Inventor General

Reply
*Radlin, David
Message 31 of 37 (44 Views)

Re:

11-06-2002 03:56 AM in reply to: *Laimer, Leo
Precisely.

Dave

"Eric Zirkle" <@> wrote in message
news:A92DAB4CFC2B6D188AB9CD2E59726E0B@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> My thinking is there is there would be a SMALL risk in the SP causing
> problems. Yes, I would be willing to take a SMALL risk to get some of my
> problems fixed sooner.
>
> "Sean Dotson" wrote in message
> news:276099780228E9E429B74EBB0669B595@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > "I know you run the chance of something else "breaking" with a service
> pack
> > but in my opinion it is worth the risk."
> >
> > So in your opinion it would be "worth the risk" to get a SP to fix the
> Excel
> > Linking Issue (for example) even if parametrics stopped working all
> > together? I don't think this would be a very popular view.
> >
> > --
> > Sean Dotson, PE
> > http://www.sdotson.com
> > ...sleep is for the weak..
> > -----------------------------------------
> > "Eric Zirkle" <@> wrote in message
> > news:4CAB2AFACE45D233893ED3245ED10D25@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > What's the difference between 15 small service packs and 2 or 3 large
> > > service packs. The difference is they release them as the problems
get
> > > found and fixed instead of sitting on the solution until there is a
> large
> > > enough amount to issue a SP. I know you run the chance of something
else
> > > "breaking" with a service pack but in my opinion it is worth the risk.
> > >
> > > "Purge" wrote in message
> > > news:2B9062CFA565EE6E980AF0D677C5E751@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > But how many SP's do they need to have the product be stable? A lot.
I
> > > > personally have not seen any Autodesk SP's go pass 4. Correctly me
if
> I
> > am
> >
> >
>
>
*Dotson, Sean
Message 32 of 37 (44 Views)

Re:

11-06-2002 04:00 AM in reply to: *Laimer, Leo
no problem...truce..at least till the next thread

--
Sean Dotson, PE
http://www.sdotson.com
...sleep is for the weak..
-----------------------------------------
"David Radlin" wrote in message
news:CB488E8D6492DED956F627503F85EA84@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Just having fun with you Sean, don't take it personally... that would be a
> shame (vbg).
>
> Dave
>
> "Sean Dotson" wrote in message
> news:07F119829832E2B869C1FE5B49DEF5A3@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > Dave I'm not sure why you are being so combative with me lately but I'm
> > going to do something I normally don't and let this one die. It's
really
> > not worth arguing about.
> >
> > (and don't take this a victory on your part, I don't think I proved your
> > point at all)
> >
> > --
> > Sean Dotson, PE
> > http://www.sdotson.com
> > ...sleep is for the weak..
> > -----------------------------------------
> > "David Radlin" wrote in message
> > news:FD7FFAF35EF7ACA9476172B606D2D5EA@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > Thanks for proving my point...
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > > "Sean Dotson" wrote in message
> > > news:35DFEA2B4214DE060D621617F900FE8A@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > actually no...
> > > >
> > > > fal·la·cy Pronunciation Key (fl-s)
> > > > n. pl. fal·la·cies
> > > > 1.. A false notion.
> > > > 2.. A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid
> inference.
> > > > 3.. Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sean Dotson, PE
> > > > http://www.sdotson.com
> > > > ...sleep is for the weak..
> > > > -----------------------------------------
> > > > "David Radlin" wrote in message
> > > > news:84D28EA9E8FE2FDF3FF9053822547A4B@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > > "Exaggeration for effect..." - a fallacy none the less.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dave
> > > > >
> > > > > "Sean Dotson" wrote in message
> > > > > news:B4D8DAFCC62FAD9CC99AE9F8B88A3A37@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > > > This is not a red herring Dave. Exaggeration for effect
possibly
> > but
> > > > not
> > > > > a
> > > > > > red herring.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Red Herring: a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented
> in
> > > > order
> > > > > to
> > > > > > divert attention from the original issue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was addressing a point in his argument. In my opinion it is
not
> > > > > > acceptable for a SP to fix one issue and break another. I don't
> see
> > > how
> > > > > > that's irrelevant.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The march must be forward only. If that means only 1 or 2 big
SPs
> > > then
> > > > so
> > > > > > be it. These are my opinions. If you disagree that is your
> right.
> > > > > However
> > > > > > I'd get my fallacies straight before casting stones.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Sean Dotson, PE
> > > > > > http://www.sdotson.com
> > > > > > ...sleep is for the weak..
> > > > > > -----------------------------------------
> > > > > > "David Radlin" wrote in message
> > > > > > news:smileyvery-happy:A453CFF836743B49944CFEC1122BA34@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > > > > Red herring....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dave
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Sean Dotson" wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:276099780228E9E429B74EBB0669B595@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > > > > > "I know you run the chance of something else "breaking" with
a
> > > > service
> > > > > > > pack
> > > > > > > > but in my opinion it is worth the risk."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So in your opinion it would be "worth the risk" to get a SP
to
> > fix
> > > > the
> > > > > > > Excel
> > > > > > > > Linking Issue (for example) even if parametrics stopped
> working
> > > all
> > > > > > > > together? I don't think this would be a very popular view.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Sean Dotson, PE
> > > > > > > > http://www.sdotson.com
> > > > > > > > ...sleep is for the weak..
> > > > > > > > -----------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > "Eric Zirkle" <@> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:4CAB2AFACE45D233893ED3245ED10D25@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > > > > > > What's the difference between 15 small service packs and 2
> or
> > 3
> > > > > large
> > > > > > > > > service packs. The difference is they release them as the
> > > > problems
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > found and fixed instead of sitting on the solution until
> there
> > > is
> > > > a
> > > > > > > large
> > > > > > > > > enough amount to issue a SP. I know you run the chance of
> > > > something
> > > > > > else
> > > > > > > > > "breaking" with a service pack but in my opinion it is
worth
> > the
> > > > > risk.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Purge" wrote in message
> > > > > > > > >
news:2B9062CFA565EE6E980AF0D677C5E751@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> > > > > > > > > > But how many SP's do they need to have the product be
> > stable?
> > > A
> > > > > lot.
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > personally have not seen any Autodesk SP's go pass 4.
> > > Correctly
> > > > me
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > am
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > > ----
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > > ----
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > > ----
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > > ----
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
*Corbin, Brian
Message 33 of 37 (44 Views)

