What would you do?

[sldwkmin]

I read several forums often and have a very close connection with the technical side of SolidWorks. I often see and hear what customers want/need and have a feel for what the software is trying to accomplish. I like to keep an open view from all directions. After posting on a recent thread on the ever so popular backwards compatibility. I thought to myself if I were SolidWorks and was facing this situation what would I do given the following scenario. I have X number of programmers to get the job done. I have functionality to export files and re-import them to move them back a version. Granted not smooth as glass but the tools are there to get the job done. This has been a top request by users, however I have requests just a smidge down the list that I have no tools for what so ever. Is it better to increase the over all capability for everyone or polish what is there? I am sure the opinions will differ as always on this as every user that "needs" something obviously really needs it, but looking at it as a whole in the general concept of fucntionality not just this one issue from your exact situation, what would you do?

Cole M
CSWP, CSWST, CSWI, CPDM
Certified DriveWorks AE
HP XW4300, 3.4g proc, 2.5g RAM, ATI Fire GL 3100
Dell M90, Core 2 Duo, 4g RAM, Nvidia Quadra FX2500M
Equus (custom), P4, 3.4g proc, 3g RAM, Nvidia Quadro FX3400

 

[BodyBagger]

I guess IMHO, I would rather have a tool that does what it states it can do. The tool should do it consistently and reliably. Once it can do this, I would begin to add more features and integrate them to have the same reliability, and so on.

Doing it the other way reminds me of how some companies make automobiles and roll out new features with the hopes that they will make owners forget about the previous features never really worked like they were supposed to.

For what it's worth...

BB

 

[Nella95]

'Polish what is there' - if what you mean is actually doing what it is supposed to do.

 

[TheTick]

You've never really written a program, have you?

 

[TheTick]

Large apps like SolidWorks are built in modules. Each of these modules has many objects, each with their own functions and methods.

When a new revision of the software is released, it may contain many new objects, or at least revisions to older objects introducing new methods or properties.

It's hard enough to maintain forward compatibility, leaving old objects around for use by old models. Going backward is tougher, since SW would have to sift through the model and search for incompatibilities, correct what might be correctible, and then hope for the best.

Possible? Maybe. Economically viable? I doubt it, especially when you're talking about a segment of the customer base that is already not spending money.

 

[fcsuper]

Tick,

It's not true that users with old versions are not spending money. We are still using 2007, and I know many companies do not upgrade every year for issues all the troubles that come with upgrading too often.

Matt Lorono
Lorono's SolidWorks Resources & SolidWorks Legion