| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| tswelectronics |
Posted - 27 Aug 2014 : 13:24:49
I just got an email about TI doing PCB layout for their WEBENCH designs. Design Spark is supported as an output option but not EasyPC.
Is there going to be a file conversion programme to enable EasyPC users to take advantage of all the DesignSpark support coming through?
Trev |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| AndyB |
Posted - 04 Dec 2017 : 13:02:03
I agree with Iain and tend to make my own libraries.
Had a few problems with pre built ones and find it more time consuming sorting them out.
As for Easy PC it's pretty good cost wise and with great tech help.
|
| shadders |
Posted - 21 Nov 2017 : 13:14:02
Hi,
Blimey, what is going on here. Is there a 3 year rule, where all posts must be answered ???. 
On a positive note - yes, Easy-PC is excellent value for money, when compared to free offerings, the competition, and not being a subscription model.
Regards,
Shadders. |
| DavidM |
Posted - 21 Nov 2017 : 10:15:02
Anyone is entitled to their opinion, but I feel I have to disagree with the assertion that we have "abandoned Easy-PC".
At just £69 for the annual update you generally get at least 15-20 additional and enhanced features, and another year of technical support and fixes, which we feel shows an on-going commitment to the product and very good value for money.
Of course everyone is again entitled to decide for themselves whether they wish to take advantage of this, but either way I can confirm that our commitment to Easy-PC is just as strong now as it ever was.
David. |
| Scazon |
Posted - 19 Dec 2014 : 10:51:34
"It is their product so they can decide what to and what not put into the public domain, we simply need to accept that."
We pay. Designspark users don't.
Just looked at RS Modelsource - "libraries for over 80,000 PCB & Schematic components." For Cadence, Designspark, for Eagle God bless us - but not for Easy-PC, even though the difference as far as I can see between Designspark and Easy-PC formats is only internal block headers and (probably) checksums.
I really feel that WestDev have abandoned Easy-PC as a product, and like Tsien Boardmaker before them are just holding the remaining user base to ransom, based on our past investment in the product. For the rest, they are happy with the retainer from RS.
|
| hodali |
Posted - 12 Nov 2014 : 16:29:32
Yes, I know. It is their product. If you accept everything then don't complain. 
When Number one makes public of their file formats software developers may develop a converter which you can use, Iain.
Hint:
The whole software industry is driven by the open source community. Methods and algorithms are introduced by the open source community at first. So Number One and other companies do not really reinvent the wheel.
quote:
Originally posted by Iain Wilkie
It is their product so they can decide what to and what not put into the public domain, we simply need to accept that. From a personal point of view it has never really been any issue for me. I hardly ever use inbuilt libraries or eagle imports as 9 times out of 10 there are minor differencies between them and the manufacturers data. You need to double check everything to make sure, so by the time you've done all that your just as quick creating your own in the knowledge that it's going to be correct.
My ongoing gripe is simply I cannot export to EasyPc from Pulsonix and the library structure. These are the Achilles heel of what I regard as an excellent package. But we do not live in an ideal world so I simply accept these limitations and get on with life.
Iain
|
| Iain Wilkie |
Posted - 12 Nov 2014 : 15:24:58
It is their product so they can decide what to and what not put into the public domain, we simply need to accept that. From a personal point of view it has never really been any issue for me. I hardly ever use inbuilt libraries or eagle imports as 9 times out of 10 there are minor differencies between them and the manufacturers data. You need to double check everything to make sure, so by the time you've done all that your just as quick creating your own in the knowledge that it's going to be correct.
My ongoing gripe is simply I cannot export to EasyPc from Pulsonix and the library structure. These are the Achilles heel of what I regard as an excellent package. But we do not live in an ideal world so I simply accept these limitations and get on with life.
Iain
|
| hodali |
Posted - 12 Nov 2014 : 14:45:37
I don't complain about the support. The number one's support is excellent. I want to see more advanced feature and I don't mind if Number one demands extra money. If they don't provide more advanced feature they should public the data format of the libraries, schematic and layout files at least. Why is eagle so succussfull ? What do you think ?
quote:
Originally posted by Iain Wilkie
Excuse me .... I have also been a critic of NumberOne. You just need to look through the posts regarding the library structure. I am not blinkered in views and try to see both sides of an argument.
It's more playing devils advocate than anything else.
I can only voice my views as I see them, and if you want my honest opinion I sometimes get frustrated by some folks moaning and groaning on about minor problems that they come up against. All software can suffer from bugs and I know of stories of much bigger applications costing thousands that have even worse support than numberone. I have always found that if I report a problem it gets sorted. Suits me but but apparently doesn't suit all.
Iain
|
| Iain Wilkie |
Posted - 12 Nov 2014 : 14:15:08
Excuse me .... I have also been a critic of NumberOne. You just need to look through the posts regarding the library structure. I am not blinkered in views and try to see both sides of an argument.
It's more playing devils advocate than anything else.
