Is 2k4 bloatware?

Hi all,

I have recently opened an old assembly developed in 2k1 in 2k4 and the file
size has jumped from 1.9meg to over 10meg! with few changes to the assembly!
What is going on here or could I have a corruption? Is there a way of
checking the database? Any one else seen this 5x jump in size for no
apparent reason?

TIA,

JAG

 

In 2003, it lived in "Tools/Options/System Options/General

 

Someone also wrote that enabling Realview causes file size to jump
significantly.

 

Any one else seen this 5x jump in size for no

Most of the files size increase I've run across (and yes, it's huge) IS
apparent if you look at rebuild times when working on files with long
feature trees.
Here's the chronology as I know it...
\
2001+ and before - when we opened a part and rolled it back to work on it,
the entire part needed to be rebuilt from the top back down to the rollback
bar. This was a massive drain on productivity - I remember trying to do
anything to avoid rolling back on long parts because I couldn't stand
waiting forever for the part to rebuild. Also, crashes in a rolled back
part hit you twice - you lost the part, and you had to go through the
stinking rebuild again

In 2003, SWx added a neat new trick. When you first opened a part and
rolled it back, the part still rebuilt from the top back down to the
rollback bar. But while it rebuilt, after every few features SWx would
squirrel away in memory a parasolid 'snapshot' of the part. Every other
time you rolled back after that, SWx wouldn't have to calculate every single
feature anymore - only the space between the rollback bar and the closest
valid 'snapshot'.

Enter the user base. If you were to look back at the newsgroup, there were
complaints about the rebuild times - why does my part take so long to
rebuild the first time I open and roll it back when it is so fast the rest
of the time? Unless you put it in the context of 2001+ or earlier versions,
SWx looked like it was inefficient when actually it was way faster to work
on! Well, SWx listened to its customers complaints about that first rebuild
time, and made another fix.

In 2004, there is no major rebuild when you first open a 2004 part because
all of those snapshots are saved with the file, making for the larger file
size. The theory is that Hardrive space is cheap, so why not satisfy the
customers desire for working faster? With all of the parasolid snapshots
saved in the file, we don't have to calculate much at all when we first roll
back a part.
Of course, older part files don't have all the extra parasolid data, so we
still have to rebuild them when they are first opened and worked on. When
you save it in 2004, all of the stuff gets added and you will see the huge
jump in file size.

Of course, this bigger file size causes problems when you look outside of
just the space on the hard drive. Network traffic goes up, and emailing
files becomes a real dodgy thing because of email limits (this is why
ecosqueeze added the new parasolid removal options to its terrific product)

The user advantage to all of this is pretty minor imo unless you are like me
and work on files with hundreds and hundreds of features. On a part with
maybe a total of 4 second rebuild time, I'd rather have the smaller file.
But when working on the big parts, I don't mind that my file in now 56Meg
because I can work on it so much faster and not suffer the three minute
rebuild time every time I open and roll back to make an edit. On the other
hand, when the part is done and ready for delivery, we don't need all those
intermediate steps anymore.
This snapshot deal needs improvements - no saved snapshots on small parts,
and an option to save big parts for delivery and archiving without the
now-unnecessary snapshots.

Hope this helps-
Ed

*In 2003 there were also complaints about the corresponding memory bloat
(those snapshots took up space after all) - remember how in the old days we
could use SWX on 256-512Meg and be OK? I wouldn't even touch SWx with under
a Gig today.

 

This isn't really what you asked, but on the topic of "bloatware"...

I heard from a SW world attendee that SW2004 has 30% more lines of code than
2003. This was apparently cited as an advance.

Wondered why it took so much longer to start up on my old workstation.

Richard M
______________