Inventor General

Reply
*Koch, Erich
Message 21 of 29 (51 Views)

Re:

11-01-2002 07:11 AM in reply to: *Frølund, Claus
>
>
> Rhino and Pro are both undergoing major rewrites, not conventional upgrades.
> I'll be interested to see how they fare on release.

I few years ago I worked for a company that had 18 seats of Pro and we always
updated to the release before the last one. Still had problems.

Erich
*Radlin, David
Message 22 of 29 (51 Views)

Re:

11-01-2002 07:26 AM in reply to: *Frølund, Claus
Actually, either way the consumers still pay... quality costs and this
trickles down to the consumer.

But if the cost of quality is burdened in the intial purchase price then at
least it is known, tangible, and manageable.

It is the unknown and intangible costs of bugs that hurt - you quote cost to
complete a task but because of unknown bugs the costs are exceeded.

In terms of performance, if we are getting what we paid for then perhaps I
should have paid more.

It sure would be nice if there were a high end product with the same user
interface and work flow as IV. Of course I assume that the high end
products actually are more reliable - that I really don't know.

Still consider though, (10) license sales @ $1,000 generates the same
revenue as (1) license sale @ $10,000. If the revenue is the same then is
it justified to expect comparable performance? It stands to reason.

Thats enough babble for one day...

Dave

"Jeff Howard" wrote in message
news:AFF616DEAFD0DBFDDFD61AD6389A236B@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> I understand the problems, and I understand that quality costs and it
> ultimately comes down to who's energy / money it's going to be; Adesk's
or
> the users'.
>
> Rhino and Pro are both undergoing major rewrites, not conventional
upgrades.
> I'll be interested to see how they fare on release.
>
> Jeff
> ====================
>
>
> "Dennis Jeffrey" wrote in message
> news:3DC2F2CA.89D1326F@cadassociates.com...
> David, although I'm a VAR, I don't spin.... ask anyone on the group who
knows
> me... I tend to call a spade a spade....
>
> I understand your pain... but problems cost me money also.... I've also
been
> programming for 28 + years, and I understand the programmers pain.
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
>
*Caldwell, Larry
Message 23 of 29 (51 Views)

Re:

11-01-2002 08:11 AM in reply to: *Frølund, Claus
"In terms of performance, if we are getting
what we paid for then perhaps I should have paid more."

 

"You get what you pay for" is false logic ...
it's just not true. Sometimes you get a lot for your money and sometimes you
don't. As far as software goes, I've found that many of  the free programs
work much better than ones you buy as they are often produced from
dedication to doing it right. Some excellent examples can be found on
our NG peer's sites.

 

"Still consider though, (10) license sales @
$1,000 generates the same revenue as (1) license sale @ $10,000.  If the
revenue is the same then is it justified to expect comparable performance? 
It stands to reason."

 

Are you implying that one guy with a $10,000
program can generate the same revenue as 10 guys with $1,000 programs? C'mon ...
you read the post where Sean was telling of a demonstration (pick done, pick
done... Done... Really done now).

 

~Larry



> Actually,
either way the consumers still pay... quality costs and this
> trickles
down to the consumer.
>
> But if the cost of quality is burdened in
the intial purchase price then at
> least it is known, tangible, and
manageable.
>
> It is the unknown and intangible costs of bugs that
hurt - you quote cost to
> complete a task but because of unknown bugs the
costs are exceeded.
>
> In terms of performance, if we are getting
what we paid for then perhaps I
> should have paid more.
>
>
It sure would be nice if there were a high end product with the same
user
> interface and work flow as IV.  Of course I assume that the
high end
> products actually are more reliable - that I really don't
know.
>
> Still consider though, (10) license sales @ $1,000
generates the same
> revenue as (1) license sale @ $10,000.  If the
revenue is the same then is
> it justified to expect comparable
performance?  It stands to reason.
>
> Thats enough babble for
one day...
>
> Dave
>
> "Jeff Howard" <

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

size=2>> wrote in message
>

href="news:AFF616DEAFD0DBFDDFD61AD6389A236B@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb">
face=Verdana
size=2>news:AFF616D...