Re:

11-06-2002 05:12 AM in reply to: *Laimer, Leo
One point we all forget just so easily is that we Assume that Autodesk has
OUR best interest as users right at the top of their priority list. This is
simply not the case. We have seen Autodesk products time and again proven to
be driven by the marketing machine, and end user interest comes way down the
list compared to company profit-market share and others.
I know many developers will contest this but it is simply true. The
developers are an enthusiastic & talented bunch but they too are driven by
marketing and management. There has been many posts here to prove this.
Autodesk wants to survive this tough time for MCAD, plain and simple. And if
the marketing team thinks that rushing software out the door (or any other
method) to beat the competition or gain market share or whatever is the best
way to survive then that is simply what they will do. Maybe they are right
cos No Autodesk = No Inventor.
Don't get me wrong i'm sure that Autodesk do have users best interest on the
list, its just not at the top like we all presume it is when making
suggestions on how to make INV a better product for us...

Brian

"Jeff Howard" wrote in message
news:5CC74BB2CB7FCCA9E78829FC14E61446@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> My preference as well.
>
> =======================
>
> "Leo Laimer" wrote in message
> news:BDE3CBBA6D5546C5CC028C906CF5831F@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> ..................
> better stability and quality of the package, over a faster release cycle.
> ................
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
*Radlin, David
Message 34 of 37 (44 Views)

Re:

11-06-2002 05:56 AM in reply to: *Laimer, Leo
I've said it before - gain market share by selling
a quality product at a justifiable cost.

 

The industry has gone awry and we are doomed to
stay there until someone takes the high road.

 

The Japanese auto industry did it and battered
the North American auto industry... "He who does not learn from history is
doomed to repeat it.".
(author unknown)

 

Dave

 

>
> One
point we all forget just so easily is that we Assume that Autodesk has
>
OUR best interest as users right at the top of their priority list. This
is
> simply not the case. We have seen Autodesk products time and again
proven to
> be driven by the marketing machine, and end user interest
comes way down the
> list compared to company profit-market share and
others.
> I know many developers will contest this but it is simply true.
The
> developers are an enthusiastic & talented bunch but they too are
driven by
> marketing and management. There has been many posts here to
prove this.
> Autodesk wants to survive this tough time for MCAD, plain
and simple. And if
> the marketing team thinks that rushing software out
the door (or any other
> method) to beat the competition or gain market
share or whatever is the best
> way to survive then that is simply what
they will do. Maybe they are right
> cos No Autodesk = No
Inventor.
> Don't get me wrong i'm sure that Autodesk do have users best
interest on the
> list, its just not at the top like we all presume it is
when making
> suggestions on how to make INV a better product for
us...
>
> Brian
>
> "Jeff Howard" <

href="mailto:REMOVE_THISjeff4136@mindspring.com">
size=2>REMOVE_THISjeff4136@mindspring.com
>
wrote in message
>

href="news:5CC74BB2CB7FCCA9E78829FC14E61446@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb">
face=Arial
size=2>news:5CC74BB2C...

