Pro/E is first, SolidWorks is 6th

Who knows, by now; Estwing may have started

That would be annoying. The greatest feature of the Estwings has always been the single-piece forged design. They're almost indestructible. I've only seen one break. My dad broke the claw off of one trying to pry something or other open.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I have an Estwings hammer and it has been past down from my father, its as good as the day it was bought. I always admire it when I use it and if ever people are arounf I poj t out that I have an Estwings
Bit sad but, it would be great if everything was made as well.
Joe McBurnie CSI Managing Director
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeff Howard wrote:

Doesn't the US have copyright and trademark laws ? What's this crap with Autodesk calling anything related to 3D graphics "Inventor" ? Confuses the heck out of me every time I hear it .... Isn't that what trademark laws are supposed to _prevent_ ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
What's to be confused about? Inventor is the name of a program. Simple.

ahead
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CW wrote:

You're absolutely right, it is. Inventor is the name of a program by Silicon Graphics. There is Inventor and now Open Inventor. They are the precursor to VRML and the whole virtual reality schtick. Inventor is a three dimensional graphics format from SGI that's been around for *years.*
Look at the dropdown list in your Pro/E ... one of the formats is *.iv. That'll create Inventor files, as in the SGI "Open Inventor" variety.
So where does AutoCrap come off using someone else's trademark ? For a product which is easily confused with a pre-existing product in the same field ? As someone else said, they're best at lawyerin' ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Now that you have explained (you didn't make your point previously), I see what you mean. Looks like Silicon Graphics and Autodesk lawyers are going to have to fight. By all rights, SG should win as they had it first but Autodesk spends as much on lawyers as it does on R&D so who knows. Yes, there are copyright laws in the US but it is up to the copyright holder to enforce it. In other words, he who has the most money and meanest lawyers wins.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
: Jeff Howard wrote: : >>: : >>Just off hand, I'd have to be skeptical of a study that put Inventor ahead : > > of SolidWorks. A couple of years ago Autodesk bundled Inventor with MDT : : Doesn't the US have copyright and trademark laws ? What's this : crap with Autodesk calling anything related to 3D graphics : "Inventor" ? Confuses the heck out of me every time I hear it .... : Isn't that what trademark laws are supposed to _prevent_ ?
Maybe the lawyers already settled this, 5-10 years ago. Maybe you're just a little behind the times and Autodesk already bought the right to use the name "Inventor". It's just intellectual property, just another commodity to be bought and sold, not some sacred SGI cult icon, eternal and inviolable.
David Janes
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

ahead
MDT
a little

"Inventor".
sold, not

But maybe not. You didn't clear anything up here. Just practicing your typing?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
: > : Jeff Howard wrote: : > : >>: : > : >>Just off hand, I'd have to be skeptical of a study that put Inventor : ahead : > : > > of SolidWorks. A couple of years ago Autodesk bundled Inventor with : MDT : > : : > : Doesn't the US have copyright and trademark laws ? What's this : > : crap with Autodesk calling anything related to 3D graphics : > : "Inventor" ? Confuses the heck out of me every time I hear it .... : > : Isn't that what trademark laws are supposed to _prevent_ ? : > : > Maybe the lawyers already settled this, 5-10 years ago. Maybe you're just : a little : > behind the times and Autodesk already bought the right to use the name : "Inventor". : > It's just intellectual property, just another commodity to be bought and : sold, not : > some sacred SGI cult icon, eternal and inviolable. : > : > David Janes : : But maybe not. You didn't clear anything up here. Just practicing your : typing? : I'm not the one to "clear it up", am I. We're talking about fairly big boys who are not shy about litigation. If there were grounds for a trademark infringement dispute or whatever, it was had and done with years ago. All Hamei had to do was look up the history. If he doesn't know it and it doesn't ring a bell with anyone else (apparently not with you, either), then this isn't even old news. A red herring, perhaps? and way off the topic besides.
David Janes
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Janes wrote:

Oh yeah, just "look up the history." Go ahead and "look up the history" of all the lawsuits Microsoft has lost. With rare exceptions, these people do not air their embarrassing dirty laundry in public.

