Slow mouse reactions on SW 2006

Mike,

Thanks for the help earlier on recommending different driver versions, which
I did try. However if you follow the posts you can see that I respond
graciously for those offering advice, even if it is not the solution.

Unfortunately, it is my job not to accept bogus excuses for problems such as
those posts by Matt and some others. SW should run on my machine as
advertised and they advertised that this new version works on my video card
with the exact same specs and limitations as 2005 and 2004. Why should I
accept comments that I am making the mistake on trusting SW tests?

Instead of posting a solution some opted to go on and Anti-ATI campaign
after I stated the fact that I have had 7-8 years of good luck with ATI. If
they don't like ATI, that is fine but don't tell me that the problem is that
I don't know what I am doing when they only solution they can think of is
just get a new video card. "Get another card" is just like your mechanic
telling you to get a whole new front end to get rid of a squeak that they
are too inexperienced to find. Sure it solve the problem, but next year
when the squeak comes back are you going to get a whole new front end again.
I sure hope not.

Even after I find the solution and post that it is just a tweak just like
every other SW Certified card needs a tweak by adjusting the settings for SW
the anti-ATI group just can't accept that their advice was bad. What really
is a hypocrisy is a group of people saying that they are here to help and
get all defensive when they are unable to help then behave even worse when
you finally help yourself.

 

You really need to read better Matt because the problem has been solve and I
still get to use my old reliable ATI brand that I have been using
successfully for years. I know it burns you that I can do my job and keep
harware investments longer than a year but I guess that is the reason I head
IT and you're on your last leg before retirement.

Sure hope your employer doesn't replace you with a younger person that
actually finds answers to problems rather than just through in the towel. I
don't know where someone your age and unwillingness to find soulutions would
get a job.

 

Good advice which brought me to the solution. Although the Radeon does not
come with the SW, ProE, and other options in a drop menu I was able to play
around with the custom OpenGL settings and relieve the issue. It appears to
behave normally now. I guess some of the certified cards have those
settings predefined to make it easier.

Thanks again

 

Its odd that you would refer to SW list of certified cards as "flavor of
the day". I still have my info packet, provided by my var, when we were
given the sales presentation for SW 2001. It includes a list of recommended
video cards. All but 5 or 6 of the 40+ cards are still on the recommended
list for SW 2006. Those that are not, are all those of companies that are
no longer in business. Of those 5 or 6 I suspect that using the generic
chipset driver ( nvidia or ati ) would still pass all tests. The standard
has not changed in at least 5 years, and has been a video card made for open
GL.

If you look on the opengl.org website, you will notice that its totally
acceptable to NOT include instruction sets as part of open GL compliant
hardware. Vendors are free to pick and chose which to include. Cards like
your 9800 and my geforce 5600 ( home ) have a bare minimum of hardcoded
instruction sets when it comes to open gl, especially those instructions
called commonly by non-game programs, most of their hardcoded instructions
are direct3d related. Those instructions not coded have to be covered by
the software driver ( read cpu intensive translation ). Cards built for
cad/graphics works have the appropriate instructions hard coded, and would
have to translate most game related instructions in the driver, providing
poor performance.

Your 256 meg card does not allow any more accelerated windows than a 64
meg card because it has nothing to do with video memory. If I recall
correctly, its that non-cad cards do not have a unified back buffer that can
handle more windows.

When we purchased SW, my computer already had a high end ati card ( for
gaming ), and it provided adequate performance.... I thought. As I replaced
the computer with newer ones, we stayed with gaming cards because they were
cheaper, and I did not understand the difference ( much the same as you it
seems ). We had a vendor supply us a model that was only of medium
complexity but had lots of surfaces. It brought my computer to its knees.
I then shopped around for the cheapest cad card that I could find. It was
an ATI fire GL T2-128 ( $200 two+ years ago when I bought it, and was less
expensive than the gaming card already in the computer). The difference it
made was unreal. On the specific model, it easily saved me 20+ hours of
wait time. On previously generated models, that I thought ran well on the
old card, its difference was also immense. I would never spec another
computer without a cad card.

Open GL for games ( your card ) and open GL for cad, are different
animals.

