short beta for 2009

Why should they care that about three of us are amused?

 

Making more threats, are you?

 

Which you have never, ever used.

SW is a CAD system. NOT a CAM or CAD/CAM system.
Sorry (not much) that you remain so confused.

HTH

 

Jon...it looks like your little content blog is gone.....what
happened???

Did someone 'catch up with your clueless BS'??

A well read blog? Yours -WAS- a well plagiarized clueless mix of
babble.
...guess it didn't have much impact with the real Solidworks
users.....did it?

CC

 

Hey, just saw your post this morning, so thought I would pipe in here.

As some of you know, I have been active in the Beta test arena for some
time, last year finishing #3, so I guess I have an opinion from the active
side of things. The main reason I participate in the Beta testing is to be
able to try the new version on our stuff the way we like to use it.
Anything I can find during that phase of the program has a better chance of
getting fixed before we use it for real. And yes, I have seen several
issues fixed before release. Many are not, for sure, but I keep track of
what I turn in and I see some of them fixed even before Beta 2 or Beta 3.
So a blanket statement that the program doesn't do any good is absolute
rubbish.

Now, a personal question - is it worth my time? Sometimes I wonder, when I
see the same problems not fixed year after year. But then again, it's my
time, and my choice of whether or not I work on the new stuff, looking for
both how it works, and how it doesn't work. It's a time to see what's
coming up and whether it will benefit us or not, and it's fun to try some of
the stuff we don't normally use. I enjoy the mining - looking for those
nuggets that are there. I also enjoy the challenge of trying to find
errors - kind of like working a puzzle. I guess that's my way of relaxing.
Sick, eh?? )

As for the shortened time frame, I'm not sure what I think. I like the idea
that the end is sooner in that it may cause people to work on it harder &
faster, thereby allowing more time to fix the problems before release that
are discovered. On the other hand, it may not produce as many SPRs as there
isn't as much time to work through it. I guess time will tell if shorter is
better or worse. If the common attitude is that the program doesn't do any
good, then I guess shorter won't hurt a bit.

These are my thoughts - thanks for asking.

WT

 

A very short answer.

In the beginning (1995) there was SW. There was no Beta and it (SW)
was good.
And SW saw this and restrained from releasing any new feature until it
was ready.
Not only would they not release it, they wouldn't even acknowledge it
existed.
And Pro/E users saw SW as a deficient runt and denigrated it
endlessly. But SW then had a reputation for stability, small files and
speed. And it needed half the computer that Pro/E did. And users saw
this and flocked to it.

Then a corporate buyer entered the fray, made many people rich and
demanded more profits, products and pizzaz. And SW suffered and bugs
crept in. But to make some happy for the moment they opened up beta to
the masses. If they could just find the bugs that most didn't like
everyone would be happy. And they had schedules to meet with volunteer
help. The schedules were met, but the help's expectations weren't. And
competitor grew up alongside SW and began introducing new features to
distract SW from their own path. And SW wandered down many byways, but
never quite finished many of the features. And it was not so good as
before. But nobody could say so because it would displease corporate
buyer.

Finally, on another note. Do users really have to have 2009 ready to
go in eight weeks? Wouldn't they rather have it ready to go when it is
ready? Was this an enhancement request?

TOP

 

apparently this request is something the CEO well knows about and he thanks
us for telling him...

now you might ask if being a customer conscious chap ( or should I say
licensee tolerant chap? ) he should be explaining to the eager believers
just how this beta shortening is going to deliver a higher standard of
product come release day.

plainly he has confidence that his fellow workers have substantially
improved their internal game to the point where beta no longer needs to
struggle on finding the trivial glitches that seem to number 2000 or so each
release despite the ongoing quality improvement program -(is there one?)..

so whats he saying?
-they cant be stuffed chasing and fixing bugs despite what you told them?
-they are doing the testing ourselves and they just want you to play with it
a bit and see if you like the new icons?
-the product is twice as good as its ever been so they only need to spend
half the time finishing it?
they know you know its crap, so they arent going to pretend they fix stuff
you find in beta before release anymore?
they are comfortable finding the bugs later at your expense and making you
wait even longer in the cycle for a useable standard?

doesnt someone actually have to front up and explain to the SW user base
just whats going down here actually?
doesnt matter so much to me as a solo waiting each time for sp5 but what say
you have a 100 seats? wouldnt you like to know ahead of time that there is
or isnt going to be bottom line consequences of this decision if you go
ahead and install it in good faith at sp2..

doesnt this just set SW up for a whole lot of flack from already
disenchanted users?
if you ask me the likelihood this strategy will address and reverse the
quality decline is quite small.
with SW already under the microscope for their UI (mis)adventure and perhaps
feeling the result in the subs pocket it had better be an outstanding
success or the new CEO is going to find his ass on the street a lot sooner
than he would have imagined and perhaps looking at a 'blank screen' asking
himself how it all went wrong

Neil

 

If ten percent of the time is spent writing code and ninety percent of
the time is spent debugging it then we should be getting a new
release every 8.9 weeks.