I can only voice my views as I see them, and if you want my honest opinion I sometimes get frustrated by some folks moaning and groaning on about minor problems that they come up against. All software can suffer from bugs and I know of stories of much bigger applications costing thousands that have even worse support than numberone. I have always found that if I report a problem it gets sorted. Suits me but but apparently doesn't suit all.
Iain |
| hodali |
Posted - 12 Nov 2014 : 14:00:58
Iain: because you sometimes defend Number One. We should together demand new features from Number one.
Imagine if all or a lot of Easy-PC users say: "We want these features otherwise we don't upgrade.
I think Number one reuses C++ classes derived from Pulsonix. So they have solutions many years in advance.
quote:
Originally posted by Iain Wilkie
I know the topic has been raised before and the current discussion has simply raised it again.
I am not associated with Numberone systems in any way so not sure why your comments are directed at me !
Iain
|
| Iain Wilkie |
Posted - 12 Nov 2014 : 12:08:25
I know the topic has been raised before and the current discussion has simply raised it again.
I am not associated with Numberone systems in any way so not sure why your comments are directed at me !
Iain
|
| hodali |
Posted - 12 Nov 2014 : 10:44:10
@Iain: If you look at http://www.numberone.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=441& you will notice that Easy-PC users had the same topics 4 years ago. Same problems and no solution!!
By the way I don't understand why Number One keeps file formats a secret. They prevent people from developing tools. Why? |
| Iain Wilkie |
Posted - 12 Nov 2014 : 08:24:25
@hodali .... I haven't a clue what that is meant to mean 
Iain |
| hodali |
Posted - 11 Nov 2014 : 18:17:20
I suggest "Pulsonix LT", whereby LT stands for light version. Does a rebrand improves a product ?
@Iain Wilkie; look at http://www.numberone.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=441&whichpage=2 . The programmer didn't see the light. I only would like to remind you, Iain. |
| nigle |
Posted - 10 Nov 2014 : 12:32:54
quote:
Originally posted by Iain Wilkie
I spoke to Bob Williams a while back about it and he agreed it would be nice to re-brand, but its something to do how the licence contract when some things change hands a lot of years back IIRC.
That sounds rather implausible. According to the website "WestDev purchased the exclusive rights to the Number One Systems name, stock ... in November 1998". Number One Systems Limited was wound up as of 06/11/1998, so unless a dodgy deal was done just before winding up (which would very likely have been voided by the liquidator) the assets were bought from the liquidator, who has a duty to obtain the maximum value from them. Restrictive clauses would have reduced the value, so they would have to have increased the value of some other asset that the liquidator could sell. I cannot think of any way that this could be the case.
The real reason is probably, as always, the elephant in the room: Pulsonix. If EasyPC were made to look (or actually be) more professional then it could conceivably harm Pulsonix sales.
Why do Westdev keep hiding behind the 'contractual reasons' for every unpopular decision they make? It may well be true occasionally, but contracts can be re-negotioated if the will is there. Which it clearly isn't. |
| Iain Wilkie |
Posted - 10 Nov 2014 : 11:15:18
Ed,
Its not really crap, I spoke to Bob Williams a while back about it and he agreed it would be nice to re-brand, but its something to do how the licence contract when some things change hands a lot of years back IIRC.
Iain
|
| edrees |
Posted - 10 Nov 2014 : 10:37:15
No1 certainly seem to enjoy using this legal/licensing/contractual cr4p for everything. It appears to be their standard reply to many issues.
Their record is wearing out, (- that's for us old folks, -before the days of CDs/MP3 etc.).
|
| Iain Wilkie |
Posted - 10 Nov 2014 : 10:14:38
Ed .... I totally agree with you on this. I too feel slightly embarrassed telling BIG customers my package is called EasyPC.
I have mentioned this to No1 in the past, but apparently nothing can be done about the name new due to legal/licencing implications.
Iain |
| edrees |
Posted - 10 Nov 2014 : 09:16:17
IainW may be correct with his assertion that DesignSpark is for amateurs. However, DesignSpark sound like, and is being perceived as a professional package despite it being "free". Whereas EasyPC, to me at least, sounds a bit childish, and as if it is still being directly targeted at /Amateurs/Hobbyists and the like.
I try to avoid having to explain to my Blue Chip Clients that I will be using "EasyPC" to undertake their schematic and pcb layout designs for this very reason.
In the light of these "impressions", justified or not, is it now not time that No.1 re-branded the EasyPC product, - similar to what Toyota did when they launched the "Lexus" range of top spec. cars to differentiate these from the more run of the mill cars?
Perhaps No.1 could run a Competition to suggest a new product name? Surely one of us "professional" EasyPC users could come up with a bright snappy name? The winner of course could receive a free "Pro Lib" upgrade. Suggestions on a Post Card please! |
| Iain Wilkie |
Posted - 08 Nov 2014 : 14:50:15
Layers are the least of your problems with DesignSpark.
