FRUSTRATED IN TRANSITION

[Anonymous]

Many years ago I was introduced to AutoSketch 2.1, and even though I was a
computer novice, I was up & running in short order. Since then I have
upgraded to both VS.5 & VS.7 as well as AutoCAD Lt.VS.3. Always frustrated
with the cumbersome tools, I would reverted to that which I knew. I have
now after being convinced that Windows XP would run my VS.2.1, have found
that I can't print. I have ordered a Autosketch VS.8 with the anticipated
fear that it will resemble VS.7. I have also ordered an updated AutoCAD
Lt. demo. I have no experience with Quick Cad. Is there a consensus as to
which program is the least cumbersome to learn and what draw backs may there
be? Are there other products that I should concider? My other recourse is
to do a duel boot with Windows 98 and XP, any thoughts & or concerns? Would
someone at AutoDesk R&D please persuade the almighty powers that be to
resurrect AutoSketch 2.1.

[Anonymous]

Boy, I sure wish I could see a copy of 2.1. Don't send it to me though... I'd
hate to see one of you guys sit in jail over it because of some licensing issue.

I hear so much about how nice 2.1 was, when I settled in with V7 and enjoy it
pretty much. Well, other than getting used to the little bugaboos it has. I just
did not like V6 because of the manual entry snap commands. I'm human... not an
octopus !

Right now I guess I'm "locked into it" (v7) unless I switch to something else
completely. Jury is still out on that.

I bet by using LFN with 2.1, (lfn is a freeware, long file name support tool for
older 16 bit programs) it might be pretty useful however, I have a hunch I need
to grow a few extra arms for entering snap commands.

CL

John Howard wrote:

> Many years ago I was introduced to AutoSketch 2.1, and even though I was a
> computer novice, I was up & running in short order. Since then I have
> upgraded to both VS.5 & VS.7 as well as AutoCAD Lt.VS.3. Always frustrated
> with the cumbersome tools, I would reverted to that which I knew. I have
> now after being convinced that Windows XP would run my VS.2.1, have found
> that I can't print. I have ordered a Autosketch VS.8 with the anticipated
> fear that it will resemble VS.7. I have also ordered an updated AutoCAD
> Lt. demo. I have no experience with Quick Cad. Is there a consensus as to
> which program is the least cumbersome to learn and what draw backs may there
> be? Are there other products that I should concider? My other recourse is
> to do a duel boot with Windows 98 and XP, any thoughts & or concerns? Would
> someone at AutoDesk R&D please persuade the almighty powers that be to
> resurrect AutoSketch 2.1.

[Anonymous]

I tend to think that people only like 2.1 because it's what they are used to
and don't want to spend time having to learn what is essentially a different
package. I never really manged to get to grips with 2.1 and so when along
came AS5 it fitted like a tailored glove (allbeit with a couple of pins left
in it though!). With 2.1 I struggled to produce accurate drawings,
generally they were more "representetive" than correctly scaled etc. I am
at the point where any drawings that I have in the old 2.1 format get
redrawn if they need modifying because it takes so long to correct them
(even the ones that did get draw corectly). But there, I'm only in favour
of AS7 because I get on with it.