face=Verdana size=2>...
> > I understand the problems, and I understand
that quality costs and it
> > ultimately comes down to who's energy /
money it's going to be;  Adesk's
> or
> > the
users'.
> >
> > Rhino and Pro are both undergoing major
rewrites, not conventional
> upgrades.
> > I'll be interested to
see how they fare on release.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
====================
> >
> >
> > "Dennis Jeffrey"
<

size=2>djeffrey@cadassociates.com
> wrote
in message
> >

href="news:3DC2F2CA.89D1326F@cadassociates.com">
size=2>news:3DC2F2CA.89D1326F@cadassociates.com

size=2>...
> > David, although I'm a VAR, I don't spin.... ask anyone
on the group who
> knows
> > me... I tend to call a spade a
spade....
> >
> > I understand your pain... but problems cost
me money also....   I've also
> been
> > programming
for 28 + years, and I understand the programmers pain.
> >
> >
Dennis
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
*Radlin, David
Message 24 of 29 (51 Views)

Re:

11-01-2002 10:31 PM in reply to: *Frølund, Claus


My hypothesis suggests that if product
quality is proportional to development funding, and development funding is
fueled by sales revenue, then since "(10) license sales @ $1,000 generates
the same revenue as (1) license sale @ $10,000"
then one could expect
the same level of quality from both products - technical proficencies of the
development teams aside.

 

So the hypothesis questions the
notion - you get what you pay for.  I don't agree or
disagree.  I only table the thought for discussion.

 

However, if in general the notion is
true that more money yields better performance, then it would be a more
productive use of my dollars to allocate it towards bug repairs rather than lost
productivity.

 

Dave
*Caldwell, Larry
Message 25 of 29 (51 Views)

Re:

11-01-2002 11:27 PM in reply to: *Frølund, Claus
Okay, I see what you're saying, and I agree with
you, this is just discussion; possibly useful for making an extra neuron
connection or two, but that's about all. Most folks, it would seem, (to me
anyway) want things to be the way they think they should be, but the problem is,
we don't get a say. <G> I think the whole world is most likely ... "as
designed" ... and I can't remember being a consultant in the design process, so
don't blame it on me! <G> Inventor and any other CAD package (as well
as anything else for that matter) can only be what they are and we can only see
how they will end up being after the fact. However, that said, all the
expectations/discussions about how they should be is part of the same system ...
"as designed" ... and there's nothing we can do about that either. I
work under the assumption that we just dangle from the strings;
someone else wiggles the sticks.

~Larry

 


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




My hypothesis suggests that if product
quality is proportional to development funding, and development funding is
fueled by sales revenue, then since "(10) license sales @ $1,000 generates
the same revenue as (1) license sale @ $10,000"
then one could
expect the same level of quality from both products - technical proficencies
of the development teams aside.

 

So the hypothesis questions the
notion - you get what you pay for.  I don't agree or
disagree.  I only table the thought for discussion.

 

However, if in general the notion is
true that more money yields better performance, then it would be a more
productive use of my dollars to allocate it towards bug repairs rather than
lost productivity.

 


size=2>Dave
*Radlin, David
Message 26 of 29 (51 Views)

Re:

11-01-2002 11:35 PM in reply to: *Frølund, Claus
I disagree with your philosophy that things are
"... as designed ... and there's nothing we can do about
that".

 

We have debated this once before.  Lets agree
to disagree on that one shall we.

 

Dave


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

Okay, I see what you're saying, and I agree
with you, this is just discussion; possibly useful for making an extra neuron
connection or two, but that's about all. Most folks, it would seem, (to me
anyway) want things to be the way they think they should be, but the problem
is, we don't get a say. <G> I think the whole world is most likely ...
"as designed" ... and I can't remember being a consultant in the design
process, so don't blame it on me! <G> Inventor and any other CAD
package (as well as anything else for that matter) can only be what they are
and we can only see how they will end up being after the fact. However, that
said, all the expectations/discussions about how they should be is part of the
same system ... "as designed" ... and there's nothing we can do about that
either. I work under the assumption that we just dangle from the
strings; someone else wiggles the sticks.

~Larry

 


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




My hypothesis suggests that if product
quality is proportional to development funding, and development funding is
fueled by sales revenue, then since "(10) license sales @ $1,000
generates the same revenue as (1) license sale @ $10,000"
then
one could expect the same level of quality from both products -
technical proficencies of the development teams aside.

 

So the hypothesis questions the
notion - you get what you pay for.  I don't agree or
disagree.  I only table the thought for discussion.

 

However, if in general the notion is
true that more money yields better performance, then it would be a more
productive use of my dollars to allocate it towards bug repairs rather than
lost productivity.