Sorry for the length of the post :/

 

Quite alright on the long post. I understand why a straight CAD users would
only care about a CAD card but we do need to do more that SW here so
naturally I need to have systems in place that work reliable with more than
just Solidworks.

Our engineers run MathCAD, Ansys, Mentor's PADS, and a host of other
applications where some of the SW hardware recommendations are on the
other's bug list. SW says the ATI card works with what we find are very
acceptable limitations and no limitations on our other apps so "for me" seem
to be the best choice given the success we have had with them continually
year after year.

It is great that some cards stay on the list, but still some fall off like
the 4 -5 you mentioned. Also there are exceptions to the remaining 34 or 35
like whether or not they work on both XP and 2000 or if 2006 works with the
card on 2000 and not XP. It would be nice to have more of an effort to keep
compatibility with a greater number of cards.

I don't play games that often and we certainly do not purchase the computers
with "Gaming" in mind. I just so happens that this particular card is good
for gaming as well as our other purposes. One thing that SW could learn
from vendors of $30 games is that they can design the product so that it can
still run a top performance with all the bells and whitles for a select
number of cards, but also run at a very usable rate for those users with the
basic needs.

The 80 / 20 rule states that 80 percent of the users are going to use 20% of
the features and most of those features are going to be the basic features.
It seems like SW is more interested in pleasing the 20 percent of the users
at the expense of the 80 who do more than just SolidWorks.

 

I've stayed out of this pissing match because I like to keep my feet dry but
I can't seem to help from butting in now. Can't seem to find any galoshes
either.

You're right that SolidWorks is constantly upping the ante on video card
performance. It would be nice if they would continue to test the old cards
for compatibility, but, as you said, they're a small company and I, for one,
would rather see their efforts going into other areas.

At the same time, I find your attitude about using gamer cards very curious.
Sure, you can often get them to work, but you'll piss away a bunch of time
figuring out the right settings. Why not pop for a few more bucks and get a
card that works with just one setting change? Isn't your time worth much?
This attitude makes sense if you're a one man company with more time than
billable hours, but most of us would rather spend our time doing design work
than debugging video card behavior.

If you ever get around to meeting Matt, I think you'll be in for a bit of a
shock. I don't know how old Matt is physically (he looks pretty young to me,
but I'm an old fart), but mentally he's a spring chicken. Throwing in the
towel is not something he does much of.

Lighten up a bit and enjoy the group. There are a lot of knowledgeable
people here who are glad to help. They're also glad to engage in flaming,
although less likely to do so than many groups.

Jerry Steiger
Tripod Data Systems
"take the garbage out, dear"

 

There is not much to be curious about on the selection of the video card.
It is just a reliable solid card from a company that has been totally
reliable for me for years. I find changing with the wind to be much more
curious and risky. I got this card because I was confident it would ( and
does ) work with every other demanding application I have and just needed to
be sure it worked with what SW said was a standard it follows - OpenGL.

OpenGL.org has some utilities that you can use to see what specs of the
OpenGL standards your card can use. I ran the utility on my latest ATI
cards and looked up the specs for some of the nVidia's on SW's site and the
ATI was comparable. Even when SW 06 came out, the minor limitations
remained the same as I assumed.

I have been told in this group that the problem is that I am using ATI and
should know better, but Dell has ATI on their Precision lines that are
designed as workstation class computers for businesses that have about 200
computers. Gateway's heavyweight workstations have Intel graphics cards in
them and None of those card are on SW's site. Even HP has ATI on their MCAD
workstation class computers. Some have nVidia as well. So Dell and HP
agree with me that ATI is good enough for the majority of MCAD solutions and
good enough for their workstation class computers.

I can't recall any time I had an issue with an ATI card prior to this zoom
issue and this was solved pretty easily with a tip from CS. CS was great
for offering a helpful tips that lead to the right answer, but it seems like
a majority of the other posters want to jam an nVidia or other brand down
your throat and take it personal if you don't agree. They then proceed to
badger you about your choice to stick with something that has been reliable
for close to a decade.

 

Most of the folks on this group are pretty sensible, and there is
definitely a consensus. You might consider giving a listen.

