1,057 Bugs Found in SolidWorks 2004

formatting link
Chris Garcia, VP of R&D at SolidWorks also cited some impressive QA statistics at the press dinner Monday night. SolidWorks worked with more than 3,600 users during beta testing for SolidWorks 2004. There was a competition to see who could find the most problems. After 4,776 hours of usage, a total of 1,057 verified bugs were identified. Garcia said that 80% of those bugs were fixed before first customer ship of the new release on September 8, 2003.

Incentive prizes included a HP workstation and several i-Pods, with users earning points according to how many bugs they discovered. The top five performers by points were:

Jason Caprioti: 445 Stefan Berlitz: 393 Scott McFadden: 392 Casey Kimes: 233 Clarence Ivester: 231

Garcia said a similar beta test program for the next release will being in May. The goal is to capture 2,100 bugs ? twice as many as the previous release.

2100 bugs?! So are they planning on this next version to be worse than 2004?
Reply to
Richard Charney
Loading thread data ...

Isn't every release worse than the release before it? I think it's their methodology.

- Eddy

Reply to
Eddy Hicks

No question about it, the level of quaility control is slipping at Solidworks! To many bugs folks.

Reply to
Guy Edkins

Indeed.

The SHIPPING version. SP0.0.

Back when SW QA benefitted from real users testin the program.

And first release shipped without user beta testing resulted in a POS.

The problems start when we have to rely on SW to do the bug testing.

-nick e.

Reply to
Nick E.

After going off on matt about this topic, I collected the following data from SW website. What do we make of this....

SW2003 up to SP2.0

1159 issues addressed (231 in SP0.0)

SW2004 up to SP2.0

388 issued addressed (163 in SP0.0)

So are we to believe that 2004 is less buggy or are they just able to address fewer bugs now due to a new development approach? We saw recently with SP2.0 being pulled that the latter may be true.

- Eddy

Reply to
Eddy Hicks

Saw a great bumper sticker yesterday

"If you're not appalled you're not paying attention"

At first I thought it was about our government, but then I thought he must be a Solidworks customer.....

bp

Reply to
Brian Park

"Eddy Hicks" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@dls.net:

Then your memory is short and inaccurate. SW2004 is the least crashy version I have ever used. Interface bugs can usually be worked around easily, but crashes are certainly the most productivity-robbing bugs, and duly get the highest priority from SW. I do not have a single open crash bug.

Looked more permanent than momentary, but I'll take your word for it.

My agenda is to have rational discussions about the software, where I can learn things and help folks. No one benefits from personal venting, especially when there is little else. There is such a thing as talking about problems in a way that benefits users.

If you read my posts back a few years, you'll find that I used to post sh_t like what you write. Maybe I grew up a little. Maybe I realized that acting like an idiot marginalizes the idiot, not the idiots target. Maybe I got tired of ranting against things that I couldn't control and decided to be able to make best use of the tools regardless of problems with the tools.

Ok, have it your way. What are you going to do meanwhile? You might get a few bucks for it on eBay.

You flatter yourself. You don't have any affect at all on the software working properly unless you are submitting bug reports and bugging your VAR and regional technical folks to escalate issues.

Never. And that should never happen to anyone who is a self-proclaimed "high end expert". The first thing a "high end expert" knows is 5 ways to do everything so he can get his job done on time. People that work with other software tools are going to tell you the same thing.

Ok, you've finally said something that I can agree with. Every company that has products to develop has a balance to strike, and I agree that I would prefer the balance was closer to the technical end than the marketing. But like it or not, this ng is not a big enough tail to wag the dog, because it's not just an R&D director, or SolidWorks Corp or Dassault, or even the CAD industry, its all of software development.

Anyway, do what you can to be helpful, and lower your blood pressure a notch.

matt

Reply to
matt

Let me summarize....

we agree on...

- Solidworks crashes to desktop less frequently then it used to (hmmm, maybe but read on)

- Solidworks is putting more emphasis on marketing then on QA, true and like the rest of the software industry (and in particular, the way Autodesk did before people switched to Solidworks)

- Solidworks isn't going to change anytime soon. But that's no reason for user complacency. By holding back maintenance dollars and communicating our sense of disdain with our vars we will enact change... eventually. But getting together about it does two things, it preserves sanity to know you're not alone. And it convinces those on the fence that it isn't them and that things are what they appear. It doesn't help to come in and tell anyone who isn't waving a SW flag to calm down and formulate a work around, we've already been down that road. It's not always the users matt, it's the software and users have a right to bitch. Period.

we disagree on...

- Modeling bugs IMHO are just as much a set back as crashes. You relaunch the software or you spend your time zooming in and out a million times to see the edges that keep disappearing... pick your evil. Anything that interrupts flow is flawed. And it's more flawed than ever thanks to the interruptions in flow.

- I'll take your word for it, I'm sure I just missed the ones where you vented, but a search on google going back to the beginning yields a "matt" doing one of two things, either providing useful trouble shooting advice which I seriously respect, or defending Solidworks, which was admirable in the beginning but after the 2003 and 2004 fiascoes, it's just silly. Whoop whoop hurray. You choose to use your power for good. Whatever.

- you come in here practically on a daily basis and defend SW when the issue comes up. You used words like "idiot" to describe watercooler venting behavior. For the record, I don't use the word "milk toast" "corporate lackey" or "kiss ass" to describe those who think SW Corp should be forgiven. It really makes me laugh when you calmly say it's wrong and useless to attack SW yet you routinely attack the users who attack the software.

- blood pressure here is fine. if you choose not to vent anymore that's your call but look at the overall tone in the ng recently. if anyone is on an island here, it's you. people are getting fed up. it's not personality of the user, it's the insults from the product.

Reply to
Eddy Hicks

I have that bumper sticker, that was me!

Reply to
Richard Charney

Try this then:

In a drawing, select a dimension, then hit the expand arrow for layers.

There's your open crash bug. I even have an SPR for it.

I have one involving a cam-mate as well.

That's two I have.

Maybe you should try submitting more of your crashes as bugs and join the rest of us.

How's about the time you have to waste redimensioning your drawings because SW no longer correctly display dims for cuts that are defined as offset-from-surface?

I don't care how much or little of an expert you are, I should be able to print out drawings that I made 3 years ago without having to examine each and every one to see if the latest SW service pack broke something.

Well, maybe engineering over at Dassault/SW needs to get a backbone and tell marketing to shove it.

--nick e.

Reply to
Nick E.

Ok, Ed, you win. You out-last me. My bitching at you and yours is as hopeless as your brand of bitching. I'll at least stop before it gives me a headache.

matt

Reply to
matt

No crash here.

Jim S.

Reply to
Jim Sculley

maybe that's not the exact sequence of events then. I forget...maybe try just clicking on the layer button? I don't know....it is reproducable and I have an SPR for it. If I remember I'll try it when I get back to work and see what the correct crash sequence is.

--nick e.

Reply to
Nick E.

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.