1. Home
  2. Solidworks CAD Design software
  3. SW 2004 Bugs, per Solidworks

SW 2004 Bugs, per Solidworks

Following from:

formatting link
sure makes me feel good to know that the product was released with over 200 verified Bugs!

Also,there was a note that SW plans to release SW 2005 this summer! I'm still waiting for SP2 of 2004 to stay released before I give in to

2004.

I have to say, this game of a completely new release every year, with no backward compatibility, is becoming a royal pain when trying to deal with outside vendors who are sometimes behind and sometimes ahead on revisions. How about fixing the bugs in the current version and letting us use it for a while before forcing us to start over?

Just one users thoughts.

-Mike

1,057 Bugs Found in SolidWorks 2004 in Company-sponsored Beta Contest

Chris Garcia, VP of R&D at SolidWorks also cited some impressive QA statistics at the press dinner Monday night. SolidWorks worked with more than 3,600 users during beta testing for SolidWorks 2004. There was a competition to see who could find the most problems. After 4,776 hours of usage, a total of 1,057 verified bugs were identified. Garcia said that 80% of those bugs were fixed before first customer ship of the new release on September 8, 2003.

Incentive prizes included a HP workstation and several i-Pods, with users earning points according to how many bugs they discovered. The top five performers by points were:

Jason Caprioti: 445 Stefan Berlitz: 393 Scott McFadden: 392 Casey Kimes: 233 Clarence Ivester: 231 Garcia said a similar beta test program for the next release will being in May. The goal is to capture 2,100 bugs ? twice as many as the previous release.

Reply to
Mike Atlas
Loading thread data ...

Hmmmm..... how do you choose which 200 are in the best interest of the customer to leave out? (you can't). How do you release a new version in less than every 12 months, that isn't backward compatible, in the best interest of the customer (you can't).

They know exactly what they are doing and why. Problem is... most of us have it figured out by now, or are just starting to figure it out. I say no more revenue from maintenance until they start earning it again. And I won't play their game of forced updates based on incompatibility. It used to be a functional matter. Now it's a matter of principle.

- Eddy

formatting link
It sure makes me feel good to know that the product was released with

Reply to
Eddy Hicks

"Garcia said a similar beta test program for the next release will being in May. The goal is to capture 2,100 bugs - twice as many as the previous release."

2005 is actually coming out in May! I don't care if they call it Alpha or Beta 0. It'll still be SP0 to me!

Are they setting themselves up for more bugs or what!

Reply to
Jeff N

SW 2004 is meant to be SW 2.0.04. in may, we'll got the 2.0.05. wait until the 2.1 for a stable version just like an open source softtware. you could use the soft but please report the bug. SW is a non free opensource-like :)

Xand

Reply to
TTB

... so much for my speculation that the next release would be '04+

Reply to
kenneth b

I guess this means that each new feature will have at least three bugs in it.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----

formatting link
The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups

---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Reply to
Mike J. Wilson

this by itself does not really bother me. If you waited to fix EVERY bug, then you would never release any software.

The problem is the severity of those known bugs.

-Cuts defined to offset from surface are broken. That never should have gotten out the door.

-Random suppression of features. Again, never should have been released.

-PDF printing is bro....oh wait....

-I know there're other bugs out there that are very annoying. Add you favorite here!

Some bugs really don't matter. If there's a quick, easy workaround, it's not that big of a deal. The problem is when there is no workaround, and SW knows this, and releases the software anyways because of the marketing-droids.

-nick e.

p.s. actually, there is one more problem. 200 verified bugs. I am pretty sure that a good number of bugs I have submitted to my VAR are ones they didn't know about. Bugger SW.

Reply to
Nick E.

formatting link
It sure makes me feel good to know that the product was released with

Reply to
Rocko

well 80 % fixed sounds good -it was generous of some users to find their pre release problems for them -however it still hasn't helped their own internal quality control...the real problem, witness a canned sp2. SW2005 will have to be absolutely outstanding feature wise--splines control,many weld types, speed improvement etc. to maintain my loyalty through another sp circus. why do we have this PR bravado when we should be getting an apology? i'm getting sick of this 3 monkeys approach to customers. a more suitable goal might be to be to write software where testers can only find 525 bugs.... ok whinge over

Reply to
neil

It's all part of their new "Suck a little less" program.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----

formatting link
The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups

---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Reply to
Mike J. Wilson

Reply to
kellnerp

SW blinking out of existence for no good reason.

