2007 SP0.0 available

Paul Salvador wrote:


Yeah, I agree, its not ready to be released. Someone other than users is pushing a schedule that doesn't exist.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Perhaps the aim is to give themselves more time to work out Vista issues? So out the door it goes....its ready...dump it on the guinea pigs... SW is beginning to suck big time as a company. Never thought I would say that but there is just no will to do it right is there... $$$$ and growth up - quality down :o(
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Neil,
All I can say is, it's extremely frustrating knowing through all the years of using parametric modelers, that this product has something or has potential, yet SW continues to miss the mark! Why?... well, it points back to the original intent of the product or lack thereof for it's then intended purpose. This product, from the very beginning, never intended to go very far or it never intended to go as far as it has. What we have is a tool which has evolved from a limited idea to fill a hole in the mcad market. Sadly, SW continues to lack a cohesive framework for real design and engineering. SW has tried to be a lot of things and has become add-on impotent in the process.
..like the old adage, "there are too many fingers are in the pot",.. I think this is one of their big problems, SW doen't have a clear direction and/or never did.
..
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I am very angry about this issue. Although I don't like putting people down the SW CEO is a wuss. I will dump it in his lap.Forget the down to earth marketing BS. He couldn't front users to talk about 05 and he can't lead the company to deliver quality software for pro engineers and designers. This is CAD software that just looks good and has potential. Always potential Contrast this approach with MS. OK a lot of people have issues with MS but... quote from Ballmer ...Vista shipping 'when the product is ready'. That's right they work on it until the quality is up and then its released. If necessary they delay it and delay it again and the share value takes a hit. SW work on it until it doesn't crash too often and then we the consumer have to work with it ...sometime later - about 9 months - it's mostly good - i.e. not beta standard - and then we do it all over again.Hey but the $$$ are going up - bonuses anyone?. SW is not driven by quality.It is about appearances. Accumulated problems over the years mean SW is now 6 months out of phase with where it should be. If they have actually managed to get to the point where major bugs are resolved earlier than usual they have squandered that gain but moving on to thinking about 08 or whatever rather than taking that extra time to tackle the bugs and improve things. No reason at all not to spend another 2 months bringing it up to standard Piss poor 'direction'. I feel sorry for those SW employees who do their best. I feel even worse for 250,000 users who have put up with this garbage.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm no expect on statistics, but a sample of 100 is statistically significant and is considered representative of an entire population. Making assumption the sampling is unbiased.
Kman

