Xilinx courses

I recently took the "Advanced FPGA Implementation (v6)" Instructor-Led
Course and came out of it with a fair bit of dissappointment.  I don't want
to engage in Xilinx-bashing but it bothers me that the course was simply not
worthy of the title it was given.

The only reason I might get something out of it will be because I will pour
over the 500 page book on my own and experiment for many, many hours.  The
class boiled down to a bunch of slides (a very small subset of the book,
maybe 20%) being read out loud with a degree of re-interpretation.  The labs
were based on an obscure design that was not introduced at all.  So, all you
could do in the alloted time was type from the book like a robot and move
on.  No real learning took place there.

I took the course because, after a two-year effort --starting from scratch-- 
to learn FPGA's, I thought that an advanced course taught by an expert in
the field would be a great way to take my skills up a notch or two.  I
needed to get to that proverbial last few percent and, frankly, I also felt
stuck with regards to timing optimization, floorplanning and other advanced
areas.  I thought that an "advanced" course would be taught by a peer who'd
offer the sort of insight that only comes from significant experience in the
field and, yes, inside information.  That is certainly not what happened.  I
can read slides just as well as the next guy.  I don't need to pay $1,000,
travel and burn two days' work to endure that experience.

So, I wonder.  Was this a fluke?  Are the other coursed different, better,
worst?  Are Altera's courses better?  It seems that Xilinx contracts out the
trainig to a third party (a company called "Technically Speaking".  I heard
that Altera chooses to use insiders.  Is this true?  Does it make a
difference?

Thanks,


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Martin Euredjian

To send private email:
0_0_0_0_@pacbell.net
where
"0_0_0_0_"  =  "martineu"

Martin Euredjian wrote:

> The only reason I might get something out of it will be because I will pour
> over the 500 page book on my own and experiment for many, many hours.

That's where learning happens.

> I took the course because, after a two-year effort --starting from scratch-- 
> to learn FPGA's,

That's a pretty broad topic.
Consider picking focusing on a more specific goal.

>  I don't need to pay $1,000,
> travel and burn two days' work to endure that experience.

Learning that was worth the price of admission.

> So, I wonder.  Was this a fluke? 

Hey, that's *our* trademark, "if it works, it's a fluke" :)

> Are Altera's courses better?
No. Just different.

> I heard that Altera chooses to use insiders.  Is this true?
Yes.

> Does it make a difference?
The problem is that vendors can't help talking
about their specific architecture and special features.

There is too little coverage on design entry and simulation,
where there is the most to learn.

related thread:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=vhdl+trial+error+self+study+boris

   -- Mike Treseler

Martin,

I am sorry you had a bad experience.

I will ask about it.  I had heard from others that this particular course was a
good one (some of my own staff have taken it), so I am hoping that your
experience was not the course, but perhaps the instructor (still unfortunate,
and not acceptable).

Austin

Martin Euredjian wrote:

> I recently took the "Advanced FPGA Implementation (v6)" Instructor-Led
> Course and came out of it with a fair bit of dissappointment.  I don't want
> to engage in Xilinx-bashing but it bothers me that the course was simply not
> worthy of the title it was given.
>
> The only reason I might get something out of it will be because I will pour
> over the 500 page book on my own and experiment for many, many hours.  The
> class boiled down to a bunch of slides (a very small subset of the book,
> maybe 20%) being read out loud with a degree of re-interpretation.  The labs
> were based on an obscure design that was not introduced at all.  So, all you
> could do in the alloted time was type from the book like a robot and move
> on.  No real learning took place there.
>
> I took the course because, after a two-year effort --starting from scratch--
> to learn FPGA's, I thought that an advanced course taught by an expert in
> the field would be a great way to take my skills up a notch or two.  I
> needed to get to that proverbial last few percent and, frankly, I also felt
> stuck with regards to timing optimization, floorplanning and other advanced
> areas.  I thought that an "advanced" course would be taught by a peer who'd
> offer the sort of insight that only comes from significant experience in the
> field and, yes, inside information.  That is certainly not what happened.  I
> can read slides just as well as the next guy.  I don't need to pay $1,000,
> travel and burn two days' work to endure that experience.
>
> So, I wonder.  Was this a fluke?  Are the other coursed different, better,
> worst?  Are Altera's courses better?  It seems that Xilinx contracts out the
> trainig to a third party (a company called "Technically Speaking".  I heard
> that Altera chooses to use insiders.  Is this true?  Does it make a
> difference?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Martin Euredjian
>
> To send private email:
> 0_0_0_0_@pacbell.net
> where
> "0_0_0_0_"  =  "martineu"

> So, I wonder.  Was this a fluke?  Are the other coursed different, better,
> worst?  Are Altera's courses better?  It seems that Xilinx contracts out the
> trainig to a third party (a company called "Technically Speaking".  I heard
> that Altera chooses to use insiders.  Is this true?  Does it make a
> difference?

