SW 2004 - Why?

Hi,

As a long time SW user I watch this group with interest and have picked up a
lot of hints from you guys but I do not understand this insatiable desire
some seem to have to upgrade to the latest release as soon as it appears! Do
you have lots of spare time on your hands? The troubles I see here related
to 2004 scares the sh-- out of me. I've been running 2003 for a couple of
months which, on XP Pro, works just fine for me. As I'm based in the UK
with most of the manufacturing sourced in the Far East (I'm not very proud
to admit) it means we send a lot of files back and forth to our suppliers
who have to update whenever we do, so why keep changing? I'd have thought
that none of us associated with the product design industry needs all the
problems the early versions of these new releases can bring and I sure don't
have the time to keep going round learning curves and fighting buggy
software. Nope, I'll keep a year behind and leave it to the 'must have guys'
to fight SolidWorks and get the software bugs sorted while I spend my time
designing products and making lots of money (well some anyway)....

Sonny

 

It really all comes down to your personal comfort level.

Many of us are just tech junkies who cannot wait for the next best
thing, be it SWX 2005, Athlon 64, Half-Life 2, 2006 Corvette, or the
like.

Personally, I believe that SWX stability problems are usually blown out
of porportion here, but that is my opinion. It is human nature to be
more vocal over problems.

Bottom line, if you don't feel comfortable with changing to the latest
and greatest, don't. Just don't let your aversion to change hold you
back.

 

Some people just love new stuff. Plus, there are a lot of improvements
in the new software, so some people upgrade because of the new stuff.
Some people are just curious. I'll bet some people still use the old
software while they are checking out the new software in their "spare
time". I'm kind of in that mode now, I have 2 projects due in SW03, and
chomping at the bit to use 04 because I know that some of the
difficulties in the project could be avoided with the new software, but
the customer requires deliverables in 03 native.

The first thing you should know about this group is that you cannot take
everything people say seriously. There are some people that complain
because it is Tuesday and the sun is shining. The first thing they see
that they don't understand, they fire a flamer to the NG, don't bother
to figure out what it was that they saw or why it is that way or if it
was their own fault or anything. If something is wrong, it can only
mean that Solidworks is evil.

The people that are successful with the software tend to pose questions
about things they don't understand rather than yell out simple
unchallengeable blanket statements that something is wrong with the
software and the people that write it.

Because there are new features and functions that make life easier.

Well, don't imply that the people using the new software aren't working
as well. There are quite a few that I know that have been using 2004
for money making work even in beta. I think you're listening a little
too closely to people who post more for theatrical effect than to give
useful information.

matt.

 

I would have to pretty much agree here as we upgrade when we see the
benefits outweigh the risk. If there are new features or bug fixes that we
see as beneficial, then we decide when to jump. One example is the limit
mates in SW2004. Our products are custom machines that all deal with motion
and the limit mate will certainly help visualize & analyze the motion.

I have been "using" 2003 and "playing" with 2004 to get a feel for it, and
also to check out if certain bugs are still there. The main thing to keep
in mind is that once you switch to a new version, there's no turning back.
Too bad, but I understand.

WT

 

alphadraw wrote on 16.9.2003 18:20

Bleadingedge is my hometown.

I also switched to 2003 a few months ago - in fact, just before the beta's
for 2004 started. I joined the beta program, and found very quickly that
2004 had much more to offer than the switch from 2001+ to 2003. In fact, the
waste of time for me was that switch. Should have waited for 2004! And for
my use, I find 2004 a much better workflow. So far, I have had no crashes
with 2004sp0, which seems better than I was having with 2003sp3/4.

But at the same time, there are clearly some bugs and odd behaviors. But at
the moment it is worth the risk as there are features I need and that have
solved some tricky modeling problems.

Choice! we make 'em every day. Good and bad. If it works it works. But did I
mention my hometown? I always love to go home....

Cheers!
Daniel

 

daniel wrote on 16.9.2003 20:22

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

I knew if I wrote that I would be jinxed! I should have knocked on wood...
Just saw my lovely desktop faster than expected. Mating some parts.... :-((

Get back on the horse....

 

Everyone's needs are different. I'm still happily running 2001Plus.

And you mention not upgrading so your suppliers won't have to upgrade.
Well, there's one reason right there why a lot of people upgrade: because
an important customer has upgraded so now you have to as well. It sounds
like you are in a situation where you're setting the trend. Not everyone
has that luxury.

The same vicious cycle harrasses MS Office users. I still have Office 97
on my home PC but here in the workplace you reach a point where it's just
easier to upgrade than to repeatedly ask people to resend that attachment
in an older file format (and you usually have to explain to them in
detail how to do it). (Hopefully OpenOffice.org will put an end to that.)

And another reason to upgrade is to justify the maintenance cost. It's
hard to watch that colorful shrinkwrapped box gather dust when you know
you paid good money for it.

Joel Moore

 

Took me quite a while to go to 2003 (it was March, I think), mostly
because I won't switch horses in midstream on a project. Since my
projects tend to be large assemblies (machine design, largely) it's
often a good while before I get to the bitter end of one and begin
another. BUT, there are others who don't have that kind of limitation .
.. . specifically product designers like Paul Salvador. He and many
others want the best bang for their hours spent, and although the chance
of getting burned is substantial, it's not overwhelming on small
projects.

'Spork'

 

The maintenance program is strong temptation for a software vendor to misbehave.

Joe Dunfee

 

(Smiley) wrote in

Ah! A conspiracy buff!

But seriously I can't imagine any vendor purposely adding bugs to convince
customers that maintenance is worth the money. Only because bugs will
happen anyway without purposely sticking them in there.

I suppose someday in a distant Utopian future when machines are able to
write perfect software then maybe bug insertion to guarantee revenue will
become common.

Joel Moore

 

I think I agree but not as far as "bug insertion" but more along the lines
of complacency. We've all seen it before. Once the contract is in place
they are free to be complacent about fixing things. They come out with
releases but the truly important things don't always seem to come up
quickly. As if to say "we'll get to it"... Human nature and corporate
nature not to work as hard at something once you've already been paid.
These arrangements start out trustworthy but how can you be sure priorities
are being managed effectively? Hey, I'm guilty of paying for maintenance
too, every year, because it always seemed like cheap insurance but I
understand where this kind of opinion comes from (Possibly not next time
around though. SW 2003 has been a constant source of frustration).

- Eddy

 

But seriously I can't imagine any vendor purposely adding bugs to convince

I doubt deliberate bugs. But, Solidworks witholds maintenance
releases from nonsubscribers. This creates an situation where there is
financial value in the bugs. Even if the bugs aren't deliberate, there
is certainly much less modivation avoid releasing them in the first
place.

Joe Dunfee

 

(Smiley) wrote in

THAT I can agree with.