SP2, PDF and other issues being discussed

A brave soul you are for putting on the target - thanks.

I think if the message about pulling the service pack had mentioned it was the suppression issue, not the PDF one, the masses would have been much more understanding. Even though the PDF issue was related, it had the appearance of triviality. Thanks for the clarification.

WT

Then why not admit this? If this is indeed the reason--and not just an attempt at damage control--why can't SW admit this in the first place?

It makes the pulling of SP2.0 much more reasonable. If you guys tell us the REAL reason a SP is pulled--ie: something SERIOUS--then I would not be nearly so critical of you guys.

If this is indeed the case, then I fully understand and agree with your pulling SP2.0.

But that is not what we were told. We told a bullshit story about PDF-printing being broken.

Again, the official word is that PDF-printing is broken.

If so, why not just say so from day one?

Again, you (SW Corp) asked for it. TELL us the problem. Don't make something up about PDF-printing being broken.

BTW, ALL marketing-dweebs are scum. Not just yours. :)

Again. Don't lie about the reason.

No lie == less bitching

Then why does it seem so bad? Once again, tell us the reason. Don't lie. yadda-yadda-yadda. Ad nauseum.

Indeed.

Your (SW Corp) actions tell me that you care more about your Bluebeam contract than about the users.

I think I was more than gentle.

-nick e.

Dear Joe:

It is good to see someone from the company on the newsgroup.

I am thinking about getting Solidworks for a possible new startup (would need two copies for two locations in two states). I already called and talked to someone at the SW offices and have gotten the general info AND have been looking over the website--and am also watching here for the "latest and greatest" information.

Our planned use is for designing mechanical parts and assemblies (one assembly = four small parts). Maybe 200-400 different assemblies, many using the same parts. Most parts are made on CNC equipment, and I am finding most shops prefer some type of electronic format in order to quote and manufacture parts accurately. One shop here recommended Solidworks, and I see it being mentioned on many machine shop web sites as a format they accept.

My concern is mostly about software reliability, consistency of use (version to version), and the ability to be backward- compatible with previous versions. I do not want to buy the "latest and greatest" SW2004 and then find I have to pay to redo a pile of drawings and other stuff when 2005 (or 2006/2007/etc) comes out. I can think of better things that need doing. A one-time conversion of all drawings/assemblies/etc might be ok, but only if it offers "new and improved" features in the newer software that is not available in the older format/style.

I have been using desktop computers in business since 1980 (ouch--showing my history ), so I have the scars of experience in software design and development.

I am the one spending the money for the business if it gets going, and part of that expenditure is to buy the tools needed to do the job. I have to be able to show I am buying the right tool (the right CAD/solid-modeling program) over the long term.

I am concerned about the pulling of SP2. Not because it was pulled, but rather because it was released in the first place. To me, this indicates a major failure in QA/testing--and *that* raises a flag regarding your main product (as it supposedly also went through that same *rigorous* testing...). I do *not* like surprises when buying a product of this type.

Now you understand my position and why I am concerned.

I would like to get an idea of what is next on the agenda, as I am not deciding "yes" or "no" at this time--but I *may* need to do so shortly.

Regards, Jerry (MN)

And this could have been all cleared up by being honest in the first place?

Anyhow, it's appreciated. BTW, I agree, on the suppression thang, for me, color or pw2 material changes were one of the things were "fairly" (not always) consistent before saving.

..

Joe Dunne wrote:

thanks for fronting... a lot of people want better communication with SW. a lot of people want sp that actually fix things. what is actually going to be done about that? rather than talk about it in every meeting? re reasons ABCD.. why isn't strident criticism like that getting through to you? if you worked for me and were telling customers their complaints were not productive and not effective I would sack you on the spot. this is the culture problem you have... and it sounds a lot like arrogance to me cheers no that I expect a reply... : (

Neil, for one I welcome Joe (and anyone else from SW Corp) back to the newsgroup. I hope what happened in earlier times will NOT happen. That is to say I hope that people will be helpful and not insulting to Joe. I've posted some pretty bitter things myself, but I'd MUCH rather use the opportunity to create a helpful dialog, if that's possible. And I'd prefer that people NOT post that it's NOT possible -- that's FAR from the truth. Please note that I said "far from the truth", not "lie". The choice of words can be very meaningful.