Jim S.

Reply to
Jim Sculley

Until you realize that there are probably more bugs that weren't discovered than bugs that were. They are like cockroaches. If you see

2, there are 200 nearby.

Jim S.

Reply to
Jim Sculley

also, that's just the bugs that they acknowledge. Kinda like MS. It's not a bug or security hole until there's a lot of bad press about it.

-nick e.

Reply to
Nick E.

Someone call the exterminator!

Kman

Reply to
Kman

No what this shows is why software companies do not want to be open with some users. Every software product on the market has the exact same issues. Developing software is imperfect. You guys SCREAM for more openness and forthcoming. Yet you then SCREAM when you get a little insight.

Was this statement smart? Apparently not. You have proved one thing.

"The truth? You can't handle the truth"

If any software product fixed every known bug. It would never ship. It is always a matter of a balancing act. That is reality. That is until Cybernetics Corp takes over and writes it's own product.

Maybe SW would actually be willing to participate on this forum if it wasn't just a exercise in futility.

Many of the posts here are being written directly by Autodesk personnel. Turns out that 3 Autodesk personnel actually attended SWW under false identities. They got caught sneaking out at the end of the event. How many are doing the same here?. Hell Autodesk put out a full page advertisement in Boston Globe, USA today and New York Times directed at SWW participants attacking SW, on Tuesday. You just have to realize the dynamics that are taking place at a higher level. Very nasty.

formatting link
It sure makes me feel good to know that the product was released with

Reply to
<home

No what this shows is why software companies do not want to be open with some users. Every software product on the market has the exact same issues. Developing software is imperfect. You guys SCREAM for more openness and forthcoming. Yet you then SCREAM when you get a little insight.

Was this statement smart? Apparently not. You have proved one thing.

"The truth? You can't handle the truth"

If any software product fixed every known bug. It would never ship. It is always a matter of a balancing act. That is reality. That is until Cybernetics Corp takes over and writes it's own product.

Maybe SW would actually be willing to participate on this forum if it wasn't just a exercise in futility.

Many of the posts here are being written directly by Autodesk personnel. Turns out that 3 Autodesk personnel actually attended SWW under false identities. They got caught sneaking out at the end of the event. How many are doing the same here?. Hell Autodesk put out a full page advertisement in Boston Globe, USA today and New York Times directed at SWW participants attacking SW, on Tuesday. You just have to realize the dynamics that are taking place at a higher level. Very nasty.

formatting link
It sure makes me feel good to know that the product was released with

Reply to
<home

Yaaahh ... methinks THIS post is written by a SolidWorks employee.

'Sporky' PS, I am NOT and would never sto> No what this shows is why software companies do not want to be open with

Reply to
Sporkman

Ok, come clean...

Who are you? Who from ade$k was caught at SWW? What posters are ade$k employees? Where are the Boston Globe, USA Today and NY Times articles? Who at ade$k's higher level? (I don't doubt this, adesk is scum)

BTW, who is paranoid at SW Corp?? You and a few others maybe?

Just the facts, mam.

..

snipped-for-privacy@home.com wrote:

Reply to
Paul Salvador

Another corporate group hug load of crap. All we ask is that priorities be placed on the issues that matter. Fix the clipping in 2003 before forcing down another road of "can't go back". Concentrate on surfacing bugs, lofting bugs, random suppression bugs, backward compatibility issues, etc. in 2004. Then worry about new "features" and business relationships like bluebeam. Not only can we handle the truth, we are the truth.

Don't flatter yourselves, ade$k wouldn't waste much time in here. I used to deal with those monolithic asses on a weekly basis, until jumping ship and going with SW. If you think SW thinks they can get away with murder, you must remember that ade$k defined the genre. That was around 1997. The reason we jumped back then, for the same behavior that SW is handing out now. Statistics, glossy brochure "features" to attract new users, all while messing with the long term stability of a package that we bought and depended on for billable time.

Eddy Hicks Solid Logic Design Inc.

formatting link

847-428-1166

(no secrets here)

Reply to
Eddy Hicks

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.