To SW

SW,
It seems painfully obvious that the WI install is a horrible failure.
It doesn't always work, and when it fails costs "Your Paying Customers"
hours of expensive downtime.
When It does work, it can take more than 20 times longer to install a SP.
Also costing "Your Paying Customers" hours of expensive downtime. This
usually means that the poor bastard responsible for upgrades and in house
maintenance has to work after hours or on weekends
It doesn't prevent piracy, doesn't even hinder it a tiny bit.
It eats up disk space like a ravenous pig
The roll back feature doesn't really work efficiently, and if time is
important, it's simpler and cleaner to uninstall and start over. ( doing
this with the install shield was many time faster and cleaner)
In short, there is "NO" tangible upside to using the WI installer.
Unlike some of the flakey, inconsistent, results you get with some of the
more esoteric modeling functions, this affects "everyone". I can't even
imagine the "living hell" of having to support 100 or 200 seats. There isn't
enough lipstick in the world to make this pig look good. If people continue
to have this much trouble, the outcry will only get louder and nastier
(trust me on this, look back in the NG)
Now, I don't know (for sure) what made you guys decide to drop Install
Shield in the first place. I did talk with Ian Baxter about it once, and he
told me one of the reasons was to keep the install from "thrashing existing
DLL's". I believe Ian was being truthfull, but I personally have never
experienced this problem in seven years of using Install Shield with SW.
I think the important thing is to give us a choice again. It really is a
major pain and expense for many of us. I know it will take additional time
to compile a different install, but maybe you can use some of the money you
saved from all the free BETA testing.
Regards
Mark
Reply to
Mark M
Loading thread data ...
Hear, hear!! Couldn't have said it better. I know that there were some calls in the NG for being able to selectively de-install service packs, but even complete reinstallation is better than having to wait both for the enormous download and the fairly high probability that you'll have to wait 30 minutes to an hour for an upgrade to complete . . . IF it completes. Please, please, please, give us a choice again.
'Sporky'
Mark M wrote:
Reply to
Sporkman
Can't agree more. Just spent two hours upgrading to 2.1 only to get an error message at the end. Seems to work OK but can I trust it. Dave R
Mark M wrote:
Reply to
Dave Rhodes
I spent the better part of a day trying to upgrade my own installation to 2.1. It seems there are some "special requirements" for admin image installs, which is how I did my install. In the end, I wound up uninstalling and reinstalling from the disks.
The WI flap has been steadily brewing since it was included as an option with SW03, and I know at the lower levels, anyway, it has been heard loud and clear in Concord. I've been assured that the WI is not going away, but it sounds like there has been some higher level decision that the current implementation needs to be improved. The guys up there have to install the same software as we do, and they're having some of the same problems.
matt
"Mark M" wrote in news:bv75kk$qrm$ snipped-for-privacy@www.omnica.com:
...
Reply to
matt
Does Solidworks really think that the pirates dont have all the CD's copied, I can go on the bins now and get them all. Just shows that Solidworks doesn't give the pirates too much credit, in fact, they dont hash their releases as bad as Solidworks does.
Reply to
Phil Evans
Matt,
The biggest problem with WI is it's a "Microsoft" product. As such, we can count on it being buggy, inefficient, and sloppily written. Besides, I don't think it was ever intended to be used fo a software installation as complex as SW. There must be at least eight or ten fully registered components in just a basic SW install. Most programs have one or two. I really don't think they'll ever get it working right
Having worked for large companies, I "know" that many decisions are made for all the wrong reasons, or sometimes, for no reason at all. What seperates the winners from the losers is the ability to recognize a bonehead mistake, and fix it.
SW really needs to rethink their decision, and decide whether it's in "their" best interest to either fix it (re-implement I.S.) or try and weather the storm. The latter doesn't do them, or the user community any good.
Regards
Mark
Reply to
MM
"Mark M" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:bv75kk$qrm$ snipped-for-privacy@www.omnica.com...
Amen.
I second this from the bottom of my heart.
I'm one of these guy (don't know about lipstick anyway :-)), about 150 computers here to install. We used to use the traditional installer and had NO problems at all. Even SP-testing, several major version of SolidWorks and several Servicepacks side by side was usual, for both local machine and server installtaion.
