SW Corp, Consistently Inconsistent,... paying for SW Corp mistakes.

There's been a bit of news in the CPU world lately that might apply. Intel and AMD are both making noise about virtualization on their multi-core processors. Essentially, these systems will be able to run multpile OSs simultaneously, and the OSs won't know anything about it. You can even BSoD an OS without disturbing the others. This should be available in the next year or so, I think. I don't know if it will be available on chips lesser than the Opteron and Xeon.

Not that I agree that a pure SW box is the only way to have a stable platform.

Cliff,

Wish I still had a copy of the $7M PO to HP when one of my customers was "forced" to upgrade almost 500 Unix workstations due to unanticipated increases in system requirements going from V11 to V13. Too bad the UG reps didn't help the customer plan better.

I also recall some "certified" $70K graphics accelerators that choked in certain situations. Guess the new certification technician must have missed something : )

There was also some boasting about fixing "production stopping bugs" in 24 hours. That promise wasn't kept.

I haven't seen any greener grass.

John

seems like it would be simpler (and maybe even cheaper) to just have another machine running. bill

Oh, really? When was the last time you used UG? NX2 was fairly stable imho but, I could crash it. I can guarentee you this, I can crash most programs, regardless of OS you give me! Sorry, I'm braggin, I have some sorta knack for finding bugs and crashes.

..

Wow, that's dated information, from a SW VAR. I've seen millions wasted in the past as well so I wouldn't argue the possible cost. But who's fault was it really!? How about engineering management for being short sighted? Hell, many managers are idiots, and good news for most VAR's, that's a fact!

UG is a good piece of software, HP on the other hand doe not sell cheap unix hardware, they have steadily gone downhill imho.

..

Mike,

I just want to make one thing clear, my complaints are not about the OS or hardware. My complaints are about the software, SolidWorks. I've owned enough software and hardware and used different OS's to know, (I'm not trying to sound arrogant or sound like a know it all). Sure, having a good a running computer and regular maintenance should always be a priority but that is not my issue. And, having two seperate machines is nice for some but that would not resolve the issues I have with SolidWorks (btw, I have two other machines, again, not a fix or the issues I have with SolidWorks).

..

Must have me mixed up with another poster.

Kman

Did I say that, you must have you got the wrong guy

Kman

I did it this way for a reason. After looking at the alternatives (as you listed) I choose this way for the following reasons:

Yes, you can. However, now you are at the "mercy" of yet another piece of software that is "hooking" into the startup procedure for your machine. If for whatever reason this gets "buggered", you may be out of luck getting the system to boot at all.

There are hardware switches that allow you to switch between as many as four seperate drives. I don't like them becasue a.) they need a hard drive bay for install, taking up room that could be used for another drive b.) it is a mechanical switch in the cable i.e. each drive has a cable going to the switch, with one cable coming out. This is four more cables that have to be routed in the box (messy at best). With drives being where they are speed-wise, the shortest path is the best. Having all this cable length is not a good thing. Plus the switch itself. If one bit is bad, the whole thing is junk.

IMO, my setup is cleaner. I have a permanent "Z:Data" drive in the machine on IDE2. The removeable drive is on IDE1 master. DVD burner is slave to IDE1. I keep all my data for everything on Z:. So, if I am expecting files from someone, I put in my "Outlook" drive with all the mandatory anti-virus etc. and do my downloads. Data that has been tested and clean is stored on Z. When it's time to do work, I switch drives (takes a couple of minutes to shut down, swap, and re-boot) but now I am working a a "solid" work environment. BTW, having the Z drive with just data allows for very fast defrags of that drive (and virus checks for good measure when I am running the C drive with AVG

Also, I have an external drive (firewire) that I do backups to. In this case, I simply COPY the enitre Z drive to the external backup verbatim. If for whatever reason the Z drive should die, I have an exact copy of all the data ready to be copied back to the replacement if the need should arise. Without missing but the time it takes to swap the external drive into the box, I could forgo copying data back to the new drive and simply remove it from tthe external case and install it into the "box'. The new (usually faster and bigger) external replacement goes back ready for backing up again.

This takes about a day to get all setup, but I never worry about crashed systems (at the worst, it means a day of installing the OS and SW) should something go wrong. As my data is always backed up, I never worry about that drive as well. I have looked at "drive copy" software like Norton "Ghost" but it is not very good. In the "old days" this worked very well. Now, not at all (whole 'nother topic). I've found it easier to just do things the way I am.

