Upgrading to 2004

Our "Cad Manager" (used loosely) Has approached the powers to be about
upgrading to 2004. I have been asked to assess the customization side
of things. Naturally I would like to upgrade for no other reason than
"just because". But, I would like to know if there have been big
strides towards the customization. I have read in other threads that
there have been some bugs worked out. But my first thought is there
is no real benefit to upgrade.

--
Ken Alexander
Acad2000
Windows2000 Prof.

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind
of thinking we used when we created them."
--Albert Einstein

 

I developed a program for sheet metal panels. The program would have
various errors in 2000. I upgraded to 2004 and it works smooth so far.

I think, from what Luis told me if I got it right, that some of the active x
errors have been eliminated.

Devin

 

There are no huge benefits to upgrading, but there are some that would be
useful.
Customizing is more of a personal thing but you can migrate your
customizing to 2004.

 

Ken,

To me the only benefit is that many of previous bugs have solved, like for
example I have some isometric tools that I made using entmake calls and use
to have a lot of problems when there was a combination between active-x
functions from another routines and also others with reactors included, now
in A2004 there are no problems at all.

In the other hand I never got impresed by the new dialog interfaces and
colored scenario...

Luis.

 

I don't do reactors or active-x, so I don't see any difference in
functionality as far as cuistomizations go. All my menus, toolbars, and lisp
functions went from 2000i to 2004 without a hitch.

Whether there's any benefit in terms of software functionality depends on
your priorities. Some folks elsewhere rave about it. Personally the new look
leaves me cold, and the actual differences in the product are very slight.

Then there's the whole issue of the folder "organization" if you can call it
that. It took me longer to figure out than in any previous version, and cost
me a lot of aggravation. I very nearly decided to just shelve it and wait
for our subscription to bring us something better. I'm sure you've seen the
discussion elsewhere. IMHO the installation is very poorly thought out with
respect to the varying needs of real-world users.

 

Should there even be an issue about upgrading other than the useless
interface dialogs, I personally dislike.

As taken from a programmers point of view it doesn't really matter. We see
things in a different light, than the casual CAD User.

We see much more than the body, but the frame, and the inner gut.

Onward...

I don't use the menus personally, pure command line or shortkey's (my own).

My 2 cents

 

Ken:

Any idea as to his /her motivation to make the switch? I could see the economic
argument if you're currently running 2000x, because it's got to be upgraded or
out by 1/15/2004. But are there other arguments?

Anyway... having paid basically no attention to 2004 customization standards,
I've found thus far that everything 2000+ works fine.

 

John,

I believe his main motivation is Windows XP. I ran XP on my machine
for a while to test it. I found Acad2000 to be unstable with some of
my routines. Now all cad users are stuck with Windows 2000. I know
upgrading is inevitable, at some point we will have to.

--
Ken Alexander
Acad2000
Windows2000 Prof.

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind
of thinking we used when we created them."
--Albert Einstein

 

Thanks for the input from everyone. It would be nice to be rid of
some of the glitches. As the user interface and colors go, I think
that will not be an issue with our cad guys most all of them like that
kind of stuff. Thanks again. I will still monitor this thread, we
have a while yet to hit the deadline. Any other input is appreciated.

--
Ken Alexander
Acad2000
Windows2000 Prof.

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind
of thinking we used when we created them."
--Albert Einstein

 

Ken,
Just tagging on to point out a few other things.

First the tool pallets are cool in a way for adding some customization and
ADSK is making them better each day. Gives the user the power of lisp in a
Design Center environment with out all the clutter and lost real estate.

Second. The support paths to each workstation can be a pain with R2004 being
XP compliance, most of the custom files (mnu profiles etc) are in the C:\my
documents\User\.............. and makes it a little harder to find the
right file to make changes.

$.02
Murph

 

As a side point, being "stuck" with windows 2000pro is not a bad idea. I
have it and have no intention of upgrading to XP. My wife has XP and it
has given her some problems that do not occur with 2000pro. I am aware
that at some time in the future I will have to upgrade, but will wait
until the very last dying breath.
With 2000pro, I run Autocad 2000 and 2004 and have no problems whatever.
The only problem I initially had with 2004 was in customizing the
acad.mnu and acetmain.mnu. This was difficult until I grapsed Autocad's
new placement of the menus in various places - which I found to be
rediculous and childish (I am reminded of Autocad's 52 patches to make
R13 work).
Other minor problems with 2004 is that it has omitted several lsp
functions that were available with 2000, 2000i & 2002. In these
instances, I have had to add these items from information gleaned from
these groups.

 

What routines have been omitted in 2004?