Is 2005 much different than 2004?

I just recently updated from 14 to 2004 and have it pretty much set up for everyone, then adesk released 2005 (to many releases) is it much
different or better?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If the number is odd (example: 2005) then it's crap. If it's even, then it's more than likely, gunna be ok.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 27 Apr 2004 12:18:48 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (NOTHRERNOW27) wrote:

I never thought about it like that but your right. acad 9 (I think) was bad 10 was good, 12 was good, 13 sucked, 14 was and still is a well rounded acad system.
2000 was a bit buggy, 2000i was still buggy, 2002 is pretty good, 2004 seems very good.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have heard that. But a guy I worked with seemed to think that 2000 broke the pattern. I have LT 2000i and I have never noticed any obvious bugs. (But I use it mainly for modifying text, and not every day).
The worst problem I have found is the statement on the opening Help screen, "The AutoCAD LT Help System contains complete information for using AutoCAD LT." That help, and the manual, rival anything from Microsoft on the scale of uselesness.
--
Steve M - snipped-for-privacy@houston.rrdirt.com (remove dirt for reply)

Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Go back and count the releases.

it's
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.