On May 8, 5:58=A0pm, "shady lady" <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > but given the number of times I have had to relearn SW, this steeper
> > learning curve doesn't look as bad as it once did.
>
> One those things you just can't see unless you're looking back.
Looking back at MS's promises to deliver an "Industrial Strength OS"
in the mid 90s, and what has happened since does NOT give me
confidence that the OS SolidWorks runs on will continue to be
efficient. That is particularly true, when you add FEA applications
on top, and as SWks itself becomes heavier.
MS is afraid to run a UNIX kernel, as they can't "control" their OS.
Jobs realized you wanted a solid kernel and that UNIX was maintained
very well. Jobs also realized you had to have a terrific set of
programming tools and accommodated networking (secure networking) in
the User Interface almost seamlessly, and Apple bought into it with
the aquisition of NEXT. MS could do the same, but it is run by
Ballmer, a totally wacky salesman.
If SolidWorks becomes more unmanageable on Windows, it is simple that
I will migrate to Unigraphics. Prior promises over and over If I am
looking at this, I can't be the only one.
Peter Drucker: =93To be prepared for change ... work on the most
expensive of resources - TIME ...=94 Peter noted that a knowledge
company must do what it can to not wast time of its most critical
resources: knowledge workers. Time wasted can never be recovered.
Some companies lose sight of this when confronted with long term
company health. I'm not going to ignore inefficiencies, as I have a
finite amount of time left.
Bo
|