That's exactly the point - here's a person who's probably been in the biz for a while, yet wasn't even aware that Inventor most certainly *is* an SGI trademark and has been for years :
http://www.sgi.com/products/evaluation/6.5.5m_inventor_2.1.6/page1.html
Years ? probably decades .... here's something from 1995 :
http://www.dea.polimi.it/dea/news/events/vp95/proc/dufour.htm
Why does this bother me ? How about the word "hypocrisy" ? WHICH company is the biggest sniveller about "piracy" and "millions of dollars in lost revenue" ? WHICH company plays number three at supporting the SBA's gestapo program ?
Yup. The very same one that has no qualms about stealing another company's intellectual property and violating their trademark at will.

I really can't see why you'd think that ... this thread was a discussion of the relative popularity of Pro/E, SaladWurx, Autocad, and so on. I feel there is some confusion caused by the misnaming of an Acad product .... which was borne out by the fact that some other people weren't even aware that there *was* a prior product by that name. A prior product owned by another company. If exposing Autodesk's scum-sucking behaviour affects their popularity in any way, good. They are thieves and hypocrites. The only good thing about them is their nice building.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just FWIW, I don't see why your post should be considered off-topic. It's no more so than a lot of follow-up replies to a lot of threads in this NG.
hamei wrote:

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

Yes, Inventor is an SGI trademark, but a quick look at the link you supplied shows that it only pertains to "object-oriented developer's toolkit" and it is so important to SGI they never even bothered to register it in the USA!!
http://www.sgi.com/company_info/trademarks/sgi.html

So you are defending poor little SGI and think they have been robbed by Autodesk, when they obviously haven't. But at the same time you critisise Autodesk for trying to stop people using their software illegally, when it is generally agreed that this is one of the most pirated CAD software application is the world!
Get a life!

boys who

infringement
to do was

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In the end the number of seats means nothing if the software and the company providing it stink. Case in point Pro-E, the company stinks and has from day one, they alienate customers like nobody else in the industry even more than Autodesk. Also the product is not easy to use , hell its taken them 3 years of non stop work to try to make the interface more usable and they still arent done.

has
study
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
OK... lets talk about PTC... (you don't really need a separate post do you?)
If you are willing to pay maintenance... their hotline is pretty good. They do attempt to make it possible to get someone who knows something live on the phone. Some hotlines are strictly "we'll call you back" Their knowledge base and website have GOBs of stuff to read on just about every piece of their code. And their code operates as designed, unlike some others.
OK, I haven't been thrilled with the sales turnover, or some of the corporate repackaging that requires constant vigilance. But their products have gotten better over time. No... they are not "done" I hope they never are, because that would mean there is no room for improvement.
To the original post topic... What!? No IronCAD or SDRC jobs? 8-)
-meld
Rocko wrote:

