Slow mouse reactions on SW 2006

For what it is worth. I have an ATI Radeon x-800 w/128 or 256 MB in a
Dell Dimension 8500 w/1G RAM. This video card handles SW quite well.

Its limitation as stated in "Tested (not recommended)" are:

Limited number of accelerated windows. Amount of video memory
determines the number. If 64M - 128M of memory, 5-12 accelerated full
screen windows. 2D Driver: 6.14.10.6525

Also, I am pretty sure all you need is a TI-83 or 89 graphing
calculator to figure out the space shuttle's re-entry. LOL (Physics
II Tragectory Problem)

Have a nice day boys your ranting is quite amusing.

 

Why can't you answer the question about what kind of system you think I

Ok. What type of parts are they? Plastic, sheet metal, machined?
What types of features do you use (solid/surface
lofts/sweeps/shells/fillets)? Any advanced type features (flex,
deform, emboss, indent, etc)? What is the level of detail (ratio of
smallest feature dimension to overall size)? Do you use
configurations? What is the typical size (in Mb not inches) of your
files? In-context? Motion in assemblies? Verification on Rebuild
turned on? Image quality settings? Anti-aliasing? File management?

We already know you do FEA, but how many nodes does your typical model
have? Doing individual parts or assemblies? Simple or complex
boundary conditions? Is this just simple stress or is it thermal,
flow, non-linear, transient, contact, etc?

You see, the funny thing is that you think it has something to do with
physical size of the finished manufactured parts. Now THAT's funny! I
used to work at a place where we did MEMs, and the MEMs went into
assemblies with breadbox-sized components, which really caused a strain
on the graphics.

Do you do renderings, animations, show parts transparent, section
views, multi-page drawings ?

If you really don't do anything except model boxes and cylinders, you
wasted money buying SolidWorks, should have bought Alibre or Fast3D,
and if you do use anything more than the most basic features, you need
more than the most basic computer.

FEA puts a huge load especially on RAM and CPU, much moreso than SW.
To the extent that people are waiting around for analyses to complete
is the extent to which you need to have the specs bumped up. Maybe
just get a single jacked up system with 3 Gb ram and dual processors
for the FEA if you find people are waiting around a lot for that.

Low end for someone who does small machined assemblies with no motion,
minimal complexity that you'd use SW for:

http://www.xicomputer.com/products/Configure.asp?model=mtowerop&configid=

the base opteron processor or the 3800+ would work, upgrade if you can
afford it, select NVidea quadro 540, get rid of the 15" monitor (oh,
geez, I'll bet you spec 15" or 17" monitors for CAD too).

It's got a Gb of RAM, a decent processor, and base-line video card that
has been supported for the past 4-5 years, and takes advantage of
RealView. . Joystick is extra. It will work for simple things, if
that's all you need it for.

It's off the shelf, and about $1100. A little more than your $500
special, but infinitely more usable for SW. You could get something
similar from Dell, but get Intel instead of AMD, get a better
warrantee, and pay a couple hundred more, you'd have less machine, but
a higher CYA factor, which is important for newbie IT types.

I'm sure they used slide rules for most of that calculation work.

That's a brilliant defense, calling everyone old. I'm glad to be 31,
since Jack-Ass-ism seems to infect anyone younger than me. Glad to be
old!

Oh, that's what they teach IT people in college? I didn't know you all
had the corner on the basket case market.

No, I don't think anyone expects you to use your real name, after
coming here making an ass of yourself about something so ridiculous.
Still, I thought I'd ask. You're plenty naive enough about other
things.

Ok, what in the hell are you arguing about here? You've taken the
newsgroup's advice and replaced the Radeons with FireGL? So what's
your beef now? Youve got nothing left to argue about. You've already
conceded the point. You talked about success with some random setting
earlier, didn't that work out?

The "Fire has been out" for many years, even under ATI since 2001. You
came to this newsgroup with a problem with a Radeon system, and now in
response to the overwhelming reaction, have done the sensible thing and
changed the Radeons to FireGLs and are trying to cover your tracks.
Damn, eating crow is tough. You'd be better to just slink away with
your tail between your legs.

Damn, you swapped out the cards because your "successful" random button
pushing didn't work. Why am I wasting my time with you?

pbbbbbrrtttt!

Love,

Roland.

 

You should read your post and mine a little more thoroughly before spouting
whatever it is your spouting (and I'm not calling them experience since you
just recently read up on it in the past day or so).
In the above you claim that the FireGL line was only out for the past few
months and the Radeon was what was offered prior in the workstation class
PCs. Now you change your story about how long they have been out after you
"bothered" doing a little research. Who's fabricating...?
In the above, I did not say anything about ATI owning the FireGL line for
8-9 years. Only that I used a Fire GL1 then and that the product line had
been out for that long. ATI did not have a workstation card until they
aquired the FireGL line from Diamond in 2001. Prior to that ATI was a
gaming card only manufacturer WITHOUT a workstation class product. The
FireGL line has been the only workstation product ever offered by ATI and is
continuing to be the only workstation product offered by them.

