From: Sainath Nimmagadda ([email protected])
Date: Tue May 15 2001 - 15:34:09 PDT
Reg. H. Johnson-related part of your message:
I am surprised that you are seeing it in such terms as 'debacle', 'shark
pool', 'take a shot at the king', and 'ripped him apart' while agreeing, in
the same paragraph, that: "But for the most part it was a necessary
clarification." I don't think the list was so unfair to anybody.
Ken Cantrell wrote:
> In an attempt not to start another flame war, but to respond to Carlos, Jim,
> Todd, and Pat....
> You gave a HUGE sales pitch for your product, in my opinion. The other
> vendors could have ripped you apart, which they didn't, and I applaud them
> for their restraint. Perhaps next time I will let it go, and then you can
> get the barrage of e-mail from them instead of one from me. I didn't have a
> "bad" salesman just leave my office, or anything else. That is a logically
> weak argument used by someone who has nothing valid to support their claims.
> And you can't sidestep the issues that I pointed out. Those are all
> weakness of your product. I could list weakness of all the major vendors'
> products, but refrain from doing so until someone pops up with "my product
> is the be all and end all"...which is b.s. as we all know (except for
> engineers new to the field). You put your opinions on the list, you take
> your chances...just like me or anyone else.
> Preacher Jim,
> I don't hold vendors' representatives to a higher standard, just an equal
> standard. Remember the recent H. Johnson debacle? The list looked like a
> shark pool. People were coming out of the wood works to take a shot at the
> king. But for the most part it was a necessary clarification. Why should
> I, or anyone, hold a vendor representative less accountable with regard to
> accuracy than H.J.? He pretty much started this whole thing (generalizing
> now, I know who all of the first researchers were), and we ripped him apart
> in the name of science. No kids gloves there. I think that it is
> inapproriate when a posting diverges from data, to opinion, to sales pitch,
> especially to someone new to the discipline. That's my opinion, and the
> last I remember, I'm entitled to an opinion also. My intent was to clarify
> for David I. that he needed to research the vendors' offerings, and that
> Cadence might not be the best choice for his application. All that glitters
> is not gold. My concern is for the SI engineer, and not the vendors. I am
> neither for nor against the vendors. I am impartial. Can you say the same?
> The one that makes the best tool set for my application, and has the best
> correspondence to emprical data is the one that I choose to use. You will
> also note that due to my last round with one of the vendors, their replies
> have been data points and not sales campaigns. Keep that in mind. End of
> Todd,(thanks for an actual question)
> No. I mean on the interconnects. You have to use a 3-D solver to model the
> pins and cabling. Otherwise you put in your best guess from the vendor data
> or perform measurements, and use those values. The last time I checked,
> SpectraQuest didn't have that capability. If you have updated data, I would
> appreciate receiving it.
> You have a good point; overstated to make your point. I just went from
> somone expressing what I think is a valid opinion, to someone who is
> suppressing knowledge. That's a pretty big step. So perhaps, Patrick, you
> also overstated your position. It's not suppressing knowledge, it's having
> the posting contain some knowledge to be transferred. As I remember, you
> went through a round or two over the plane bridging/frequency independance
> of capacitor selection. You took some hits, but we all learned something on
> that one. No big deal. Part of the learning process. I guess we differ on
> this current issue as to whether or not there was any content in the
> message, and whether or not we hold vendor representatives to the same
> standard that we hold ourselves to.
> For everyone's information, I have received several e-mails in support of my
> position. There were a number of people who found Carlos's e-mail too far
> from fact, and very much Cadence biased. I still feel that this is not a
> sales forum, and will express my opinion when such instances occur, knowing
> that there will be other and opposite opinions. That's what the list is
> about. I hope that David finds the discussion illuminating rather than
> confusing, which was my intent.
**** To unsubscribe from si-list or si-list-digest: send e-mail to
[email protected] In the BODY of message put: UNSUBSCRIBE
si-list or UNSUBSCRIBE si-list-digest, for more help, put HELP.
si-list archives are accessible at http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 21 2001 - 10:11:58 PDT