SolidWorks 2007 is not supported on the Mac. Please be aware that activation does not allow SolidWorks to run on Apple Mac=AE-based machines (intel based or otherwise) running BootCamp=AE Windows XP.
If this is the case, they have deliberately done this and it is going to piss off hundreds of customers. I won't install SP3 but this will be an issue for 2008 if they don't fix it. I was told that it generates the key off of the hard drive id which should work. If activation works for Microsoft products, then it should work for SolidWorks.
You have to be #$%$ kiddng me! No $$%^#^ way. Are they going to pay for my 3000 dollar laptop that I bought for this express purpose.
I havent spit nails like this before..... If they are going to pull this crap I will leave SW and take everyone I can with me.....
Spread the word and let SW know that we are not pleased. I will be getting everyone I know .
My VAR said that Mac users had "lost their keys" when XP crashed on the Mac, and he thought it was only using Parallels, which I won't use. I said I was going to use Swks on Boot Camp & his only comment is that SWks won't do Tech. Support.
The implication was that it might work OK on Boot Camp, since it is an "official" NTFS disk running Win XP Pro SP2, which is legit.
There needs to be some serious discussion with SolidWorks.
Carrying 2 laptops is a BITCH. One of the prime reasons to use SolidWorks for me was because I COULD run in Boot Camp, which I do now on Swks 2006. If SolidWorks 2007 locks me out of using it on Windows XP Pro on Boot Camp, then that is the last time I upgrade.
Windows in general along with Internet Explorer are just too damn finicky & prone to all the known problems that waste my time.
There is only one way to avoid these problems. When I run ONLY Swks on XP it almost never quits & I can't recall the last time I had a BSOD.
Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer can only achieve these levels of uptime performance in their dreams for an average user.
My guess is that SolidWorks may have bought the final hook from Microsoft and actually believes that THIS TIME IS DIFFERENT. Ballmer thinks he can sell VISTA as God's gift to humanity without problems which actually lets everyone run things FAST. I don't buy it. Microsoft does NOT have a history of delivering, either on spec or on time. Facts are facts.
I think the VARs have been warned to make sure SWks users do NOT expect to get Tech. Support if they install on Intel Macs.
Swks wants to warn users if they use Virtualization that the compromises in that environment may cause them to "lose" one of their two license keys if they get a corrupted virtualization file. Obviously SWks can't support a virtualized OS environment as the headaches are many.
Those limitations on Tech. Support are fair as far as I am concerned.
What I found interesting to show where the 21st Century is already heading was a note about last years laptop sales at Princeton Univ. It was noted that in 2006, over half of all laptops sold at the campus store were Apple's MacBook and MacBook Pros.
Is that a leading indicator of where corporations will be soon?
I ran into someone at SWW whose company was running SW on Macs for performance reasons. The Mac's were faster than the Dells they were buying on 20k plus part assemblies. It isn't a compromise issue and it isn't a virtualization issue. MSoft gives away it's own virtualization software. Will SW not work on that?
You might make the argument that if you can run a seat of SW on a virtual machine that might be a way to pirate the software. I doubt many people would have the ability to do that. And I suspect that the OS people have already figured out a solution for it.
I would really like to see SW do the testing on Macs from the standpoint of considering them as graphic cards.
Finally, this whole business has nothing to do with giving the paying customer value. It has nothing to do with stopping piracy. It has everything to do with MSoft being a monopoly and doing what monopolies do.
And Mac is not stupid either. What can be prevented in software can also be fixed. The fact is that for the first time in a long time MSoft has positioned themselves in a way that people are seriously looking elsewhere.
I have seen resellers using excuses for not supporting SW at every turn. For example we installed a Gold Partner addin and the VAR wrote us that they would no longer support SW if ever the addin came into the picture.
The only reason I think virtualization software represents a less desirable way to run XP Pro, is that the Parallels's software did not emulate a video card which SolidWorks could use really well and at the higher resolutions SWks users want.
Other than that, I have heard of people using SWks w/Parallels, but no specifics.
I am not in favor of pirating, but I am also not in favor of what I see coming down the road with Microsoft and the software that runs on their systems being able to be "disabled" remotely. If Microsoft or a software application supplier somehow decides you have violated a license, or maybe you have not paid your yearly subscription, the question becomes one of losing your right to continue working without interruption. If I lose a hard drive and need to clone my OS back quickly, I don't want to have to go through a multi-day process to get back and running again. If I finally choose to not pay for yearly maintenance for any reason, I don't want to cease to be able to use my software. It is OK for SolidWorks to issue a license that cuts a user off that doesn't "pay up", but if they do, I will think long and hard about ever upgrading to that form of a license.
