On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 12:15:33 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:>krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 08:18:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Hello Folks, >>> >>> On my PC this software crashes often and hard and needs too many >>> re-installs. It slows down one project to a crawl here and that needs to >>> get done. I could use older versions as long as my client can read the >>> files into 16.3. Question: >> >> He can read older files into 16.3 but you won't be able to read his at all if >> you're too many levels back. >> >>> In your experience, what was a relatively stable (as in "not many >>> crashes") version I could try to go back to? The license should allow a >>> downgrade. The support server won't let me in right now but I'll bug >>> them about that later. >> >> Good luck! Stable and OrCAD are mutually exclusive. IOW, you *can't* go back >> that far. >> > >Well, if I just knew how far "that far" is :-) > >But of course I don't have too high hopes because I did manage to >thoroughly crash older version (I believe 9.something) at a client. They >weren't too fussed because I wasn't the only one.FWIW, 16.3 is as good as it gets. Hierarchy works, too. I don't particularly like the implementation, but at least it works.
Stability of older Orcad/PSpice combos?
Started by ●April 24, 2011
Reply by ●April 24, 20112011-04-24
Reply by ●April 24, 20112011-04-24
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 12:15:33 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 08:18:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello Folks, >>>> >>>> On my PC this software crashes often and hard and needs too many >>>> re-installs. It slows down one project to a crawl here and that needs to >>>> get done. I could use older versions as long as my client can read the >>>> files into 16.3. Question: >>> He can read older files into 16.3 but you won't be able to read his at all if >>> you're too many levels back. >>> >>>> In your experience, what was a relatively stable (as in "not many >>>> crashes") version I could try to go back to? The license should allow a >>>> downgrade. The support server won't let me in right now but I'll bug >>>> them about that later. >>> Good luck! Stable and OrCAD are mutually exclusive. IOW, you *can't* go back >>> that far. >>> >> Well, if I just knew how far "that far" is :-) >> >> But of course I don't have too high hopes because I did manage to >> thoroughly crash older version (I believe 9.something) at a client. They >> weren't too fussed because I wasn't the only one. > > FWIW, 16.3 is as good as it gets. ...Dang. I was hoping not to hear that :-( Then I must continue the crash -> re-install game.> ... Hierarchy works, too. I don't particularly > like the implementation, but at least it works.Just re-installed the whole chebang again. It errors on all the simulation profiles but at least it reads the schematics. Probably only for a few days ... -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
Reply by ●April 24, 20112011-04-24
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 15:35:21 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:>krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 12:15:33 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 08:18:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello Folks, >>>>> >>>>> On my PC this software crashes often and hard and needs too many >>>>> re-installs. It slows down one project to a crawl here and that needs to >>>>> get done. I could use older versions as long as my client can read the >>>>> files into 16.3. Question: >>>> He can read older files into 16.3 but you won't be able to read his at all if >>>> you're too many levels back. >>>> >>>>> In your experience, what was a relatively stable (as in "not many >>>>> crashes") version I could try to go back to? The license should allow a >>>>> downgrade. The support server won't let me in right now but I'll bug >>>>> them about that later. >>>> Good luck! Stable and OrCAD are mutually exclusive. IOW, you *can't* go back >>>> that far. >>>> >>> Well, if I just knew how far "that far" is :-) >>> >>> But of course I don't have too high hopes because I did manage to >>> thoroughly crash older version (I believe 9.something) at a client. They >>> weren't too fussed because I wasn't the only one. >> >> FWIW, 16.3 is as good as it gets. ... > > >Dang. I was hoping not to hear that :-( > >Then I must continue the crash -> re-install game.I've never had to re-install but the binaries are on a server (floating licenses and all that). Then again, we don't use P-Spice anymore, either.>> ... Hierarchy works, too. I don't particularly >> like the implementation, but at least it works. > > >Just re-installed the whole chebang again. It errors on all the >simulation profiles but at least it reads the schematics. Probably only >for a few days ...
