SP2, PDF and other issues being discussed

Hello everybody,



First I was good meeting and talking to many of you at SWW. Its always great
to finally meet in person, those to whom you have be corresponding via
email, newsgroup and the rest. Communication is much more effective when you
can talk in person.



I thought I would respond to a few different threads that I have read here.
This is not really a official response, it's my personal views. My
responsibilities are not integrally involved in the release of SPs. I do
not know all the issues. .



However I do know that "printing to PDF" is not why the SP was pulled. The
suppression issue is one that was tied to PDF. So it was something hard to
find and important to fix. In addition there were another ways I found to
trigger the suppression of features when saving a file. Changin material or
color would trigger it too.



So I believe the reasons to pull the SP was because there were serious
issues that we found and are addressing. Not because print to PDF was
broken.



The negativity from a few of you about how bad SW people are, or SW
marketing scum is yada yada yada... is:



A. Not productive

B. Not effective

C. Not true

D. Makes those who could help, not want to stick their necks out here on
this forum.





Every meeting I am in, every discussion that takes place at SolidWorks
involves discussion on quality.



But actions speak louder than words. So hopefully you will see this.



OK now putting on bullet proof underwear and vest now.... Be gentle





Joe Dunne

SolidWorks

 

A brave soul you are for putting on the target - thanks.

I think if the message about pulling the service pack had mentioned it was
the suppression issue, not the PDF one, the masses would have been much more
understanding. Even though the PDF issue was related, it had the appearance
of triviality. Thanks for the clarification.

WT

 

I'll be nice....I promise... ;-)

Then why not admit this? If this is indeed the reason--and not just an
attempt at damage control--why can't SW admit this in the first place?

It makes the pulling of SP2.0 much more reasonable. If you guys tell us the
REAL reason a SP is pulled--ie: something SERIOUS--then I would not be
nearly so critical of you guys.

If this is indeed the case, then I fully understand and agree with your
pulling SP2.0.

But that is not what we were told. We told a bullshit story about
PDF-printing being broken.

Again, the official word is that PDF-printing is broken.

If so, why not just say so from day one?

Again, you (SW Corp) asked for it. TELL us the problem. Don't make something
up about PDF-printing being broken.

BTW, ALL marketing-dweebs are scum. Not just yours.

Again. Don't lie about the reason.

No lie == less bitching

Then why does it seem so bad? Once again, tell us the reason. Don't lie.
yadda-yadda-yadda. Ad nauseum.

Indeed.

Your (SW Corp) actions tell me that you care more about your Bluebeam
contract than about the users.

I think I was more than gentle.

-nick e.

 

Dear Joe:

It is good to see someone from the company on the newsgroup.

I am thinking about getting Solidworks for a possible new startup
(would need two copies for two locations in two states). I already
called and talked to someone at the SW offices and have gotten the
general info AND have been looking over the website--and am also
watching here for the "latest and greatest" information.

Our planned use is for designing mechanical parts and assemblies
(one assembly = four small parts). Maybe 200-400 different
assemblies, many using the same parts. Most parts are made on CNC
equipment, and I am finding most shops prefer some type of
electronic format in order to quote and manufacture parts
accurately. One shop here recommended Solidworks, and I see it
being mentioned on many machine shop web sites as a format they
accept.

My concern is mostly about software reliability, consistency of
use (version to version), and the ability to be backward-
compatible with previous versions. I do not want to buy the
"latest and greatest" SW2004 and then find I have to pay to redo a
pile of drawings and other stuff when 2005 (or 2006/2007/etc)
comes out. I can think of better things that need doing. A
one-time conversion of all drawings/assemblies/etc might be ok,
but only if it offers "new and improved" features in the newer
software that is not available in the older format/style.

I have been using desktop computers in business since 1980
(ouch--showing my history <g>), so I have the scars of experience
in software design and development.

I am the one spending the money for the business if it gets going,
and part of that expenditure is to buy the tools needed to do the
job. I have to be able to show I am buying the right tool (the
right CAD/solid-modeling program) over the long term.

I am concerned about the pulling of SP2. Not because it was
pulled, but rather because it was released in the first place. To
me, this indicates a major failure in QA/testing--and *that*
raises a flag regarding your main product (as it supposedly also
went through that same *rigorous* testing...). I do *not* like
surprises when buying a product of this type.

Now you understand my position and why I am concerned.

I would like to get an idea of what is next on the agenda, as I am
not deciding "yes" or "no" at this time--but I *may* need to do so
shortly.

Regards, Jerry (MN)

 

And this could have been all cleared up by being honest in the first
place?

Anyhow, it's appreciated. BTW, I agree, on the suppression thang, for
me, color or pw2 material changes were one of the things were "fairly"
(not always) consistent before saving.

...

 

thanks for fronting...
a lot of people want better communication with SW.
a lot of people want sp that actually fix things.
what is actually going to be done about that? rather than talk about it in
every meeting?
re reasons ABCD..
why isn't strident criticism like that getting through to you?
if you worked for me and were telling customers their complaints were not
productive and not effective I would sack you on the spot.
this is the culture problem you have... and it sounds a lot like arrogance
to me
cheers
no that I expect a reply... : (

 

Neil, for one I welcome Joe (and anyone else from SW Corp) back to the
newsgroup. I hope what happened in earlier times will NOT happen. That
is to say I hope that people will be helpful and not insulting to Joe.
I've posted some pretty bitter things myself, but I'd MUCH rather use
the opportunity to create a helpful dialog, if that's possible. And I'd
prefer that people NOT post that it's NOT possible -- that's FAR from
the truth. Please note that I said "far from the truth", not "lie".
The choice of words can be very meaningful.

A couple of things I DO understand about SolidWorks Corp is that the
people there work very hard. As such, it's easy to believe that they
are easily insulted when people accuse them of not keeping faith. I
also BELIEVE, from having discussions with people at SolidWorks Corp
that they do truly care a lot about quality issues, and that at least
some of problems that are evident in the software releases and SPs are
as puzzzling to them as it is to us, if not more so.

That being said, I have to echo that I haven't noticed a meaningful
increase in openness in communication that we all hoped would occur
after the "tres Amigos" meeting in the Summer of 2001. Marketing spin
still seems to be marketing spin. The pulling of SP2.0 was an example,
as others have indicated.

So, I have especially three issues that I want to chide SolidWorks
about:
1) Already mentioned . . . marketing spin. Get somebody 'real' to
communicate with the users.
2) Releasing new versions and SPs prematurely. PhotoWorks 2 is a good
example of nearly useless software that never should have made it out
the door -- and SolidWorks has been presented with voluminous
documentation backing that claim (and they're quite aware of it).
3) Just as there is a constant need to analyze the needs of users and be
innovative in making the software better and easier to use, there is
JUST as much CONSTANT need to analyze QA processes and figure out why
things that should not pass muster actually does pass. There are good
reasons (some of which I can't mention) why I firmly believe this is not
happening. John McEleney may be passionate about QA, but that
apparently either
a) does not extend throughout the organization or
b) is not effective in achieving change for some reason (perhaps
territorialism?) or
c) both

I'm one who believes there needs to be a person whose ONLY task is to
analyze why things are not going better, and who leads an effort to
innovate in the area of QA. I'm sure that it's enough of a job just to
manage the day to day operations of quality assurance, and I'm sure
Graham Rae is good at doing that. But just managing the operations is
not enough. SolidWorks needs to support a continuous QA "think tank"
function manned by a specialist or three.

Hoping my comments make it through . . .

Best regards,
Mark 'Sporky' Stapleton
Charlotte, NC

 

Thanks for the bravery Joe. Most of us don't expect a SW response in here
because they're few and far between. I know I never did. Most of us are
dedicated SW users/fans but that doesn't mean we won't get ugly when the
need arises, and lately it's gotten bad (last 12mo's in particular). And
although it's not official it at least helps the overall feeling to have you
here.

I don't agree with everything you said but we know you're doing your
personal best. Most of us know, through using the software, why the SP was
pulled. And that's what makes the downplay even more insulting. Most of us
don't really care why the SP was pulled. We care more about the fact that
it didn't fix what was most important to us in the first place. And we're
afraid, based on the lack of quality over the past year, that it won't fix
those things in the second place.

How can we feel that SW doesn't place more importance on marketing than
quality. Most of us deal with the same issues day after day in a design
environment and what we see is new features (that are typically also broken)
added on top of existing broken features. That's 100% frustrating.

It's also frustrating when the view from SW seems to be more defined by app
engineers than design engineers. Don't get me wrong, our var's app
engineers are tops and we get along at a friendship level (I think), but
it's not the same as a design environment with long term deadlines, clients
breathing down your neck, incompatibilities with vendors who have the last
or next version etc. We deal with these issues in blocks of weeks or
months, not hours or days. Add some other views to the seemingly arrogant
situation and you'll begin to understand the vocal frustration motivating
many of us. And before another ex-app engineer tells me it's the same with
other software, remember this, SW was supposed to be different.

Actions *do* speak louder than words. We're still waiting for quality. And
we'll let *you* know when we get it. Not the other way around.

Again, thanks and hope to see more of you here. It really is appreciated.
I'm looking forward to the day when we can be more on the same page again.
It's been awhile.

- Eddy

 

Hello Joe-

Thanks for the response.

Here are a few of my thoughts:
1. Please develop a better policy and procedure for testing and debugging
your software.
2. I feel uncomfortable with your policy of relying on unpaid and possibly
untrained users to debug your software. If you need to raise your prices to
produce a better product, then just do it. People will pay for quality.
3. Please test software PRIOR to release. SolidWorks is giving the
impression that they just "throw out" the product and "hope" it's OK.
4. Please understand that we use SolidWorks as a tool to make money and
provide for our families. When the software is "buggy" and causes a
reduction in productivity, then we loose time and money. For example, one of
my customers lost over 50 hours of labor when Service Pack SP11 for 2001
caused many drawing files to become corrupted and these files had to be
recreated. They still talk about this to this day.
5. Please consider slowing down your release cycles, I'd rather have a fully
tested and reliable product than a product that appears to be released only
to increase sales to new customers.

Best Regards,
Devon T. Sowell
www.3-ddesignsolutions.com

 

ahh come on Sporky...nothing changes...I don't think Joe is really open to
what anyone here thinks.....there are culture and management problems inside
SW...even if they do work hard at it...now you guys are going all cuddly on
them....really you are just taking longer to say the same things I did
....what we all said....but I will sit back quietly while you have tea and
scones with the nice Mr Joe Dunne if that's what you want...spine is
obviously out this year...(apologies to Mr Dunne..)

bah, humbug....

 

Nice to see you Joe, but sorry if you expect a cosy reply from all of us. We
have a shitload of data we produced in SP2 that we can no longer access in
rollback to SP1, so we actually upgraded back to SP2 just to keep working.
We are struggling to work on BOMs because they wont accept editing, we are
actually superimposing notes over the top of the BOM table just to keep up
with changes in design.
This is a major headache for us, I dont give a crap about PDF creation,
there are plenty of free/cheap working apps available to do this.
I have cancelled maintenance subscription because I am not getting value
for it, if and when you get a stable version working I will buy it having
saved a lot of money by not having to go through the SP upgrade
process/heartache.

 

Phil,

I think you have a valid reason. I wish I could support you and say
the same thing but, in Nov I did upgrade for the reason others here
upgrade, to keep current and make sure you can help your clients. And,
at the time, I had hope but not now.

I personally do not think SW2004 will be a memorable release.

Surface modeling is NOT functioning properly so it's basically useless
and I do not believe it will be fixed. And, based from the past and
today, there is a high probability that my surface files will fail in
the next sp's and following releases.

My contracts will state that I will not be responsible for SoildWorks
data between service packs or major releases because SolidWorks data is
"not consistent". And, because of SolidWorks data inconsistency, I will
have to charge for any extra time related to model failures due to
SolidWorks inconsistency between service packs or releases.
And, if the client ask what the estimate cost will be for foreseeable
repairs,.. I will estimate an extra 25% cost over the original cost.

So, how does that = productivity and efficiency using SolidWorks...
hmm,..insert an ROI probe to check?

...

 

Joe:

For once, I agree with you completely.

I got flamed by the usual crowd when I suggested that the two issues
(pdf and suppression) were linked, and the larger issue was more likely
the cause of the sp being pulled.

Also, just like the beta bug reporting Cadalyst article, you can see
that SW is going to get criticized for both/either saying or not saying
a given thing. Since the consequences of doing either is the same, why
not just do what is easiest.

I also liked your point that if any of these folks who are so obnoxious
here had to speak to anyone face to face, their tone would be much
different, and that being obnoxious is of no benefit.

matt

 

matt you are a grovelling toad.
if I was standing in front of you I would say the same thing.

 

If the consequence is truly the same either way why be deceiving? The truth
shall set you free. If SW would try the truth every once in a while we
could see the difference it makes. This chicken or the egg stuff has to
stop. Sucking because you're afraid of being criticized for sucking? It
makes no sense.

- Eddy

 

Eeeuu!!

Well, I believe that being "upfront" has more upsides than downsides,
and although there may be some who would shout about something if they
knew the "real" reason and that reason didn't please them there WOULD be
others of us who would post back in defense of being upfront. I know I
would. I honestly believe there would be significant others as well.
We tend to be more unreasonable, collectively, in the ABSENCE of
information than in the PRESENCE of information.

I don't think that giving or supporting a corporate rationale for being
secretive is helpful, Matt. And (Neil) I don't think that flaming a
person who represents a view contrary to your own is very helpful
either.

Mark 'Sporky' Stapleton
Charlotte, NC

 

yeah I know : ) ...but it was fun....not enough fun in this world....

 

Mark:

I'm going to be presenting at a user group meeting down in your neck of the
woods next month. Maybe I'll finally be able to put a face with the
opinions.

....

Anyway, you've been around long enough to know that I'm not likely to
support secrecy. There were a couple people, uncluding Joe D. who were
trying to get/share information about the suppression bug's relationship to
the save as PDF. After I was flamed for my part in this effort, I decided
that there was no motivation for me to try to help people like that. I
emailed a couple of people privately to trade their info for my info.

At that point, I don't think even SW tech support really had any strong
evidence to link the two, but it was a theory they were asking for help
with. Notice that not even Joe D. has a full explanation for it. I
imagine the webmaster is further down the list than Joe. This has been an
elusive problem to track down, by all accounts, and the omniscient high end
experts here haven't shed much light on it. The only thing SW knew for
sure was that there was a problem with the PDF. Posting this as the reason
for the sp being pulled may have been incomplete information, but I believe
that it is the only information that was really known for sure at the time.

The person who knows most about this issue is probably a developer who has
been working 18 hours a day and sleeping under his desk for the last couple
of weeks trying to get this bug fixed. I don't think it's a surprise that
they haven't sent out an update until they're sure they've got it nailed,
which will likely mean after the fix has been tested.

So they're flamed if they do, and they're flamed if they don't. After
putting out a bad SP, I think they'd be a bit careful about prematurely
talking about the fix, which was the right thing to do, flames
notwithstanding.

matt

ps - See you Feb 29

 

Matt -- I'll happily accept whatever "heat" you have to offer. ;-)
Yes, I'd be very happy to meetcha and I'd certainly make an extra effort
to get to a meeting if I know you're gonna be there.

My "neck of the woods" is likely to be either the NCPSUG (North Carolina
Piedmont SolidWorks User Group) that meets in Concord, NC (I'm the VP,
but that's a joke as I haven't been to a meeting in a while now) or the
CSWUG (Charlotte SolidWorks User Group) that meets just a couple of
exits down the interstate from me. If it's the RTPSWUG (Research
Triangle Park SolidWorks User Group) I'll probably miss it . . . they
meet about 2 1/2 hours away from me.

Best regards,
Marky

 

I do these things for fun, no heat will be offered. )

I think it is the Piedmont group. The request came from Todd Anderson. I
had the date wrong, it should be Feb 19th. I was at the other group near
Mechlinburg last month.

Topic is "Swoopy Shapes". I'll try to have all new material for this,
since some of the stuff I've been showing is getting a little threadbare.

Anyway, see you then.

matt