1000 Page SolidWorks User Guide

I don't care how pretty they make it I still never liked it I never liked it
when SolidWorks took their entire hardcopy user manuals into the online
help. I see that within the last few days on the subscription services page
they have posted a 1000 page PDF user guide that is current up to 2004. You
can download it and print if you desire. They also mention that a bound and
printed version will be available soon.

I've been waiting a long time for this.

 

The printed version was actually available at SolidWorks World. It's
beautiful!

 

Did they say how much it will cost?

 

It was free at SolidWorks World!!

 

you can down-load the PDF for free.
Kinko's or equivalent will print and bind it for you for ~$60

 

Having agitated for this ever since 1998, I'm delighted that SolidWorks have
acted on this one.

Too late for this kid, who exited subscription last year, but I hope it's
the beginning of a U-turn, whereby SldWks start to treat the established
userbase as at least as equal in importance to those who are yet to take the
SldWks plunge

Keep it up, PARTICULARLY prioritise stability over whizbang half-baked
features, and I'll be back (apologies to Arnie)

 

Andrew,

I've read several posts in the last few weeks where people mentioned that
they've dropped maintenance. Not really meaning to be provacative, (tongue
firmly in cheek), but how do you deal with newer data. I'm assuming that you
are primary suppliers of data and don't have to worry about it.

As consultants, my company doesn't really have this option. I am thinking
about dropping on some of our seats though. We're just not getting good
value for our money. 11K a year is allot when only three or four seats are
running the latest release before the next one comes out.

Regards

Mark

 

Well, I really sweated my decision but this time around I held back. I
consider the last year to be very disappointing in terms of ROI on
maintenance and I'm not convinced that it's going to be better immediately.
'04 SP2.1 is very encouraging but the statements about 2005 are reason
enough for me not to want to upgrade again for while. I cannot believe that
they're planning a new version in less than 6 months. That is unacceptable.

So what I did was call my largest client and ask what they thought about the
next upgrade. I got a verbal commitment from them that they won't version
upgrade again until 12 months go by. They are also tired of the
compatibility issues that are forced with these too quick upgrades. So
we're set for awhile with 2004.

- Eddy

 

Mark

Yes, although I'm also in consultancy, I'm in a business phase where
typically the solid model data is initiated in-house for the client, rather
than vice versa.
The lost opportunities of not being able to easily run with 2004 files are
(so far) a minor concern in comparison with the (magically vanished)
workload of keeping version-current.
I don't miss any of the bells and whistles added in 2004, and what I have
read of 2005 mentions nothing that would justify climbing back on.
On the other hand, if SldWks can turn around their development culture and
get on top of stability, consistency and reliability issues, the lack of
added functionality would almost be a bonus in my game. I would re-enlist
like a shot.

If it weren't for data interchange issues, the FUNCTIONALITY in 2003 would
cope with virtually anything I have ever wanted to do, if only the
functionality worked. It needs to satisfy in retrospect, whereas in practice
it promises to in prospect.

They are going to have to negotiate the transition from a niche product to a
commodity product as the technology matures. Humans pander to niche
products; commodity products pander to humans.
Fridges made it into the commodity zone very easily (when did you last see a
magazine called "Your Fridge"?); while VCRs never quite made it. Cars
(autos) did it, pushbike gearing systems haven't yet, so it's not just about
complexity.

In the solids game, it seems likely that some providers will manage to do it
and others won't. I still think SolidWorks are starting from a higher base
than anything else I've seen, the product has "great bones", but
.................



in message
news:B5mTb.18923$...

 

Eddie,

Not like I am up SW azz or anything, but this has, for the most
part, been SW business cycle. They have always strived to have a
yearly upgrade. The development cycle is always a work inprogress.
Does this mean that they are not committed to present program
problems, certainly not, but should they just rest on the laurels of
what they have? Only a fool would not look towards the future.
I think this type of thinking and business practise happens across
the board, not just with SW.

 

Hey Arthur, I agree, it is part of all major software life cycles. Yearly
was manageable. Compatibility issues after less than 6 months?
Unthinkable.

- Eddy

 

unacceptable.

- At least sw has been pretty good at maintaining a 9-12 month release
cycle. With pro we sometimes would see much longer times while waiting for
serious fixes. Inventor, when it was in its initial releases, was shooting
for 4 month cycles (Striving to keep up with a four-month development cycle,
Autodesk shipped Inventor Release 3 last week. Most of the enhancements
center around assemblies, as evidenced by the addition of motion constraints
as well as predefined section cuts.). I do think they have made a mistake
by stating a specific month this far out. They have usually been very hush
hush about release dates. Either way, if you look at the date we're talking
a minimum of 9 months between 2004 and 2005 and I personally wouldn't be
suprised if we didn't see it ship until end of sept early oct..

 

Even if they don't release until late summer/early fall it is still my
opinion that "SP'S" are mandatory and "NEW VERSIONS" are optional. Anything
that forces a backward compatibility issue needs to be evaluated on a much
larger scale than any SP. Fixing what's broken is far different from
releasing a new version. Honor and respectability enters into the equation.
2-3 mo's for each SP and 12 mo's for a new version is what I feel is
reasonable, and in my situation, everyone I deal with agrees.

- Eddy

 

I started on SW with 98+. At that point SW was still aiming for the Pro/I
twice a year upgrade cycle. It was about then that they began to slip and
get out of sync. And it was not much later (was it SW2000?) that they begin
to introduce more problems than solutions. Every six months was fine when
the code really worked.

Jerry Steiger
Tripod Data Systems

 

Keep in mind that the SWX business plan REQUIRES they break there
software every 12 months to keep the cash flow. Failure to release a
new non backwards compatible version in 12 moth period would mean
people would not need to renew there subscription. Why would I renew
my subscription if I could open 2004 files with 2001? I wouldn't.
before we switched to SWX we were still using ACAD r14, in my opinion
the best version of autocad to date, and the best thing was that there
was no need to upgrade to ACAD 2000 or 2002 because the data is fully
backwards compatible as long as its a DXF or saved by the client in
r13/14 format.

If SWX didn't do exactly everything ive wanted to do for a long time
and how I wanted to do it this might upset me, but thats a cost I feel
is justified. (as opposed to M$ Windows (tm) which isn't worth 1/5
its cost). Im still amazed how SWX operates almost how I always
imaged an MCAD app should, as opposed to the worthless AME (or ASIC or
whatever they call it now) solids in autocad work (or don't work)

-=BAHR=-

 

Where is this manual supposed to reside?