1000 Page SolidWorks User Guide

I don't care how pretty they make it I still never liked it I never liked it when SolidWorks took their entire hardcopy user manuals into the online
help. I see that within the last few days on the subscription services page they have posted a 1000 page PDF user guide that is current up to 2004. You can download it and print if you desire. They also mention that a bound and printed version will be available soon.
I've been waiting a long time for this.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The printed version was actually available at SolidWorks World. It's beautiful!

it
page
You
and
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Did they say how much it will cost?

liked
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It was free at SolidWorks World!!

online
services
2004.
bound
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

you can down-load the PDF for free. Kinko's or equivalent will print and bind it for you for ~$60
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Having agitated for this ever since 1998, I'm delighted that SolidWorks have acted on this one.
Too late for this kid, who exited subscription last year, but I hope it's the beginning of a U-turn, whereby SldWks start to treat the established userbase as at least as equal in importance to those who are yet to take the SldWks plunge
Keep it up, PARTICULARLY prioritise stability over whizbang half-baked features, and I'll be back (apologies to Arnie)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Andrew,
I've read several posts in the last few weeks where people mentioned that they've dropped maintenance. Not really meaning to be provacative, (tongue firmly in cheek), but how do you deal with newer data. I'm assuming that you are primary suppliers of data and don't have to worry about it.
As consultants, my company doesn't really have this option. I am thinking about dropping on some of our seats though. We're just not getting good value for our money. 11K a year is allot when only three or four seats are running the latest release before the next one comes out.
Regards
Mark

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well, I really sweated my decision but this time around I held back. I consider the last year to be very disappointing in terms of ROI on maintenance and I'm not convinced that it's going to be better immediately. '04 SP2.1 is very encouraging but the statements about 2005 are reason enough for me not to want to upgrade again for while. I cannot believe that they're planning a new version in less than 6 months. That is unacceptable.
So what I did was call my largest client and ask what they thought about the next upgrade. I got a verbal commitment from them that they won't version upgrade again until 12 months go by. They are also tired of the compatibility issues that are forced with these too quick upgrades. So we're set for awhile with 2004.
- Eddy

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<SNIP> I cannot believe that

unacceptable.
- At least sw has been pretty good at maintaining a 9-12 month release cycle. With pro we sometimes would see much longer times while waiting for serious fixes. Inventor, when it was in its initial releases, was shooting for 4 month cycles (Striving to keep up with a four-month development cycle, Autodesk shipped Inventor Release 3 last week. Most of the enhancements center around assemblies, as evidenced by the addition of motion constraints as well as predefined section cuts.). I do think they have made a mistake by stating a specific month this far out. They have usually been very hush hush about release dates. Either way, if you look at the date we're talking a minimum of 9 months between 2004 and 2005 and I personally wouldn't be suprised if we didn't see it ship until end of sept early oct..
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Even if they don't release until late summer/early fall it is still my opinion that "SP'S" are mandatory and "NEW VERSIONS" are optional. Anything that forces a backward compatibility issue needs to be evaluated on a much larger scale than any SP. Fixing what's broken is far different from releasing a new version. Honor and respectability enters into the equation. 2-3 mo's for each SP and 12 mo's for a new version is what I feel is reasonable, and in my situation, everyone I deal with agrees.
- Eddy

for
shooting
cycle,
constraints
hush
talking
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Keep in mind that the SWX business plan REQUIRES they break there software every 12 months to keep the cash flow. Failure to release a new non backwards compatible version in 12 moth period would mean people would not need to renew there subscription. Why would I renew my subscription if I could open 2004 files with 2001? I wouldn't. before we switched to SWX we were still using ACAD r14, in my opinion the best version of autocad to date, and the best thing was that there was no need to upgrade to ACAD 2000 or 2002 because the data is fully backwards compatible as long as its a DXF or saved by the client in r13/14 format.
If SWX didn't do exactly everything ive wanted to do for a long time and how I wanted to do it this might upset me, but thats a cost I feel is justified. (as opposed to M$ Windows (tm) which isn't worth 1/5 its cost). Im still amazed how SWX operates almost how I always imaged an MCAD app should, as opposed to the worthless AME (or ASIC or whatever they call it now) solids in autocad work (or don't work)
-HR=-    

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark
Yes, although I'm also in consultancy, I'm in a business phase where typically the solid model data is initiated in-house for the client, rather than vice versa. The lost opportunities of not being able to easily run with 2004 files are (so far) a minor concern in comparison with the (magically vanished) workload of keeping version-current. I don't miss any of the bells and whistles added in 2004, and what I have read of 2005 mentions nothing that would justify climbing back on. On the other hand, if SldWks can turn around their development culture and get on top of stability, consistency and reliability issues, the lack of added functionality would almost be a bonus in my game. I would re-enlist like a shot.
If it weren't for data interchange issues, the FUNCTIONALITY in 2003 would cope with virtually anything I have ever wanted to do, if only the functionality worked. It needs to satisfy in retrospect, whereas in practice it promises to in prospect.
They are going to have to negotiate the transition from a niche product to a commodity product as the technology matures. Humans pander to niche products; commodity products pander to humans. Fridges made it into the commodity zone very easily (when did you last see a magazine called "Your Fridge"?); while VCRs never quite made it. Cars (autos) did it, pushbike gearing systems haven't yet, so it's not just about complexity.
In the solids game, it seems likely that some providers will manage to do it and others won't. I still think SolidWorks are starting from a higher base than anything else I've seen, the product has "great bones", but ................
"MM" wrote in message

you
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Eddie,
Not like I am up SW azz or anything, but this has, for the most part, been SW business cycle. They have always strived to have a yearly upgrade. The development cycle is always a work inprogress. Does this mean that they are not committed to present program problems, certainly not, but should they just rest on the laurels of what they have? Only a fool would not look towards the future. I think this type of thinking and business practise happens across the board, not just with SW.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hey Arthur, I agree, it is part of all major software life cycles. Yearly was manageable. Compatibility issues after less than 6 months? Unthinkable.
- Eddy

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

I started on SW with 98+. At that point SW was still aiming for the Pro/I twice a year upgrade cycle. It was about then that they began to slip and get out of sync. And it was not much later (was it SW2000?) that they begin to introduce more problems than solutions. Every six months was fine when the code really worked.
Jerry Steiger Tripod Data Systems
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Where is this manual supposed to reside?

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.