Xref: utzoo comp.lsi.cad:61 sci.electronics:4366 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!uw-june!uw-entropy!dataio!pilchuck!toad!lee From: lee@toad.pilchuck.Data-IO.COM (Kyu Lee) Newsgroups: comp.lsi.cad,sci.electronics Subject: Re: CAD for ASIC's, PLD's, PAL's and PCB's Keywords: DASH, ABEL, PCAD, CUPL, PADS Message-ID: <1054@pilchuck.Data-IO.COM> Date: 2 Dec 88 17:45:38 GMT References: <743@husc6.harvard.edu> Sender: news@Data-IO.COM Reply-To: lee@toad.Data-IO.COM () Organization: Data I/O Corporation; Redmond, WA Lines: 62 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