So you see, I was not making anything up, but obviously you were when you
claimed that the FireGL line had only been out a few months. So watch were
you plug in your monitor cable.

Ken

 

It's because those applications are supported by the Graphics Card
manufacturer on those cards and they will fix issues with those drivers if
there is a problem with any of the supported applications. If ATI is called
with a problem that is experienced in SolidWorks because of the drivers on
their Radeon card, they will not fix the issue because ATI does not support
that application on the Radeon. That is the big advantage to using a
workstation class product, and that is why people recommend the more
expensive, but historically more reliable, workstation class products for
workstation class app use. This is also why these cards will stay on the
application vendors certification lists longer.

Ken

 

Sorry Ken, but your still wrong. Those stations I quoted did not have Fire
cards in them until a few months ago. Go pull the specs on the older
versions of the stations which you can still get off the Tech Support sites.
The facts are the facts.

Hey, it is nice that these companies now feel that these ATI Fire card are
solid enough for their workstations. Your not going to see me complaining
about that.

 

<<I am pretty sure all you need is a TI-83 or 89 graphing calculator to
figure out the space shuttle's re-entry. >>
Well, I guess I will eat my hat on that one

Glad to see the Radeon works for you as you need it just as it does for me.

 

Perhaps they have more compute power than the computers on the shuttle?
They would seem to be "All five GPCs are IBM AP-101 computers."
[
The main memory of each GPC is non-volatile (the software is retained when power
is interrupted). The memory capacity of each CPU is 81,920 words, and the memory
capacity of each IOP is 24,576 words; thus, the CPU and IOP constitute a total
of 106,496 words.
]
Don't ask about the clock speed ...

BTW, Such are not hard calculations anyway.

 

I'm sorry, aren't you the idiot that just that a UNC is not a share name on
a server? in the "Can't install 2006 SP3.1 - MSI file issue" thread - HA HA
HA.

Don't try to BS your way out of this by saying that there a 9000 factors
when you know that you are full of it. These are 4 inch by 1 inch models
with 10 parts so don't try to pretend that you know something by pulling out
the SW manual.

You know that the material does not make a performance difference on such
small models. As for the detail on the models don't try to BS your way out
of that either. Unless I am drawing road maps on the outside of my shafts
there will be no performance difference there either.

You already know that my FEA is fine so don't try to BS your way out with
that either.

<< If you really don't do anything except model boxes and cylinders, you
wasted money buying SolidWorks >>

Well, we might have some common ground there. I did not make the decision
to go with SW because it was not mine to make. Had I been involved with it
I would have give my input about the very limited compatibility with the
types of hardware right down to the specific driver version. I also would
have given it negative marks on the its inabilities to share files easily
with previous versions, but most of all the worst thing about it is the
nasty support group full of people that rather defend these flaws rather
than try to help.

<< FEA puts a huge load especially on RAM and CPU, much more so than SW >>

Wow, no problems with the FEA but the slightest settings issue and SW can't
even zoom very well. Yet another reason why we may have common ground on
how we wasted our money on SW rather than purchasing a competitor.

<<You've taken the newsgroup's advice and replaced the Radeons with FireGL?
Could you please point out where I replace anything? The dealers replace
Radeons in the systems they now sell, not I, but then again you can't read
very well nor do you know what a UNC is as you posted in the "Can't install
2006 SP3.1 - MSI file issue" thread .

<< Why am I wasting my time with you? >>

Because I keep proving what a fool you are and you cannot stop until you
somehow find something to stick instead of getting thrown back in your face
Mr. UNC man. I guess I will talk to you again tomorrow.

 

Don't try to BS your way out of this by saying that there a 9000 factors

There is no SW manual.

It's clear that I'm not the one BSing here. You can't let go of the
idea that SolidWorks somehow cares about the physical size of your
product. You have to understand what you are doing before you can spec
a machine for it. SW is not a freaking video game, quake boy. This is
why the IT dept stops outside the engineering office door at my
company. They simply don't understand. The IT folks at my company do
however understand that a folder share name is not equal to an entire
UNC path.

You would prefer to spec a machine with no knowledge of the
application, which explains why you came here with a video problem
which you completely misdiagnosed as a mouse problem. There's the IT
genius Jordan at work for you.

Material doesn't make a difference in any model, regardless of size,
especially since you have a non-recommended video card which is not
enabled for RealView. What does make a difference is the process you
are designing for and the tools you use to do it. Plastic parts have
draft, and shell and tons of fillets, all of which require more CPU
than basic boxes. Fillets and complex shapes add to the CPU and
display load. Sheetmetal functions are more CPU hungry than simple
extrudes and revolves. Of course none of this means anything to you.
Just spec a game box.

How can your FEA possibly be fine? You don't understand the
application or how it's being used! You don't have any clue if it's
"fine" or not. You wouldn't know fine if it bit you on the ass. The
machine is underspec'ed for the task. You've got a game box and you've
got other people trying to run FEA on it. 512 Mb RAM? That's a
freaking joke.

