I agree completely, Gordon. The central problem for
CAD managers is the flawed definition of what constitutes a "user" file. A bit
of real-world experience would have led to much more reasonable defaults, as per
the plotting example you cite.
We shouldn't have to reverse-engineer the product
installation (which is what the godawful complicated network deployment
mechanism amounts to) in order to get in the general ballpark of a reasonable,
typical install.
I see 3 basic scenarios:
1) Solo people on a standalone machine. Fine, they
can do whatever they want, they make up their own standards as they go along.
Many of them (judging from this NG) have had a difficult time simply finding
their files in this release, or figuring out how to do the simplest of
customizations. Where's my PGP file?
2) CAD managers in big firms, with tons of training
and resources, lots of budget, and gobs of IT support. Some of them,
for example Mark McDonough, have been very gracious in sharing their
discoveries with those of us who have no possibility of mastering this
release's installation on our own. And they have been overwhelmingly
negative, in this NG, on the time and money spent on arm-wrestling this
release into working properly within their company's systems and
policies.
3) Guys like me, in small to medium offices, who
have no particularly deep knowledge of networking or operating systems, but
simply have to make the blooming thing work, somehow, by hook or by crook. We
have to support our company's drafting standards, and get the release up
and running in our "spare time." I'm a full time working architect. I'm not a
computer specialist and never will be, and my firm will never be able to afford
a "CAD guy" with much more knowledge than me. The best I can do, when faced
with excessive complexity, is to cobble together a work-around to try
to make it simple again.
Folks in my situation probably have it worse
than either of the other categories, because we have to deal with policies,
standards, and interoperability, but without the resources to do it the way it
probably ought to be done. I can generally follow what Mark McD is talking
about, for instance, but I am in complete despair of ever being able to
replicate it. I don't have the knowledge, time, money, network priveledges, or
clout to bring about anything like the system he describes. And that won't
change. For people like me, this is by far the most problematic release that has
ever come down the pike.
I sincerely hope somebody at Autodesk pays some
attention to this thread and all the others like it that have appeared
here.
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I am NOT a fan of
Billy or his products):
With XP compliance, in a multiuser office with
roaming profiles, a user can log onto ANY machine and his/her AutoCAD
profile will be available since it has become part of the Windows
profile.
If I'm correct, I'm not sure what this really
accomplishes since most users always use the same machine day to day (and
night to night if they're as busy as us in the Sunshine State).
Corrections / comments ?
You are correct, and I for one think it is a very useful feature,
not because the profiles roam (our users use the same machine 99% of the time)
but because the profile lives on the server and can be backed up. A crash and
reinstall, or a new machine, is easy to deal with because when the user logs
on to the new machine, all their settings are there. To my mind, the fact that
stuff is in the user profile is a good thing, but what was put where is lame.
Plotters are COMMON to everyone more often than not, and Plot Styles are
unique. In the default folder scheme exactly the opposite is tru. And MS
didn't say anything about it, cause they wouldn't know a PC3 from an STB if
their lives depended on it. Also, the folders are needlessly deep and
complicated. Part of the problem is Autodesk marketing insisting on lame
folder names like Autodesk Architectural Desktop when ADT would do. If someone
can show me proof that Adesk sold a copy of ADT because someone was impressed
by the install folder name I will personally dance in the street in a pink
tutu.
So, yes, I hope someone at Autodesk looks into our real needs
before the installer is built for the next version.
Best,
Gordon
size=2>
![Autodesk Design & Make Report](https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/1350519iCB55845EBFC43016/image-size/large?v=v2&px=999" "Autodesk Design & Make Report")