To answer your question about Altera: Yes, we do have a dedicated
training department with teachers who do the classes at customer
sites. I understand that our distributor Arrow also leads traning
events. For special workshops and things like that (such as the SOPC
World events going on now or other internal training events), other
Altera employees specializing in that area may present. Occasionally
we have had third parties present *on their specific product*, such as
those who do synthesis tools.

Here's a link to the Altera Training homepage:
https://buy.altera.com/etraining/etraining.asp

Hope this helps,

Jesse Kempa
Altera Corp.
jkempa at altera dot com

"Mike Treseler" wrote:

I'll have to respectfully disagree with some of what you said.

> > The only reason I might get something out of it will be because I will
pour
> > over the 500 page book on my own and experiment for many, many hours.
>
> That's where learning happens.

If all learning could happen from books schools and universities, at all
levels, wouldn't have a reason to exist.  I think humankind is genetically
wired to very efficiently learn through a tradition of verbal communication
that cannot be ignored.  Of course, a lot of real and very significant
in-depth learning happens outside of that context, but one cannot state that
this is the only way learning happens at the exclusion of the verbal
tradition.

Then there's the issue of efficiency.  I've taken a few very well taught
courses over the years where, within a few days, you go from a rudimentary
understanding of the subject to having a very clear and organized insight
from which to build.  This isn't so much due to the verbal tradition I was
speaking of, but rather because someone who truly understands the subject
AND is a good teacher lays out the subject right there, in front of you, to
assimilate and build from.  Good teachers are worth 1000 books.  No doubt
about it.

So, if you attend a good course, you can be on your way very quickly.  It's
a matter of efficiency.  And, while it might be true that all in the
universe could be learned from books and, these days, the Internet, there's
a real imporant factor we must not forget: the business equation.  If what
you do is a hobby then, by all means, burn time experimenting and reading
through hundreds of documents, surfing the Web or playing with dev boards.
However, in the context of a business that needs to get product out the
door, it is much more efficient to pay someone to show you the ropes quickly
and then get on with your work.


> > I took the course because, after a two-year effort --starting from
scratch-- 
> > to learn FPGA's,
>
> That's a pretty broad topic.
> Consider picking focusing on a more specific goal.

You misunderstood where I was coming from.  Having "graduated" after two
years of very hard work in the field I wanted to get an insight into
techniques that would let me squeeze another 5% of perfomance out of a
design.  I also wanted to understand if there were better approaches to the
overall subject, at a high level.  That's why I went to an "ADVANCED" class,
and not an intro to FPGA's.  In my mind, if you say you are teaching an
advanced class there are a few requirements that cannot be violated.  One of
them being who teaches that class and what degree of information is
communicated.

Let me ask you this.  Do you think that spending 45 minutes listing all of
the I/O out of a DCM block has a place in an advanced class?  Or how many
clocks can be distributed in a Virtex II?  How about getting into how to
properly start-up a DCM with real-world issues and code?

Well, we didn't do the latter.  We did the former.  And, when a student
asked about how to use the phase shifter clock input there was no answer.


> >  I don't need to pay $1,000,
> > travel and burn two days' work to endure that experience.
>
> Learning that was worth the price of admission.

$1,000 is a lot of money for a printed version of PowerPoint slides.  I
would gladly pay $5,000 for a class that had the right content.  Money is
not the issue here.  If you tell me you'll teach an advanced class for $1K,
then do it.  If that class requires $10K, then tell me so.



-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Martin Euredjian

To send private email:
0_0_0_0_@pacbell.net
where
"0_0_0_0_"  =  "martineu"

Maybe so.  Hart to tell at this point.  Certainly the material in the book
would open the door to very interesting and useful discussion of advanced
topics, none of which were explored, some were recited, others skipped over.

