looking at it I think this is actually the same distortion as the snowboot...seems to me its not an inconsistency but rather a flawed algorithm....its just going sideways in between...you cant actually straighten things out by playing with settings..might also say here I had a simple sweep that failed unusually but I haven't had time to look into it to see if that was me or not.
Paul's point is that his perfectly good data (which he has spent time/money on) is being screwed up from one SP to the next. The fact that it CAN be fixed is totally irrelevent. This costs him more time/money, and is inexusable. For a independant contractor, or a small consulting firm (like mine) this is a huge deal. We bill by the hour.
SW has never understood this concept. I started keeping track of rework costs directly related to migration failures around early 98. To date, this has cost my company well in excess of $150,000.00. Most of these losses were between 98 and 02. Since then, I've managed to control these losses by only upgrading on an as needed basis. That is, If we get a new client who uses a later version, I will isolate their data and assign specific engineers to work on that project. These guys will have that version on their machines, and I will give them very specific instructions with regards to it's use. Of course accidents happen, but luckily, all of our data is backed up every night. Our current production version is 03 SP5.1. It will probably stay that way untill I have the budget to upgrade most of our workstations.
This means that we have to have multiple versions installed on most machines. As you can imagine, this makes my life VERY complicated.
SW has never understood these problems because they don't do real world production design for a living. Also, large percentage of their customer base doesn't do anything complex enough for most of these serious inconsistencies to be a real problem.
If more users were to do a comprehensive "cost of ownership" audit, they would be horrified.
I am sorry I didn't realise I said anything to contradict Paul...I thought I was agreeing with him... in fact these examples seemingly cant be fixed because the algorithms in 2.1 are stuffed?..2.2 coming?...I am very well aware of the lost time etc due to a number of SW shortcomings...I thought I made my views known a few days ago... against the run of play in some peoples eyes. in many cases it would a lot more productive if I just got out a bit of old fashioned paper and ink! cheers (fellow sufferer trying to do everything well on my own)
My only recourse. Stop paying subscription fees and let them know why. Harsh yes. Limits what I can do, yes. Stuck on an earlier version, yes. But since I am only in SW for maybe 30% of my time anymore I can NOT afford to waste any time bothering with stupid crap like this. I put up with it in the early days, but not anymore. I'm not willing to pay them for being a beta tester anymore. They may care about it, but don't understand the math well enough to fix it.