Reply by ●April 24, 20112011-04-24
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 15:35:21 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:[...]>>> FWIW, 16.3 is as good as it gets. ... >> >> Dang. I was hoping not to hear that :-( >> >> Then I must continue the crash -> re-install game. > > I've never had to re-install but the binaries are on a server (floating > licenses and all that). Then again, we don't use P-Spice anymore, either. >That may be the difference. Using PSpice is when all this nasty stuff happens. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
Reply by ●April 25, 20112011-04-25
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 15:35:21 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:>krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 12:15:33 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 08:18:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello Folks, >>>>> >>>>> On my PC this software crashes often and hard and needs too many >>>>> re-installs. It slows down one project to a crawl here and that needs to >>>>> get done. I could use older versions as long as my client can read the >>>>> files into 16.3. Question: >>>> He can read older files into 16.3 but you won't be able to read his at all if >>>> you're too many levels back. >>>> >>>>> In your experience, what was a relatively stable (as in "not many >>>>> crashes") version I could try to go back to? The license should allow a >>>>> downgrade. The support server won't let me in right now but I'll bug >>>>> them about that later. >>>> Good luck! Stable and OrCAD are mutually exclusive. IOW, you *can't* go back >>>> that far. >>>> >>> Well, if I just knew how far "that far" is :-) >>> >>> But of course I don't have too high hopes because I did manage to >>> thoroughly crash older version (I believe 9.something) at a client. They >>> weren't too fussed because I wasn't the only one. >> >> FWIW, 16.3 is as good as it gets. ... > > >Dang. I was hoping not to hear that :-(If you have a fairly powerful computer, install vmware ('server' is free, I prefer server 1.xx) and a WinXP guest OS with just enough plus the OrCAD application to do your stuff. Avoid vmware's networking complexities, use the simple share host network option. Take a snapshot of the guest OS. Each time it crashes, revert to that snapshot :) At least the recycling will be much quicker! Some complex software will never be fixed, particularly if the company bought out the competition :/ There are some protection settings that rely on a modern CPU. You're sure that PC it runs on is okay? Run MEMtest for at least a weekend, you should get zero memory errors. Grant.
Reply by ●April 25, 20112011-04-25
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 11:55:42 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:>Jim Thompson wrote: >> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 09:17:33 -0700, Charlie E. <edmondson@ieee.org> >> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 08:18:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello Folks, >>>> >>>> On my PC this software crashes often and hard and needs too many >>>> re-installs. It slows down one project to a crawl here and that needs to >>>> get done. I could use older versions as long as my client can read the >>>> files into 16.3. Question: >>>> >>>> In your experience, what was a relatively stable (as in "not many >>>> crashes") version I could try to go back to? The license should allow a >>>> downgrade. The support server won't let me in right now but I'll bug >>>> them about that later. >>>> >>>> It'll be a bit of a pain since I won't be able to revisit circuits I >>>> already completed with 16.3 but I may not have a choice. Or maybe >>>> they'll let me use both old and new, the suppoort folks are very friendly. >>> Jeorg, >>> You should be able to use an older version (with caveats!) with the >>> new licenses. The older the version, the more likely there was some >>> change in the licensing that would break it, though. Anything I can >>> do to help? I know a thing or two about the software... ;-) >>> > >Thanks, Charlie. I might take you up on that. > > >>> Charlie >> >> I believe Joerg is using Crapture. That is a guarantee of "lossy" >> crashes :-( >> > >Well, yeah, that's part of 16.3 so I am kind of forced to use Capture. >That's why I wanted to know, how far back can I safely go without my >client losing the ability to read in my stuff?You should be able to at least go back to 15.7, or even 15.5 without too many problems, unless you use a lot of advanced analysis stuff. Capture does pretty well in bringing a version forward, but very poorly in pulling an advanced version back, without forcing a save as for a prior version. I use 15.7, and very rarely get a crash, even when using it with Orcad Layout... Charlie
Reply by ●April 25, 20112011-04-25