face=Arial size=2>...
> > My preference as well.
> >
>
> =======================
> >
> > "Leo Laimer"
<

size=2>leo.laimer@eunet.at
> wrote in
message
> >

href="news:BDE3CBBA6D5546C5CC028C906CF5831F@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb">
face=Arial
size=2>news:BDE3CBBA6...

face=Arial size=2>...
> > ..................
> > better
stability and quality of the package, over a faster release cycle.
> >
................
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
*Caldwell, Larry
Message 35 of 37 (44 Views)

Re:

11-06-2002 06:03 AM in reply to: *Laimer, Leo
Didn't ol' Adolph say that about the Treaty of
Versi? <G>

~Larry

 


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

I've said it before - gain market share by
selling a quality product at a justifiable cost.

 

The industry has gone awry and we are doomed to
stay there until someone takes the high road.

 

The Japanese auto industry did it
and battered the North American auto industry... "He who does not learn
from history is doomed to repeat it.".
(author unknown)

 

Dave

 

>
> One
point we all forget just so easily is that we Assume that Autodesk has
>
OUR best interest as users right at the top of their priority list. This
is
> simply not the case. We have seen Autodesk products time and again
proven to
> be driven by the marketing machine, and end user interest
comes way down the
> list compared to company profit-market share and
others.
> I know many developers will contest this but it is simply
true. The
> developers are an enthusiastic & talented bunch but they
too are driven by
> marketing and management. There has been many posts
here to prove this.
> Autodesk wants to survive this tough time for
MCAD, plain and simple. And if
> the marketing team thinks that rushing
software out the door (or any other
> method) to beat the competition or
gain market share or whatever is the best
> way to survive then that is
simply what they will do. Maybe they are right
> cos No Autodesk = No
Inventor.
> Don't get me wrong i'm sure that Autodesk do have users best
interest on the
> list, its just not at the top like we all presume it
is when making
> suggestions on how to make INV a better product for
us...
>
> Brian
>
> "Jeff Howard" <

href="mailto:REMOVE_THISjeff4136@mindspring.com">
size=2>REMOVE_THISjeff4136@mindspring.com

size=2>> wrote in message
>

href="news:5CC74BB2CB7FCCA9E78829FC14E61446@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb">
face=Arial
size=2>news:5CC...

face=Arial size=2>...
> > My preference as well.
> >
>
> =======================
> >
> > "Leo Laimer"
<

size=2>leo.laimer@eunet.at
> wrote in
message
> >

href="news:BDE3CBBA6D5546C5CC028C906CF5831F@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb">
face=Arial
size=2>news:BDE...

face=Arial size=2>...
> > ..................
> > better
stability and quality of the package, over a faster release cycle.
>
> ................
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
*Rasmussen, Ed
Message 36 of 37 (44 Views)

Re:

11-06-2002 06:49 AM in reply to: *Laimer, Leo
Not that one more opinion matters, but I
would support the fewer, larger service packs that presumably are more
thoroughly tested.  My experience with SW (although admittedly limited) was
that the service packs appeared to have little testing.  These packs were
thought to solve specific problems and not "known" to introduce new ones. 
Others have complained that R6 Beta testing was not thorough enough.  That
testing was probably several thousand times the testing devoted to a
small service pack.  Service packs without enough testing are common
sources of problems.  If the problems do not hit your work, they are
insignificant.  If they hit your work or key functions, they are
monumental.  IMO more people will benefit from the larger, less frequent
service packs.

 

    Ed R

 


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

Didn't ol' Adolph say that about the Treaty of
Versi? <G>

~Larry

 


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

I've said it before - gain market share by
selling a quality product at a justifiable cost.

 

The industry has gone awry and we are doomed to
stay there until someone takes the high road.

 

The Japanese auto industry did it
and battered the North American auto industry... "He who does not learn
from history is doomed to repeat it.".
(author unknown)

 

Dave

 

>
> One
point we all forget just so easily is that we Assume that Autodesk
has
> OUR best interest as users right at the top of their priority
list. This is
> simply not the case. We have seen Autodesk products
time and again proven to
> be driven by the marketing machine, and end
user interest comes way down the
> list compared to company
profit-market share and others.
> I know many developers will contest
this but it is simply true. The
> developers are an enthusiastic &
talented bunch but they too are driven by
> marketing and management.
There has been many posts here to prove this.
> Autodesk wants to
survive this tough time for MCAD, plain and simple. And if
> the
marketing team thinks that rushing software out the door (or any
other
> method) to beat the competition or gain market share or
whatever is the best
> way to survive then that is simply what they
will do. Maybe they are right
> cos No Autodesk = No Inventor.
>
Don't get me wrong i'm sure that Autodesk do have users best interest on
the
> list, its just not at the top like we all presume it is when
making
> suggestions on how to make INV a better product for
us...
>
> Brian
>
> "Jeff Howard" <

href="mailto:REMOVE_THISjeff4136@mindspring.com">
size=2>REMOVE_THISjeff4136@mindspring.com

size=2>> wrote in message
>

href="news:5CC74BB2CB7FCCA9E78829FC14E61446@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb">
face=Arial
size=2>ne...

