How to Answer Them?

uh, bobz,

not to rain on your parade too much, but be careful with the hole chart.

there's at least on SPR out on it. I think it had to do with the incorrect
hole size. (didn't feel like serching the past posts, sorry. /me lazy.)

-nick e.

bob zee quipped:

 

Hey Bob,

The hole chart feature must be 2004 (still on 2003). Sounds like a
winner, more free time to make and drink beer. I'll open one up myself
and think about that.

Kman

 

Hey There!

What people really fear is that their work life will become
unmanageable. That they will somehow not be productive with the new
software and so on. This might be true, depending on who your users
are and how well they adapt to new things on the fly.

I laughingly have even heard things like "I need new training for the
next version" - Things like this.

For an upgrade, the benefits need to outweigh the pitfalls.
Historically speaking, solidworks has many strange little things that
don't always work perfectly, especially with new functionality, BUT
each major release that comes out is (in my opinion) always better
than the last in terms of features and usability. If your userbase is
suspicious, pessimistic and not adaptable, then any upgrade any time
is a nightmare. If the users are quick to learn and accept that
things are different, then the upgrade can be smooth.

The "rush to upgrade" might also be seen as an speedy escape from a
less functional version. Essentially, you will always have those who
are for and those who are against. Personally, I have usually waited
6-8 weeks to upgrade, but only after a "qualification" of the
software.

Upgrading early is not a foolhardy thing to do (once again my
opinion), but it is always wise to have a few of your more adept users
trial run the software and make sure things work well. You might be
losing productivity and not getting the best bang for your buck if you
wait around for six months to upgrade.

Personally, I need the auto-balloon function badly and the annoyance
and time saved there alone is worth the "risk".

Tell them "It's up to us to decide what to do. While fearing the bad,
don't forget to recognize the good."

Also, for anyone who wants really rock solid stable performance, I
suggest a drafting board, good mechanical pencil (
http://www.staedtler-usa.com ) and t-square (don't forget the rubber
dust sock too) - SMILE!

Regards -

SMA

 

bob z. is gun-shy of hole charts anyway, so bob z. will check this thing
real close. thanks for the heads-up.
you don't have to even think about raining on bob z.'s parade. bob z. will
forever live under a rain cloud.

 

bob z. has been dipping into his beer even though this batch is still in the
fermenter. (8~)>
bob z. forgot to mention the autoballon feature. this is going to rock if
it works. bob z. hasn't played with it yet.

 

funny I always thought bob z. had a specific gravity anyway.........

 

bob,

auto balloon is one of my favorites . . . I was surprised to find that
the balloon leaders remained attached even after the view was shown in
it's exploded state! (that is auto-balloon was invoked before the view
was exploded)

nice

 

In response to your two postings in this thread - - -
1 - Hole tables sometimes reports incorrect loc. values. Not
often but it is repeatable and SW has acknowledged the bug.
2 - Auto-balloon and the new BOM don't work on a second
configuration in the same drawing. If only one config is present in
the drawing both Auto and BOM seem to work pretty well.

Cheers (other) bob

 

How would you answer users who are reluctant to upgrade to SolidWorks

I would tell them they are wise users.

My dealer strongly advises against putting real work into SP0. This
attitude is created by Solidworks, and it is wrong to blame the user
for the FUD factor [Fear Uncertainty and Doubt]

Of course, I know there will be bugs, but the big question is if the
bugs will bite me. I don't do sheet metal work, or hole tables, so
any problems there are not an issue. However, my sole motivation for
purchasing 2004 would be the weldment feature. If that doesn't work
for me, it is completely useless software.

The other problem is that it takes at least 2 months of use to
really test software like this. I will have to wait until the
Learning Edition of 2004 comes out so that I can completely test the
water before I purchase.

I am looking at the Solidworks program because I am running from
Autodesk bugs. I have been hoping that Solidworks is relying on their
programming department to sell their software (via reliability) and
not the marketing department. But I am not so certain of that
anymore.

Joe Dunfee