Also servicepack rollback was NO problem at all: just copy the complete install directory to a new one labeled sw2003-sp4.0 or something similar and update your "normal" sw2003 directory to SP5.1 - now you have two (or like me, I have 5! SPs aside) directories and start the sldworks.exe you need.
Now for this WI: for me this is THE argument for the famous MWS (Mike Wilson scala - missed that? Take a look at
formatting link
:-)
About a year ago I discussed that with SolidWorks and our VAR, everybody said, will be no problem, you will be able to do everything you are doing now and better. This was Stage 1 on MWS. But I was scared, due to many other "funny" behaviours of other software, which was installed using WI.
So I was kind of anxious, when I saw the dialog box on installing 2003 which said, last time I can use the reliable, fast and small (compared to WI) traditional installer. I began to test with WI and 2003, but was unlucky and complained about it (stage 2). I was told, with SW2004 everything will be okay.
After Beta testing with a local install I tried to find the way to install the new SW2004 in our network for 150 machines. But I couldn't figured out how to do a server install, only the admin image, from which to install the clients.
I was yelling and houling (stage 3), blamed me, my VAR and SolidWorks until one guy from our VAR found the undocumented trigger to have a REAL server install (say: a client, which uses the files installed on a server).
But all the pretty new functions can't be used this way: the update of the admin image takes about 2 hours (!!!, tested with 1.0 and 2.1, full switched 100 MBit network), and nobody should be connected to the server at this time (means: can do it only at night or weekend). You can't rollback an applied servicepack to an admin image. You can't deinstall a client AFTER you updated an admin image. In december I thought it was time to take a break with WI (this is stage 4) and after trying to apply SP2.0 to the admin image and failed 6 times (every time with different errors) I gave up and went to the store to buy some really huge icecream and some chocolate (stage 5) to calm down my nerves.
On the other hand, this are only test suites so far, we don't use SW2004 in productive environment, but this Wi issues (dont want to say crap) are a nightmare to me.
Phew, this was necessary. Back on condition 2.4 MWS right now.
Cheers, Stefan
-- unofficial german SolidWorks helpsite
formatting link
and programs for SolidWorks
formatting link

Reply to
Stefan Berlitz
"Stefan Berlitz" wrote in message:
----------------------
Sorry to go off topic, but is there an English version of that floating around somewhere?
=======================================
Reply to
Jeff Howard
Here is a English Translation i made of the article for you , I hope this helps let me know if it does.*******
SolidWorks fun - Mike Wilson Skala actually is not this jovial, but gallows humor is also a type of fun. In this sense...
Since in general just as obviously you itself also with software and SolidWorks in the particular apart will place also you the point someday experiences, since the collar bursts for you, because the stupid calculator and the stupid software don't do this again, which you expect or simply sang, - and tonelessly your valuable, but unsecured work with itself crashes and tears.
On the occasion of is led discussions about mistakes, crashes and defective files, reproaches, discharged threats, on boycott are raised called, appeases, run through, howled, complained, steam emptied, desperately or simply only laughed. Everyone already experienced this, and Mike J. Wilson, one of the knownest and most professional SolidWorks-Anwender, summed it up in a hot discussion in the English Newsgroup:
Five steps, like the user the trust in his/its software loses.... step 1 - denying
We, that lost the stability of the software, dispute had gone we, all indications ignore that the stability of the software of the past belongs Wir is confident, that the mistakes will simply vanish step 2 through "positive thinking" - actions
We promise, we volunteer voluntarily to participate in the beta test until the total exhaustion with the beta test and, to participate unendgeldlich, threatens with the shortening or termination of the maintenance costs we we being able to handle the confidence the dwindling stability lose we begin step 3 to toy with other software - anger
We are ourselves infuriated and angry on everyone is shaken over the steps, that we took ourselves, in order to overcome the situation we look for a few scapegoats for ourselves in order to leave our fury free run we accuse ourselves we accuse the software ourselves believes, that we have remark a right to it to be angekotzt: A completely normal process, that must also be let out, is worse
Step 4 - despair
We are overpowered by the miseries and suffering ourselves breaks wines and sobbing into unchecked from us withdraws us into absolute silence and vows to never write again in a Newsgroup or forum Wir feel guilty and are afraid to have contributed even to the death of the stability of the software we all the hope, beliefs and trust in our software lose remark: in order to be able to escape this step, a communication with our software manufacturer necessarily is necessary. If our software manufacturer then omits informing us about the current condition of the things and further steps, heavy psychic problems can, health-damaging interactions appear until to the total loss of the ability so that to become ready.
