I note that the paper and online instructions for SolidWorks 2006 do not reflect what is considered desirable in a "clean install". I relayed the 3-4 inconsistencies to my VAR, GoEngineer, but said I felt this was not an issue for a user's report on software. That is strictly managerial housekeeping.
Today I went to do a set of v3.1 to v3.4 updates:
eDrawings is noted as "Required updates if these components are installed" (everyone should have them).
When you run the new eDrawings installer (with another eDrawings already installed), the installer gives the user 3 choices:
- Modify
- Repair
- Remove
There is no choice such as Upgrade, Update an earlier version, or Install New and Delete prior version.
The VAR tech guy didn't know. 10 minutes on hold before the answer, means to me they likely called SWks headquarters.
The VAR's Answer: Do nothing. "eDrawings is not in need of an upgrade and there is no change."
Inconsistencies in paper and web documentation result in TIME LOSS for everyone.
Some one @ SolidWorks needs to be put in charge of verifying that what goes in print, on the downloads and its web site and into all notices contains the right, complete, and unambiguous wording such that this BS stops.
This is not programming, not executive level stuff, or project manager level. Documentation writing and verification is basic average every day Techinical Report Writing 101.
What are my yearly maintenance fees for anyway? Not just programming.
--- EOR
Bo Clawson