You're proving that someone is a fool for sure, it's not me, though.
All you should do is look in a mirror, its all sticking.

The common ground is that you belong supporting a bunch of spreadsheet
users, porn surfers, freecell playing office wonks, not engineers.
Someone will figure that out in short enough order if they haven't
already. You don't understand the applications, you've got some
religious zealot attitude about hardware, aren't open to learning, and
a completely unjustified arrogance has blinded you to good advice.

IT exists to help other people do their jobs, not to strut around with
some bizarre chip on their shoulder. You picked the wrong place to
come around showing off your ignorance.

Roland

 

Blah blah blah blah.

Now you trying to weasel out of not knowing what a share name is or what a
UNC is by trying to play the words. The fact is that you still don't know
that when you reference a share name on a server that is called referencing
by UNC. \\servername\Sharename

<< which explains why you came here with a video problem which you
completely misdiagnosed as a mouse problem >>

Still can't read can you? I guess since you could not read that old post
you dug up to start the new thread you probably did not read my issue that
started this thread:

"For instance when they use the middle scroll button to zoom in and out it
takes a good two seconds or more to move in or out each click of the wheel.
Clicking a surface to highlight it also takes a couple of seconds when
normally these things are instantaneous."

That is just a description of the problem so that even a dope like you could
picture what is going on. Where do you come up with these ramblings? Your
one obsessed dude. You have to respond to every one of my posts with half
@$$ed information and you have to search years of archives in the hopes of
finding my name. What a loser.

<< How can your FEA possibly be fine? >>

Well, if you must know I ask the engineers who are supposed to know better
than me how it is working and they say "fine". If they said this stinks and
it takes me an hour to solve I would suggest something more powerful. The
don't. They say "fine." Maybe I should go call them stinking liars and
beat them until they tell me what YOU want to hear.

<< There is no SW manual. >>

Why don't I find that hard to believe?

<< you've got some religious zealot attitude about hardware >>

Not at all. I just stick with whoever is reliable. The day ATI stops being
reliable they are gone. You on the other had have this insane obsession
with non-ATI cards and feel that anyone that says they work fine for them
must be the devil themselves committing blasphemy against the SW Certified
list. How dare I say that my card works for my needs and that my engineers
are happy. What a mortal sin against the holy SolidWorks.

 

when you reference a share name on a server that is called referencing

Which is my point exactly

share = Sharename
UNC path = \\servername\Sharename

Looks like that day has arrived. Your not supporting excel users, porn
surfers or freecell players, which Radeon works well for. Youre doing a
piss poor job of supporting SW users, and Radeon is not reliable or
even recommended for that.

 

Looks like SW thhought it was good enough to put on their list of cards and
say that it was only limited by a certain amount of windows. Again, fine
with me so don't get all bent out of shape because it is not fine for you.

<< Which is my point exactly >>

No your point was to not read the post and open your mouth without
comprehending what you just read. You totally blew off the 3 times I told
the person not to reference by drive and to put the files on a "Share" on a
"Server". DUH!!!

Again, go to bed and get some rest because you obviously can't think right
now.

 

Looks like SW thhought it was good enough to put on their list of cards and

See, this is what I just don't get. SW goes to the trouble to tell
users that a card is NOT RECOMMENDED, and you take that to mean that
it's ok. We've been through this. It's sad enough that you couldn't
understand this from reading the site, and far worse now that several
people have explained the concept of NOT RECOMMENDED to you.

 

Not recommended because of XXX limitations. The limitations are more than
acceptable for us and the problem was not the hardware so what is your point
again? Why should I go buy a $1000 video card when mine works fine?

Still don't get your obsession and rambling and anger about my getting
something to work fine.

 

Not recommended because of XXX limitations

believe me, there were more limitations than what was listed. If you
look at the GeForce cards, it mentions the same limitations as for the
Radeons, but the Radeons are very crash prone, where the GeForce just
slow to a crawl after so many windows are open, no crash.
Interestingly, the GeForce can be driver hacked to run like full
Quadros.

You don't have to, you could buy a $250 card. I for one do not believe
that SW users don't have problems with the Radeons. If they see you
for the idiot that you show here, it's no surprise they don't want to
deal with you.

 

And what brand name "workstation" were you quoting? I seem to recall a post
of what seemed to be specs for off the shelf consumer machines with no brand
name or model listed. Were they a tier one certified brand name
workstations such as a Dell Precision or HP XW lines, or were they one of
the niche workstation manufacturers such as Boxx or TriStar. If you post
what brand/model you quoted, I'll be happy to look up the specs if it was
indeed a real workstation class PC.

Ken

 

One might assume that it takes the same amount of time to compute A*B
for almost any random values of A & B (simple rationals).

 

You might be ahead to ask jb how to use it .... & install it & on
what.

 

Switch to UNIX.
Use environment variables, mounts & exports.

 

Have the wrong kind of card for3D?