Step 5 - acceptance
Where have only my Glücklichermacherpillen I?
You can simply open the original of Mike Wilson for itself here
again einklappen
The Five Stages of Stable software Loss...
Stage 1: Denial *, We of deny that "stable software" has died, We of ignore signs our stable software has "passed away", We of believe that by thinking positively, the bow wants "disappear"
Stage 2: Bargaining *
, We promise to "strike a deal" of for good software *, We promise to beta tests until croak we, We agree to pay to beta tests ace measure at extreme, We lacquer confidence to deal with the loss of stability, We begin to "Shop of around" for good software
Stage 3: Anger *
, We become angry with everyone, We get upset at the steps we take to overcome this outrage, We pecks vent "scapegoats" out in which to our anger, We blame ourselves, We of blame the software *, We believe we have a RIGHT of to be PISSED
Grade: Anger is a normally stage that must be expressed
Stage 4: Despair *
, We become overwhelmed with the anguish and pain, We begin to have uncontrollable weeping and sobbing, We can go into deep silence, never posting to the newsgroup again, We of feel guilty, believing we are responsible for the death of stable software *, We draws lots all hope Faith and trust in our software
Grade: At this stage, we need our software company to communicate with us so we can work through this. If our software company doesn't let us know what's going on, we experience mental illness, poor bonding, unhealthy interaction and inability to cope.
Stage 5: Acceptance Now where did I put my happy pills?
Mike Wilson
again einklappen
And if you fall to the step 4 again, you simply look here once, however,... and browsen you one little over the sides, maybe it helps to reduce the frustration at least
Going back at the side beginning
Reply to
Rocko
Mark,
Count me in on the "If it ain't broken don't mess with it group".
I've alpha, beta, pre-released SW for the last 3-4 years. Never had a problem in the entire time with installation problems (not even a corrupt download).
Went to install SW SP0.0. However, you need to uninstall beta software (which I downloaded) and use the new SW2004 disks (which I had to ask for).
Uniinstalled beta - cleaned out the registry - tried to install 2004 sp0. Installer complained I couldn't do it as a previous version existed.
Phoned up VAR - no help.
Phoned up SW Support - was given the standard "download registry crawler" suggestion - and others. Didn't work.
Long story short - It took four calls to SW support to install SW 2004 on my machine. The final solution was some sort of trick (which I admit I would never have thought of).
This was then followed by the sound of my jaw hitting the floor as I waited for the installation to finish. Unreal.
What's the point? How does SW think that needing support in installing their software is better. They've taken what should be a straight forward administrative task and turned it into a major undertaking. And this for one install - heaven help me had I been working for my previous company where we had 12 seats on site.
And as for pirates - didn't SW have a problem several years ago with one of their software sub-contractors in India walk away with a large chunk of code?
Len
Reply to
Len K. Mar
I am in complete agreement with you guys. The traditional install was the way to go. Being forced into this substandard procedure is a joke. I will not be installing 2004 until the service pack situation is improved. And there will be no positive 2004 commentary from my company since we won't be using it. Great ROI on that $10k subscription contract. Bruce Chapman Manager - Product Engineering Rayco Mfg, Inc.
formatting link
Reply to
Bruce Chapman
Mark,
Please post this in the newly formed Customer Relations forum on the SWX website.
Thanks,
Malcontent
Reply to
Malcolm_Tempt
Well, Len, I agree with "if it ain't broken..." and that is why I will probably stay on SWks 2003 for years.
I honestly have to wonder whether running something as complicated as SolidWorks on Windows is just asking too much out of all of the Windows components. And then, don't forget, all of the SolidWorks and every other Windows software developer are going to have to start learning "Shoehorn" or whatever Microsoft is saying they are going to deliver in 2-3 years. Boy what a mess and waste of time that will likely be until the OS bugs are smoothed over in a couple years after that.
