SW Stability Nightmares

Try some of those options and see what you get.

Maintenance is important in keeping a computer stable. But also the problem maybe the user... as you have already pointed out. Is the user a click happy person? If so, have him slow his clicks down. I have seen click happy people have more crashes then someone that is willing to wait a few more seconds.

Regards, Scott

What kind of permissions do the users have ? Are they allowed full access ?

90% of all SW crashes are caused by video problems. Are the video "drivers" the same ?? With Nvidia, newer is seldom better with regards to SW. I use 43.51 with single monitor systems, and 53.03 with duals. I see on the SW site that the tested and approved drivers for your cards are 44.03 and 53.03. Are you using one of these, or whatever came on the CD ? If you are using all approved drivers, are they all configured the same

As far as disk fragmentation, the page file is the only fragmented file that can cause crashing. We use Win2000, and a fresh system, with all the SP's applied "ALLWAYS" has a framented page file. It becomes even more so after it's adjusted to the proper 2x physical memory. This can (and will) cause SW to crash. There are two ways to fix it. One is to move it to a different partition, defragment the partition where it was, and move it back. If you only have one partition, you need to use a defrag utillity that will defrag the page file, like Norton Speed Disk. Don't use the defrag that comes with windows. It's totally usless, and doesn't really work. Allways set the page file to a fixed value. Allowing it to adjust itself between min-max values causes fragmentation.

The problem might also be some marginal memory sticks. SW uses tons of physical memory. The objects (solid models) being shuffled around are incredibly complex. One little hiccup can cause the whole thing to collapse. Try moving the memory sticks from a machine that crashes, to one that doesn't. If the problem follows the parts, you've found your problem.... "apples and apples" shouldn't be assumed. Sometimes one'll have a worm in it that you can't see.

Regards

Mark

I'll add two possibilities, beside the other helpful mentions, which I know have been related to crashes in the past... a faulty mouse or keyboard... and they're usually inexpensive and easy to replace, or exchange the device(s) with your good ones to test or rule out them being the source of the crashes.

It's most likely a faulty graphics card but for kicks, since you have the same graphics card as he does, just swap them and see if that's the problem?

Or, for a real control, just swap computers (since they are the same) to remove all the excuses from him!

..

Simcoe Warrior wrote:

Guys thanks for the tips, it gives me some other options I hadn't tried.

And yes, this guy an Autocad clicker with the mouse.

Clean out each users temp directory.

If that doesn't fix it and some more radical action is indicated:

First try repairing the installation with Add/Remove Software.

When you get this kind of thing, one of the first things to try is to delete the SW folder in LOCAL_USER in the registry. Don't try this if you don't know what you are doing.

You might also run SiSoft Sandra on each machine and see if it picks up on anything.

If on XP you can also try rolling back to when it did work.

...snip

I have watched impatient users repeatedly crash software (not only SWX) because they wouldn't wait for the computer to finish it's current task.

You should never be clicking ahead when the hourglass indicates that the program is finishing a task. If you click a button more than once without a response -- WAIT. If not, then you should expect it to crash, even though many times it won't.

I realize that there are some softwares out there that allow this, but SWX ain't one of them.

This type of behavior is something that it very difficult to test in a lab and so is not tolerated very well.

FWIW,

Todd

We have three identical machines for the three designers here. We are all working on the same project right now and often work on the same parts. Crashes come and go. Sometimes one of us will go weeks without a crash. A few days later the same person will crash four or five times in an hour. The variation seems to be mostly tied to the parts or assemblies we are working on, but the pattern isn't at all obvious. Crashing seems to be more likely when we are using a lot of memory (1 to 2 GB), but we sometimes crash when we are only using about 0.5 GB. Crashing seems to be more likely when we've been running for a long time, but we sometimes crash right after a reboot. Parts with errors seem to be the most likely to crash.

One of us has been using the 3 GB switch for several weeks now and it doesn't seem to have any effect on crashes. (It allows him to get up to 2 GB or more of virtual memory used instead of the 1.3 to 1.5 or so for the other two of us.) We've only got 1.5 GB of RAM on each machine, so it's possible that putting 3 GB of RAM on his machine would help.

It does seem that one of us has less crashes than the other two, so there may be something about his style of working that is less likely to cause crashes, but it may have more to do with the particular parts that he has worked more on.

We upgraded the guts of our systems, originally from XI, about a year ago and didn't notice any change in crash rates compared to the previous two years. We haven't gone to Dell or HP, but I haven't heard anything on the news group that says they are any better.

Jerry Steiger Tripod Data Systems "take the garbage out, dear"

When SolidWorks reprinted that from the article I wrote, they asked and included my name on it.

matt

"Scott" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@uni-berlin.de:

I included your name!

I forgot to say that we went for the expensive Corsair RAM when we upgraded and it didn't seem to make any difference compared to the much cheaper Kingston RAM, either in speed or in crash susceptibility.

Jerry Steiger Tripod Data Systems "take the garbage out, dear"

Hi Scott!

Long time no speak... I only have one issue here... "Click happy users" tend to be productive people. They are likely trying to get work out. This requires them to "click things". Lately, SldWks is crashing a lot on me. Many times it feels of "click death". However, no matter what Corp. SldWks says, or you. I should _NEVER_ be able to "click death" the software. This is a _PROBLEM_ that has for many releases now gone unchecked. Don't begin to tell me I am "faster" than my P4 computer. If SldWks can't process mouse clicks faster than I can make them SldWks ain't written for shit...

Well... Somebody or lots of somebody's need to be shit-canned in the development dept. Bottom line the software should be _hella_ faster than I could ever be. The only thing that could prevent that from being the case is a _PROBLEM_ in the software.

Why should we as users have to "wait a few more seconds" to do something? The software should work _AT_LEAST_ as fast as I can click. (Of course long regens etc, not to be considered here)

Bottome line, your "click happy" justification for "user problem" = not acceptable. No if's, and's or but's about it...

Not trying to be a dick Scott. Your heart is in the right place, you just have the bad position of trying to make excuses for software that ain't for shit sometimes... Some days good people have to defend bad things.

Regards,

Sean

Your complinats are valid and are in the right place, but all I'm trying to do is help this user understand what can happen if his user is a click happy person. If the Hourglass is up and your 3 steps ahead of SW... It crashes. if you want to complain, take to SW and not to me. I don't care about your complaints! That's not my department, again take that to SW or your VAR not me! What have you done to help this user understand what a good solution is in your post?

This user is looking for ways to help with his problem now, not 3 weeks, months, or years from now. He has to have a solution today or ASAP. You have not provided a solution here in your post. So if you want to complain take it else where, because all I'm trying to do is help this user out with a solution and not a negative response like yours.

This Forum spends to much time complaining about this, that, and the other. When all, some users want, is to find an answer. When the subject line of a post in this forum is relavent to complaint's, then GREAT complain to your heart's desire I don't care. Hell maybe I'll join in if I agree, that's fine. No need to bash someone for helping. That's unprofessional IMO. Instead of being so negative and taking your issues out on me CALL SW & COMPLAIN to them ASAP! don't point it at me or others out here. Some of us are here to help whether you like it or not. Remember someday you might be backed into a corner... and maybe I have the answer... then again maybe I don't... then again.

Sorry I don't remember you Sean...?

Regards, Scott

>