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I think Eng-Tips SW forum claims around 15,000 users. That is significant, especially considering that it is a no BS site. Get out of line and other users bump you.
As far as statistics go, the size of the sample determines the probablity that the sample predicts the whole group. So a one user sample predicts the group with a very low probability of being right. On an assembly line they might sample three out of a hundred. If they are all good there is a certain probability that the batch is good. If one is found bad then a bigger sample is needed. Statistics are useful when you can't sample the whole batch either because it is so large or because the test of goodness destroys the product (like testing fuses).
With software we have a different situation. We have code and we have documentation. The documentation says the code should do certain things. One person can test the code against the documentation. If the tester covers 50% of the code and finds no errors then that alone should provide a very favorable evaluation. This is especially true if the code is tested in a random manner. However, if one person tests 50% of the code and finds a significant number of errors then you can strongly suspect that the rest of the code is just as bad. You will notice in my evaluation that personal preference and behavior is eliminated in the evaluation. There is the code and there is the documentation. It matters not that the person testing accepts the errors found, works around them or is dismayed by them. My conclusion is that if just one person evaluates SW objectively and reports the errors then it doesn't matter how many agree or disagree because the test is objective and can be repeated with the same result.
comp.cad.solidworks does not discriminate on who posts, Eng-Tips does. Eng-Tips would probably not allow a post that contained any kind of statistical data bashing SolidWorks. This NG does allow that. So even though Eng-Tips might, and I say might, have more users than this NG, this NG will likely have one or more people on it who have tested SW and compiled a collection of errors that is significant. This NG therefore is significant in determining whether SW is a stable, reliable, and error free software if such a person(s) has posted. It only takes one user.
Imagine 50 frogs in a pot with a fire under it. The 51st frog is sitting beside the pot and jumps in. It immediately jumps out because it is able to determine the pot is not a good place to be. It implores the other 50 to jump out, but they are happy to be were they are not sensing the danger. A large group is not always right if it is not able to objectively evaluate it's situation. A democracy is flawed if its members cannot make the right decisions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well said TOP.
I'd have to agree with the majority here in voicing that they feel the software is dropping quality in the bag loads. :( What pisses me even more is that if you take a look at the 3D Rendering/Modeling community you'll see a quality level that is greater then the CAD level is. Yet its the same, if not more so, proffesional (not to put the 3D Animation/Modeling?rendering guys down at all!). Its just the first steps of design and function so demands more quality (at leas.t. you would think!). And yes they still have bugs and what not... but no where near as many as in the CAD fraternity nowadays!
not only that but they get features and useability added quickly and with what the users want...
It frustrates me so much to see so much potential in SW (and other CAD software) yet basic "damn it should just be able to do this already.. what generation is this!" features are not there, or just dont work how they should... or dont work correctily with their fellow features even!
/end rant
:P DWH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Surely all 15,000 didn't voice their opinion on SW quality? Did they do a poll? (IIRC that forum has polling features, so maybe they did.)
If someone took the time to do a study of c.c.s.w, they might find something like 50-75 individual posters who had voiced a negative opinion of SW quality. Is that a significant sample? Is it a random sample? I suspect SW would need to identify whether those opinions are affected by personality, and so a more formal survey might be in order. I don't see how SW could be in business if the opinions voiced here were representative of the entire user base.
Polling rates aside, I doubt SW as a company is concerned about real quality. Actually, I think that is empirically obvious just from using the software. What they are concerned about is perceived quality in the market, and whether that level of perceived quality justifies spending development money on quality efforts.
The practical upshot is that a publicly held company can never appear to supply quality software to those with somewhat higher expectations than others. Those of use who want SW to work properly will always be disappointed.
I think you're the sort of person who has been asked with regard to a particular new function a question like "is it good enough that you would use it?" I think that sums up the whole situation. That's the criteria they're shooting for. They not asking if it's right.
Someday, hopefully, quality will become a significant distinguishing feature in the CAD market. Until then, the CAD world is stuck with crapware. Somebody could make it a distinguishing feature, and I wish they would.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dale,
It doesn't matter how many voice their opinion. If one person shows a significant number of verifiable problems then there is a problem. This is different than saying 15,000 are satisfied that the software has those problems. One is a statement that the software has significant problems and the other is that people care or don't care that the problems are there. SW focuses on people not caring.
And again, Eng-tips doesn't allow grousing. So you won't hear it there even if there are people who have a gripe.
Dale Dunn wrote:

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

OK, now I see what you were getting at.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
And SW banks on people not caring that there are problems because of the "perceived" benefits.
Here is a further cogitation. If you think about all the problems SolidWorks has had or now contains there is one type of problem that is almost non-existent. Can you think of what that is? It may surprise you.
Dale Dunn wrote:

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

Apart from revenue problems, I'm coming up blank. Are you thinking of a specifically software problem?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Software. And think about the kinds of problems they don't have. Kind of like an excercise we did in drafting class. Look at where the chair isn't instead of where it is.
I didn't know they were having revenue problems.
Dale Dunn wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@cbd.net says...

Lack of file corruption? I've had only 1 file corrupted in 8 years, and SW Corp repaired it in a day.
AW
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nope, I've seen quite a bit of that although not so much anymore. Given the number of times we save and open the record there is good, but that isn't what I have in mind.
Art Woodbury wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
My first thought is the same as Art's. I used to get a lot of corrupt files on MDT, and I've never had one with SW. This would fit the surprising criteria, as I know they're using MS components for this.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Either the customer is satisfied, not satisfied or indifferent to some degree. The questions questions regarding capabilities, performance, features etc.. Personalities will be measured and that is to be expected.