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 12:02:47 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:>Jamie wrote: >> Joerg wrote: >> >>> Hello Folks, >>> >>> On my PC this software crashes often and hard and needs too many >>> re-installs. It slows down one project to a crawl here and that needs to >>> get done. I could use older versions as long as my client can read the >>> files into 16.3. Question: >>> >>> In your experience, what was a relatively stable (as in "not many >>> crashes") version I could try to go back to? The license should allow a >>> downgrade. The support server won't let me in right now but I'll bug >>> them about that later. >>> >>> It'll be a bit of a pain since I won't be able to revisit circuits I >>> already completed with 16.3 but I may not have a choice. Or maybe >>> they'll let me use both old and new, the suppoort folks are very >>> friendly. >>> >> IT would be nice to know what type of crashes you are getting? >> >> Are these actual built in program messages being generated that causes >> corruption of your work? It so, you could be taxing some function a bit >> and the software should know how to recovery it or step backwards that is. >> If you are getting things like invalid pointers or out of range >> indexes and things like that? I would venture to say that some one is >> not doing QC very well... >> >> If you are getting errors that show coming from System API's, kernel >> faults and such, the ones that really causes the rest of your machine a >> reboot requirement? I would say that you have have something wrong with >> your PC? I've found that bad memory and a flaky HD (swap file) can cause >> random problems on top of a machine running to hot and maybe was >> over clocked! >> >> It's always that possibility that you are just working it hard and the >> program is reaching it's bows with the allocated memory requirements and >> things like that. I've seen where sloppy use of memory handling can >> cause the memory pool to get fragmented and some where along the line, >> windows will just not be able to allocate a piece of memory for the code >> with no safety checks in the code. >> > >Yes, I was working it quite hard. I don't know much about software but >most or probably all of the smoke and spatters seem to come from within >the app (Orcad) itself. Messages such as "The PSPice COM wrapper error >has occurred" cannot possibly come from the Windows OS. Then "This >application has quit unexpectedly. To help Cadence ..." is also pretty >cliear about the origin. Then there's what I have now, it just refuses >to do certain simple things, like opening a project. Instead of opening >or at least displaying some error message Orcad just locks up hard. > > >> Are you using a true Win32 version or some older 16 bit version? It >> does make a big difference. >> > >There is only one version and it's supposed to run on Windows XP. Amnd >it does run. For a few days at a time :-(Jeorg, Please feel free to give me a call tomorrow (monday) if you need anything. After all, I owe you a bit from the help you have given me over the years! number is on our website edmondsonengineering.com! Charlie
Reply by ●April 25, 20112011-04-25
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 21:03:32 -0700, Charlie E. <edmondson@ieee.org> wrote:>On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 11:55:42 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> >wrote: > >>Jim Thompson wrote: >>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 09:17:33 -0700, Charlie E. <edmondson@ieee.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 08:18:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello Folks, >>>>> >>>>> On my PC this software crashes often and hard and needs too many >>>>> re-installs. It slows down one project to a crawl here and that needs to >>>>> get done. I could use older versions as long as my client can read the >>>>> files into 16.3. Question: >>>>> >>>>> In your experience, what was a relatively stable (as in "not many >>>>> crashes") version I could try to go back to? The license should allow a >>>>> downgrade. The support server won't let me in right now but I'll bug >>>>> them about that later. >>>>> >>>>> It'll be a bit of a pain since I won't be able to revisit circuits I >>>>> already completed with 16.3 but I may not have a choice. Or maybe >>>>> they'll let me use both old and new, the suppoort folks are very friendly. >>>> Jeorg, >>>> You should be able to use an older version (with caveats!) with the >>>> new licenses. The older the version, the more likely there was some >>>> change in the licensing that would break it, though. Anything I can >>>> do to help? I know a thing or two about the software... ;-) >>>> >> >>Thanks, Charlie. I might take you up on that. >> >> >>>> Charlie >>> >>> I believe Joerg is using Crapture. That is a guarantee of "lossy" >>> crashes :-( >>> >> >>Well, yeah, that's part of 16.3 so I am kind of forced to use Capture. >>That's why I wanted to know, how far back can I safely go without my >>client losing the ability to read in my stuff? >You should be able to at least go back to 15.7, or even 15.5 without >too many problems, unless you use a lot of advanced analysis stuff. >Capture does pretty well in bringing a version forward, but very >poorly in pulling an advanced version back, without forcing a save as >for a prior version.One thing to watch is that 16.3 will change formats whenever a save is done, even if it's automatic. It'll change the formats of all open libraries, too, unless you're hyper-vigilant. Once they're changed it's hard to go back.>I use 15.7, and very rarely get a crash, even >when using it with Orcad Layout...Try selecting an entire page of a busy schematic page, and doing a move. That was the killer in 15.7 (more or less fixed in 16.3).
