Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-ncis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!ucsd!rutgers!rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ur-valhalla!badri
From: badri@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu (Badri Lokanathan)
Newsgroups: comp.lsi
Subject: Re: Spice 3
Summary: Spice 3 unimpressive ..
Message-ID: <1729@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu>
Date: 12 Jan 89 14:29:51 GMT
References: <435@lehi3b15.UUCP>
Organization: UR Dept. of Electrical Engg, Rochester NY 14627
Lines: 25

In article <435@lehi3b15.UUCP>, flash@lehi3b15.UUCP (Stephen Corbesero) writes:
> We have just finished using Spice 3 in an advanced design class, and
> we were less than impressed with its performance.  I was wondering
> just how many people are using Spice 3 out there, and what the
> comments/criticisms are.
> 
Last year, we were trying out various versions of spice (IGSPICE,
spice 3a7 etc.) mainly for the purpose of better output.

Several problems were found with spice 3a7. The main problems: frequency
domain analysis was buggy and the models (MOS level 2, for instance)
missed certain parameters. Also the program itself was flaky. It would
frequently get into strange states (complaining about errors occuring
in procedures,) from which the only recovery was to exit.

IGSPICE was better from our point of view, but we continued to use
spice 2g6 for most of our course work, mainly because its behaviour is
well understood.

We have not tried the b release of spice 3.
-- 
"It's better to burn out               {) badri@ee.rochester.edu
 Than it is to rust-                  //\\ {ames,cmcl2,columbia,cornell,
 But I'll corrode                    ///\\\ garp,harvard,ll-xn,rutgers}!
 Till I turn to dust."                _||_   rochester!ur-valhalla!badri