SW 2004 - Why?

It really all comes down to your personal comfort level.

Many of us are just tech junkies who cannot wait for the next best thing, be it SWX 2005, Athlon 64, Half-Life 2, 2006 Corvette, or the like.

Personally, I believe that SWX stability problems are usually blown out of porportion here, but that is my opinion. It is human nature to be more vocal over problems.

Bottom line, if you don't feel comfortable with changing to the latest and greatest, don't. Just don't let your aversion to change hold you back.

"alphadraw" wrote in news:bk7d8d$ogp$ snipped-for-privacy@titan.btinternet.com:

Some people just love new stuff. Plus, there are a lot of improvements in the new software, so some people upgrade because of the new stuff. Some people are just curious. I'll bet some people still use the old software while they are checking out the new software in their "spare time". I'm kind of in that mode now, I have 2 projects due in SW03, and chomping at the bit to use 04 because I know that some of the difficulties in the project could be avoided with the new software, but the customer requires deliverables in 03 native.

The first thing you should know about this group is that you cannot take everything people say seriously. There are some people that complain because it is Tuesday and the sun is shining. The first thing they see that they don't understand, they fire a flamer to the NG, don't bother to figure out what it was that they saw or why it is that way or if it was their own fault or anything. If something is wrong, it can only mean that Solidworks is evil.

The people that are successful with the software tend to pose questions about things they don't understand rather than yell out simple unchallengeable blanket statements that something is wrong with the software and the people that write it.

Because there are new features and functions that make life easier.

Well, don't imply that the people using the new software aren't working as well. There are quite a few that I know that have been using 2004 for money making work even in beta. I think you're listening a little too closely to people who post more for theatrical effect than to give useful information.

matt.

I would have to pretty much agree here as we upgrade when we see the benefits outweigh the risk. If there are new features or bug fixes that we see as beneficial, then we decide when to jump. One example is the limit mates in SW2004. Our products are custom machines that all deal with motion and the limit mate will certainly help visualize & analyze the motion.

I have been "using" 2003 and "playing" with 2004 to get a feel for it, and also to check out if certain bugs are still there. The main thing to keep in mind is that once you switch to a new version, there's no turning back. Too bad, but I understand.

WT

alphadraw wrote on 16.9.2003 18:20

Bleadingedge is my hometown.

I also switched to 2003 a few months ago - in fact, just before the beta's for 2004 started. I joined the beta program, and found very quickly that

2004 had much more to offer than the switch from 2001+ to 2003. In fact, the waste of time for me was that switch. Should have waited for 2004! And for my use, I find 2004 a much better workflow. So far, I have had no crashes with 2004sp0, which seems better than I was having with 2003sp3/4.

But at the same time, there are clearly some bugs and odd behaviors. But at the moment it is worth the risk as there are features I need and that have solved some tricky modeling problems.

Choice! we make 'em every day. Good and bad. If it works it works. But did I mention my hometown? I always love to go home.... :-)

Cheers! Daniel

daniel wrote on 16.9.2003 20:22

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

I knew if I wrote that I would be jinxed! I should have knocked on wood... Just saw my lovely desktop faster than expected. Mating some parts.... :-((

Get back on the horse....

Everyone's needs are different. I'm still happily running 2001Plus.

And you mention not upgrading so your suppliers won't have to upgrade. Well, there's one reason right there why a lot of people upgrade: because an important customer has upgraded so now you have to as well. It sounds like you are in a situation where you're setting the trend. Not everyone has that luxury.

The same vicious cycle harrasses MS Office users. I still have Office 97 on my home PC but here in the workplace you reach a point where it's just easier to upgrade than to repeatedly ask people to resend that attachment in an older file format (and you usually have to explain to them in detail how to do it). (Hopefully OpenOffice.org will put an end to that.)

And another reason to upgrade is to justify the maintenance cost. It's hard to watch that colorful shrinkwrapped box gather dust when you know you paid good money for it.

Joel Moore

"alphadraw" wrote in news:bk7d8d$ogp$ snipped-for-privacy@titan.btinternet.com:

Took me quite a while to go to 2003 (it was March, I think), mostly because I won't switch horses in midstream on a project. Since my projects tend to be large assemblies (machine design, largely) it's often a good while before I get to the bitter end of one and begin another. BUT, there are others who don't have that kind of limitation . . . specifically product designers like Paul Salvador. He and many others want the best bang for their hours spent, and although the chance of getting burned is substantial, it's not overwhelming on small projects.

'Spork'

alphadraw wrote:

I found a way round the "not going back" problem! I installed two harddrive caddies onto my XPPro machine and this allows me to "play" with 03 and 04 without having to re-install! just a thought! Pete

The maintenance program is strong temptation for a software vendor to misbehave.

Joe Dunfee

snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Smiley) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com:

Ah! A conspiracy buff!

But seriously I can't imagine any vendor purposely adding bugs to convince customers that maintenance is worth the money. Only because bugs will happen anyway without purposely sticking them in there.

I suppose someday in a distant Utopian future when machines are able to write perfect software then maybe bug insertion to guarantee revenue will become common.

Joel Moore

I think I agree but not as far as "bug insertion" but more along the lines of complacency. We've all seen it before. Once the contract is in place they are free to be complacent about fixing things. They come out with releases but the truly important things don't always seem to come up quickly. As if to say "we'll get to it"... Human nature and corporate nature not to work as hard at something once you've already been paid. These arrangements start out trustworthy but how can you be sure priorities are being managed effectively? Hey, I'm guilty of paying for maintenance too, every year, because it always seemed like cheap insurance but I understand where this kind of opinion comes from (Possibly not next time around though. SW 2003 has been a constant source of frustration).

- Eddy

I doubt deliberate bugs. But, Solidworks witholds maintenance releases from nonsubscribers. This creates an situation where there is financial value in the bugs. Even if the bugs aren't deliberate, there is certainly much less modivation avoid releasing them in the first place.

Joe Dunfee

snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Smiley) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com:

THAT I can agree with.

Patches should be free, but not major releases... Even Microsoft has this policy and it's a miracle that SW gets away with it!

/ Mr Atari

"Joel Moore" skrev i meddelandet news:Xns94097D3161184asdsadfgasdgadsa@130.81.64.196...