"seems like it would be simpler (and maybe even cheaper) to just have another machine running. bill"

There has also been some suggestions that a whole "dedicated" box (multiple machines) is an answer. Been there - done that. Unless you have the room (let's forget about the money!), you either have to maintain multiple monitors, keyboards, mice. I have been the route of multiple boxes that are tied together through a KVM switch (keyboard, video, mouse). But here's my take on that: I would rather spend the money on a machine that has as much CPU as I can afford, maxed out memory and good video card in one box and swap drives, then have multiple boxes that are sub-par. Unless money is no object (umm, not around here), that's not a solution. KVM switches are not all they promise: the biggest "gotcha" is that they emulate the mouse. If you have a fancy mouse with lots of buttons that you are used to using, be prepared for it to go away. Though the KVM people claim they can "pass though" the mouse, I have yet to see one work. Secondly, video. These are signals that need to be clean. You WILL spend more for good video cables (and don't be fooled by the KVM cable packages that offer everything; the video cable will be junk). If you are running anything above 800x600, with a "standard" cable you will see artifacts and ghosting, at the very least. And the second monitor (you are using two monitors...?) will only work on one system.

Another thing to consider: I have a box here that I use for just electronic CAD. Why not use the one I have and swap drives like I have been suggesting? Because, in this case, the apps that I use are old. How old? DOS! Yep, DOS. So I have this Win98 machine with OrCAD Capture 7.2 (Windows schematic capture and netlist generation program). I "froze" this at this version because it was the last version to output a netlist in the format that the DOS based PCB layout software could read. I design simple electronics (toys) and have no need for a bloated PCB layout package. So here's the deal: the DOS software was designed to run on 386 CPU (remember?). The drivers for the video are card specific. This is the only downside, I have to keep a stock of old PCI based video cards just in case. Anyway, the PCB layout software taxed a 386 box. Now, I run it on a P4 1.8Ghz (or something, I forget exactly) with a "ton" of memory. This is so fast it's scary. In the old days, you would route a board with ground plane turned off because it took so long to "pour" the copper. Now, I can route THROUGH THE GROUND PLANE COPPER in realtime! Think about the software you use to do a job. If editing a picture, do you need the latest version of Photoshop, or would V5.5 work? Remember, software guys WILL write code that will bring the latest boxes to their knees. Take an app from a couple of years ago and run it. You'll be amazed at how much faster they run. May not work in all cases, but something to keep in mind.

Mike Tripoli

On 11 Mar 2005 09:15:03 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

Sorry Kman, It was the post above yours :-S Nice to see that UG is defended the same way as sillyworks is though. Must be the PC, no no , it must be the OS, no no no, it must be the USER, Good god!, anything except the SOFTWARE, never on your life!, lol

Get a life, if more than one person is having problems, running the same software, then it MUST be the software! Not the PC, or the OS, or even the USER!

No software can be perfectly written, every piece ever written, has bugs. It's about time the software vendors admitted this and stop putting the blame on to everything else. "Lock-ups", are the sign of some very badly written code, pure and simple. Saying that UG is not known for "lock-ups", is in effect, calling that post writer, a liar.

Solidworks also do tests on hardware and software, so no difference's there then.

Iso9000 is just a way of saying that procedures are followed and that any abnormities are recorded. It does not mean that the software is perfect or that "lock-ups" do not occur. Even our local trash collectors have Iso9000, this does not mean that they will never forget to empty a trashcan, lol

BTW the post that I was referring too, was Gil's. Just as a point, even I have Iso9000 certification, but as you have seen, I can still make mistakes! :-O

That last part was for Cliff.

True, There isn't any perfect software. However, companies that stand behind their products recognize their mistakes, admit they have made mistakes, then rectify their mistakes. I get on SolidWorks case because they have a lousy record of performing the last two of three, then audaciously charge their customers for the first, second and third.

I have been on multiple ISO9000 steering committees over the years of companies working towards certification and those that have been certified. ISO principles often don't work, not because the concept is flawed, because management is flawed in their thinking and commitment. For the most part management trivializes and manipulates the certification process to reflect their own egos and personal ambitions. Anyone ever come across "the design control document wasn't filled out properly, so lets fill in the blanks, sign and post date". There isn't one company that I have worked for that doesn't practice this on a routine basis. Or lets make sure we find an agent that will work with us at audit time. Then management complains quite loudly to anyone that will listen, how much money they have invested to become certified and they aren't reaping the much greatly anticipated benefits and profits. What do you say to people like that.

Makes you wonder how SW gets through their audits with a passing grade.

Kman

Doesn't SolidWorks need Microsoft word to do certain tasks? I want to setup my computer this way although it does add more costs. But I have a few questions. I run CAM on my computer and it runs inside SolidWorks, this program needs Microsoft Access. Also what about saving drawings as PDF, now I need Adobe Acrobat. So before I know it I am adding to the list of essential programs to get the job done. It sounds like you are recommending no Office but it looks like I need them. I am not being sarcastic.

Ok Cliff , no politics, no explanations, no beating around the bush, no if's or buts, no "in my opinion or experience", just one straight one word answer, without any futher comments, additions or p.s's.

Yes or No.

Can UG lock-up a system?

Tough one I know, but just for once, see if you can do it.

Obviously you did not read the question! Maybe Jon is right about you, after all, lol Just prove him wrong, just once?

Soooooo... where in your reply, is that one word answer?

Do you use UG?

I think you really need to read this whole thread again, and there you will find the answer to your question and the reasons for my question. Especially yours and my posts in this thread.

I really do not believe you are asking these questions!