face=Arial size=2>...
> > My preference as well.
>
>
> > =======================
> >
> > "Leo
Laimer" <

size=2>leo.laimer@eunet.at
> wrote in
message
> >

href="news:BDE3CBBA6D5546C5CC028C906CF5831F@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb">
face=Arial
size=2>ne...

face=Arial size=2>...
> > ..................
> > better
stability and quality of the package, over a faster release cycle.
>
> ................
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
*Zirkle, Eric
Message 37 of 37 (44 Views)

Re:

11-06-2002 09:45 PM in reply to: *Laimer, Leo
IV6 had TWO betas, I think that was plenty IF they
took the knowledge gained and applied it to the final product AND if the Beta
testers did their job in finding the bugs. Although it is hard to find the
problems without committing the Beta to actual production work.


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

Not that one more opinion matters, but
I would support the fewer, larger service packs that presumably are more
thoroughly tested.  My experience with SW (although admittedly limited)
was that the service packs appeared to have little testing.  These packs
were thought to solve specific problems and not "known" to introduce new
ones.  Others have complained that R6 Beta testing was not thorough
enough.  That testing was probably several thousand times the
testing devoted to a small service pack.  Service packs without enough
testing are common sources of problems.  If the problems do not hit your
work, they are insignificant.  If they hit your work or key functions,
they are monumental.  IMO more people will benefit from the larger, less
frequent service packs.

 

    Ed R

 


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

Didn't ol' Adolph say that about the Treaty
of Versi? <G>

~Larry

 


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">

I've said it before - gain market share by
selling a quality product at a justifiable cost.

 

The industry has gone awry and we are doomed
to stay there until someone takes the high road.

 

The Japanese auto industry did it
and battered the North American auto industry... "He who does not
learn from history is doomed to repeat it.".
(author
unknown)

 

Dave

 

>
>
One point we all forget just so easily is that we Assume that Autodesk
has
> OUR best interest as users right at the top of their priority
list. This is
> simply not the case. We have seen Autodesk products
time and again proven to
> be driven by the marketing machine, and
end user interest comes way down the
> list compared to company
profit-market share and others.
> I know many developers will
contest this but it is simply true. The
> developers are an
enthusiastic & talented bunch but they too are driven by
>
marketing and management. There has been many posts here to prove
this.
> Autodesk wants to survive this tough time for MCAD, plain
and simple. And if
> the marketing team thinks that rushing software
out the door (or any other
> method) to beat the competition or gain
market share or whatever is the best
> way to survive then that is
simply what they will do. Maybe they are right
> cos No Autodesk =
No Inventor.
> Don't get me wrong i'm sure that Autodesk do have
users best interest on the
> list, its just not at the top like we
all presume it is when making
> suggestions on how to make INV a
better product for us...
>
> Brian
>
> "Jeff
Howard" <

href="mailto:REMOVE_THISjeff4136@mindspring.com">
size=2>REMOVE_THISjeff4136@mindspring...

size=2>> wrote in message
>

href="news:5CC74BB2CB7FCCA9E78829FC14E61446@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb">
face=Arial
siz...

face=Arial size=2>...
> > My preference as well.
>
>
> > =======================
> >
> > "Leo
Laimer" <

size=2>leo.laimer@eunet.at
> wrote in
message
> >

href="news:BDE3CBBA6D5546C5CC028C906CF5831F@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb">
face=Arial
siz...

face=Arial size=2>...
> > ..................
> > better
stability and quality of the package, over a faster release cycle.
>
> ................
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

You are not logged in.

Log into access your profile, ask and answer questions, share ideas and more. Haven't signed up yet? Register

Announcements
Are you familiar with the Autodesk Expert Elites? The Expert Elite program is made up of customers that help other customers by sharing knowledge and exemplifying an engaging style of collaboration. To learn more, please visit our Expert Elite website.

Need installation help?

Start with some of our most frequented solutions to get help installing your software.

Ask the Community


Inventor Exchange Apps

Created by the community for the community, Autodesk Exchange Apps for Autodesk Inventor helps you achieve greater speed, accuracy, and automation from concept to manufacturing.

Connect with Inventor

Twitter

Facebook

Blogs

Pinterest

Youtube