This is only true of the Fire GL, which everyone has noted is
acceptable, although not stellar. You don't find Radeons in
Precisions, even the cheap $800 ones. In fact, the lower end
"workstations" have the nVidia Quadro NVS, which is also definitely not
a card you want to use with SolidWorks. NVS is a 2D graphic card.

This is not about brand, this is about stuff that works. Radeon and
SolidWorks is a bad combination, regardless of what you read where.
NVidia quadro NVS is also a bad combination with sw. Wasn't the Fire
GL originally a Diamond product? Anyway, it has been acceptable, from
most accounts.

You will not hear anyone recommend that you use integrated video with
SolidWorks. Integrated Intel Extreme Graphics 2 is what you find on
sub-$500 computers. Nor will you find other people who use the words
"Gateway" and "heavyweight workstation" in the same sentence.

Again, only Fire GL and NVS are available as entry level cards, all
upgrades are Quadros. No Radeons available anywhere on HP
workstations, only on the $500-$800 "business pc".

They are the entry-level options, and only Fire GL, not Radeon. Radeon
is listed in the "Not Recommended" section of the SolidWorks website.

Why the fascination with such low end stuff? Maybe you need to look at
a job where they have some money to spend.


peace.

z

 

Now that the Fire is out the Radeons have been replaced. Look back a few
months before Fire came out and you will see the Radeons were the card in
most of these systems along with the Nvidia. The point is they are still
ATI today. Even though this forum seems to love to bash ATI just because it
may not be the absolute best for this ONE program.

Although I agree with you about Gateway's quality, they are still a big name
out there so they are just a reference but there is no denying that for
small - mid sizes businesses, the exact customer base of SW, Dell is still
the number one seller of computers for that customer base. Some may feel
they are the best machine and some many not. Whatever....

Although Radeon is NOW yesterday's card, the fact is I still have them - the
fact is SW said they would work as they did in 04 and 05 - the fact is I got
them to work with Solid works by using the same method as every other card
that everyone is plugging here. I just set my OpenGL settings to be the
most compatible settings for SW and they work AS I NEED which is what
counts.

<< Why the fascination with such low end stuff? >>

First, the card went for about $200 or something like it (not a cheapo $50
card), it does OpenGL, DirectX, Direct 3D, ect. It has 256 MB DDR2. It
works great with every other applications we have like Ansys, MathCAD,
AutoCAD, the entire PADS Suite, Photoshop, and the list goes on and on and
if I had purchased a $500 card and it fell off of SW's "certified" list
(like cards continually do) I would be pretty B.S. if I got the same answer
I am getting from you guys now. I think the problem really is that no one
in this forum seems to do anything other than SolidWorks so they are unable
to understand the concept of having your computers designed for more than a
single application. I have a couple of servers designed specifically for a
purpose such as a SQL server and a VPN Server. They are designed totally
differently and specifically for those purposes because that is all they
will be doing.

We have more to do with our workstations in our business that just SW so it
would be foolish to use a specific system design just for SW. If you go
skiing with the kids on weekend and also drive 40 miles to work each day
wouldn't you be making a really bad decision to purchase just a Hummer if
you did not have money to burn or the room for two cars? Why should I buy
two cars either when I can get away with just one Honda CRV or something?
Sure your got tons of room in the Hummer and YOU may need to use every stick
of room in it and choose to take the trail through the woods instead of the
road to get to the mountain, but I don't.

My systems totally met all my needs and how WE use SW. In fact, the
engineers that are using SolidWorks have been using the test setup for the
past few days and commented how well it works now that I have fixed the
issue. I am happy with the way it is now working, the engineers are happy,
but this forum seems to be OFFENDED by my success of using the application
the way I need with a hardware MFG that has been great for ME over they
years.

I post in a lot of other forums to give people help and when someone finds a
solution to something that works I and most other people in the forums are
GLAD to see something work for someone. We are also curious about the
solution so we can keep it in mind to pass the knowledge on to others. This
is probably the only forum where I have continually gotten advice to "give
it up" and just "throw out what you have and get a new one" even after
success. EVEN AFTER SUCCESS!! - Unbelievable.