Do most people believe that war is good for humanity? Do most people want war? Wars are decided by a minority using propaganda to influence the masses.
Then there is the saying that goes something like "eat shit, billions of flies cannot be wrong"

How many beta testers are relevant to producing a quality product? More isn't necessarily better given the continued performance problems. It would be reveling to know SW annual ratio between $Marketing and $Quality expenditures?

The unwritten mission statement for SW

This company's culture is such that technology, engineering and quality are the necessary evils of doing business. No doubt their are many talented individuals within the organization. Unfortunately, they are being steered by a few individuals and the responsibility lies at the top.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
About 8 months ago I interviewed for and SW offered me a job as senior engineer in the Quality department. I seriously considered the job because the pay was good, the benefits were good, the working environment was good, and all I had to do was look for bugs, which I do in the course of everyday work anyway. After talking to everyone, I at first wanted to take it. But then I asked different questions. In the end, I didn't take the job because it seemed to me that I would spend all this effort tracking down bugs, but they would just sit in a database somewhere and wouldn't get fixed.
Through that experience there were a lot of things I learned that wouldn't be cool to blab on a newsgroup, but the overall impression was that people worked hard, and some of them were really good, but at the end of the day, something other than competence and good intentions wins out.
There have been a lot of big behind the scenes changes to the quality system in the past year, but from the outside, it looks to me like Salvador said, like the sos. I just don't see any tangible results from all the improvements.
I'm beyond the point of wondering if they get the message. I know they do get the message, and they understand it and sympathize. I know there are internal people at SW that complain and bitch as much about the software as the worst of us here. Either the message doesn't seem to matter to the people making the decisions or the momentum of the beast just steamrolls it.
If all those beta users pound on the software and find as many bugs as some people seem to have found, I can't imagine SW releasing software like it is unless they are really just glossing over all of that. The bugs aren't fixed. Why spend the effort holding a big beta contest if you're not going to fix the bugs people find? There doesn't seem to be any real monetary reason to go so fast with development, as best I can understand. It's all about keeping ahead of the competition, but by what metric?
I'm just a little frustrated. I'm not just a mindless software basher or someone who jumps on a bandwagon to beat up on people who won't defend themselves. Like Salvador said, the software has potential, but the *real* advantages creep forward much more slowly than the stated development. It might take several releases to get something like the boundary surface or freeform surfaces to a point where they are truly useful (how often do you need to do one of those functions when you actually have a 4 sided patch?)
Anyway. I'm still making a living using the software.
Dale Dunn wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
someone posted this article the other day and it's very interesting. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID 020D04-CFD8-146C-8D8D83414B7F0000&sc=I100322 In a nutshell, the complexity of the software increases continually until it can't be fixed any more.
I think swx is past the point of reasonable quality.
Probably the thing to do now is rewrite the code (for Linux!) and save nothing from the old code except whatever is needed to convert old swx files. Making the interface adequately similar shouldn't be that big of a deal. From a marketing standpoint, you are publishing a new software package with a nearly guaranteed customer base of 250,000 users.
Bill

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It is all well and good that SWX might use such a tool as Alloy to find and fix the system design. However, SWX is made up of numerous modules like parasolid over which they have no immediate control. And then there is Windows which they not only have little control over, but is shrouded in proprietary secrecy. Add to that SWX being a little fish in MSof'ts big pond and it becomes apparent that SWX would have a long row to hoe to use such a tool. And Alloy won't find errors in the specification for what SWX does. It would not fix a problem with, say, inconsistent icons on the toolbar (something SWX recently fixed).
On the other hand, if SWX had their own code and ran it on their own OS (Linux*) then such a tool would make emminent sense. This was one of the big arguments for ProE back when SWX was small potatoes.
* You might ask why I state that Linux is SWX' code. Simple, since it is open source when SWX finds a problem in the OS they can fix it, place it in the public domain and it will become part of Linux. Anybody can do this. Little fish becomes shark. Compare this to the current scenario where SWX has to beat on MSoft to get them to acknowledge a problem. And there have been problems, as those of us who used SWX on NT well know.
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.