Cost/Value of Solidworks? 2

[Kensai]

Hi,

We currently have 4 seats of Solidworks 2005 S.P3.0.
We would like to upgrade to SW2006.
The prices quoted all stipulate a mandatory 1 year subscription and maintainence contract to go with the software upgrade.
As we do not require support, is there any way to just buy the upgrade itself?

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

Heckler ... If SW2005 is suitable for the type of product; the processes of the customers and manufacturers involved; and the people who use it, then there would be no present need to change.

However;

From a company perspective, what would happen when one of those users need to be replaced, or there is a need to employ more users? Imagine, in several years time trying to find someone who would be capable and willing to revert to an older more limited version. Could you, in your current position, be as productive using SW98 with a (at that time) top of the line Pentium running Win98 with a whopping 48MB RAM) as you are with SW07 on a basic P4? I couldn't, and I would not join a company that would even consider asking me to.

... and;

From an employee perspective, what would happen if one of those users wanted to change jobs? Being knowledgeable in later versions might very well be the asset needed to land a job. As an employee I push for upgrades to keep me up to date.

It has to be much easier to create annual budgets for yearly upgrades/updates to software and hardware, than to have to arrange an appropriation budget for total replacement every decade or so.

 

[pdybeck]

How much of a sting is adding more RAM? Kind of along the line of what CBL was pointing out - if a company is having trouble spending $100-$200 to add necessary memory, then that would be the first sign that all is not right there and I would not consider it a desireable place of employment. Why companies don't see that CAD software and computer hardware is a tool of the job is beyond me. My manager has put it very well when he likens it to a someone in the shop trying to use a tiny hammer to put together big parts. There is nothing inherently better about a big hammer - its used to put together certain sized parts. Conversely for the small hammer. And so it is with computer hardware. The right tool needs to be selected for the job. For some reason people get upset about certain users in a company having "high powered" computers, when it is in fact the tool most pertinent to get their job done. As far as software upgrades - it seems to be a pay me now or pay me later type of situation. For many of the reasons stated above, I have chosen to stay current with SolidWorks and pay the subscription money. We install new versions of the software on a yearly basis and I conduct a quick 2 hour update class for users. I point them to the What's New document, provide books, and have purcahsed i get it training in the last year. Having motivated users that are happy about doing their job with good software and proper support is cost efficient in the long run in my opinion.

Pete

 

[EdDanzer]

The cost to benefit ratio of upgrading software and hardware can be simple math. If your company depends on improved productivity from the engineering department spending 5% to 10% of wages and benefits on hardware and software can provide a 1 year payback.
Your company is loosing money by having your workstation as the server. If 3 people are actively working you need a dedicated server with Gigabit Ethernet and 3 new workstations with XP, Gigabit Ethernet and SW2008. This should have a few months pay back if work is actually being done.
We are a small company and replace the primary workstation every 3 years maximum. Back when a 200 Mhz Pentium was the fastest PC available I purchased a DEC Alpha for $15,000.00 for SolidWorks 97 and it had a 6 month payback. This machine was donated to a college when it was 18 months old.

Ed Danzer

http://www.danzcoinc.com

http://www.dehyds.com

 

[Kensai]

Thanks for the setup info.
Just one thing, when we stored our SW files on a server, we were receiving the message `failed to save'.
We tried many things to resolve this to no avail.
We called in our VAR, they sent out network `experts', they could not provide a network solution. The last thing the VAR suggested was `keeping your files locally on your own PC' this worked, have not had one `failed to save' problem since.
I wasn't impressed by the VAR at all. This is a workaround not a solution.

 

[dgowans]

Kensai,

The "failed to save" message has been discussed numerous times. I don't recall ever hearing a definitive solution, but a faulty network has always been a primary suspect.

You're correct - saving files locally is a workaround, and a poor one at that. I'd push on your VAR or look for a new one.

 

[EdDanzer]

You want to treat the server as a network attached hard drive. We have used a network attached hard drive for several years very successfully. Today it is less expensive to buy a server than a network attached hard drive with raid and 10/100/1000 Ethernet . As soon as we complete a couple of projects we will be upgrading to Gigabit Ethernet to speed up file loading times.

Ed Danzer

http://www.danzcoinc.com

http://www.dehyds.com

 

[JMirisola]

The "failed to save" error is a transient issue. It's well known, but you can't attribute it to any one thing and trying to capture it via SolidWorks Rx has proven difficult as it isn't easily repeatable, or at least hasn't been. The vast majority believe it is a network communication error.
As dgownas stated, saving locally is a poor work-around, but I don't think pushing on your VAR will get you anywhere. I think that with the amount of data companies push through their networks, the potential for packet loss on large files is great, which makes it a hardware problem, not a software problem. I'm curious if other MCAD packages have the same problems.

Jeff Mirisola, CSWP

http://designsmarter.typepad.com/jeffs_blog

 

[ewh]

I have not seen this happen with NX, even with huge file sizes.