Is SW on the right track? 10

[Phadreus]

I’ll throw this out, hopefully for some constructive candid feedback.

I have been seeing a reoccurring theme since getting involved with SW (back in 2004), and have been receiving a good deal of feedback from some of my seasoned users that have made the same observation, since 1999. The observation is; each release of SW since 1999 has not significantly improved in stability and performance. Also, the Service Pack route has been netting the same type of results; they fix some bugs and cause new problems each time. We seem to have experienced an “excessive” amount of “bugs” and problems in SW 2007, more so than we were accustomed to seeing in SW 2004 and SW 2006 (SW 2005 was a nightmare for us). Maybe the odd numbered releases have more problems? ?

I attended a local User Group Mtg for the SW 2007 rollout and after seeing all the new “gee whiz” functions, I asked the SW Regional Sales Mgr “all the new features are great, however; could SW drive their next release solely towards stability, performance and making all existing functions work well?” I was in an audience of about 70 persons, and overall they reacted as a mob. I was very surprised how vocal the group was in agreeing with my sentiment. The Sales Mgr’s response was “we hear this all the time, and this is an argument that exists within SW…the fact is that new features sell well, and what would we say to new customers; “SW 200X, now our stuff works”, that wouldn’t sell”. I argued that they could easily sell this as “SW 200X, the most stable, best performing package on the market”. Another user spoke up and said “I’ve been on SW since 1997, and between 1997 and 1999; SW had the market for great performance and great stability. We bought SW based on word of mouth from other users that raved about performance and stability and you never hear of that anymore”. The Sales Mgr, had no real response to pacify the group.

We run a pretty tight ship in our company, being the CAD Manager; I have extensive data since SW 2004 on benchmarking our performance as well as Crash logs provided by my users. There is a definite downward trend that I have observed in stability and performance.

Does anyone have any other observations that can give perspective beyond these observations? BTW, I would like to keep this constructive and am not intending on moaning and complaining only. I AM a big fan of SW and want to see them succeed.

Cheers


M.B. Price CSWP

http://www.assembly-testww.com

Automated Assembly & Test Systems

 

[Theophilus]

Well, I may as well chime in here (since it's almost supper and time for a little slacking for a change).

I experience VERY FEW crashes. I don't remember the last time I truly crashed SolidWorks. However, that's not to say I don't find bugs all the time. (Animator IS a bug [but I've got work-arounds, as usual].)

I'm an industrial designer who really likes the shiny new features--particularly when dealing with surfacing, rendering, animating (yeah, IF it works), and lots of similar sorts of things that reduce my time for making plastic widgets or presentations and Hollywoods. But I'd have to say I'm near the tipping point of actually wanting less buggy software now. I can hardly keep up with the new features and still have 1,000 "old-school" ways of doing things from when I started teaching myself SW back in 1997. So I'm part gadget freak and part crotchety old guy (stay off the grass!) now.

It seems SW is running from an imaginary bear. Maybe it's not so imaginary, maybe it is. There's a fine line between attracting new business and keeping existing users/clients happy (I walk it all the time--and often fall off, I imagine). A tad slower would be best, methinks. Stabilize--if not entirely blowing a release on stability, at least start putting some resources toward it (like maybe 30% at first) and see how it goes.

New users who love the software are the ones who truly sell it. Back in '98 and '99 I must have sold five copies of software just by my immense performance numbers over other engineers (usually customers' in-house guys). Bad press does the opposite. Focus on the users and the marketing will start taking care of itself like ten years ago.



Jeff Mowry

http://www.industrialdesignhaus.com

Reason trumps all. And awe transcends reason.

 

[SBaugh]

From my experience from the seat at which I work from... you can't expect SW to never crash... after all it runs on Windows... Windows crashes more then you think (check out your Event logs) Stability... that varies between users and their hardware. Some people say "its the exact same hardware as my colleagues computer"... and my answer to that would be "so" it doesn't matter if the hardware is the same... if the user that installed software (drivers, OS, etc) didn't follow directions correctly or if they used some type of ghosting software then the problem could be handed down to all the system there after... but I feel the root of most problems is something that most don't look at... windows... Every time SW crashes its very likely windows caused the problem. Exactly how varies depending on type of crash. SW is very demanding on hardware, software and RAM. Its not like Word or excel... however if those start crashing your Windows is defiantly the problem.