 

I'm a large guy as some here will suggest. And I don't fit in a Hummer
(H1). They don't have a lot of room inside, but they do go well in the
snow. A CRV and a Hummer (H1) probably have about the same inside
seating space. An H2 is not really a Hummer, it is just a Suburban on
steroids. GM bought the name and a subdivision to make space for a
plant to build H2s. In fact it was one of the first emminent domain for
business transactions I know of.


news.lightship.net wrote:
....snip

 

"My systems totally met all my needs and how WE use SW"

Now that's all that matters sir. Period! I just broke up with a 1.7
celeron that met _my_ needs nicely and yes, it did use the 850 intel
mobo graphics. What did I replace it with? An off the shelf gateway
with an nvidia gamer card that I added (and yes I can now boxjump in
Q2). Am I happy? Does it work well for me? Yes indeed. But
personally, I would never step up and ask anyone to agree with me. I
don't really mind if they think I'm wrong and stupid (I am sometimes),
at least I'm happy. Oh and I'm also the same schmoe that ran
solidworks 98 on a dx4-100 with a 2 meg graphics card and 12 megs of
ram - still more productive than acad for some types of work, even with
the 30 second wait between rebuilds. The point being that what is
optimal and what is passable are two different things. Also note that
these machines were home systems and that they met the needs of
moonlighting, not hardcore bread winning.

I think that what you found here is that lots of folks did not have ati
meet _their_ needs and were astonished that they could meet yours. The
general consensus is that while ati products may be generally passable
(they are), they are not generally optimal. You will have the same
hard time trying to convince the masses that autocad is still a better
tool for some kinds of work in some cases (which it is - in _some_
cases). All you have uncovered is a general feeling about ati &
solidworks for those that frequent this group - that's all - it's not a
conspiracy mate. It's time to move on . . .

Later,

SMA

 

And to think I was running SW 98 on a Win95 machine with an Elsa Gloria
Permedia II card and 1GB hard drive.

The original topic was why the mouse seemed slower in 2006. Point is
the whole interface was slower and that was noted when SW2006 first
came out.

 

hehe and I recall that blazing response on acad 12 if you had one of
those hot 33mhz 386's with the huge 40 meg hard drive. I recall being
blown away when I first used that . . . the slow old days . . .

 

The Fire GL line has been out for about a decade and always has and will be
the workstation class card that ATI sells (I was using a Fire GL1 about 8-9
years ago). The Radeon has and always will be ATI's consumer class 'gaming'
card. The Radeons where never used in workstation class computers. I
thought you had extensive IT industry knowledge. Apparently you are just a
high school kid that doesn't know his @$$ from a SVGA port.

Ken

 

Regardless of how you try to spin it, it's easy to spot you as a fool.
Anyone who spec's 512 Mb ram for engineers to use any FEA application,
and then defends the flawed spec rather than realizing it's a low end
operation, is clearly a fool. That's in addition to spec'ing a
graphics card clearly not recommended for use with SW.


Fire GL was acquired from Diamond in 2001. It is not replacing Radeon.
You're back pedalling. This guy's as bad as jon banquer. You're the
only one stuck on the ATI brand. Even your buddy Matt said the Fire GL
was ok, along with several others. I don't think anyone's in love with
NVidea either, since the GeForce and NVS cards aren't being touted.

Radeons have ALWAYS sucked with SolidWorks. Where does this fantasy
come from that SW used to be ok with Radeons? Not only are they slow,
but they also crash SW much more frequently than other cards.

"Success" I guess is a relative term. If you consider being extremely
limited function as "success", well then best of luck to you.

z

 

<< It is not replacing Radeon >>

Don't be an idiot and try to put spin on things. Nobody said Radeon is not
getting dumped by ATI but the systems I posted had Radeon's in them before
and now have Fire GL in them. They are being replaced in THOSE systems.

<< Anyone who spec's 512 Mb ... is clearly a fool >>

Another idiotic statement, but what can I expect from someone who thinks
that the whole world has to act the way they do. Tell me smart guy what
kind of super computer should I buy to work with an item that has maybe 10
parts in it at is no more than 4 inches by 1 inch? Our largest assembly is
about 100K. Although the engineers have 1GB of memory, the "test setup"
speced only has 512, but still plenty of HP to run these "mammoth" models.
The real fools are those who open their mouths before they know what they
are talking about. You are really the fool because you ASSume that I we are
creating things that you might be creating.