A couple of things I DO understand about SolidWorks Corp is that the people there work very hard. As such, it's easy to believe that they are easily insulted when people accuse them of not keeping faith. I also BELIEVE, from having discussions with people at SolidWorks Corp that they do truly care a lot about quality issues, and that at least some of problems that are evident in the software releases and SPs are as puzzzling to them as it is to us, if not more so.

That being said, I have to echo that I haven't noticed a meaningful increase in openness in communication that we all hoped would occur after the "tres Amigos" meeting in the Summer of 2001. Marketing spin still seems to be marketing spin. The pulling of SP2.0 was an example, as others have indicated.

So, I have especially three issues that I want to chide SolidWorks about:

I'm one who believes there needs to be a person whose ONLY task is to analyze why things are not going better, and who leads an effort to innovate in the area of QA. I'm sure that it's enough of a job just to manage the day to day operations of quality assurance, and I'm sure Graham Rae is good at doing that. But just managing the operations is not enough. SolidWorks needs to support a continuous QA "think tank" function manned by a specialist or three.

Hoping my comments make it through . . .

Best regards, Mark 'Sporky' Staplet>

Thanks for the bravery Joe. Most of us don't expect a SW response in here because they're few and far between. I know I never did. Most of us are dedicated SW users/fans but that doesn't mean we won't get ugly when the need arises, and lately it's gotten bad (last 12mo's in particular). And although it's not official it at least helps the overall feeling to have you here.

I don't agree with everything you said but we know you're doing your personal best. Most of us know, through using the software, why the SP was pulled. And that's what makes the downplay even more insulting. Most of us don't really care why the SP was pulled. We care more about the fact that it didn't fix what was most important to us in the first place. And we're afraid, based on the lack of quality over the past year, that it won't fix those things in the second place.

How can we feel that SW doesn't place more importance on marketing than quality. Most of us deal with the same issues day after day in a design environment and what we see is new features (that are typically also broken) added on top of existing broken features. That's 100% frustrating.

It's also frustrating when the view from SW seems to be more defined by app engineers than design engineers. Don't get me wrong, our var's app engineers are tops and we get along at a friendship level (I think), but it's not the same as a design environment with long term deadlines, clients breathing down your neck, incompatibilities with vendors who have the last or next version etc. We deal with these issues in blocks of weeks or months, not hours or days. Add some other views to the seemingly arrogant situation and you'll begin to understand the vocal frustration motivating many of us. And before another ex-app engineer tells me it's the same with other software, remember this, SW was supposed to be different.

Actions *do* speak louder than words. We're still waiting for quality. And we'll let *you* know when we get it. Not the other way around.

Again, thanks and hope to see more of you here. It really is appreciated. I'm looking forward to the day when we can be more on the same page again. It's been awhile. :)

- Eddy

Hello Joe-

Thanks for the response.

Here are a few of my thoughts:

1. Please develop a better policy and procedure for testing and debugging your software.
2. I feel uncomfortable with your policy of relying on unpaid and possibly untrained users to debug your software. If you need to raise your prices to produce a better product, then just do it. People will pay for quality.
3. Please test software PRIOR to release. SolidWorks is giving the impression that they just "throw out" the product and "hope" it's OK.
4. Please understand that we use SolidWorks as a tool to make money and provide for our families. When the software is "buggy" and causes a reduction in productivity, then we loose time and money. For example, one of my customers lost over 50 hours of labor when Service Pack SP11 for 2001 caused many drawing files to become corrupted and these files had to be recreated. They still talk about this to this day.
5. Please consider slowing down your release cycles, I'd rather have a fully tested and reliable product than a product that appears to be released only to increase sales to new customers.

