Would this change anything?
interesting concept. wonder how their marketing dweebs would handle that? "Well, with our beta program, we discovered 17 bugs from 6 users......" What if they had a beta program and no one came? At least everyone involved would get a nice shirt. --nick e.
Absolutely it would! The beta testers from SW04 found somewhere over 3000+ bugs. If it wasn't for the beta testers then you would have more problems then what you had when 04 was released. If you don't want to test it then don't do it. But don't try to get it boycotted that's stupid... If it wasn't for the Beta testers then you wouldn't have some of the working functionality you have today. I'm not saying that everyone should do this but at least give everyone choice to decide, besides jumping the gun and try to boycott it. Besides SW05 isn't even ready for beta testing yet.... Jumping on the boat a bit early aren't we Jeff? Regards, Scott
Are you feeling all warm and fuzzy from going to SWWorld or something? I was a Top Beta Tester. I think #15 or something. So I think I have a right to complain that despite all the Beta testing we still received a fairly buggy release and subsequent SPs. BTW-not nearly half of the bugs reported were fixed in SP0. So did it all really matter? You are saying that it would be even worse if the Beta didn't happen. I can see that. But I can also see how it may make them realize that there are a lot of unsatisfied users out here that would like to see a change. Is a boycott the best method? I have no idea and quite frankly wouldn't be the leader of a movement like that. I simply wanted to get the majority feelings on it what would happen, hence my simpy 4 word question. Next time instead of asking "Would it change anything?" and trying to get an understanding on how everyone feels I'll just ask "Who's with me?". That wouldn't be jumping the gun now would it?
If you did this you would likely revolutionize SolidWorks. I mean think of it, the couple dozen whiners in this news group refusing to beta test SW2005. SolidWorks would have to sit up and take notice. Forget the other 285,000 users of the software who might participate. We all know the people in this news group are the best cross section and best representation of the true world-wide SolidWorks community. They'd have to listen. In fact, I know they will read this post right here. They have to. I mean, who in their right mind would try to develop software without first gauging what a single news group has to say. Forget the fact that you have nearly 300K other users and are part of a multi-billion parent company and that you were founded by some of the brightest minds in the parametric CAD world. Hey, LISTEN UP SOLIDWORKS. We won't stand for this anymore. Either you start listening to this news group or I am going to withhold my maintenance. Let's see how you will survive without my $1250 per year. Oh, and by the way, let's also boycott it if they don't port to Linux by 2006. That will teach em.
No I don't think it would. It would possibly just make the release of 2005 worse. Speaking of 2005 here is the report from World Day 2 http://www.cadonline.com/cadalyst/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=82678
Jeez, you guys don't know how good you have it. Flip over to Autodesk if you want to see some bugs and how *not* to fix them. Two of the last three IV Series releases had bugs so bad that I couldn't use the software. I've had defects logged for YEARS that have gone unfixed... real problems that cause unpredictable geometry. Credit SW for being honest about the defects that exist and their commitment to fix them. Brian
"The updated user interface features Windows XP-style icons with 256 colors" OH MY GOD!!! Finally! Do you have ANY idea how long i have been asking for this?!?! Way to go SW!!! -nick e.
honest? like pulling a SP because pdf-printing is allegedly broken? Like I don't have bugs submitted (SPR and all) that have never been fixed. sheesh. --nick e.
