"Joe788" <joemama788@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:857721a9-9e7b-47ee-a28e-485259743dcd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Feb 23, 3:24 pm, jon_banquer <jon_banq...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> What will never happen is any of these idiots ever being able to name
>> the specific problems with SolidWorks and suggest a solution. I do it
>> all the time. All that is ever posted by Gary Knutson, Joe788 or Tom
>> Brewer are broad sweeping generalities that are beyond obvious and
>> have nothing to do with the core problems with SolidWorks. With
>> ****ing morons like these it's no wonder that SolidWorks is not being
>> developed in a logical manner. Core issues like control over the
>> complex relations that SolidWorks often creates are not a focus for
>> SolidWorks Corp. Until we have smarter SolidWorks users, instead of
>> idiots like these who are content with being forced to use a low level
>> tool like rolling back to figure out what someone else's design intent
>> is, you can bet your last dollar that SolidWorks development will not
>> address the core problems with SolidWorks and instead focus on new
>> features like making SolidWorks look more like Windows Vista.
>>
>> Jon Banquer
>> San Diego,CA
>
> My focus is on making money, and making the software work for me. It
> does exactly what I need it to do.
Excellent point! Why spend $20K for bells and whistles you'll never use. I
see Pro/e users (of which I am one) every day using Pro/e as if it were
Inventor or Solidworks or Pro/e Foundation (the stripped down version)
because they don't have the training and the doofus cor****ations don't
have
sufficient appreciation for the tool to make sure the engineers have even
the most rudimentary, basic knowledge of the software. They give the
engineers a $6K workstation, $20K worth of software and just let them ****
around for 6 mos while they ask the experienced people a bunch of dumb
questions. In the end, these engineers, because they don't know Pro/e has
a
sheet metal module (which even Foundation has), they design formed parts
as
if they were stupidly machined out of a solid block of some material. But
these are the cor****ations that'll give the engineer a $20K piece of
software of which they'll never use any of the advanced capabilities. They
could easily have gotten along with Solidworks, Solid Edge or Inventor.
And
these bright, degreed people go along with it, partly out of ignorance
(Hey,
I didn't know it could do that!), but mainly because nobody expects much
of
them and it just makes their lives easier. Anyway this guy's made an
evaluation of the capabilities of the various softwares. Does it seem
about
right on the ratings?
http://www.cad-software.us/
Of course, even if it were accurate, you'd still have to weigh it against
your needs. If you're in the parts business with SW, SE or Inventor, who
cares what the large assembly management rating is? But, if I'm taking
half
an hour to open one of those large assemblies and/or cra****ng several
times
a day, I'd be thinking about a more capable platform. Anyway, I think
that's
actually how it goes. People are constantly weighing and evaluating and
testing stuff out. There are no absolutes. So, no offense to anyone. Y'all
be cool.
David Janes
|