I think there are two groups within your company that might need a flame
(not a match) lit under their chairs:  web design and
education/documentation.

The website can be incredibly retarded and just not up to par with what good
website design folks can do today.  Sure, it's expensive to hire these heavy
hitters, but Xilinx can afford it.

I only have one sample of the education group's output and, as you learned,
they didn't put on a good show as far as I am concerned.

I think there are huge gaping holes in the available documentation and
devices are getting increasingly more complex.  I think there's a need to
address this --by experts, not fresh grads-- and it's not being done.

Some of these topics might include floorplanning, design optimization,
timing optimization, FPGA Editor, design flow optimization and automation
(XFLOW, scripting, command-line tricks, etc.).  I'm not talking about being
able to download a document describing the various available timing
constraints, for example, but a practical, in-the-trenches set of docs
treating these topics in order to support designers in both adopting and
succesfully utilizing these devices in an already difficult marketplace.

Within the next few months I'll probably have a need to hire a couple of
FPGA/Embedded guys, and the realization that I can't seem to rely on even
sending them to a manufacturer-provided course in order to enhance their
ability to generate accurate designs that perform well is what triggered
some of my concern.

Still, this is not a Xilinx putdown but rather costructive criticism.  I
love the chips and will probably continue to use them for a long time.  I
have over half a dozen high-performance imaging products in the works and,
at this point, all of them have Xilinx FPGA's in them.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Martin Euredjian

To send private email:
0_0_0_0_@pacbell.net
where
"0_0_0_0_"  =  "martineu"




"Austin Lesea" <Austin.Lesea@xilinx.com> wrote in message
news:3F7DB8E8.A11339E0@xilinx.com...
> Martin,
>
> I am sorry you had a bad experience.
>
> I will ask about it.  I had heard from others that this particular course
was a
> good one (some of my own staff have taken it), so I am hoping that your
> experience was not the course, but perhaps the instructor (still
unfortunate,
> and not acceptable).
>
> Austin
>
> Martin Euredjian wrote:
>
> > I recently took the "Advanced FPGA Implementation (v6)" Instructor-Led
> > Course and came out of it with a fair bit of dissappointment.  I don't
want
> > to engage in Xilinx-bashing but it bothers me that the course was simply
not
> > worthy of the title it was given.
> >
> > The only reason I might get something out of it will be because I will
pour
> > over the 500 page book on my own and experiment for many, many hours.
The
> > class boiled down to a bunch of slides (a very small subset of the book,
> > maybe 20%) being read out loud with a degree of re-interpretation.  The
labs
> > were based on an obscure design that was not introduced at all.  So, all
you
> > could do in the alloted time was type from the book like a robot and
move
> > on.  No real learning took place there.
> >
> > I took the course because, after a two-year effort --starting from
scratch--
> > to learn FPGA's, I thought that an advanced course taught by an expert
in
> > the field would be a great way to take my skills up a notch or two.  I
> > needed to get to that proverbial last few percent and, frankly, I also
felt
> > stuck with regards to timing optimization, floorplanning and other
advanced
> > areas.  I thought that an "advanced" course would be taught by a peer
who'd
> > offer the sort of insight that only comes from significant experience in
the
> > field and, yes, inside information.  That is certainly not what
happened.  I
> > can read slides just as well as the next guy.  I don't need to pay
$1,000,
> > travel and burn two days' work to endure that experience.
> >
> > So, I wonder.  Was this a fluke?  Are the other coursed different,
better,
> > worst?  Are Altera's courses better?  It seems that Xilinx contracts out
the
> > trainig to a third party (a company called "Technically Speaking".  I
heard
> > that Altera chooses to use insiders.  Is this true?  Does it make a
> > difference?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Martin Euredjian
> >
> > To send private email:
> > 0_0_0_0_@pacbell.net
> > where
> > "0_0_0_0_"  =  "martineu"
>

Well, I think there's a very important distinction that needs to be
understood.  The "intro" or "beginner" classes can probably be taught by
just about anyone who passes the cold mirror test and is a decent teacher
(although my preference would be to have an experienced individual instead).
However, the minute you characterize a class as "Advanced" you better get a
guy who's had some skin in the game for a while and can truly shed some
light on some of the dark corners of these technologies.

