DO NOT UPGRADE TO PDMWORKS WORKGROUP 2007 SP4.0!!!!!!

Pete,

Can you add more information and perhaps link to a source making this statement?

Matt

The issue is described in the June 8, 2007 bulletin:

Marc

cadmgr2004 wrote in news:1181757491.633621.6230 @i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

Wow. That's a scary one. At least it's not some obsure registry scribbling. Keep those backups up to date!

WTF ...well only recently I said users dont need an incident like the Symantec one.....wonder if Bo is still keen on SW pushing out frequent silent upgrades?!

..but apppalling quality control again...obviously no one actually does any meaningful testing on a sp build before releasing it. I suppose you can all be grateful this is just confined to PDM imagine 400,000 dead pc's... You all know this is going to happen eventually right?

Well, when that happens, it'll be time for a class-action test of the part of the license which states that the vendor is not responsible for what the software actually does.

I actually hope that never happens. If that part of the license is found to be unlawful, the cost of software in general will increase noticeably. On the other hand... Maybe I'd be willing to pay more for software that was guaranteed to work.

Well, indeed, I would hope a Top Caliber Company would release updates more often BECAUSE they have a top grade comprehensive automated & manual testing system built on top of a similarly high grade progarmming, tracking system with top quality coders.

It is starting to worry me that SolidWorks has lost control of their coding process (& there are lots of professors and others who have developed systems & methods to improve & control coding).

When SWks warns that you that a PDM user could not only lose Swks files but potentially delete System files, then I also wonder if they had a coder deliberately screw up the coding. That brings up a real nasty subject as wacko employee coders have been known to insert delayed action bombs in code, leave and then use the "Feature" for some malicious reason.

SolidWorks 2006 is looking better with each passing day.

Bo

400,000 x ' $25 ' = $10M 10m / 200,000 p.a.(guess) = 50 new employees housed, clothed and fed, looking for and fixing bugs ( probably 10x the present no. ;) )...or of course out source to India and get 250 workers...

sooo for $25 extra you can have quality but.. now that quality has gone up you can cut VAR numbers... and reduce subs..by..$50 !! (or maybe just $25 and keep the rest to give as staff bonuses ;) )

:o)

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote in news:1181858858.313721.42460 @d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

That sounds nice. But if it was the result of a class action suit there would be the cost of the settlement, legal fees, new insurance against quality suits (like medical malpractice), establishing standards of quality for a few million line of code (imagine the new license agreement), increased component costs (a lot of SW is licensed from other companies), etc. I doubt the increase in cost would be as palatable as $25/seat.

Thw present cost of Windows might actually be justified if quality were guaranteed.

You now know why I have said I no longer care about any one particular

3D software and any particular hardware it runs on. The cost of the software and hardware pales in comparison to the cost of the person using it day in and day out and the significant output that comes from that persons work with the software.

Right now I can stick with Apple's MacBook Pro and SolidWorks running on it. If things change, I'll move to add some other software and hardware as required.

By the way, a long time Microsoft programmer has done a review and comparison of MS's .Net vs Apple's Cocoa programming environment and MS doesn't stack up well against Apple.

The light hearted overview is on RoughlyDrafted.com @

...with references to Hoffman's blog.

Apple is making it easier for software developers to get their job done and done right with the controls to make it maintainable, from what I read.

Bo