Making a SW RX of the issue and getting that to your VAR is the best solution for helping SW to help with stability. You cannot expect a company to help you the customer, if you don't provide them with some thing for them to find the answer for. I myself recently have been battling an issue with my system… it looks like it’s the HDD… I didn’t think about that until I started researching the problem. If I was just an average user of computers, which a lot of users are they will always complain that SW is the problem, this is an example of not being the case. IT will never admit to their systems or skill being the problem either, so it makes SW the easiest one to blame, because they can’t defend themselves until you give them the right data to test.

Most people jump to conclusions that SW is always the problem… and sometimes it is, but I feel that most of the time its either the user jumping to a conclusion and blaming something other then themselves, PC or windows and accuse the software that gave them the error. SW runs on top of windows and if the foundation is not there what makes you think its going to support SW as it is a much heavier piece then the foundation in some instances?

I think people need to be more proactive on this subject and stop jumping to conclusions. I am not saying SW won’t crash and I am not saying that it doesn’t have its bugs, but these same conversations on crashing and stability are getting very old. If you don’t like something then be proactive about it and send in your problems to your VAR. If you’re VAR will not help you then take it over their head. They will get the point, but be nice about it. You will get a better response when the time comes to talk to your VAR.

In Conclusion be more proactive in telling SW and your VAR about issues… don’t just go rambling to this or other NG’s about stability… get your facts straight before you bring it out here to complain about something that is probably not SW fault to begin with.

This is not meant to be directed to anyone negative in this post… these are just my opinions and not opinions of the Company I work for.

Best Regards,


Scott Baugh, CSWP

http://www.scottjbaugh.com

"If it's not broke, Don't fix it!"
faq731-376

 

[Phadreus]

Scott,

I think you are hitting on something that is very difficult to establish, and that is "expectations". I don't think anyone would ever expect SW, as well as any other program, not to have hang ups and crashes, it's just difficult to establish "what is a reasonable set of expectations".

I agree with everything you said, and I intend on solving no problems within the contents of this thread. As I stated in my original thread, I am after some "constructive" input, not aimless complaining. I knew it would be easy to be perceived this way...

I am doing my best to gather as much information as possible, much as you suggest, and be active in seeking an ultimate, long term solution through SW. That is part of what I am intending via this thread, the seeking of confirmation that my problems are not unique.

I didn't hear in your response an answer to the original question; "do you think SW is heading in the right direction overall in their approach to developing their product?". If not, where could they do better?

I plan on spending time talking with the "power that be" within SW to constructively work with them on improving stability and performance. I actively participate in the Beta programs; submit SR's and ER's all the time. I keep an open dialogue with my VAR and have been somewhat successful in maintaining a dialogue with a number of individuals within SW. At this point, I feel I am working towards being constructive in helping solve problems with SW. This thread is not by any stretch of the imagination the only avenues I pursue, nor is it just empty venting.

Thanks for your thoughts Scott, I understand how sensitive this subject line can be.


M.B. Price CSWP

http://www.assembly-testww.com

Automated Assembly & Test Systems

 

[engAlright]

Phadreus,

We are still running SW2006 and it appears to be more stable than SW2004 (we skipped 2005), and SW2003. SW still crashes on occasion, but as others have mentioned user education and resolving hardware issues can eliminate a suprising % of stability issues.

SW's battle now is just to maintain stability while keeping up the torrid pace of new functionality. I think the SWIFT technology was a huge move in the right direction - building expert knowledge directly in to the software, and thereby reducing complexity. There are many untapped areas of the software where this could be beneficial.

I would like to see the day where SW is able to handle all errors, and if something goes wrong it's able to display a message box telling you "Wha' happened"...I don't know how realistic a goal that is...

SW has to make money just like everybody else, so they have to balance new functionality with the potential instability that new functionality introduces. SW just has to build the software so that it meets acceptable standards of stability - not bulletproof standards. I would love it if I never had to take my wicked-awesome '99 Mazda Protege in to the shop for maintenance, but what can ya do.

