Re: 64 Bit is coming..... But not for us yet

I ran SWks 2000 on a 500mhz G3 Macintosh, but indeed it was too slow for anything but trial work learning where everything was in the menus and tools with simple parts. Dual 2 ghz G5's with 1 ghz front side bus ought to be significantly faster.

MS supposedly was interested in Virtual PC from Connectix because when they do their switch to a "new" OS, PC boxes are going to have to be able to run Win 98, 2000, XP on the new PC OS, just as Apple is doing, but with Virtual PC handling the emulation.

Apple has given new life to Unix (along with Linux), and now Microsoft is in a position of whether they will keep their "proprietary Windows OS", or go with more standardization in a flavor of Unix. My bet says Bill Gates will never adopt an open standard Unix base for Windows. Bill wants all the keys & $s. The question is whether the SW developers will keep waiting for Bill to deliver stability and ease of use. But Bill will never control the hardware.

Imagine if you had to buy a Ford Pickup and it was put together by your dealer with parts from god knows where, and you go on vacation & kaboom, a problem comes up (in the computer even). Everyone pointed fingers when the car wouldn't start, & no one took responsibility.

Would you actually buy a car put together that way? Not me. Would I buy a computer put together that way and put up with individual warranties and infighting between parts vendors? Not willingly I won't.

Apple has understood something for a long time for its end customer users. As near as possible they get computers to be perfectly integrated software & hardware machines, so the users can get on with work as efficiently as possible. Sounds like what we product designers do.

Bo Clawson

Reply to
Bo Clawson
Loading thread data ...

I think it's more like how much work will it take to integrate d-cubed 3D DCM features into the next SP. My guess is that the release of the new version of 3D DCM was too late to make it into SolidWorks 2004 and SolidWorks Corp. was / is not about to delay the release.

See:

formatting link
"The excellent performance of the 3D DCM's unique, proprietary and highly developed range of constraint solving algorithms is the foundation of the latest interactive approach to assembly part positioning, kinematic simulation,

3D sketching and direct (non-history based) part modification."

I think it would be fair to say that SolidWorks probably has had people working with this new version of 3D DCM for some time and probably helped d-cubed test it and develop it.

SolidWorks does not spend the kind of R&D money that a company like think3 does and as a result SolidWorks is dependent on third party components for much of it's progress. IMO, EDS PLM Solutions SolidEdge in just *one release* (V14) has made much better progress than SolidWorks at surfacing.

jon

Reply to
jon_banquer

Clues, clues .... they also use Pro-E and probably many other systems for various purposes.

I doubt that either Pro-E or UG is well known for LSI, IC or PCB design ... or for simulation of computer circuit logic.

Reply to
Cliff Huprich

Silicon Graphics (to name one). And there is small amount of interesting history between the two companies.

Chris

Reply to
Anonymous

jon_banquer quipped:

not wanting to reply to jb....but ashlar runs on Max OSX now.

linux anyone?

--nick e.

Reply to
Nick E.

daniel quipped:

yeah. why is that anyways? what's up with dongles over there but not here? does it have to do with the french? ;-)

-nick e.

Reply to
Nick E.

Cliff Huprich wrote on 22.8.2003 0:33

I am sure you are right about that. And these days you cannot develop these sorts of complex products without these tools. Especially the laptop products.

I know that Apple used Vellum 2D about 12 years ago, as did many of their industrial design consultants (they outsourced more then than I think they do these days). Also as was pointed out, Alias has been used extensively. However, there is a distinction between the tools required for the forms, and then the detailing and production solid models. Even thought the tools may be different, the workflow is still integrated. One cannot "design" and thow it over the cubical wall and expect the results apple gets. It must be an integrated, vision led process.

As a side note...

I have been using PowerBooks since the comically named Mac Portable (well, there was a handle...), and for the last year, a Ti PowerBook. I just found out how complacent I have become about the sophisticated design and engineering of this unit after I was asked to go shopping with a friend for a PC portable. I was really shocked! What are those other manufacturers doing? So many useless bells and whistles and parts and vents and details and things to break... Almost all are butt ugly and feel cheap and fragile. Even the Sony vaio, which I used to think were cool, look over detailed for no reason. As far as brand recognition goes, without the names on those machines, it would be hard to identify the manufacturer. I suppose the idea is if you look like the competitor, maybe someone will accidentally purchase yours. I Guess that is the lucky chameleon business model :-)

I had been considering a Dell laptop, but it really pains me to buy products that are just not as well designed and engineered as they could be. But... Life is full of compromises....

Dan

Reply to
daniel

There is a reason, and it is related to their past as well as other past design/vendor groups they work with (dependency issues??).

In the late 80's and early 90's I was invited to two conferences at Apple regarding UG and during that time it amazed me how much $$ was applied, the complexity of the tools and the that workflow!!?? Yeah, they got it done but when you got $$, you usually can get shit done!

Otherwise, today, each group is different and a lot of the work is being done using Alias (NT, mac, and sgi), Pro/e and SolidWorks and believe it or not, still Vellum 2D (mac, very common in ID houses). Talk about hack and whack, man, by having all these separate tools, that's exactly what they are doing! Each tool or tool mix provides an advantage per group. Somehow it works, not necessarily right, because it's generally based a combination of institutions Apple picks the users from, management, workflows, hardware and habit using the above software, and, they are fairly liberal with their methods.

Anyhow, generally a good group of people (hola, ;^)) and sometimes it has absolutely nothing to do with the tools used.