Given the above speculation, & the advances in and appearance of significant improvements in ease of use of the -nix based GUI software, I really have to wonder if Microsoft can keep heavy applications like SolidWorks.
Am looking forward to continuing to use my Ashlar 3D on Mac OSX. Not in the same league as SolidWorks, but then there are NO INSTALLER ISSUES BECAUSE THERE IS NO INSTALLER. And little tiny underfunded Ashlar, does NOT seem to have problems providing both a Windows and MacOSX version of Cobalt.
There is a damn good reason Unix is running so many high end applications in critical environments. It is called "Uptime".
Bo
Reply to
Bo Clawson
I have to agree, I have never waited so long for an incremental upgrade. I can burn a full length DVD on my 2x burner (which is my current threshold of patience with technology) in less time than it take me to upgrade this service pack. This is completely unacceptable and I'm going to have to wait till a Saturday or some downtime to even considering upgrading from 1.0.
Mark
Reply to
Mark Biasotti
"Jeff Howard" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:5KNRb.93$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
The original "Five stages" was done by Mike Wilson in
formatting link
I translated that to german and made a webpage around it, you can read the original english version at the bottom of my german page. Just klick the link in the line "Das Original von Mike Wilson können Sie sich hier einfach aufklappen" to show this.
HTH, Stefan
Reply to
Stefan Berlitz
"Stefan Berlitz" wrote in message .....
----------------------------------
Many thanks (and to Rocko, too). It's a good read. 8~)
=======================
Reply to
Jeff Howard
Stefan,
How do you do the REAL server install? Is it still possible with SW04?
Thanks, Calvin
Reply to
CSN
Sporky,
Is it time to band the three Amigos together again?
I was so suspicious of the WI installer I didn't participate in Beta. I have the prerelease installed, but not SP0 and I don't use it. When I installed it printing was screwed up in certain instances. BlueBeam was installed and competes with the PDF writer I already had. SW2003 gets me along quite well and does everything I need it to do except crash occasionaly. Where is the value added in WI? Where is the ROI in the new interface?
Let's take a typical installation of 5 seats.
IT burden rate $80/hr.
Initial install 1/2 hour. Two service packs 3 hours. 5 x 3.5 x 80 = $1,400 or about the cost of one subscription.
5 subscriptions 5 x $1,395 = $6,975
Cost of retraining 5 users at $50/hr for a day of what's new training:
5 x 8 x $50 + $1,500 = $3,500
SW2004 is 10% slower than SW2003 on regeneration times. Assume 25% cpu utilization and full time use. (Based on benchmark tests)
.25 x .1 x 2000hrs x 5 x $50/hr = $12,500 per year (this is the increase in time spent waiting on cpu).
The cost of upgrading 5 users to SW 2004 is $24,375 for the year. $4,875 per user. Has anyone seen productivity improve this much due to the interface alone?
My question for the group is: has anyone seen enough productivity gain in SW2004 to offset the cost of upgrading?
Sporkman wrote:
Reply to
kellnerp
Well the new insert component function and the new mating is faster in my opinion and would save some time. I like the command manager and think its faster than than having to go around the screen hunting for an icon. There are a couple of other minor things that reduce some mouse clicking (mate folder under component, hole table, new BOM, material editor)
As for installing, it takes me about 5-10 minutes to install or upgrade a user using the admin image. It's an office install and it's also followed up with an edrawing install and some batch files that apply registry settings and some local files to the user's computer.
If you are installing from the cds and applying service packs, it takes longer it seems.
Jason
Reply to
Jason Capriotti
Paul,
Those are some very scary numbers, and not far off the mark.
I really don't think they consider any of these things. The software keeps getting slower and slower, and now they've added tens of thosands of dollars per year in maintenance costs for average instllations.
We're supposed to be OK with this ?? No matter how hard some of us may think they're trying, they're not getting it done. This has been going on for years.
Sadly, it's pretty tyipical in todays "bean counter" driven market.
Sell-sell-sell, and keep putting off the problems till "when" ????
Regards
Mark
Reply to
MM

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.