Best Regards, Devon T. Sowell

ahh come on Sporky...nothing changes...I don't think Joe is really open to what anyone here thinks.....there are culture and management problems inside SW...even if they do work hard at it...now you guys are going all cuddly on them....really you are just taking longer to say the same things I did ...what we all said....but I will sit back quietly while you have tea and scones with the nice Mr Joe Dunne if that's what you want...spine is obviously out this year...(apologies to Mr Dunne..)

bah, humbug....

Nice to see you Joe, but sorry if you expect a cosy reply from all of us. We have a shitload of data we produced in SP2 that we can no longer access in rollback to SP1, so we actually upgraded back to SP2 just to keep working. We are struggling to work on BOMs because they wont accept editing, we are actually superimposing notes over the top of the BOM table just to keep up with changes in design. This is a major headache for us, I dont give a crap about PDF creation, there are plenty of free/cheap working apps available to do this. I have cancelled maintenance subscription because I am not getting value for it, if and when you get a stable version working I will buy it having saved a lot of money by not having to go through the SP upgrade process/heartache.

How does SW measure and quantify quality?

Joe, I have been hearing this "wait and see" put off for way too many years. There is nothing noticeably improved in the way of performance or quality from my perspective. From your perspective, how has quality improved since

I keep hearing how many bugs were discovered in this last release due to the increased number of beta testers. Then how can it be there are so many serious issues with the 2004 release? Quality control would suggest that there should be less bugs found by the time it reaches beta and fewer by release.

Phil,

I think you have a valid reason. I wish I could support you and say the same thing but, in Nov I did upgrade for the reason others here upgrade, to keep current and make sure you can help your clients. And, at the time, I had hope but not now.

I personally do not think SW2004 will be a memorable release.

Surface modeling is NOT functioning properly so it's basically useless and I do not believe it will be fixed. And, based from the past and today, there is a high probability that my surface files will fail in the next sp's and following releases.

My contracts will state that I will not be responsible for SoildWorks data between service packs or major releases because SolidWorks data is "not consistent". And, because of SolidWorks data inconsistency, I will have to charge for any extra time related to model failures due to SolidWorks inconsistency between service packs or releases. And, if the client ask what the estimate cost will be for foreseeable repairs,.. I will estimate an extra 25% cost over the original cost.

So, how does that = productivity and efficiency using SolidWorks... hmm,..insert an ROI probe to check?

..

Phil Evans wrote:

I can guess how most customers would respond to a price increase because of software disfunction. But there is always 24 ours in a day to make up the difference.

This response was supposed to be attached to Joe Dunne's email. I believe this is a result from deleting my all my messages and headers earlier.

Kman

Joe:

For once, I agree with you completely.

I got flamed by the usual crowd when I suggested that the two issues (pdf and suppression) were linked, and the larger issue was more likely the cause of the sp being pulled.

Also, just like the beta bug reporting Cadalyst article, you can see that SW is going to get criticized for both/either saying or not saying a given thing. Since the consequences of doing either is the same, why not just do what is easiest.

I also liked your point that if any of these folks who are so obnoxious here had to speak to anyone face to face, their tone would be much different, and that being obnoxious is of no benefit.

matt

"Joe Dunne" wrote in news:DfzQb.87$6% snipped-for-privacy@news.level.com:

pulled.

something

serious

SolidWorks

matt you are a grovelling toad. if I was standing in front of you I would say the same thing.

If the consequence is truly the same either way why be deceiving? The truth shall set you free. If SW would try the truth every once in a while we could see the difference it makes. This chicken or the egg stuff has to stop. Sucking because you're afraid of being criticized for sucking? It makes no sense.

- Eddy

Eeeuu!!

Well, I believe that being "upfront" has more upsides than downsides, and although there may be some who would shout about something if they knew the "real" reason and that reason didn't please them there WOULD be others of us who would post back in defense of being upfront. I know I would. I honestly believe there would be significant others as well. We tend to be more unreasonable, collectively, in the ABSENCE of information than in the PRESENCE of information.

I don't think that giving or supporting a corporate rationale for being secretive is helpful, Matt. And (Neil) I don't think that flaming a person who represents a view contrary to your own is very helpful either.

Mark 'Sporky' Staplet>

yeah I know : ) ...but it was fun....not enough fun in this world....