It's ok for amateurs and that's about it.
Iain
|
| hodali |
Posted - 08 Nov 2014 : 11:58:42
@Iain Wilkie: Designspark supports multilayer design. Look at chipkit Max32.PCB, which is delivered with Designspark. It has 4 layers. Layers are not limited in Designspark.
When a cad system supports a multilayer design it doesn't all work for you. You have to use your brain and your background knowledge to design a proper PCB. |
| Iain Wilkie |
Posted - 08 Nov 2014 : 08:39:07
If designspark improves to the level of EasyPc then we are all ok. At the moment is is not a professional product and it is being used by individuals and companies to produce cheap prototypes. However when it comes to densely populated complicated multi-layer boards they will either go to a design house which would regard Designspark as a toy, or use a proper design package in house themselves.
Iain |
| hodali |
Posted - 08 Nov 2014 : 05:55:14
@Iain Wilkie: I think Designspark will be improved and get more features. Most RS customers are engineers and companies. Easy-PC will die out and a lot of your customers will switch to Designspark or other products. Easy-PC is under pressure. |
| Iain Wilkie |
Posted - 07 Nov 2014 : 22:28:27
I have already looked at Pulsonix but there is another reason for me not to go that way or I would. Problem is a lot of my clients use EasyPc. They use this to edit and make minor adjustments to layouts that I have already done so they do not need to return to me for this service. EasyPc is affordable to them. Pulsonix does not export to EasyPc so if I went the Pulsinox route, they also need to, but the extra cost doesn't fit. To date there is nothing that Pulsonix does that EasyPc cannot .... Albeit perhaps not so elegant. The only plus that Pulsonix has is its import facility from other packages.
Iaon |
| hodali |
Posted - 07 Nov 2014 : 21:08:48
@Iain Wilkie: One day you will move to another product as well. Easy-Pc always has limited features because WestDev wants you to buy Pulsonix. |
| Iain Wilkie |
Posted - 07 Nov 2014 : 20:47:56
@hodali. I know Designspark is a subset of EasyPc, but because it has only the basic features it is hopeless from a professional point of view. That's why I said it was rubbish. I tried Eagle but it didn't gel with me. I find easypc an excellent package and have used it for complex high speed designs up to 12 layers.
Basically it works for me, you pay your money and you take your choice.
I think we have all probably bought software that we have found doesn't do things the way we wanted, but you simply need to learn from it and move on. If I were you I would simply bite the bullet and move to Eagle as your preferred choise.
Iain |
| hodali |
Posted - 07 Nov 2014 : 20:07:47
@Iain Wilkie: I disagree. Designspark and Easy-PC are the same package. Easy-PC has additional features which are omited in Designspark. Some features are included in Designspark for free. For example IDF output, all component libraries and DXF output. Easy-PC users have to pay for these packages. Designspark has all basic functions to create schematics and layouts. I have to mention that you cannot create a high speed PCB layout with both products.
I bought Easy-PC with all additional packages and it was more expensive than Eagle. As you know Eagle is better than Easy-PC now. I made the wrong decision. My last update was Easy-PC 17 and I do not buy updates anymore.
By the way you can add new footprints to Easy-PC by importing dxf files. So you can transfer data from Designspark to Easy-PC
|
| Iain Wilkie |
Posted - 07 Nov 2014 : 15:07:37
I have tried Designspark and can confirm that it's absolute rubbish compared to EasyPC.
Iain |
| DavidM |
Posted - 07 Nov 2014 : 14:44:05
There are indeed two separate companies involved here, each with their own business needs and product directions. Okay, so the product requirements overlap, but they are different. RS are using DesignSpark PCB as one of the elements of building an 'electronics design community', and as part of this have included in the application some features (ModelSource library data and BOM Quote pricing for example) developed to fit within that plan. To look at it simplistically, the obvious end result for RS is to increase sales of components, as that is their core business.
However, what I can say is that it is certainly our (WestDev's) intention that Easy-PC will (despite its name!) always be a more powerful PCB design product than DesignSpark PCB. Easy-PC is an important part of our business, and we are keen to see it continue to flourish.
David. |
| edrees |
Posted - 07 Nov 2014 : 14:25:43
My main worry is that the priority for RS (obviously being a "nice deal") will eventually "overtake" us subscription paying Customers.
I think it's only a matter of time before RS will want the "full package" and they probably have sufficient leverage to do it. Then we no longer have to pay our Subscriptions to No1, - unless we get fed up with all the RS adverts (allegedly). |
| tswelectronics |
Posted - 07 Nov 2014 : 13:50:33
I do not think Number One Systems are in a position to 'irritate' RS by doing such things. It is obviously a nice deal for Number One so I can appreciate their hands may be tied over what they can and can not do. I had not considered this aspect of it before and was thinking that Number One were in more control of the situation than they actually are. I think they are the client of RS and so have to ensure the client stays happy.
|