SW is creeping close to a case of "Feature-itis", but IMO it's not there yet...

 

[SBaugh]

I was not posting that post to intend that you were complaining. I was saying that ingeneral in regards to others complaining about this subject line. I am hoping that when other read this thread, they will understand and take some proactive measures before just posting to complain. Be sure it was a legitimate complaint.

I know my post seemed like I was thinking you were complaining, but I it was intended for that... it was a general statement and was really meant for those that complain about everything and aimlessly [pint their fingers at SW, when they are not completely sure for themselves.

Cheers,

Scott Baugh, CSWP

http://www.scottjbaugh.com

"If it's not broke, Don't fix it!"
faq731-376

 

[Phadreus]

I'm with ya Scott...care to weigh in on the original question?

M.B. Price CSWP

http://www.assembly-testww.com

Automated Assembly & Test Systems

 

[EdDanzer]

As a SolidWorks user since 1996 I think they have run the new features sales pitch into the ground and should work on speeding up operations, better backwards compatibility and simplifying some of the current features. Stability can be improved by using faster machines and proper drivers. We had the first DEC Alpha 433 running Windows NT in the State of Washington. At that time the fastest Intel was 200 mhz. The DEC crashed far less if you did not get too many key strokes ahead of the system. If you open older files you will always have more crashing. We have had to recreate some models just to be able function acceptably. Every year it becomes harder to justify the maintenance for these reasons.

Ed Danzer

http://www.danzcoinc.com

http://www.dehyds.com

 

[SBaugh]

I think they are heading in the right direction and to gain stability and not improve the product is ludicrous IMO.

They have implemented many tools to help in the improvement of stability as well as maintaining customer enhancements. Along with the changing environment of Computers, technology and overall performance of the changing times.

Regards,

Scott Baugh, CSWP

http://www.scottjbaugh.com

"If it's not broke, Don't fix it!"
faq731-376

 

[TheTick]

If you ask SW, they are on the right track. Problem is, SW isn't asking us!. Most SW "improvements" are "marketing driven". This means they are making the roduct more marketable to those making the purchasing decision. They could really care less about the user base.

Honesty may be the best policy, but insanity is a better defense.

http://www.EsoxRepublic.com

-SolidWorks API VB programming help

 

[SBaugh]

I disagree, they have the Enhancement requests that customer have the choice of putting in... if it doesn't get enough hits then yeah it takes longer to put in... I am seeing things put in today that I requested 10 years ago... its just finally catching up because everyone else saw the need that I seen then.

If you want your voice heard then start on your own site a wish list... there used to be one and SW watched it... I don't know what ever happened to that site though.

Get your heads together put together a list of needed items and put the enhancement in. That's what you need to do.

Some people have SPR#'s that have not been fixed yet. Well the reason is, is its not effecting everyone and 2 they probably have a work around...

So IMO SW is heading in the right direction, you as a user must take some pro active steps and put in your ER's and if you have to get a few of you in a group or if you have a User group meetings in your area... then that is where you need to go and voice your opinions.

Regards,

Scott Baugh, CSWP

http://www.scottjbaugh.com

"If it's not broke, Don't fix it!"
faq731-376

 

[Heckler]

Just because one has enough people behind them to get an Enhancement request adopted doesn't mean it's in the best interest of the entire user community. I would hope SWx would exercise discernment before rushing to market with user base enhancements. I know one thing that really ticked me off a few years ago was all the "feel good" options SWx added to appease the newly acquired ACAD user base.

Heckler
Sr. Mechanical Engineer
SWx 2007 SP 4.0 & Pro/E 2001

o
_`\(,_
(_)/ (_)

"Avoid the base hypocrisy of condemning in one man what you pass over in silence when committed by another." -- Theodor

 

[fcsuper]

You don't like that ol' ACAD users feel comfy using SWx? Actually, seriously, what functions are you refering to, Heckler?

