculator up at the same time, but having D.L. saying we're short on memory when running only Finder, and we're trying to link our picture to our calculator. LogicWorks has a lot of potential, but it sucks. Avoid it like the plague. It is useful only when simulating 3 or 4 gates. If the definition of a program that sells the computer is "Amiga Demo", then LogicWorks is the anti-demo of the Mac world. (By the way, for nitpickers, we did get LogicWorks 2.0.2, but it can still perform the same tricks as 2.0 -- it crashes randomly, and we were in one-step mode when we changed our circuit around. I have used LogicWorks on the Mac+ and the Mac IIci. The ci was the machine we used most often, and had 5 MB of memory with an 80 MB hard drive, so memory considerations seemed to have been fulfilled.) - Andre
bevis@EE.ECN.PURDUE.EDU (Jeff Bevis) (03/26/90)
In article <1990Mar25.174702.27709@spectre.ccsf.caltech.edu>, andrey@tybalt.caltech.edu (Andre T. Yew) writes: >In article <1990Mar25.071227.19699@csuchico.edu> murphyd@csuchico.edu (Dave Murphy) writes: >>Has anybody out there used LogicWorks 2.0? I need to use a digital >>design program for a CSCI-280 Digital Design. I have seen LogicWorks >> [excitement deleted] > > I've used LogicWorks 2.0 before on all forms of Macintosh computers. >And all I can say about it is that it is not very stable. It has a lot of > [terrifying descriptions of unstable software deleted] I, too, have had the distinct displeasure of working with the Mac version of this hideous program. And, I agree completely with Andre on the point of instablility. I wound up in a logic design class here at Purdue and had to use 1) Slow Macs, and 2) Buggy Logicworks, for an entire semester. Without a doubt, THIS PROGRAM SHOULD BE AVOIDED. It has no frills. No time-saving features. It's slow, volatile, and may explode if handled improperly. :-) The one recurring problem we had here was the frequent failure of components in circuits. Just that -- the thing would stop working spontaneously, even though you knew it was connected fine. Solution: replace defective part with an identical "fresh" one, and it would usually continue. I thought this only happened on the breadboard! Maybe LogicWorks is a better simulation than we think... :-) :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Life is like a mop..." -- Stanley Spudowski, UHF ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Bevis Purdue Univeristy School of Electrical Engineering bevis@en.ecn.purdue.edu Give me Amiga or nothing at all. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------