RE: [SI-LIST] : SpecctraQuest v Hyperlynx

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Ken Cantrell ([email protected])
Date: Tue May 15 2001 - 10:11:13 PDT

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.

-----Original Message-----
From: Carlos Moll [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 8:25 AM
To: Ken Cantrell; Carlos Moll; David Instone; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [SI-LIST] : SpecctraQuest v Hyperlynx


It looks like you may had a bad experience with one of your tool
vendors!!... My inputs to any thread in the SI list are basically
unbiased. I am a not a sales person and by know means promote the sales of
our solution on this list.

If you are unhappy at my post, then you should address this to me
personally and not to the entire SI list. As tool vendors we are out
there to help you and everyone else, and I/we certainly get useful data as
what direction and technology enhancements we need to incorporate into our
tools or what typical problems are warranting attention from users such as
yourself or the folks of the SI list.

You will get biased opinions from the users on this list as to which tool
vendor works best, and that's great. However, I encourage that any
negative comments or problems that are associated with your tool vendor are
addressed to the tool vendor or your support person directly, not the SI

Any comments you can email me directly and I will send you my phone number
and discuss any technical issues or just to answer all of you questions.

Carlos Moll
Cadence Design Systems

At 04:19 PM 5/14/2001 -0600, Ken Cantrell wrote:
>Do you have 3D-solvers yet? Or are still having the SI engineer put in
>"typical" values on the interconnects? How about common and differential
>mode emissions? Last I heard from one of your hitters on the east coast
>that you only had differential? Has that changed?
>Have you ever used HyperLynx? If you haven't, you don't have the right to
>comment on HyperLynx, or XTK, or XNS, or any vendor's software that you
>haven't personally done a board with.
>Please respond off-line from the SI list as I don't think I could take
>another "unbiased point of view" from you on the list.
>Beware of salesmen bearing gifts. Cadence makes as good a package as any,
>and better than most, but that has little bearing on what you need for your
>application. You need to pick one or more from the many qualified
>simulation vendors. The list is long, the competition is, for lack of a
>better word, brutal. So take the promises with a grain of salt, review the
>packages yourself, and pick the one that best suites your needs.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected]
>[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Carlos Moll
>Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 7:20 AM
>To: David Instone; [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [SI-LIST] : SpecctraQuest v Hyperlynx
> From a non-biased point of view...
>If you were to compare your requirements related to bit pattern error
>detection or ISI, comprehensive waveform editing capabilities, differential
>support, coupling of connectors/package ball I/O's, mutli board and package
>to board ,etc. system level simulations , then you should at a minimum be
>looking at a comparison between SpecctraQuest and XTK, not Hyperlynx.
> From a biased point of view...
>If you use Capture and Allegro as your standardized flow, then the
>SpecctraQuest integration to your flow will provide you with the most
>powerful and comprehensive SI solution!!
>If you need me to further elaborate on such differentiations and why , then
>you can email me directly at [email protected]
>Carlos Moll
>Cadence Design Systems
> At 10:15 AM 5/11/2001 +0100, David Instone wrote:
>Dear Group,
> In addition to all the 'normal' things the above are used for, given
>the need to simulate differential pcb traces and the connectors,drivers
>and receivers associated with them at rates upto 4 gigabaud, which of
>the above would you prefer to use?
>I also want to be able to display the resulting eye pattern and/or
>calculated the resulting DJ from Inter Symbol Interference (ISI).
>Naturally I would want to be able to read in board designs (we use
>Cadence/allegro for pcb layout and Orcad for schematics) and it would
>be nice if it would run 'stand alone' on a Labtop while on-the-road.
>Dave Instone. Compliance Engineer
> Storage Systems Development, MP24/22
> Xyratex, Langstone Rd., Havant, Hampshire, P09 1SA, UK.
>Tel: +44 (0)23-92-496862 (direct line)
>Fax: +44 (0)23-92-496014
> Tel: +44 (0)23-92-496000
>**** 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
>**** 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

**** 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

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 21 2001 - 10:11:58 PDT