You can't go by what they say, only by what they do.

TOP

 

Damned if I know. It's all speculation till the bits hit the disk. I've got
too much work to do and too little time to worry about where SW is going
next. I don't have time to figure out how to set up SW08, let alone
speculate about SW09.

Jerry Steiger

 

You do realize that even the VARs/Dealers haven't seen the new Solid Edge?

My VAR/Dealer already has the new Solid Edge with Synchronous
Technology and its been mailed to other VAR's as well.

No comment.

Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
http://jonbanquer.baywords.com/

 

To Jon's credit, it got me to take a serious look at Solid Edge.

Thank you. Very few have the guts to say this in a public forum.

3 months or less where I work.

Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA

 

Hey Top.. sorry man,...but over the years I'm REALLY SICK AND TIRED OF
PEOPLE MAKING BLATANT and FALSE STATEMENTS about Pro/e or why Pro/e
users use SW or why they went away from using Pro/e.
Anyway, as a long-time Pro/e user and long-time SW user, your
statement is TOTALLY INCORRECT!

Pro/e stability, reliability, performance, consistency... is MUCH
BETTER than SolidWorks!
Pro/e files were/are (but have increased) SMALLER, than SolidWorks.
Pro/e software works BETTER then SolidWorks on LESS expensive
hardware, PERIOD!!!!!

And, to be clear,.. I DID NOT FLOCK TO SW because of the above... as a
independent contractor, I saw NEW clients considering and moving away
from AutoCAD (as I had with my Acad/MDT license) and they did NOT want
to invest into Pro/e because of the cost (at that time, ~2-5X more
expensive), learning curve and the ASSHOLE PTC sales people!
IMHO (as a 17+ year consultant), Pro/e users and companies who did not
know how to properly use Pro/e, went to SW.
Or, they NEVER needed the power of Pro/e and SW fits their needs much
better!

Sadly, ( backdraft or domino effect?) I see many clients getting
themselves into the same shitty position using SolidWorks as they did
with Acad/MDT years ago.

SolidWorks is a mainstream modeler... it's average... that is, it's
basically a chevy or ford .. for all.
Unfortunately, SolidWorks is basically BETAWARE,.. it's riddled with
bugs, inconsistency, poor performance, lack of originality, lack of
direction, half baked features and functions... and they have
consistently proven this year after year after year,.....

Am, I annoyed... yes... yes I am! SolidWorks has made a hell of a lot
of money off it's users and gained free support over the users,.. and
all they have proved is that they are no different than AutoDesk or
any other big company putting out HALF BAKED BETA WAREl!

.. (ok, well,... I feel much better now!) 8^)

 

So in other words, by the time the software pays for itself, you will
no longer be employed there?

 

To Jon's credit, it got me to take a serious look at Solid Edge.

Thank you. Very few have the guts to say this in a public forum.

3 months or less where I work.

Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA

 

To Jon's credit, it got me to take a serious look at Solid Edge.

Thank you. Very few have the guts to say this in a public forum.

3 months or less where I work.

Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA

 

I gave credit, where credit was due. Don't let it get to your head Jon.

Not to worry, it's not like an ignorant, lying scumbag like Tom Brewer
will ever admit how wrong he has was (yet again) on the needed tools.

Too bad Tom Brewer can't be forced to stay with his beloved rollback
bar that he claimed was just fine. Same can be said for morons Joe 788
and Gary Knutson.

Perhaps your brain goes dead faster when you believe idiots like
Franco Folini and Matt Lombard. Even P.V. had Franco Folini figured
out from day 1. Brewer still has no clue.

ROTFLMFAO

Rumor is that Siemens has an 18 month lead with Synchronous Technology
over the competition.

Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
http://jonbanquer.baywords.com/

 

Almost every new release of anything contains enhancements intended
to help their *actual* users & customers. A great many of these are the
result of requests from *real* users & customers, though not all such
help everybody.
Next week: whines from jb about too many options making things
too "complex" to use.
If you have the option TO do (or not) something it has to be
somewhere, right? So the list of options to select from grows
each time. Feature creep.

 

"He pushes UG as THE CAD/CAM solution. Can't think of worse advice for many
small job shops." - Jon Banquer

"I have no experience with any or these products. Catia, Pro-Engineer,
Euclid, Unigraphics, IDEAS Master series, CADDS (ComputerVision,
now owned by PTC), Alias Wavefront ....." - jon banquer

I looked all over & could not find them claiming EITHER
"seamless, unified, hybrid modeling" OR "global shape modeling".

 

Gee, clueless, how come UG mentioned "Synchronous Technology"
before YOU ever inented it?

 

HEY Clueless !!!
The new option is an *option* for specific needs/purposes.
The other stuff *is still there* unless you mess with it!!!

Not that you'd have a clue what any of this is for or about.