Companies with an IT department can take care of these issues easily, but individuals like me with one seat have a real problem if we can't keep up and running quickly.
I do not mind having the Internet validating a new software install, but the idea that I have to constantly put my computer on the Internet so they can check up on me periodically is obnoxious & I won't upgrade into that type of licensing regime. My preference is to almost never let XP with Swks on the Internet. There is no upside to it for me.
On the other hand, MS is a monopoly of the first order, and if application developers all follow the monopoly, there may be a day when you can't buy a 3D CAD application that doesn't verify itself via the Internet every day.
My real practical issue with constant Internet verification, is that if I am required to do it, yet I am in a position in a facility where I am not allowed to connect to the Internet or the steel building blocks cellphone access (like a toolmaker, customer site or a hospital or similar), I may not be able to get access without leaving and going to my nearest Starbucks. That would be a real PITA.
Here is the latest from Mark Biasotti. At SolidWorks on this issue.
"Here's the bottom line. Starting with SW2007 SP3 (or some of our international versions before that ) that use our new activation licensing scheme, and running Apple's BootCamp (still in Beta), when launching SW, the program wants to keep activating itself, even though you activated on the previous launch. Although we don't know exactly why this happens yet, we're pretty sure it has to do with our new licensing scheme and the interplay with MacroVision. We have been in contact with Apple about the issue and we would like to see it resolved as much you would. So until we and Apple can look into it further, SolidWorks does run on MAC BootCamp, but just with this annoyance....
BTW, we have NEVER supported the MAC platform just like we have never supported XP Home Edition. This is not to say that SW will not run on those platforms but it is a matter of Tech support bandwidth on our part. We also do not support the Home and Home Premium versions of Vista. "
This certainly does seem like full circle. Years ago Autodesk suppored Mac's but the resources required for tech support were huge compared to the actual number of users. I was in a rollout with about
300 users and only 1 or 2 were using Mac's. So, until the market segment for Mac's inproves, it would be pretty surprising to see much of a motivation for SW to support Mac. I have absolutely no doubt that if the market share is there, SW will cover it.
I definately would like to see all the support that we can get from SW to keep SW working properly instead of supporting another OS platform. When SW is "perfected" then perhaps other platforms would be a good idea.
My first computer was an Apple and I still remember the "attitude" that Apple had towards the users. Absolutely no respect for us at all! And while Apple has continued to provide really good hardware and software, their prices and their approach towards the customers was just crummy. If they had viewed and treated the users as more of a "partner", Apple would have a significantly bigger part of the market share then they do now. Apple was 5 to 10 years ahead of everyone else with Windows technology but their marketing/ technology policies stunk. And unless Apple has seen the error of their ways, (which I doubt) the current Mac "blip" will probably not last very long.
Don't look now but Autodesk is treating the Inventor users with many of the same "attitudes" that Apple has had for decades and their market share is probably going to go down the same paths that Apple has blazed- failure. Over 600,000 SW seats says it all. However, I really hope that SW doesn't let this success go to their heads because many of the Marketing policies of SW has must have come directly from Apple Computing Company.
Fixing some issue with Boot Camp, is not really "supporting Apple's OS". Boot Camp is just a setup program to setup the EFI booting system to run BIOS for Windows XP.
Obviously, SWks on an Intel Mac is running in Windows XP with native Intel CPU standards.
Apple's attitude toward customers is TOTALLY different at this point in time.
Some quick figures by memory from a recent article (Fortune/Business week or similar):
about 50% of its Apple retail store customers are PC switchers
Apple Stores reached B/yr sales faster than any other retail store chain in history.
Apple Stores are about 00 per sq ft per store per year, higher than even Tiffany's sales levels (let alone also rans like Best Buy below k/sq ft)
Apple's in store "Genius Bar" has been an unqualified success with customers, and I detect generically from users and store staff that the new "ProCare" /yr premium service & training in the stores has been a success. I personally know of half a dozen people who mentioned they bought ProCare.
The heavy attention to detail for the customer is deliberate @ Apple. That doesn't mean there are issues to be fixed. I don't care whether you are George Bush, Steve Ballmer, Steve Jobs or Mark Biasati, there will always be things to improve.
Apple is on the right track. If you bought their shares when they were $10-12/share half a decade back, you know what I mean.
Apple is as stupid as microsoft. They try to extort as much money from users as they can. You can't run OSX unless you have Apple hardware, which is essentially the same as any other generic PC, right? At least with Microsoft you have the option of what hardware to buy. There is a little "security feature" in OSX that only enables it to run on Apple hardware. If that doesn't sound like a low-down dirty Microsoft-esque stunt, I don't know what does. There are some hacks available to disable the security feature.