<< Where does this fantasy come from that SW used to be ok with Radeons? >>

FOOL! It comes from SolidWork's web site under "Tested" cards for the last
few years. The only limitation is up to 5 fully rendered windows on the
card with the 64MB option. That seems OK to me especially for creating
models that are only 4 inches.

<< they also crash SW much more frequently than other cards.>>

Never seemed to be a problem for me. Maybe you just don't know how to make
a system run which is why you subscribe to the phylosopy of having each
computer desinged to run just one app. Tell me do you have one computer for
SW, one for Word, one for Excel, one for Internet access, and one for email?
I bet you do.

 

<< The Fire GL line has been out for about a decade...I was using a Fire GL1
about 8-9 years ago >>

Fire GL has only been under ATI for about 4 years. Prior to that it was
Diamond or S3 or SonicBlue or whatever they called themselves through the
name changes from 98-2001. Anyway, ATI bought the development team, the
name, and the research. When Fire came out under ATI it clearly was not the
same product, but designed to follow the same market.

<< I thought you had extensive IT industry knowledge >>

My extensive IT knowledge just showed that you are full of it because you
were not using an ATI Fire GL 8 or 9 years ago because there was no such
thing until about 4 1/2 years ago. Why are you making up thing that you
know are not true and so easy to refute? Especially by me since you know I
have been already posted that I have been using ATI products for about 8
years myself.

I guess you really showed this board who doesn't know their @$$ from a SVGA
port.

 

Exactly.....

 

FOOL! It comes from SolidWork's web site under "Tested" cards for the last

Maybe your real problem is reading. I'll grant that it does say
"Tested", right next to where it says "NOT RECOMMENDED".

Is one of your innumerable certifications in English as a Foreign
Language?

Of course it isn't, since you don't use the software.

When I spec a system, I spec it for the most demanding application it
will run, not the least. I don't need multiple systems because I have
one that will handle it all. You don't.

Every time you open your mouth, you look even more like an idiot. Your
assemblies are only 4 inches by 1 inch? Hell, you should be able to
put that in your handheld computer. The handheld is what, 5 inches by
3 inches? You don't really have any idea what types of work require
what hardware specs, do you? FEA, 3D CAD? A $30 game is the biggest
app your computer ever sees.

If you're so proud of your skill as an IT professional, all your
certifications, years and years of professional experience and
maturity, why don't you post your name and the company you work for?
I'm sure we will all need your sage advice in the future.


Roland Scaleri
Zoetrope

 

<< I don't need multiple systems because I have one that will handle it all.
You don't. >>

So you have a system capable of computing the re-entry path for the space
shuttle? What is that you say, you don't calculated the re-entry path for
the space shuttle so you don't need a system that powerful and specific?
Well neither do I. I don't know what is so hard to grasp.

Why can't you answer the question about what kind of system you think I
should need to model those parts? I would love to see you at a budget
committee meeting and try to make a pitch for a $4000 computer to model
products that are 4 inches. You wouldn't be trusted for advice on what
paper should go in a copier after that.

Sounds to me like you guys are going through some sort of mid-life crisis
and need to over compensate. "Hey ladies, look at the RAM on my video card.
That's right honey... dual processors right on the card. You know you want
it baby!!" Its like seeing those 55 year old guys with toupees driving a
corvette telling all their buddies how they now have the life.

<< why don't you post your name and the company you work for? >>

Because I am not an idiot Roland. If you knew anything about IT you would
know that the Internet is full of basket cases. For instance some are
people are just so obsessed with their ideas that when someone mearly thinks
that what they are doing is fine for them, these nutbags jump down their
throat because they are not doing it their way. I am really not in the
habit of giving idiots that I have never seen my name and where I work.
Just asking the question shows your ignorance.

What good would it do you anyway. Are you going to come over in your
corvette and beat me up. Make sure you put extra paste on your head so your
tupe doesn't fall off.

This is where you call me chicken......