Jeff as you have said in this thread you are asking a general question in order to stimulate debate. Well here is my contribution. People have mentioned that if a boycot of the beta testing happened then all those thousands of bugs would not be found and we would be in worse position - Well this got me thinking. Imagine if a boycott had happened for 2004, then the tthousands of bugs would not be found - but the next question is - would SW then release sw2004? I am not so sure, as releasing 2004 with an additional 2000 bugs would certainly backfire and if a released SW2004 was even worse than it currently is, then SW's reputation would be trashed. I don't think SW are that stupid to endanger the reputation of their product to such an extent. So they would have had to either delay release untill 2004 (as the name says) or employ testers and slash budgets elsewhere to pay for these testers. Which would they have done? I don't know - but either way the product would have been better. The downsides to these two options are :- If release delayed - Results would have been a slower release cycle to a more realistic 1 per year. Resources spent in house on testing with budgets cut elsewhere - Results would be as quick a release cycle but with less functional additions and more concentration on reliabilty and core features. Perhaps the boycot of beta testing is a better lever than any boycot of subscription payments if your goal is greater stability over function. Are there other scenarios I have missed? What are your comments on the above? Regards Jonathan Stedman
the problem here is the REASON they pulled it!! If it was a major bug, fine, pull it, fix it, re-release it as 2.1. But come on, broken-pdf printing?!?! THAT is my real bitch with SW right now. I have REAL bugs that affect my use of the software RIGHT NOW and they pull a SP because of pdf-printing. How the hell can ANYONE defend this reason for pulling SP2.0? Mr. Dunne? Mr. Jankowski? Care to explain why PDF-printing is so flipping essential to SW operation? I have major bugs that aren't even slated for a SP yet. And they pull this bullshit. I don't care that they pulled it, but at least give us a REAL fucking reason for it. Pulling it for a PDF printing problem makes it look like the needs of Bluebeam *FAR* outweigh the needs of us users. And how fucking long does it take to fix PDF printing anyways? Because, per SW, THAT is the only problem with the SP. Not random feature suppression. Not stability. Nothing else. Like I've said before, there are an infinite number of ways to create PDFs from SW. We did just fine up until SW2003 without it being directly in SW, we can deal without it again until SP3.0 if SP2.0 fixed some REAL bugs. But no. Bluebeam is more important than us. **** Bluebeam, too, for that matter. I'll never buy one of their products because of their association with SW, and because their contract apparently made SW pull the SP, regardless of how many bugs it may have fixed. --nick e.
Well put Jonathon. I was thinking the same thing but couldn't put it in "less than harsh" words. We all need to remember that beta testing wasn't born out of a desire for large corporate software to become better. I believe it was born out of small software shops that lacked the personnel and funding to do their own testing. Shareware comes to mind. I think at some point big companies caught on to the fact that they could enlist zealous users to do free testing, in exchange for a little metal credit, free t-shirt, or whatever. Basically, they found a way to save money. I've been a beta tester in the past, for large and small softwares and really used to enjoy it, until I started to feel more and more used (again, Autodesk comes to mind, circa 1996/1997) but I don't do it much anymore. I also used to work for software based product companies where in-house testing was always more prevalent than external betas. When the betas and pilots happened the developers had a very good idea of how complete the software was, or wasn't. - Eddy
Nick Sorry Nick to raise your blood pressure - , re-reading my post I was not clear with my words. Quote from my previous post "Which would they have done? I don't know - but either way the productwould have been better. The downsides to these two options are :- " I should have said " the downsides for Solidworks to these two options are :- " and thinking on it some more these downsides are really marketing considerations. Short times between upgrades plays well when trying to keep ahead of the competition and makes new sales, so SW does not want to delay these and lose in the marketing war with competitors Reliabilty and core features are 'expected' by new customers so if a salesman starts to stress them you begin to get suspicious. A sales technique is to never mention to the customer anything about features of the product that the customer, in his possible naiviety, already assumes is a given feature. We are so accustomed to reliable mechanical machines in our everyday lives that we assume software is reliable as well !!. So SW never mentions it as it hopes we assume its software is as reliable as the mechines we work, with such as lathes, milling machines etc. I just wish SW was a Japanese company or at least had Japanese bosses - By the way just got an American built 6yr old Honda and it drives like new! If SW started to trumpet how reliable SW was now and getting better, possible customers would say " you mean it was not reliable before. Hold on a while before I issue the purchase order Mr Salesman - I just want to check out this 'reliabilty' issue you have just raised " and the sale is lost. Glum sales man - no bonus reached this month - note to myself - better not mention reliabilty again. So if SW2004 was reliable and stuck to its core features but at the expense of new 'bells & whistles" because these budgets were reduced, then sales men and marketing men would not like that either. So they went for the third option which was free bug testing by users. Perhaps I am a cynic or as I heard recently but can't remember where " A cynic is actualy an optimist who does not want to be disappointed again" Regards Jonathan Stedman