.. 8^0 (Oh no.... Kittie - Run Like Hell!)

Reply to
Paul Salvador

Actually, I like Macs but that was pretty funny! ;^)

..

Reply to
Paul Salvador

For various other "lightweight" work, Apple has also used 2D packages including PowerCADD on the Mac.

My guess for Apple's retail hardware boxes is that Cliff's note on UG is right. No one software does it all, though.

Given the expansion of Unix, I do wonder if some software vendors aren't looking at ..nix as a coming opportunity.

I really wonder if MS can hold everything together forever. Near monopolies tend to fail of their own inertia. "Agile monopoly" is an oxymoron.

Bo

Reply to
Bo Clawson

Bo Clawson wrote on 22.8.2003 6:24

After all the reading I have done about the various flavors of linux, and the issues around custom or third party hardware (compatibility, reliability, accountability), I really believe apple has a big long term advantage.

First, the user interface is easy to use and consistent. Of course you can learn to use other interfaces, but it is a foundation and they really understand the importance of consistency to enable the user to get on with their real objective - productivity.

In addition, the main building blocks of OSX are open source, with the addition of other innovations and interface from apple. Look at the zero conference tool (I think that is what is was called) implemented by apple as rendezvous. Simple plug and play network discovery over TCP/IP for all hardware and peripherals? Like many technologies apple selected to adopt across the board, this is now becoming an industry standard and other manufacturers are slowly implementing. And that is also true of hardware standards too like WIFI, firewire, USB etc.

So, if I wanted to develop for a platform with a future, OSX, with a powerful reliable hardware platform would be the safest choice I would imagine. In fact, I recently read about some high end video product or modeler that had decided not to develop for lunux, but only for OSX for these reasons.

Fortunately apple is a little monopoly, and as such, people tend to root for the little guy. However, I think the principle of controlling the hardware and software the ensure the best user experience and product is an intelligent and normal idea. Dividing up the car as someone pointed out and having it be a mix and match affair can only be fun for the closet tinkerer, and agony for everyone else.

Dan

Reply to
daniel

Nick E. wrote on 22.8.2003 1:57

I think his fair point was that most decent software is not necessarily bough over the counter in a consumer store. And also both of these programs are for OSX.

Linux? No thank you. Happy with OSX :-))

Reply to
daniel

Nick E. wrote on 22.8.2003 2:03

I have no idea, and I really cannot believe it actually cuts down on bootleg copies. Those are still available if you look hard enough.

When I last asked my VAR if I could switch to a USB dongle from the hasp (so I could run it on my PowerBook) they told me the only way was to purchase a new license - or maybe it was just a fee. But I recall it was a ridiculous amount of money. In my opinion they should be enabling me to use the software I own/license on whatever hardware I want. And then on top of that knowing the in the US these are not used.... Robbery....

But your theory may be right. If it is not the french, it may be the russian hackers.

Reply to
daniel

The User Interface, unless one is determined to use what MS likes you to embed in your software, is not really OS dependant. A keyboard is a keyboard, a mouse is a mouse, .....

The port of UG to NT used the same interface both places. X-Windows based, I assume, but X-Windows can be compiled for MS OSs too ....

Reply to
Cliff Huprich

Cliff Huprich wrote on 22.8.2003 17:34

Right you are... However, I was speaking of the GUI, not necessarily the hardware, which as you say is the same.

I think X-windows is similar to X-11 on OSX which allows you to run other

*nix software with a simple (?) recompile. But that is getting out of my territory a wee bit. I have used the command line terminal in OSX, but that is like Japanese to me... But Like Japanese it is fascinating....

Since I seem to be so good at going off the deep end on this thread, I'll throw this news item in to support my thesis that Apple is gaining ground and attracting high end software that has been nowhere near the Mac before.

formatting link
Cheers, Dan

Reply to
daniel

The GUI is part of the user interface. It mostly just gets choices & data from the user. Mouse, keyboard, screen .... I think you are MS-conditioned to the MS

*style* of icons & such. They could look like anything .... . Remember, they sort of stole "look & feel: from Apple who stole it from X & Xerox's PARC & MIT IIRC.

IFeveryone chose to run X on MS .. and UNIX ....

From an applications programming standpoint one passes a list of options to a menu routine & reads the response(s). What menu routine do you use? Is it portable?

Reply to
Cliff Huprich

with a friend for

cheap and fragile.

Dan,

They're almost all designed and built by a handful of Taiwanese manufacturers.

Jerry Steiger Tripod Data Systems

Reply to
Jerry Steiger

Jerry Steiger wrote on 23.8.2003 2:15

Sometimes OEM is a brand in itself, eh? Of course, apple uses many of the same manufacturers, so it is simply a matter of the vision, design and engineering that is required by the client. It is interesting socially, how people make choices about products, and what attracts them, or how much they feel they need to research or understand the product. I think most of us are probably very well informed, or search the info to have the knowledge to make informed choices. However, I think that there are many who simply do not do this, don't care, or simply think it is not necessary to care. And in a sense that is why products should be designed to be easy to use - that is what people assume it will be. It is only later that they find that it does not meet their basic assumption of how the light bulb works. Flick switch = on, flick again = off. Now if I could only find that one switch on my software that makes the form I want before I pull my hair out.... Flick!

Dan

Reply to
daniel

Sometimes the other is hard to decipher, intent-wise. I'm a simple person .

Reply to
Cliff Huprich

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.