I think all of you guys (meaning FPGA companies) have had it good.
Engineers bust their butt's digging and experimenting and figuring things
out...digging for information that you should be providing.  I hope things
change before we get to the 100 million gate devices, 'cause the real cost
of designing with these chips is being borne by the OEMs that pay for these
individuals to (through no fault of their own) put a lot more hours into a
project than might be required with a higher quality of documentation.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Martin Euredjian

To send private email:
0_0_0_0_@pacbell.net
where
"0_0_0_0_"  =  "martineu"




"Jesse Kempa" <kempaj@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:95776079.0310031106.71c90277@posting.google.com...
> > So, I wonder.  Was this a fluke?  Are the other coursed different,
better,
> > worst?  Are Altera's courses better?  It seems that Xilinx contracts out
the
> > trainig to a third party (a company called "Technically Speaking".  I
heard
> > that Altera chooses to use insiders.  Is this true?  Does it make a
> > difference?
>
> To answer your question about Altera: Yes, we do have a dedicated
> training department with teachers who do the classes at customer
> sites. I understand that our distributor Arrow also leads traning
> events. For special workshops and things like that (such as the SOPC
> World events going on now or other internal training events), other
> Altera employees specializing in that area may present. Occasionally
> we have had third parties present *on their specific product*, such as
> those who do synthesis tools.
>
> Here's a link to the Altera Training homepage:
> https://buy.altera.com/etraining/etraining.asp
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Jesse Kempa
> Altera Corp.
> jkempa at altera dot com

I agree with Martin!  I can't speak for the classes, but the rest is definitely
true.  I hope someone at Xilinx is listening.  There is no doubt (at least in my
mind) that Xilinx has some great FPGAs, etc.  The software seems to be fairly
well done, although it could use some improvement.  The area of improvement is
in simple, useable documentation.  If I need to check three or for different
areas for a full picture of what it taakes to get a job done, can you at least
create a link between the areas.  Xilinx could save a bundle in tech support, if
they would just improve the documentation.  It might even get them a few more
customers.  It generally is not a good idea to PO the customer.  (Usually Xilinx
does not do that.)

Theron Hicks


Martin Euredjian wrote:

> Maybe so.  Hart to tell at this point.  Certainly the material in the book
> would open the door to very interesting and useful discussion of advanced
> topics, none of which were explored, some were recited, others skipped over.
>
> I think there are two groups within your company that might need a flame
> (not a match) lit under their chairs:  web design and
> education/documentation.
>
> The website can be incredibly retarded and just not up to par with what good
> website design folks can do today.  Sure, it's expensive to hire these heavy
> hitters, but Xilinx can afford it.
>
> I only have one sample of the education group's output and, as you learned,
> they didn't put on a good show as far as I am concerned.
>
> I think there are huge gaping holes in the available documentation and
> devices are getting increasingly more complex.  I think there's a need to
> address this --by experts, not fresh grads-- and it's not being done.
>
> Some of these topics might include floorplanning, design optimization,
> timing optimization, FPGA Editor, design flow optimization and automation
> (XFLOW, scripting, command-line tricks, etc.).  I'm not talking about being
> able to download a document describing the various available timing
> constraints, for example, but a practical, in-the-trenches set of docs
> treating these topics in order to support designers in both adopting and
> succesfully utilizing these devices in an already difficult marketplace.
>
> Within the next few months I'll probably have a need to hire a couple of
> FPGA/Embedded guys, and the realization that I can't seem to rely on even
> sending them to a manufacturer-provided course in order to enhance their
> ability to generate accurate designs that perform well is what triggered
> some of my concern.
>
> Still, this is not a Xilinx putdown but rather costructive criticism.  I
> love the chips and will probably continue to use them for a long time.  I
> have over half a dozen high-performance imaging products in the works and,
> at this point, all of them have Xilinx FPGA's in them.
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Martin Euredjian
>
> To send private email:
> 0_0_0_0_@pacbell.net
> where
> "0_0_0_0_"  =  "martineu"
>
> "Austin Lesea" <Austin.Lesea@xilinx.com> wrote in message
> news:3F7DB8E8.A11339E0@xilinx.com...
> > Martin,
> >
> > I am sorry you had a bad experience.
> >
> > I will ask about it.  I had heard from others that this particular course
> was a
> > good one (some of my own staff have taken it), so I am hoping that your
> > experience was not the course, but perhaps the instructor (still
> unfortunate,
> > and not acceptable).
> >
> > Austin
> >
> > Martin Euredjian wrote:
> >
> > > I recently took the "Advanced FPGA Implementation (v6)" Instructor-Led
> > > Course and came out of it with a fair bit of dissappointment.  I don't
> want
> > > to engage in Xilinx-bashing but it bothers me that the course was simply
> not
> > > worthy of the title it was given.
> > >
> > > The only reason I might get something out of it will be because I will
> pour
> > > over the 500 page book on my own and experiment for many, many hours.
> The
> > > class boiled down to a bunch of slides (a very small subset of the book,
> > > maybe 20%) being read out loud with a degree of re-interpretation.  The
> labs
> > > were based on an obscure design that was not introduced at all.  So, all
> you
> > > could do in the alloted time was type from the book like a robot and
> move
> > > on.  No real learning took place there.
> > >
> > > I took the course because, after a two-year effort --starting from
> scratch--
> > > to learn FPGA's, I thought that an advanced course taught by an expert
> in
> > > the field would be a great way to take my skills up a notch or two.  I
> > > needed to get to that proverbial last few percent and, frankly, I also
> felt
> > > stuck with regards to timing optimization, floorplanning and other
> advanced
> > > areas.  I thought that an "advanced" course would be taught by a peer
> who'd
> > > offer the sort of insight that only comes from significant experience in
> the
> > > field and, yes, inside information.  That is certainly not what
> happened.  I
> > > can read slides just as well as the next guy.  I don't need to pay
> $1,000,
> > > travel and burn two days' work to endure that experience.
> > >
> > > So, I wonder.  Was this a fluke?  Are the other coursed different,
> better,
> > > worst?  Are Altera's courses better?  It seems that Xilinx contracts out
> the
> > > trainig to a third party (a company called "Technically Speaking".  I
> heard
> > > that Altera chooses to use insiders.  Is this true?  Does it make a
> > > difference?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > --
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > Martin Euredjian
> > >
> > > To send private email:
> > > 0_0_0_0_@pacbell.net
> > > where
> > > "0_0_0_0_"  =  "martineu"
> >