Also, the Europeans are going after Apple's non-competitive monopolistic practices. Slime is Slime.
The idiots who say that Apple is somehow morally superior to Microsoft are freaking hypocrites.
Actually the first "real" computer I bought was locked to the vendor's hardware. It had a full multitasking, modular OS, it did windows before Apple or the IBM PC and it had a higher resolution color display in an age when Apple was grey and IBM was green. It did all this precisely because it was locked to the hardware. I still have it and it still does windows faster than Windows or Mac and that on 8Mhz and 2Mb of RAM.
IBM originally tried to lock down their BIOS so that they would be the only PC supplier but it was soon copied by an ingenious scheme thought up by lawyers where one group would disassemble it and describe what it did and another group would then write a new BIOS that did what the description said, thereby creating the legal fiction that code had not been copied.
Once the cat was out of the bag there were numerous BIOS copies, all a little different that could make various vendor's motherboards work to one degree or another with the MSoft OS. However, it soon became apparent that total IBM compatability as it was called would never be achievable. One of Windows great strengths is that it comes bundled with scads of drivers and patches and who knows what else so that it can run on just about any hardware platform known to man. One of Windows greatest drawbacks is that it comes bundled with scads of drivers and patches and who knows what else so that it can run on just about any hardware platform known to man.
MSoft is still tied to the Intel architecture. Apple has jumped over to it also. But Apple doesn't have to be tied to a CPU while MSoft does. Apple is smart in tying in to their own hardware because they can use it to it's full potential, while MSoft can't use the Intel architecture to it's full potential. Theoretically, if SW ran on a MAC they could write machine code for performance bottlenecks because they would know exactly what hardware they would be on. You could never even think about doing this on a PC with Windows.
Locking to a particular hardware platform isn't all bad for the user.
This makes this sound like a temporary, fixable issue. If it is just a compatibility issue then soon enough we will see a fix. If not we will know it is intentional. As we know, BootCamp is in Beta which means there will still be issues.
SW also does not support most laptops. There are few if any laptop graphics cards on the SW approved list, yet many SW employees carry a laptops around with SW on it.
In my thinking, SW would be wise to at least treat MAC as a graphics card and open up new doors into the ID market.
In the end "good" competition is the best for all of us. And there are certainly lots of times when I have been grumpy about MS and some of their policies. MS is said to be greedy but I currently have some excellent software and a ton of technical information that MS has provided free of charge. MS has had many of these insentive programs going on for about the last 10 years. It isn't that I want free software, (though it is nice) but these programs says a lot about MS attitude towards the end users.
Now as far as Mac's there are three things that really concern me:
1) As it is, my brother in law is a "Mac guy". He has been trying to "sell" me on Mac's for a long time so I have been hearing about all kinds of "claims" about performance, (for about 20 years). Unfortunately, just about every one of the claims that I have heard were greatly exagerated and basically marketing hype. At one point I ran a flight simulator program, (the old classic for testing performance) on one of the early Mac's and it was literally about 10 times to slow and not even functional. So, I think that there is a bit of a trust issue.
2) There are claims that Apple has changed their "attitude" towards users. Apple has been perfectly happy with their "bad" attitude towards users for a very long time. It is going to take a lot more to prove that they have a new attitude then more marketing hype.
3) Apple is still targeting the uninitiated segment of the market share. A good example of this is one of the latest adds about cameras being "add-on's" for PC's. (where the camera is being taped to the top of a PC, (ie. the guys head with masking tape)). The implication is that Mac's are better because their camera is built in. I believe that a built-in camera, (and other built-in equipment) almost always have negative advantages as time goes on. Sure, when the camera technology improves Apple will be perfectly glad for you to throw away your entire computer and buy new one. The fact that Apple is using such an argument that Mac's are better is a clue that Apple still views users as not being very bright.
The REAL PONT all of this is that there is a close relationship between any computer/ software company and the users. If BOTH aren't successful then ultimately both will loose. A company can make a big splash in the beginning but it is just a matter of time before the users will move to an effective product and the company will just fade away. And I believe that Apple Computer has been the perfect example of how to make a company unsuccessful. Closer to the CAD industry, Autodesk is working torwards being an "example of failure" for CAD software.
And ultimately I hope that SW is PAYING ATTENTION because while the technical side of SW is currently very good many of SW's MARKETING POLICIES STINK! I havn't a clue as to who the VP of SW's Marketing is but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't work for Apple at some time. Judging from some of the policies we would all be better off if this fellow would go to work for Autodesk.