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

"research".
I purchased the Wohlers 1998 and 2002 reports. Given that I am supposed to know a thing or two about Rapid Prototyping and that my employer has around $400k invested in hardware alone, I consider it due dilegence to keep abreast of the published research in the field. I don't have the current report, but assuming it follows the same general format of the two previous reports that I do have this press release misses the point of the report. The numbers reported represent accumulative seats shipped for whatever reason since the beginning of (MCAD) time. In the 2002 Report this section had a subsection titled, "Getting good estimates" that went into the difficulties of getting any kind of meaningful numbers. The bottom line point of the inclusion of a number for seats of MCAD, (regardless of accuracy)in the report is that Rapid Prototyping Technology requires 3D solid models as the initial data. While everyone I know (including Greco in the Wohlers Report) views these numbers with a skeptical eye, everyone agrees that the number of 3D MCAD users is growing at an accelerated rate. As Greco and Wohlers state, "Despite the cloudiness of the numbers, the future of the MCAD market looks bright..." Wohlers 2002, pg 181. Current estimates are that somewhere around 25% of mechanical designers and engineers worldwide use solid modeling. The early adopters of the technology have been touting the benifits of 3D MCAD for some time (often with evangelical zeal for particular software they adopted, of course). Published job placement advertisements are only one indication of current use. The big question for MCAD vendors is, "Who will the late adopters, the 70-75% 2D CAD users go with and how long will the migration to 3D tools take?" J.D.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"I" is a school and we have to watch all the bubbles in case one solidifies.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
: > See the whole press release at: : > http://www.tenlinks.com/NEWS/PR/WOHLERS/062504_5mil.htm . : : >....to sell it for $425, hunh!?! Oh, well, somebody's buying that : "research". : : I purchased the Wohlers 1998 and 2002 reports. Given that I am : supposed to know a thing or two about Rapid Prototyping and that my : employer has around $400k invested in hardware alone, I consider it : due dilegence to keep abreast of the published research in the field. : I don't have the current report, but assuming it follows the same : general format of the two previous reports that I do have this press : release misses the point of the report.
Nice to hear from somebody who's actually read one of the Wohler reports. Unfortunately, no one is reacting to the report because we, like you, have not seen it. The reaction started with a rather provocatively titled message, cross posted to AutoCAD, SolidWorks and Pro/e newsgroups. Then there was the content of the post, purported to come from Tara Roopinder, publisher of 10Links. Whatever the point of the report, the point of the post was apparently to goad people into reading and discussing the 10Links announcement and the nearly contentless Wohler's press release. It seems they succeeded in getting a discussion going, but one that managed to counter only the most obvious defects in the statistics.
: The numbers reported represent accumulative seats shipped for whatever : reason since the beginning of (MCAD) time. In the 2002 Report this : section had a subsection titled, "Getting good estimates" that went : into the difficulties of getting any kind of meaningful numbers. The : bottom line point of the inclusion of a number for seats of MCAD, : (regardless of accuracy)in the report is that Rapid Prototyping : Technology requires 3D solid models as the initial data. While : everyone I know (including Greco in the Wohlers Report) views these : numbers with a skeptical eye, everyone agrees that the number of 3D : MCAD users is growing at an accelerated rate.
Very important question: what are good numbers. Everyone gets this report to go data mining: sort through a ton of tailings to find that nugget of gold that points the way to the future. However, even the one statistic that's available from the announcement stuff, a chart showing the number of RP models produced from 98 to 03, shows a straight line curve (slope, about 1.5) running the whole way. There is certainly no *accelerating* rate in evidence. And, it is precisely the warping, to the point of deluded fantasy or using the most meaningless figures (total number of licenses ever issued) which is used to mislead, to create a false optimism, an artificial excitement, that leads people to object strongly, that leads me to believe there is an agenda at work behind behind this kind of "number crunching". And what could be the point? I already stated in one of my posts: to stimulate sales, to tell the RPers that now's the time for some capital spending. But, no one wants to listen to stupidly lying claims (ADESK Inventor is in more widespread use than SolidWorks!?! As Sporkman said, that's LAUGHABLE!!!), much less base capital spending plans on them. I would hate to think that RPers are so poorly informed or depend so heavily on a report like this that they would take such nonse for gospel.
: As Greco and Wohlers state, "Despite the cloudiness of the numbers, the future of the MCAD : market looks bright..." Wohlers 2002, pg 181.
That's either an item of analysis or an item of faith. If analysis, facts and arguments can be marshelled to bear on it. But marshalling trumped up, exaggerated and meaningless stats doesn't make the analysis stronger. It makes the whole case weaker, less believable, less trustworthy. And with corporate executives, accounting firms and others on trial for lying with numbers, why wouldn't the report writers get the idea: extra caution when presenting and interpreting, not flamboyant optimism, is what's needed for people to take such reports seriously. Especially when it's $425 or *our* money at stake.
: Current estimates are that somewhere around 25% of mechanical : designers and engineers worldwide use solid modeling. The early : adopters of the technology have been touting the benifits of 3D MCAD : for some time (often with evangelical zeal for particular software : they adopted, of course). Published job placement advertisements are : only one indication of current use. The big question for MCAD vendors : is, "Who will the late adopters, the 70-75% 2D CAD users go with and : how long will the migration to 3D tools take?"
As long as we're making predictions, I have one: in ten years time, one more decade, there will be no more 2-D, no more CAD or CADD. There will be only modelling ~ solids modelling, process modelling as in the kind represented by PLM, matematical modelling, statistical modelling as in the GIS mapping of geographical to demographic data, molecular and chemical modelling as represented in designer drugs and, finally, the vast field of simulation of everything from dynamic stresses in materials to the formation of currents and fronts in the atmosphere to the way bones will heal after maxilofacial surgery can be realistically, faithfully shown on a computer. In ten years time with the continuation of the revolution in computing of the last decade (1.5 year doubling time of processor speed, continued improvement in the accessibility of computers to average users through the GUI revolution and another revolution to come in networking technology) will put modelling everywhere and make it as economically unfeasible to waste hardware on 2-D applications as it was to waste coal on the steam locomotive by the 1950s. I don't think you can be more optimistic, in general, than this. Yet the questions remain as they were: when, where and how. If China and India, where a third of our species lives and where we are developing the most rapidly, were not taken fully into account by the Wohler report, then it is worse than useless. It is Eurocentric snake oil.
David Janes
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.