> Well, we didn't do the latter.  We did the former.  And, when a student
> asked about how to use the phase shifter clock input there was no answer.

Perhaps a part of the registration process should require the students to
email the teacher a list of their most important questions, or list what
they're hoping to learn.  Then the teacher can say,  "No, you won't get what
you want from my class, so save your money and time," or "Yes, I'll be able
to answer that at the class.  I look forward to seeing you there."  Then the
teacher can better prepare the class to suit the needs of the students.

Good point about efficiency.  Of course if you put 10 Virtex-II Pros in each
of your products, you might have enough volume to get a dedicated FAE ;_)

--Vinh

Theron, Martin,

We have a number of folks actively researching this issue,  The class mentioned
turns out to be one of the most popular (from what the surveys from the attendees
say), and the one that gets very high marks from the attendees also.

The instructor has taught this (as well as other courses) for 6 years, and also gets
very high marks in his reviews.

It is extrememly important to us to discover what happened in this case, as it seems
very unusual, and not in keeping with the survey results, and comments from other
attendees.

One bad review posted here does a lot of damage:  and we are concerned especially
when we have hundreds of glowing reviews for the same class/instructor!

Austin


"Theron Hicks (Terry)" wrote:

> I agree with Martin!  I can't speak for the classes, but the rest is definitely
> true.  I hope someone at Xilinx is listening.  There is no doubt (at least in my
> mind) that Xilinx has some great FPGAs, etc.  The software seems to be fairly
> well done, although it could use some improvement.  The area of improvement is
> in simple, useable documentation.  If I need to check three or for different
> areas for a full picture of what it taakes to get a job done, can you at least
> create a link between the areas.  Xilinx could save a bundle in tech support, if
> they would just improve the documentation.  It might even get them a few more
> customers.  It generally is not a good idea to PO the customer.  (Usually Xilinx
> does not do that.)
>
> Theron Hicks
>
> Martin Euredjian wrote:
>
> > Maybe so.  Hart to tell at this point.  Certainly the material in the book
> > would open the door to very interesting and useful discussion of advanced
> > topics, none of which were explored, some were recited, others skipped over.
> >
> > I think there are two groups within your company that might need a flame
> > (not a match) lit under their chairs:  web design and
> > education/documentation.
> >
> > The website can be incredibly retarded and just not up to par with what good
> > website design folks can do today.  Sure, it's expensive to hire these heavy
> > hitters, but Xilinx can afford it.
> >
> > I only have one sample of the education group's output and, as you learned,
> > they didn't put on a good show as far as I am concerned.
> >
> > I think there are huge gaping holes in the available documentation and
> > devices are getting increasingly more complex.  I think there's a need to
> > address this --by experts, not fresh grads-- and it's not being done.
> >
> > Some of these topics might include floorplanning, design optimization,
> > timing optimization, FPGA Editor, design flow optimization and automation
> > (XFLOW, scripting, command-line tricks, etc.).  I'm not talking about being
> > able to download a document describing the various available timing
> > constraints, for example, but a practical, in-the-trenches set of docs
> > treating these topics in order to support designers in both adopting and
