kiely@lownlab.harvard.edu (James P. Kiely) (12/02/88)
I am planning to purchase a CAD system for designing programmable logic devices: ASIC's, PLD's, PAL's, etc. It looks to me like ABEL from DataIO/FutureNet is the best thing available for this... but... I want to be able to use the same package for Printed Circuit Board layout. DataIO/Futurenet recent dropped their PCB package so if I go with them I could use DASH for schematic capture but I would have to interface it with some other PCB package. This may seem easy but back-annotation of chip and gate swaps can become a nightmare. If I go with CUPL (originally from Personal CAD Systems, now from Logical Devices) I can interface directly with PCAD (from Personal CAD Systems). I am not convinced that CUPL is as good as ABEL and I am a little wary about the fact that CUPL has changed ownership twice in the last two years. I have also been informed by a relatively unreliable source that CUPL will not support devices with more than 1200 gates. Another factor is price. PADS from CAD Systems appears to be a good schematic capture and PCB layout& router package and is much cheaper than PCAD. But it has now direct interface with any programmable logic chip design package. Would I be best off with PADS and some interface to ABEL? Or is it that important to have a single intergated system? Does anyone out there have any suggestions? Does anyone out there have any experience with these or any other such CAD packages that they would care to recommend or warn me against? Please respond via email. I will post a summary to the net. Thanks. ============================================================================= NAME: James P. Kiely USPS: Kiely Laboratories USENET: ...!harvard!lownlab!kiely P.O. Box 624 DOMAIN: kiely@lownlab.harvard.edu Allston, MA 02134-0624 PHONE: +1 617 782 4136 USA
lee@toad.pilchuck.Data-IO.COM (Kyu Lee) (12/03/88)
In article <743@husc6.harvard.edu> kiely@lownlab.harvard.edu (James P. Kiely) writes: >I am planning to purchase a CAD system for designing programmable >logic devices: ASIC's, PLD's, PAL's, etc. >It looks to me like ABEL from DataIO/FutureNet is the best thing >available for this... As the guy who was responsible for the birth of ABEL, and now back to head the group responsible for the product line which includes ABEL, appreciate your complement. However, one correction is in order. The company name is Data I/O, not Data IO/FutureNet. I know it is confusing, but the product was developed before FutureNet was acquired, and was given to them after the acquisition. The Data I/O's new policy is that only the company name Data I/O be used in the product identification, not the division name. As for the debate on which product to buy, there is certain benefit and comfort of going with the industry leader, since it is reasonable to expect that the leader will try hard to maintain the leadership; this includes support, service, and continuous product improvement and enhancement of the product, not to mention with new product development. Early this year, there was a large scale reorganization and strategy within the company. The FutureNet objective, i.e., of becoming a viable competitor to Mentors and Daisys, has given way to the original Data I/O strategy, prior to the FutureNet acquisition, of being the leader in tools provider for Programmable Logic Devices. Translation: expect much improvement/enhancement/new product development in the PLD/PGA product line. >but... >I want to be able to use the same package for Printed Circuit Board >layout. DataIO/Futurenet recent dropped their PCB package so if I >go with them I could use DASH for schematic capture but I would have >to interface it with some other PCB package. This may seem easy but >back-annotation of chip and gate swaps can become a nightmare. > >If I go with CUPL (originally from Personal CAD Systems, now from >Logical Devices) I can interface directly with PCAD (from Personal >CAD Systems). I am not convinced that CUPL is as good as ABEL >and I am a little wary about the fact that CUPL has changed ownership >twice in the last two years. I have also been informed by a relatively >unreliable source that CUPL will not support devices with more than >1200 gates. > >Another factor is price. PADS from CAD Systems appears to be a good >schematic capture and PCB layout& router package and is much cheaper >than PCAD. But it has now direct interface with any programmable >logic chip design package. > >Would I be best off with PADS and some interface to ABEL? >Or is it that important to have a single intergated system? > I would like to hear responses from the users on this too. What demand for such interface is there? Should we pay attention to this? Kyu Lee Manager, Logic Synthesis Group Data i/O Corporation P.O. Box 97046 Redmond, WA 98073 lee@data-io.com
waters@dover.uucp (Mike Waters) (12/04/88)
In article <1054@pilchuck.Data-IO.COM> lee@toad.Data-IO.COM () writes: >In article <743@husc6.harvard.edu> kiely@lownlab.harvard.edu (James P. Kiely) writes: >>I am planning to purchase a CAD system for designing programmable [stuff about various features of CAD systems deleted ] > >>but... >>I want to be able to use the same package for Printed Circuit Board >>layout. DataIO/Futurenet recent dropped their PCB package so if I >>go with them I could use DASH for schematic capture but I would have >>to interface it with some other PCB package. This may seem easy but >>back-annotation of chip and gate swaps can become a nightmare. [stability of vendors in this business ] >>and I am a little wary about the fact that CUPL has changed ownership >>twice in the last two years. I have also been informed by a relatively >>unreliable source that CUPL will not support devices with more than >>1200 gates. >>schematic capture and PCB layout& router package and is much cheaper >>than PCAD. But it has now direct interface with any programmable >>logic chip design package. >> >>Would I be best off with PADS and some interface to ABEL? >>Or is it that important to have a single intergated system? >> > >I would like to hear responses from the users on this too. What >demand for such interface is there? Should we pay attention to this? > THis problem of interfaces is precisely why interfaces such as EDIF were created! You mentioned: a) what if the vendor goes away? b) vendor a does ... vendor b does ... but I need both! c) an interface from a to b doesn't exist and there doesn't seem to be the deamnd ($$$) to create one. In addition, you (and we) need such things as archival capability - can my 199x CAD system read this data? Who knows! Anyway the idea was to create a single standard which was published as EDIF V 2 0 0. It is not cheap, needs extensions, and has quite a few shortcomings but it IS here and IS being used. For more information write: EDIF User Group 2222 South Dobson Rd. Mesa, AZ 85202 ask for information. (Please don't phone the sectretary is a volunteer!) -- Mike Waters (for your EDIFication) * Motorola CAD Group * Witty remark goes *HERE* Mesa, AZ ...!sun!sunburn!dover!waters * OR moto@cad.Berkley.EDU *