Well, it's that time of the year for us.. and my bosses dont seem
eager to want to pay for the subscription. I've been awaiting SW 2005
greatly and have been on the beta, and like it very much. But to get
2005, we'll have to stay on the subscription.
What i'm asking is.. What would be the major benefits of keeping the
subscription so that it looks like it's worth it for the bosses to
fork over the cash? Tech support is my number one.. When i'm in a
pinch they've always helped me out (in fact i needed help just
yesterday). But it's hard to put a dollar value on that. Obviously
upgrading to 2005 is a big thing, but i'm unsure which features to
show off to the bosses to make it seem like getting 2005 is worth the
money. Does anyone have any special feature they'd like to point out?
i'm not gonna make them read a huge "whats new" pdf, most of the stuff
in there doesn't change productivity all that much..
Thanks for your input,
Well, since everybody's needs are different, I can only recommend that you
skim over the What's New Guide and make a guestimate of home much time the
new stuff will save over the course of a year. Multiply that by your burden
rate for a year and see if it's more than the cost of suscription.
Unfortunately, this is the way of all modern engineering software, not just
If you have to collaborate and share data with the outside world, you almost
"have" to remain current.
Andre, I have to question myself about what Subscription Service is
worth, and from year to year it seems less "worth" to me in my
business. But my business is not your business, of course. I'm a
freelancer, and although it's rather likely I'll run into a situation
where I'll have to accept files in a later version of SolidWorks than I
have on hand (IF I accept the job), the inconvenience of that may not
"cost" me as much as Subscription Service would. Frankly, I don't NEED
technical support from SolidWorks Corporation very much. I get about
everything I need in that vein free, from participation and the
participants in this newsgroup. If I absolutely have to go to a new
version of SolidWorks sometime, I believe (people please correct me if
I'm wrong) that I can pay a one-time fee of several hundred less than
the yearly maintenance fee of $1295, even though that doesn't get me
technical support or service packs. I've learned to hang back on the
use of new versions of SolidWorks, and sometimes I hang back a very long
time . . . and for good reason. SolidWorks Corporation has become very
well known for putting out releases that are buggy as Hell (and with no
good excuses for it) -- so buggy they're hardly worth using unless one
really REQUIRES whatever extra functionality is included. I don't find
that often to be the case, and unless you're someone like Paul Salvador
you probably wouldn't either.
This time around I'm fairly likely to skip SolidWorks 2004 almost
entirely (as I did with SolidWorks 2001, and without and dire
consequences) and go directly to SolidWorks 2005 . . . WHEN I'M DRIVEN
TO IT or when the messages on this newsgroup indicate that it's VERY
worth my while to do it. I suggest you approach the question of
"upgrading" with at least as much thought as I've given it. Although
your bosses' motivation is likely to be less logical and more about
saving money (whether wisely or no) it actually MAY NOT be in the best
interests of your company to pay for Subscription Service . . . at least
not on all of your seats. You can always maintain one seat (even while
not necessarily "upgrading" it) IF it's likely that your office will
have to accept files in later formats AND keep their parametric
history. If you don't really need parametric history you don't really
need the upgrade at all -- just get your files in IGES, STEP, ACIS or
Parasolid translations. Only you and they can judge whether you really
need continuous upgrade options and technical support, but I suggest you
think about it carefully and with an open mind.
Mark 'Sporky' Stapleton
Watermark Design, LLC
How about compatability. If you use vendors or exchnage files with
others using SolidWorks and they are on the next version and your not
it's impossible for you to open and use their files. Natively anyway.
It's quite possible for a company with several seats NOT to need more
than one seat on the latest-and-(NOT)greatest release. IF parametric
history is NEEDED, that's one thing, but if all you need to do is USE
geometry from later versions then you only really need ONE seat that
will import a file natively and then export to Parasolid (or IGES, or
STEP or ACIS). I'm suggesting that a very large proportion of those
companies that maintain all their seats on Subscription Service really
don't NEED to do so and they may be financially better off by NOT doing
so. And frankly, a fairly large proportion of companies declining to
renew their Subscription Service MIGHT just get SolidWorks Corporation
thinking more about how they can make Subscription Service more valuable
to their customers. I'm not suggesting a boycott (as I did at one
time). I'm just suggesting that people do some careful and impartial
I kinda agree with you on most points. However, situations do vary allot. We
just got a whole shitload of files, from a new customer, in SW2004 format.
In this case (and most others with us) we need the features. We'll also need
four or five people working on the data at the same time, so we have little
choice. At times it seems like paying protection to the Mob.
Y'know, mi Amigo, that's to be expected. Many companies WOULD need to
keep their seats -- all or maybe just several -- up to date. But I'd
almost be willing to bet that there might be just as many (if not more)
companies who WOULDN'T actually NEED that. Actually I suspect that I'm
more likely to need it (as a freelancer) than most companies would, and
I've just about decided that I DON'T (need it).
Mark (or anyone), d'ya know for sure whether yer can get the one-time
upgrade on a seat from yer VAR? I think the cost I read (on the
newsgroup here) was like $700 or something similar. If you let your
maintenance lapse they tack on a reinstallation fee to reinstate
Subscription Service, but would they do that for a one-time upgrade? I
know my VAR remains mum on the subject -- obviously doesn't want to talk
about it, and I don't blame him if $700 is really the deal.
