Slim Looks....gone??

Such is life with software and enhancements...

ever compare Windows 3.1 install size to Windows XP?

I bet its even worse....

IMHO file space is very cheap anyway.

--Todd

Skip the RealView option. 450MB saved.

Yeah I wish they could make the product better, faster, add all our wishes, and at the same time make the program smaller. ;-)

Disk space IS remarkably "cheap" these days, so upgrading to a larger drive is relatively painless.

The issues are more importantly those of performance and stability.

Getting the software to execute quickly and without glitches or failures becomes increasingly difficult as the volume of code increases.

As the number and sizes of files required to support any program grow, so does the importance of keeping drives properly defragmented! A simply analogy is to think of looking for a printed report on your own desk if:

1. ALL of the pages are stacked together and in order right in front of you.

or

1. The individual pages are completely separated from eachother and are hidden under piles of varying depths in random locations over a desk you haven't straightened up in months.

But even if the ordered report can be found quickly, it may contain errors. Even if it has no errors, the one reading it may be very slow or be making mistakes in its interpretation...

If SW performance has improved over the years how come so many people on this group are constantly trying to figure out how to improve their hardware? If performance has improved then by now we should be able to run a 5,000 part assembly on a 100 Mhz 486!

I couldn't fit SW20004 > I have been using Solidworks since ver 98+. The installation of