> > succesfully utilizing these devices in an already difficult marketplace.
> >
> > Within the next few months I'll probably have a need to hire a couple of
> > FPGA/Embedded guys, and the realization that I can't seem to rely on even
> > sending them to a manufacturer-provided course in order to enhance their
> > ability to generate accurate designs that perform well is what triggered
> > some of my concern.
> >
> > Still, this is not a Xilinx putdown but rather costructive criticism.  I
> > love the chips and will probably continue to use them for a long time.  I
> > have over half a dozen high-performance imaging products in the works and,
> > at this point, all of them have Xilinx FPGA's in them.
> >
> > --
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Martin Euredjian
> >
> > To send private email:
> > 0_0_0_0_@pacbell.net
> > where
> > "0_0_0_0_"  =  "martineu"
> >
> > "Austin Lesea" <Austin.Lesea@xilinx.com> wrote in message
> > news:3F7DB8E8.A11339E0@xilinx.com...
> > > Martin,
> > >
> > > I am sorry you had a bad experience.
> > >
> > > I will ask about it.  I had heard from others that this particular course
> > was a
> > > good one (some of my own staff have taken it), so I am hoping that your
> > > experience was not the course, but perhaps the instructor (still
> > unfortunate,
> > > and not acceptable).
> > >
> > > Austin
> > >
> > > Martin Euredjian wrote:
> > >
> > > > I recently took the "Advanced FPGA Implementation (v6)" Instructor-Led
> > > > Course and came out of it with a fair bit of dissappointment.  I don't
> > want
> > > > to engage in Xilinx-bashing but it bothers me that the course was simply
> > not
> > > > worthy of the title it was given.
> > > >
> > > > The only reason I might get something out of it will be because I will
> > pour
> > > > over the 500 page book on my own and experiment for many, many hours.
> > The
> > > > class boiled down to a bunch of slides (a very small subset of the book,
> > > > maybe 20%) being read out loud with a degree of re-interpretation.  The
> > labs
> > > > were based on an obscure design that was not introduced at all.  So, all
> > you
> > > > could do in the alloted time was type from the book like a robot and
> > move
> > > > on.  No real learning took place there.
> > > >
> > > > I took the course because, after a two-year effort --starting from
> > scratch--
> > > > to learn FPGA's, I thought that an advanced course taught by an expert
> > in
> > > > the field would be a great way to take my skills up a notch or two.  I
> > > > needed to get to that proverbial last few percent and, frankly, I also
> > felt
> > > > stuck with regards to timing optimization, floorplanning and other
> > advanced
> > > > areas.  I thought that an "advanced" course would be taught by a peer
> > who'd
> > > > offer the sort of insight that only comes from significant experience in
> > the
> > > > field and, yes, inside information.  That is certainly not what
> > happened.  I
> > > > can read slides just as well as the next guy.  I don't need to pay
> > $1,000,
> > > > travel and burn two days' work to endure that experience.
> > > >
> > > > So, I wonder.  Was this a fluke?  Are the other coursed different,
> > better,
> > > > worst?  Are Altera's courses better?  It seems that Xilinx contracts out
> > the
> > > > trainig to a third party (a company called "Technically Speaking".  I
> > heard
> > > > that Altera chooses to use insiders.  Is this true?  Does it make a
> > > > difference?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > Martin Euredjian
> > > >
> > > > To send private email:
> > > > 0_0_0_0_@pacbell.net
> > > > where
> > > > "0_0_0_0_"  =  "martineu"
> > >