Yea,... It's gotta be tough to swallow if your a one man band. Around here,
they've chalked it up to the cost of doing business. Still bugs the hell
outa me though.
Seem's you and Paul S. are pretty much in the same boat in that regard. You
may want to ask his opinion. Make sure you're strapped in good and tight for
the response though.
Sure would be nice if it's true. You wait till the dust settles, fork over a
couple of C notes and your done.
Mastercam used to be like that. You pay a fixed fee, 10%, for an upgrade
whenever you want. All the patches and fixes are free, and you don't need a
maintenance contract to get them. They're changing their system to be more
in line with the "shakedown" policies of everyone else. I'm still not to
clear on the details. I suspect the got some bean counter/marketing types
involved. The old way wasn't generating enough revenue I guess. It always
amazes me how marketing slimeballs can put a spin on a ripoff to make it
sound like your getting a better deal. It's just a laughably tranparent
scheme to generate money with zero effort. But, I guess there's alot of
people that fall for it.
Hey Spork, ***snip***
After being laid off last October, I am also on my own, and I up graded to
SW 2004 from 2001Plus, and it cost me the subsription price ($1295.00) PLUS
a $500.00 "penalty".
So, I guess it all depends on how long you wait.
Hey Mark and Mark,
I hear you guys on both sides..
I sympathize with Spork because of past issues and have come close to
skipping my subscription 2-3 times.
But, I do have active clients with SW and it was a factor for me keeping
the subscription active, especially last year (which was a twist because
SW2004 had a bad case of loft and trim surface issues and luckily my
contract stated specifically support only for the more stable service
pack, and that was a good/lucky thing!!).
Although, I did get some incentives from my var during those times which
allowed me to pay for X months of time instead of the full annual amount
(deferment). This worked out well because it also moved my annual date
out where I tend to be more active in the year.
There are quite a few independent consultants out there with the same
issues but I think most are still not pushing the software that much.
I wish I had stopped two of the times SW really sucked but I had to make
a decision and like some decisions (I don't own/operated a crystal ball)
are not good ones.
I still strongly feel we, the users, should have ALL been reimbursed for
the earlier problems and some of the later screw ups! It's my opinion
still that if the users recognize a significant fubar in the product
that there has to be some payback!
But hey, imho, dealing with corporate cowards seems to be the future...
and bending over and taking it is part of the game, well, unless you or
more really get f#@*^&!? Then, it's are real issue!?
SW2005 is finally addressing splines and that is an issue (with me)
which seems to be moving well or it's a good start so far.. also,
surface issues are looking good. I wish SW2005 was like this 6 years
ago (when I bought SW98), it's stable (for me) and it has features which
get me excited and hopeful.
SW2005 is a significant release so I don't know why anyone would hold
back but everyone has their own specific reasons.
For Andre, I'd suggest at least one license if you have a client who is
active and if things escalate on the project in support for SW2005, at
least you have ammo or a license and someone (train someone) with some
experience with SW2005.
Now, as MM said, beta is different from PR0 and SP0 so, we keep our
BTW, I've already done a few projects in SW2005 beta, it's that stable
for me. (yep, it's a risk but I also ride my mtn bike down twisting
roads at 50+mph for fun.)
Woa.... there partner !!! I'm truly shocked at the lack of clever cynicism.
No offense, but your calm demeanor bespeaks one of two things. Either you're
on heavy meds, or 2005 really is good. I didn't participate in this beta, so
I don't have a clue.
What about speed. Is it slower than 2004 ? We just built all new AMD 64's to
deal with that pig, all with 2gb of memory.
Paul Salvador wrote in
I envy the trails you must get to ride. I rarely get over 25. Ironcially,
one of the few places I do get going faster is back in the woods where I
should probably be more careful. I don't really know how fast Igo down
that hill because it's so rutted, I don't dare look down!
No, no meds, I've never taken drugs or subscription meds in my life.
I'm calm? Maybe mellow (my normal self) and less concern about what's
happening with SW lately.
I actually said something similar in the beta ng, for me, it's been
pretty good, and I'm impressed "or" I've been lucky (don't get me wrong,
there were some issues)??
Speed, I think some people noted it in the beta performance section but
unfortunately, the online beta discussion seems to be down right now?
Hmm, is beta officially over now??
Honestly, with all respect to beta and since it is not officially
released, or PR, the few things I have said are all good.
But, putting the past on the performance weegie board, something's get
faster, some get slower but when has everything gotten faster in a new
BTW, why not add the 3 gigs plus the 3GB switch for SW to access
Also, sorry again for not being able to meet with you when I was down in
I've been doing much more road riding (26" 100psi slicks on my old
Fisher HK2) these past years (the roads are good and the vistas are
great) than single track (which I use to do a lot of in and around the
Bay Area). The people riding single track around here are riding $3K
plus bikes, 5" plus travel frames, disc brakes (the only way, imho) and
As you can imagine, here you can turn into a tight blind corner with
pumice, bury your wheels at very high rates and someone or something
could be in the way!? It can get intense if your in a zone (that is,
the speed twilight zone where you start to loose focus) . So, I don't
blame you for going at a rate which you're comfortable, I've been doing
the same lately.
Where do you ride? Have you been out here to ride?
Dale Dunn wrote: