SP2, PDF and other issues being discussed

Must be a new technical term matt. We had a potential new client call us
last week about doing "swoopy stuff" in SW. I said of course, we're expects
at "swoopy stuff" and then sampled him a bunch of "swoopy stuff" jpgs. Not
sure how the term started but it's pretty accurate I guess. Lofting and
sweeping sounds so antiseptic anyway.



- Eddy

 

Joe,

Thanks for being straightforward. We need more of that around here, though I
have a feeling you may have your hands tied as far as how much you can
participate. I don't think that you will be flamed here as long as you are
blunt an honest. We want to feel valued, we want to be heard and we would
like a reasonable response.

 

Actually, reviewing the last few days of posts, I have found matt to be
quite reasonable (as always) in what he has posted. I have been around here
for just shy of six years, and know that matt has consistently had the
character to put things in a correct perspective - back when he worked for a
VAR (I think he's pretty unique that way - apologies to any others who have
worked for a VAR AND posted what the breadth of info he has) and now that he
is working for a paying customer. He's uncompromising AND fair.

I have ALWAYS treasured his input, and have consistently, without
exception, been impressed that he has the class to say what he knows is
right despite possible pressure from both sides (the ng, and SWx). In so
many ways, I envy how articulate that mother f***er is. He knows how to be
harsh without being obnoxious, and for that... well, I said I envy his
skills.

For the record, I have had conversations with SWx personnel. It comes from
being around for a while and not being shy about telling SWx their failings,
through channels, If your input is good, you become a resource for them.

Our company is very, very tough on them, and they like it, You may have
trouble accepting it, but they want to know where they fucked up, and they
want to know it early enough to fix it, They drink criticism, when it is
early enough for them to effect a change. Gopal, the product definition guy
who matters, constantly evaluates every new project based on user input -
'is this what we should do?' (a direct quote I have heard dozens of times).
That's what we want, and bottom line, that's what all of us have.

They want to know what's wrong, because fixing what's wrong keeps them
employed. I do not try to abuse what little access I have. I don't
escalate every little issue with McElaney or others within the organization,
though they invite it. Because the signal to noise ratio would get out of
hand. Only the big, BIG stuff gets pushed upstream.

But, they want to know where problems are. Seriously. I know (personally)
they are very, very receptive when something really important has been
missed through regular channels. They do, in fact, give a shit, more than
you might know or be willing to accept. To fix our issues, they work hours
that I would never, ever want to work myself,

I was once extremely, EXTREMELY skeptical that issues were actually being
listened to. I do not think that any more. I have seen, first hand, what
can happen.

Is this SP stuff annoying? You bet. Does it hurt us users? No Question.
Are there issues with their internal structure? Yup. Do they care? You bet
they do.

If your VAR gives you an answer on an issue that does not satisfy you, tell
them that the answer DOES NOT SATISFY YOU!!! Make them revisit it and
escalate it if you must. Don't accept second best. You pay them money, so
they work for you. I do this all the time. Hound their asses until they do
what you need.

Vent on the newsgroup, if it helps you get through your day. Maybe someone
else will pick up your banner and carry it for you, propagating your issue
through channels. This is also a great resource. I would not have known
about the spontaneous suppression bug if it were not for you folks, and I
have taken the cue and added to the din.

But I request that you lay off matt. He's too important to all of us to
discourage. He's got a six year track record of being on our side. I don't
want him ever stopping donating his time because it was easier to turn on
the TV than to risk the fallout from a post. matt is good people. He's done
what counts - he's proven his commitment, over years and years and years.

-Ed

 

I wont make any apology for my comment Ed.
I find matt just about as annoying as a circling house fly.

you could get together sometime and congratulate each other about your
superior faculties and sound judgement....

re SW I don't really care about how long they work or dedicated they
are -results are what matter.this quality problem has gone on far too long
and they always get away with it aided and abetted by the honey dew matt
propagates.nice guys,hard working,caring etc. etc.
as an independent (sounding like Paul here) I simply do not have time to
piss around hunting down bugs, hounding VAR asses as you put it ,redoing
every sp and reminding myself how it is all getting better next year....I
don't know if you understand that working in a larger business?
What is wrong with an organisation where only the big stuff gets 'pushed'
upstream? just how big does it have to be before someone gets off their
chair ,sticks his hand in the air and says the buck stops here. I take
responsibility and I will make a statement for the company admitting there
is a problem and apologising for its repercussions.I will fix this
management problem.
Hey its called accountability, it calls for personal integrity and spine.
I will even go so far as to say that if the people who are in decision
making roles cant do better than this they should step down.

All in all it doesn't matter though Ed cause I am disappearing from here as
I said, you can all go back to the stale group think slumber where no waves
get pushed..and humour rarely happens cause it just isn't pc and
professional. in the words of The Prairie Home Companion radio show... all
the women are good looking and the children are above average...
its a pity SW hasn't done what counts....and if you had your gentlemanly way
we'll all still be waiting years and years and years.. long after customers
commitment has dried up and gone elsewhere
cheers
thanks for your curvy stuff tutorials too Ed -forgot to mention you in my
thankyous a few days ago. : )

 

Apparently, you missed this former post:

"Then you have the other end of the expectation spectrum, people who are
kind of overboard like our buddies Janos Nemeth, Roland Scaleri, Paul
Salvador, Jim Sculley and my personal favorite Jon Banquer. You can
tell when they skip their medications."


Jim S.

 

I could not pass this opportunity up. When a real SWX individual is
willing to address the masses, I feel I have to offer my oppinion.
Sorry if this is a bit of a venting.

Our company has used SWX since 98+, since then there have been some
good releases but in the recent past I would say that we are not
getting our maintenance dollars worth. Each new release seems to have
more junk and less stability. I work in an engineering postion and
routinely visit customers to see their work practices and interview
them about our products and our competitors. We gather this info to
make better products, I feel like SWX does some of this but when a new
release comes out (especially lately) it seems like all the available
information is neglected.

I monitor this group before I decide to make an upgrade at our
company. When it looks like a release or SP has very little negative
feed back we upgrade. With the last two releases this was months!!!
It only requires a little subjective tour of this new group to
establish some basic goals for each release. Stability and Speed. If
new functionality affects either of these negatively the new stuff
should be dropped. Its been my experience that 80% of new stuff SWX
has come up with it makes cool demos but is rarely used.

It seems like all the new functionality that is supposed to increase
productivity really ends up hurting because of stablity and overall
speed issues, and that in reality is more of a nusiance to use.

I am not privy to your marketing strategies or approaches, but I do
see and use the end product. It has not been getting better, just
more bloated. I would suggest developing a bench mark that focuses on
core functionallity with out the trinkety junk used to artificially
claim speed improvements (like rapid draft or lightweight) Use that to
measure speed and stability changes. If anything reduces the core
speed and stability forget it. I have seen several folk on this group
throw out their own benchmark speed numbers and it seems that there is
more than a hint of evidence showing a gradual loss of speed with each
release.

Two more things. User don't use solidworks for fun. We create new
products, support manufacuturing, and make a living and feed our
families with what we do. Solidworks is only a tool to use to do
these things. Each release in the last several years has seemed to
cost us more in productivity to use. That is something to consider.

Some time ago a thread cirulated about having a maintenance fee
boycot. I would not advocate that at this time but if each release
continues on this path, I would not consider just a boycot myself but
just like we dropped Pro-E because of these same types of issues I
would consider other packages.

Once again sorry for the venting but I think you need to hear more
about what happens in industry.

 

I don't want to stretch this out, but... there are a couple of
misunderstandings that deserve a hearing.

The problem is that there are a lot of people in that stream. I love that
line from despair.com - 'Teamwork - none of us is as stupid as all of us'.
If any of the folks in the process makes a mistake, an important issue can
stagnate. The number one thing to remember in this, as in all processes, is
that humans are involved, with all of the good and bad things that go along
with that.

It takes me about 30 seconds to send an issue back to my VAR and say 'I am
not satisfied with that answer'. When I submit something, they verify, then
take the issue and push it upstream, and get a response. Sometimes, because
there is a human on the other end, the response is lacking. I do not know
or care who's fault it is... all I know is it is worth my 30 seconds to get
them to spend the 30 minutes to revisit my problems because it might save me
30 hours over the next few years (Ok, 30 hours is probably an exageration,
but you gotta love the rhythm of that sentence). It sucks to take time away
from the job, but 30 seconds is minor when I am looking at hours or days of
lost productivity if I do not.

I have not found a lack of folks at SWx raising their hands and saying the
buck stops here. In my expereince, they take responsibility, from McEleney
on down. Of course, I go through channels, so I am easier for them to
listen to.
I can sit back and listen to a lot of criticism of SWx, because they have
earned a lot of criticism. Just not this one - I have personally witnessed
too much acceptance of blame and taking responsibility to fix things (and,
actually, doing stuff instead of just talking about it) to not take 30
seconds to make the record straight.
Of course, accpeting blame is not the same as fixing things forever so no
more problems arise. There is a LOT of work that needs to be done. But
there is not a culture of blame shifting over there.

I take

If they make bad decisions year in and year out, of course they should go.

Glad they helped. Good luck with everything. Certainly, no hard feelings.
I know what it is like to be frustrated.

 

Ed,

Wow, you didn't need to say that and expose yourself to all this. Thanks,
though. I definitely feel that I have taken more from you than given when it
comes to information that you can't get anywhere else. Thanks for being a
resource.



matt

 

That ol' tricky "Send" button can really bite ya in the butt sometimes,
eh?
8^)

'Sporky'

 

Since SW is a software company, one would assume that they follow the
standard operating procedure:

Severity of the bug is the primary factor. Once sorted into severity
piles, the bugs that will have the largest PR impact or can be used as
ammunition by competitors are addressed first.

Next are bugs submitted by the largest paying customers.

The only exceptions are bugs that cannot be fixed in the time required
before the next release.

Only a show stopper bug will delay release.

Jim S.


Jim S.

 

Deeep, too deep for me.....

 

English tea and scones can damage your brain cells, man! 8^)

...

 

So much for assumptions . . .

 

Since you'r a bit south of me, could it be Yellowtail Ale?

 

Mike:

I know you already know most of this, having worked for more than one
reseller, but the order goes roughly: (this is not an official list, it's
just the way I've noticed it to work)

- Crash bugs
- Regressions (things that used to work in a previous version, broken in
later version)
- serious bugs that have affected a wide range of users and been widely
reported
- data corruption bugs
- bugs that affect the corporate sales demo
- escalated bugs, often from larger customers, if someone has spent more
money, it only makes sense that they have some pull. probably happens at
your company too.
- bugs that affect the training materials
- general bugs that cannot be worked around
- general bugs that can be worked around
- data specific bugs (something is broken only for a given part)
- interface inconsistancies
- misspellings
- random minor imperfections
- bugs that I have submitted
- bugs that someone has decided are "features" (WI, mold tools, Toolbox,
splines)

Volume (how many, not how loud) of reports has to play a large role, that's
easy to measure. Severity of a bug (if it is not a crash) is a little more
subjective. Some people think that the fact that a deform feature can't
use a projected curve as a target curve (but you can convert it into a 3D
sketch and it will work) is a serious bug, but most people will never care.
So there are some judgment calls, obviously, and whenever that happens,
someone is going to be disappointed.

There are also some political hotbuttons, such as the WI, which is being
used for a reason which not even the cynics have come up with yet.

It doesn't work for this ng, and it never worked for me, so 2-3 years ago I
changed my tactics. People eventually figure this out. Look what happened
to the Cadsense Wishlist. Squeaky wheels abused the system, so the system
lost all credibility.

as much as people say they don't like it, money does talk. Big companies
or high profile customers have pull. If you work at Polaroid and go
through the channels, you have a better chance of getting a PDMWorks
drawing display hierarchy problem classified a bug than if you work at
Joe's Garage (the white zone is for loading and unloading only).

no. if anything, that whining frequency is easy to tune out.

better VARs tend to not abuse their access, so it means something when they
escalate an issue. Again, money talks.

The people who write the bug reports from customers and VARs are different
from the people who prioritize, who are different from the people who
actually fix. It's hard to avoid favoritism, but somebody like Ed Eaton
has been valuable to SW in many ways, so he has access that others will
never have. I'm sure you (Mike) could also fall into this category if you
wanted to be there. But realize that SW even tells Ed "no" sometimes.

This is not for your benefit Mike, I'm sure you know all this already, but
if people want to have more access, more pull or influence with SW, here
are some things you can do to make a difference:


- Report bugs in a professional way, clearly stating the problem, how to
reproduce it, work around it, pose possible solutions, etc. Include data
when appropriate.

- Submit enhancement requests that are well thought out, not self-
contradictory

- Be careful not to report user error issues as bugs. A couple of those,
and you lose credibility fast

- Contribute positively to groups like this, the SW subscription group,
local user groups, etc.

- Participate in Beta

- Ask your VAR to get you involved with an advisory board

- Go to the roundtable discussions at SW World. This is a great way to
meet the real players at SW and have direct input.



Really, I think you could sum it up in two words: Professionalism and
Competence. Display these, and you will be heard when you speak.

matt

 

i think (well, know) that you have "regression" and "serious" reversed.

 

Not necessarily so. I know they take regressions very seriously. For
one thing regressions make for very bad PR, and serious bugs slightly
less so. The first thing they read in the newsgroup when new SPs are
released are complaints about regressions.

'Sporky'

 

....

I don't know of anything specifically for that purpose on the SW Forum.
You might want to talk to Greg J, I think his job is the customer relations
bit.

matt

 

Thanks for the suggestion. I have created a Customer Experience group within
the SolidWorks discussion forum and would invite your thoughts and comments.





Regards,

Greg Jankowski

SolidWorks

 

He's everywhere, he's everywhere!!! All of a sudden, out of the blue.....


WT