SW2008 why?

My perspective, being a SW user since 95, is that SW2008 is a test
marketing release for SW2009, for what I have seen/heard so far. To see
what stays or goes away. So things that you don't like need to get
communicated SOON to your Var or corporate. They messed with lots of
standardized conventions, some of which go way back. Some are better
implementations, some are not. It took me a little while to get used to
the floating command manager, but I can see the benefit. Why they
screwed with the RMB I will never understand.

So if you are going to complain, make it worth everyones while by
letting your Vars know specifically what you have heartburn about. Soon.

ca

 

I've posted what's really wrong with SolidWorks. When you have the
kinds of problems SolidWorks does, because SolidWorks doesn't have the
tools necessary to easily manage all the complex relations that
SolidWorks creates, it makes the UI issues that you mention pretty
minor.

Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA

 

Rumor has it that 2008 is the result of studying what users want. So
what you are asking for is for users to un-want all the nifty new
stuff they got in 2008. I would suggest a different approach. All
users clam up, zip it, cease and desist, stop, halt and be silent.
This would have the effect of depleting marketing of ideas and let the
technical guys inside SW who really know how to think through this
stuff have a voice again.

TOP

 

http://paulsalvador.blogspot.com/

"SW Corp gets away with releasing half-bake-ware

The reason why SW Corp gets away with releasing half-bake-ware:

Majority rules, 80-90% of the users come from using inexpensive,
inferior and poorly managed design tools. Most of the user base do not
fully use the tool or use very little of the functionality, thus, the
more involved functionality is typically overlooked, poorly critiqued
or supported. Majority of the users expectations on quality are very
low or the need for reliable software is average. Many of the users
come from using past tools with limited functionality, they become use
to or complacent with working around limitations. Workarounds, due to
limitations, have a "at a boy" or a accomplishment related
mentality,.. this is, it becomes an accepted part of the job when
using the software."


Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA

 

An interesting idea... But I'm afraid the marketing people would start
guessing if we stopped giving feedback.

 

Jon,

I don't know what you are talking about it regards to "80-90% of the
users come from using inexpensive,
inferior and poorly managed design tools." you are right that most
users come from that... that is why they step up to solid modeling.
other users did come down from higher end systems. If you want catia
go buy it... but it will cost you!!!! So for the copanies that SHOULD
be using catia, that are too cheap and are using SolidWorks... I don't
see how they can complain.... they weighed the pros and cons and pick
one. It is kinda like moving into a house next to a railroad track
and then complaining to the railroad because of the noise...you knew
what you were getting.

I like what TOP said

"I would suggest a different approach. All
users clam up, zip it, cease and desist, stop, halt and be silent.
This would have the effect of depleting marketing of ideas and let the
technical guys inside SW who really know how to think through this
stuff have a voice again. "


I would however let SWK know about bugs.. but behappy with what you
get... because you know it is a deal!!!


Al Whatmough

Http://www.inspirtech.com - Online SolidWorks training

 

Unlike many vocations, in engineering you are trained and paid to get
it right. Imagine if marketing designed bridges or skyscrapers.

An engineer will welcome a failure as a means to see where it went
wrong and avoid it in the future.

A marketeer cannot comprehend the term failure or mouth the word and
therefore cannot learn from it.

An engineer will find a solution that works and stick with it.

A marketeer will throw away a solution that works for another that
looks/feels like it works.

An engineer will be held responsible for a failure.

A marketeer will hold someone else responsible for failure.

TOP