 


size=2>Dave
*Caldwell, Larry
Message 27 of 29 (51 Views)

Re:

11-02-2002 01:29 AM in reply to: *Frølund, Claus
I'll subscribe to that ... we can only agree
with what we agree with anyway. <G>

~Larry


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

I disagree with your philosophy that things are
"... as designed ... and there's nothing we can do
about that".

 

We have debated this once before.  Lets
agree to disagree on that one shall we.

 

Dave


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

Okay, I see what you're saying, and I agree
with you, this is just discussion; possibly useful for making an extra
neuron connection or two, but that's about all. Most folks, it would seem,
(to me anyway) want things to be the way they think they should be, but the
problem is, we don't get a say. <G> I think the whole world is most
likely ... "as designed" ... and I can't remember being a consultant in the
design process, so don't blame it on me! <G> Inventor and any
other CAD package (as well as anything else for that matter) can only be
what they are and we can only see how they will end up being after the fact.
However, that said, all the expectations/discussions about how they should
be is part of the same system ... "as designed" ... and there's nothing we
can do about that either. I work under the assumption that we just
dangle from the strings; someone else wiggles the sticks.

~Larry

 


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




My hypothesis suggests that if product
quality is proportional to development funding, and development funding is
fueled by sales revenue, then since "(10) license sales @ $1,000
generates the same revenue as (1) license sale @ $10,000"
then
one could expect the same level of quality from both products -
technical proficencies of the development teams aside.

 

So the hypothesis questions the
notion - you get what you pay for.  I don't agree or
disagree.  I only table the thought for discussion.

 

However, if in general the notion is
true that more money yields better performance, then it would be a
more productive use of my dollars to allocate it towards bug repairs
rather than lost productivity.

 


size=2>Dave
*Yeandle, Laurence
Message 28 of 29 (51 Views)

Re:

11-02-2002 01:59 AM in reply to: *Frølund, Claus
I think that would be hard to quantify


--
Laurence,
--


style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
"David Radlin" <
href="mailto:adskng@synexus.ca">adskng@synexus.ca
> wrote in message


 

However, if in general the notion is
true that more money yields better performance, then it would be a more
productive use of my dollars to allocate it towards bug repairs rather than
lost productivity.

 


size=2>Dave
*B....., Jerry
Message 29 of 29 (51 Views)

Re: Autodesk! Will you ever learn?

11-05-2002 10:49 PM in reply to: *Frølund, Claus
Those of you who have been in this business for more than 10 years have a
good feel for the new rev thing. I started with ComputerVision in 1978, yes
1978! You talk about new rev problems. The issues that are brought up
about R6 are nothing compared to what we went through with ComputerVision.
Had there been a news group like this one to go to for help CV probably
would have been a better product. But being the only game in town at the
time, we made due and created work-arounds. This was a way of life and
still is. Time has moved on but things haven't changed much. We still have
new revs that fix some bugs and create new ones. I for one like the
challenge and would not like to go back to paper and pencil. It will all
get fixed in time, just work with it and be patient, Jerry.....
"Claus Frølund" wrote in message
news:99F66A06E70ABABE6B1C6E3B38ED089B@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Autodesk! Again you made a big mistake, releasing Inventor R6 in such a
> hurry, to satisfy customers with subscription.
>
> That day our company bought Inventor R4, and signed the subscription deal,
> our reseller promised us that we would get a new release approximately
every
> six month. Now we see that the thruth is something different. That promise
> you can't keep.
>
> Your subscription deals is becoming a block of cement around your legs,
and
> it forces you to send out new releases to the subscribers way to soon with
> a'lot of bugs. My reseller told me not to install R6 until the first
service
> pack. Fine man, cause he knew it was buggy (I counted on it). Autodesk
> itself says nothing to the customers... Very sad.
>
> Every time your releases hit the market to soon it costs huge amounts for
> the companies wordwide. Engineers and other technical staff are probably
> getting fired, cause they can't work with that buggy pile of junk.
>
> Autodesk! If you have to live up to the subscription aggrements, you
should
> hire more programmers, and please wait with the release until the program
is
> virtually bug free.
>
> If I buy a brand new car, I am nearly confident that it can drive. If I
buy
> a brand new Inventor, I am not!
> --
> Best regards
>
> Claus Frolund
> frolundAToncable.dk
> replace AT with @ to reply
>
>
>

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