Matt
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
sw.fcsuper.com
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group

 

[SBaugh]

Your RIght Heckler, they don't always do that either. They do look at the ER to make sure its a good fit to the product. If they did do that it would be like using ACAD in 3D then..

I also agree with you about all the ACAD improvements, however some of those have proved to beneficial. You might not see some of that, but from where I sit I use a few of those options. It helps with Customizing you SW, but without losing your standards.

Regards,

Scott Baugh, CSWP

http://www.scottjbaugh.com

"If it's not broke, Don't fix it!"
faq731-376

 

[Heckler]

The big one being SWx 2D Emulator. I personally dislike devices that make something look like something it's not. On a daily basis I switch between SWx and Pro/E....so should I ask SWx for a Pro/E Emulator or PTC for a SWx Emulator? Not to turn this into an ACAD bashing session...I just see this type of "option" as distraction from core content.

Heckler
Sr. Mechanical Engineer
SWx 2007 SP 4.0 & Pro/E 2001

o
_`\(,_
(_)/ (_)

"Avoid the base hypocrisy of condemning in one man what you pass over in silence when committed by another." -- Theodor

 

[SBaugh]

That has been there since hte beginning though and has been a nuisance since it was put into the software... I don't know any one that uses it... it should be removed!

Regards,

Scott Baugh, CSWP

http://www.scottjbaugh.com

"If it's not broke, Don't fix it!"
faq731-376

 

[Tstover]

This is a little late but I have loaded solidworks on an xbox. For about $70, you can have your xbox hacked, run windows xp and that's it. Haven't tried on a 360 yet because once hack it, you loose the online play. If an xbox 360 cost $350, that's well bellow what a decent computer would cost that can run SW worth a flip. Look at the stats on the capabilities of the 360. It's worth it.

 

[dgowans]

It's only worth it if you can afford to take the risk that you will never need support. I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that call...

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

Please report back once you have had a chance to use SW (on the Xbox) with some performance checks;

http://designsmarter.typepad.com/solidmuse/workstation_performance/index.html

http://designsmarter.typepad.com/solidmuse/2007/05/computer_hardwa.html

http://www.spec.org/gwpg/downloadindex.html

http://www.spec.org/gwpg/apc.data/specapc_sw2007_summary.html

If

http://hardware.teamxbox.com/articles/xbox/1144/The-Xbox-360-System-Specifications/p1

is correct with the 360 specs, my guess is that the ATI graphics card and the minimal (512MB) RAM will let you down.
If the basic Xbox has even lesser specs than the 360, I predict you will be very disappointed.

 

[Theophilus]

1/2 GB of RAM? That wouldn't work for me.

There seems to be a lot of noise out there regarding the slight tweaks to the feature set--and resulting loss of flexibility (user interface) and options. I have to wonder what good it is to force changes involving less options to users? Why not leave the previous functionality alone while tweaking the features?

Contrary to my prior post, I am now getting crashing. However, I think this is something endemic to my system (Windows?) and not with SolidWorks--since I'm still running the same old SW 2007 I've been running. I'm eager to take 2008 for a spin except for all the lovely "feedback" I've been hearing about it.



Jeff Mowry

http://www.industrialdesignhaus.com

Reason trumps all. And awe transcends reason.

 

[fcsuper]

I’ve put in a couple of ER’s over the past few years suggesting alternative software release methods. SolidWorks current method does produce more bugs and it resolves.

My suggestion, based on the above observations by everyone, is that SolidWorks should be released on a 2 to 4 year cycle. This will give SW time to stablize each version the software. Under this scenario, bug fixes are available to everyone, and upgrades with new features can still be released to current subscribers, but they are optional, not mandatory. If someone comes across a model with a new feature that they didn’t install for yet, they can simply install that update module at that time. Only if that new feature used will an update be required. This will improve backward compatibility too since the software will remain relatively unchanged for a good period of time, with updates being optional.

A four year cycle should be used unless some revolutionary advancement happens in computers or software development, then they can reduce the period to 2 years for that instance.


Matt Lorono
CAD Engineer/ECN Analyst
Silicon Valley, CA
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources
Co-moderator of Solidworks Yahoo! Group
and Mechnical.Engineering Yahoo! Group