New Solidworks Forums up

I'm interested, not sure I have the time at the moment. Do you have a link to device?

John Layne

formatting link

Reply to
John Layne
Loading thread data ...

Neils I sympathyze, but I just got blindsided myself.

A key moldmaker/designer arbitrarily upgraded to 2007, meaning if I want to review and modify or use any of the files for my tools, I have to upgrade. Crap. This is what SolidWorks hopes and prays for, with customers blindly upgrading.

Personally, I like to look at logic and physical facts:

  1. The Earth goes around the sun every 365 days, but what is the physical reason that makes the rotation of the earth timed to Software releases? (none, I know it is retorical, except for the Public company's fiscal reporting requirements...but that is not a good excuse to time software upgrades.)

  1. Given the immense 6 month public testing period before the software is usable, why shouldn't the software stay stable for at least 2 years?

  2. Given the long learning curve to get "up" with all the new & changed features and settings, what can possibly justify upsetting every customer's applecart of known working conditions every 12 months, slowing his work down?

  1. Speaking of new releases, I think the SolidWorks format ought to be fixed for at least 2, such that there are fewer compatibility problems.

  2. I would think that properly debugged software that was truly good would have a service life that is longer, but that would also cause more people and companies to adopt SolidWorks, and potentially offset the longer cycle of major upgrades and fewer maintenance dollars. When will the CEO of SolidWorks stand up to the Croissant spined Dessault profit norms?

  1. SolidWorks is essentially going to have to eventually realize many individuals might drop maintenance, unless there is a compelling reason. I have yet to hear anything that makes me say "Whoa, I'm going to send in my 00 now early, because this is truly hot stuff."

  2. Companies can essentially decide to "lock down" their software and not allow an upgrade, and some companies do that. SolidWorks needs to do better, with longer release cycles, and better debugging. The era of "Hot Software Features" is largely gone & is no longer a reason to upgrade. Frankly I suspect a lot of VARs need to do better. Last time I called my VAR to ask about MoldFlow, he didn't call back for a week.

Bo

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote:

Reply to
Bo

imho, web based forums just flat out suk. too many windows to jump thru. also, web based forums have way too much wasted space with borders, icons, etc...

ironically, the exception to poorly designed web based forums was the old sw forum. in the old sw forum "everything" could be viewed thru a "single window" which was very similar to a newsreader. enhancing the existing forum would have resulted in a far superior web forum.

hell, even autodesk has no problem providing "BOTH" newsreader & web based forums which are "free" to all. they even allow attachments.

Reply to
kenneth

Oh God, I know I am opening myself up for some junk, but... I have to be honest (damn ethics!).

I just pulled off an extended few weeks of modeling in SW 2006, sp4.0, that I would never have guessed I could do based on prior experience. My usual experience is try (I always try, just in case), fail, try another way, fail, crash, curse, then go into workarounds. On this most recent job, the majority of things worked the first time (and I only crashed twice, on same the amse variable radius fillet, in

80 hours). They have fixed so very, very much. Bodies would merge that would never merge before, shells would work, lofts would be clean (or easy to repair), etc - at this moment in time, especially considering the timeline for this job, I am grateful for my maintenence fees. I obviously have not drunk the kool-aid about 2007, but I am a little tantalized based on 2006 sp4. Sure there are still LOTS of things to improve, but based on the last few weeks SWx is making major inroads. Major (I swear, i was pulling off sh** that I could never do before)

Ed

Reply to
ed1701

Oh.. to keep my critic 'cred'- The new discussion forum has been a non-starter for me. I can't even log in. And when they get that fixed (i am confident that they will, but how many folks will have the patience to keep trying after their initial failure? I am about ready to bail for a few months), the format is still inferior to this one. They still have a ton of work to do and better acknowlede that. Ed

Reply to
ed1701

there are legs sprouting from your belly Edward...

Reply to
neilscad

I've requested several times that they slow down their version cycle. The reason my VAR stated as to why they provide one per year is because of Marketing strategy early on to answer the question "Why am I paying maintenance for each year?" Without realizing the customers where asking for discounts or complaining about the ridiculous scheme, they assumed the customer was asking for an upgrade every year.

In this day when big companies have to go through hoops to change software, it takes a good six months in some cases to upgrade, esp in the companies that deal with FDA.

It would be better to build a base program that they support for two to four years, then provide free add-on packages (included in the cause of the yearly maintenance) that the customers can then choice to install in not. Service packages would still be expected to fix bugs, of course.

Matt

Bo wrote:

Reply to
fcsuper

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.