Reply by ●April 25, 20112011-04-25
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:> > On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 15:35:21 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > > >Then I must continue the crash -> re-install game. > > I've never had to re-install but the binaries are on a server (floating > licenses and all that). Then again, we don't use P-Spice anymore, either.It sounds like a hardware problem like not enough RAM, or a dying hard drive. If you don't have enough RAM, the drive is constantly reading and writing swap files. That pushes the hardware to it's limits and causes more errors. Also, it may be old enough to have failing electrolytics on the motherboard. I recently picked up three Acer Aspire L100 mini desktops with bad capacitors. All three were running 512 MB of RAM. One also had a bad hard drive. There are just over a year old. -- You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid� on it, because it's Teflon coated.
Reply by ●April 25, 20112011-04-25
Grant wrote:> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 15:35:21 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 12:15:33 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 08:18:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hello Folks, >>>>>> >>>>>> On my PC this software crashes often and hard and needs too many >>>>>> re-installs. It slows down one project to a crawl here and that needs to >>>>>> get done. I could use older versions as long as my client can read the >>>>>> files into 16.3. Question: >>>>> He can read older files into 16.3 but you won't be able to read his at all if >>>>> you're too many levels back. >>>>> >>>>>> In your experience, what was a relatively stable (as in "not many >>>>>> crashes") version I could try to go back to? The license should allow a >>>>>> downgrade. The support server won't let me in right now but I'll bug >>>>>> them about that later. >>>>> Good luck! Stable and OrCAD are mutually exclusive. IOW, you *can't* go back >>>>> that far. >>>>> >>>> Well, if I just knew how far "that far" is :-) >>>> >>>> But of course I don't have too high hopes because I did manage to >>>> thoroughly crash older version (I believe 9.something) at a client. They >>>> weren't too fussed because I wasn't the only one. >>> FWIW, 16.3 is as good as it gets. ... >> >> Dang. I was hoping not to hear that :-( > > If you have a fairly powerful computer, install vmware ('server' is > free, I prefer server 1.xx) and a WinXP guest OS with just enough > plus the OrCAD application to do your stuff. Avoid vmware's > networking complexities, use the simple share host network option. > > Take a snapshot of the guest OS. > > > > Each time it crashes, revert to that snapshot :) >I have Sun VirtualMachine on here. But Cadence's license model is IMHO highly complicated and cumbersome, I doubt this would work.> > At least the recycling will be much quicker! Some complex software > will never be fixed, particularly if the company bought out the > competition :/ There are some protection settings that rely on a > modern CPU. > > You're sure that PC it runs on is okay? Run MEMtest for at least a > weekend, you should get zero memory errors. >Had to work on the weekend because of these dreaded crashes, so no time for the PC to do that. But I doubt there is a problem. There are only two programs that notoriously crash: Orcad and Acrobat, and Acrobat got kicked out which solved that problem. Dozens of other software companies whose SW is on this PC must have done something right because theirs does not crash ;-) -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
