The sad truth about updates is that companies like SolidWorks need to
address each problem as it is fixed with an update.
When you look at what Apple and Microsoft are doing, they wind up
often offering weekly or monthly updates & when a crapout on a
SPECIFIC update occurs, they will follow it with a corrective update
The issue of tolerating known problems of significance for months and
months is simply not tolerable any more. The actual SolidWorks user's
man hours lost on 500,000 user's work (admittedly not all are probably
active) can be millions of man hours lost per month for a bug.
More numerous fixes are simply a FACT OF LIFE TODAY.
I hope we start getting them. I would like to have Apple take care of
SolidWorks updates with their slick system and high bandwidth servers
and simply click "Update SolidWorks" and zam, it happens transparently
while I work on something else. Why should I go through checking off
whether I need 2, 3, 4 ,5 or 6 updates and then individually install,
and install in the right order, etc.
That is what INSTALLER APPLICATIONS are supposed to do.
Sheesh - Bo
hmmm well it doesnt concern me much now I dont follow subs but I'll
I think this would be a wrong move.
I certainly dont want SW doing anything automatically in the
background and often.
They just screw up the basics too often to allow that and very often
break things in the process of fixing others.
You would never really know just what broke and when or be able to
trust it to work from day to day.
Small time users rely on update lemmings to give early warning of
problems before installing themselves and avoid grief which impacts
their bottom line much more so.
We do not need in any circumstance CAD equivalent episodes to the
recent Symantec update that reduced thousands of Chinese pc's to junk,
or even just cripple your network for a couple of days till a patch is
The real problem here is a lack of commitment to out of the box
quality made at the top level of management.
Simply put profits and growth come before customers.
Its been like this for quite a while now. It isnt about to change. It
is part of the short term business mindset prevalent in the US.
On Jun 5, 9:25 pm, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
CORE ISSUE BY NEILS: "out of the box quality"
I agree! I do not remember the last time a Software Update from Apple
broke something for me, and that is with software far more complex
than SolidWorks in total. So I know it is possible to produce quality
SolidWorks should be the same, providing the do quality code with
great auditing and comments so it is all detailed to a "Tee". But I
personally have a sneaking suspicion that the Quality System for the
whole code package has some problems, and occassionally they are not
just niggling little irritations.
Later - Bo
No the good ones are employed by Adobe. In my 15 years of using
Photoshop I've had it crash TWICE. And if you think Solidworks users
have it bad you ought to fight with 3ds max for a while. It's getting
better but the early versions were $hit.
Just to keep things even :) - last year an itunes update caused all my
itunes tracks to play with horrible static, resulting in much internet
searching to find the cause and then the solution, to reinstall an old
Ok, with a few notable (and welcome, Wayne) exceptions, is it possible
to get a targeted response to the original question? Despite all of
the emotional responses, I really don't care about what happens with
other software or about what some may guess the programming skills are
of the SolidWorks employees.
Let's try to get more helpful in our responses. I am on 3.0 and
waiting for the same info as John.
1. Given the user variables in how work is done, I think it is tough
to generalize for one user...But...
Matt Lombard & others have pointed out 'Best Practices' for a number
of large assembly issues to maintain performance, and I recall copying
down those pages of info, which I have reread from time to time. It
is easy to gloss over and forget those sometimes.
Mates to axes and planes are most stable, and when constructed
(usually in the original construction of objects or in an assembly
drawings) just for that purpose have made my assemblies rock solid.
Mates to a flat surface that then gets a radius or chamfer to its edge
later can break mates, whereas a mate to the plane that locates the
key surface will be rock solid even if that surface is modified dozens
of times (incliuding being modified by a patterned feature).
1A. Example: TOP noted specifics in the "ASSEMBLY PERFORMANCE"
TOP then noted that examining the assembly with the problems noted
specific problems with a pattern and that the guy who did the assembly
had in-context relations and patterned assemblies, with mates to the
patterned items which slowed things to a crawl, which improved when
changed (amongst other notes).
In-context for me, created many difficulties, so if I start with
external references, I wind up doing "Break All" to get rid of
external references early on, but that is just me.
1B. I found early on I had to suppress some 2 degree indexing splines
(even though they were short), as they brought SolidWorks to a snail
pace on speed, in assemblies, as did a functional diamond knurl on
Ultrasonic bonding horns, to be CNC cut.
That suggests to me that patterns of features and patterns of objects
in assemblies both cause slowdowns, and the only fix ultimately there
is coding methods. I know absolutely nothing about coding, so I don't
know what is possible. It appears users of Solid Edge say it handles
large assemblies better, as does CATIA. Hence, I think it is
possilbe, but I have no clue about if it is possible in SolidWorks.
It may be that repetitive patterns generated as sketch patterns or
feature patterns cause internal looping-checking in SolidWorks that
slows things & no one can fix that but programmers.
2. I really DO CARE about what happens with other software as noted
about Adobe & Apple in this thread, as they have shown it IS POSSIBLE
to write very complex multi-application code that doesn't suck on
speed, AND that can be updated with a software update system, that
does most of the drudge work, keeping user mistakes to a minimum.
Apple's Software Update is something SolidWorks, would do well to
emulate or license. Why should the SolidWorks user have to keep track
of all the subtleties, and be required to become an expert at keeping
track of all the various elements updated and installed?
An installer should check what is installed, where, whether multiple
SWks versions are installed, whether Toolbox is local or on a
networks, etc, etc. and then offer options to the user if needed, and
do and check everything. Why should a user have to go to edit a
Registry or manually move, make backups of or delete specific files?
If a user goofs, and misses getting, or installing one required update
or the right update, it can goof things. Then, too, it is sometimes
tough to tell if you have already downloaded and installed the same
eDrawings or Swks Explorer version, and you waste time downloading and
installing the same thing over.
Why should a user have to manually copy the many dozens of Help files
in this day and age? Is that not what computers are made to do? If a
user or VAR or SWks wants or needs to check what happened on any
system, there should be a log file.
Arguably, Apple & Adobe had to have a top notch Software Update
System, because it has probably tens of millions of users updating
their computers automatically, and the user botches & requests would
be unmanageable without that system. Hey, that sounds like a reason
to do the same thing at SolidWorks.
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.