"Chris L" wrote in message
news:3C3BCC5B.7D8052A@lakefield.net...
> Boy, I sure wish I could see a copy of 2.1. Don't send it to me though...
I'd
> hate to see one of you guys sit in jail over it because of some licensing
issue.
>
> I hear so much about how nice 2.1 was, when I settled in with V7 and enjoy
it
> pretty much. Well, other than getting used to the little bugaboos it has.
I just
> did not like V6 because of the manual entry snap commands. I'm human...
not an
> octopus !
>
> Right now I guess I'm "locked into it" (v7) unless I switch to something
else
> completely. Jury is still out on that.
>
> I bet by using LFN with 2.1, (lfn is a freeware, long file name support
tool for
> older 16 bit programs) it might be pretty useful however, I have a hunch I
need
> to grow a few extra arms for entering snap commands.
>
> CL
>
> John Howard wrote:
>
> > Many years ago I was introduced to AutoSketch 2.1, and even though I was
a
> > computer novice, I was up & running in short order. Since then I have
> > upgraded to both VS.5 & VS.7 as well as AutoCAD Lt.VS.3. Always
frustrated
> > with the cumbersome tools, I would reverted to that which I knew. I
have
> > now after being convinced that Windows XP would run my VS.2.1, have
found
> > that I can't print. I have ordered a Autosketch VS.8 with the
anticipated
> > fear that it will resemble VS.7. I have also ordered an updated
AutoCAD
> > Lt. demo. I have no experience with Quick Cad. Is there a consensus as
to
> > which program is the least cumbersome to learn and what draw backs may
there
> > be? Are there other products that I should concider? My other recourse
is
> > to do a duel boot with Windows 98 and XP, any thoughts & or concerns?
Would
> > someone at AutoDesk R&D please persuade the almighty powers that be to
> > resurrect AutoSketch 2.1.
>

[Anonymous]

Stephen,

I can see and understand some of what you are saying. I can't imagine that 2.1
could actually draw as well as V7 for me because obviously it would lack some of
the features I like in a more modern software. The Auto snap for one.
Another issue you mention was drawings that might be "representative" of
something. Interestingly, I use Sketch to actually produce things on that 1 to 1
level. When I draw something and use those lines to create toolpaths for
machining, it HAS to be scaled correctly or the part is wrong.

My understanding of V5 is that it is different than the V6 and V7 versions and
takes a bit to get up to speed with it. My very first version was 6. I bought it
just before I even knew 7 was close to coming out. After installing 6, and
deciding I did not like the mandatory "manual snap point entry", I pretty much
gave up on using it. Then when I read that 7 included autosnap I bought it.
After learning to live with a few minor issues, I would be the first to say that
Version 7 is a great way to draw. With One or two repairs in the drawing
methods, and a few tweaks in the installation, compatability and stability with
other hardware, it would be an excellent program. But, you order V8......

So, In my opinion, Stick out the V8. Give it your best shot. USE the auto snap
functions even though it seems like they were a big turn off to V6 users(well,
that, and backwards compatability- DUH, A-desk !). It may be that after a few
months of people reporting the wierd problems 8 might have, one can find the
workarounds necessary and live with it until V9 introduces all new problems.

OR, send the V8 back when you get it. V7 works fine on Win2k or at least fine
enough for me. (watch file size growth) Let V8 mature. I do not see why V7 would
not work on XP. No sense you being new to the techniques used with the newer
version than you are used to AND doing "Bug Patrol". Learning a new program is
hard enough when it works !

And too, you have the double whammy of using a new operating system. Some of
those reports do not look to good without applying bug patches as well. Lets
see, Remember when Autosketch was/is toughted as being MS office like ??......
XP security holes....... H'mmmmm they were right !

CL

Stephen Tall wrote:

> I tend to think that people only like 2.1 because it's what they are used to
> and don't want to spend time having to learn what is essentially a different
> package. I never really manged to get to grips with 2.1 and so when along
> came AS5 it fitted like a tailored glove (allbeit with a couple of pins left
> in it though!). With 2.1 I struggled to produce accurate drawings,
> generally they were more "representetive" than correctly scaled etc. I am
> at the point where any drawings that I have in the old 2.1 format get
> redrawn if they need modifying because it takes so long to correct them
> (even the ones that did get draw corectly). But there, I'm only in favour
> of AS7 because I get on with it.
>
> "Chris L" wrote in message
> news:3C3BCC5B.7D8052A@lakefield.net...
> > Boy, I sure wish I could see a copy of 2.1. Don't send it to me though...
> I'd
> > hate to see one of you guys sit in jail over it because of some licensing
> issue.
> >
> > I hear so much about how nice 2.1 was, when I settled in with V7 and enjoy
> it
> > pretty much. Well, other than getting used to the little bugaboos it has.
> I just
> > did not like V6 because of the manual entry snap commands. I'm human...
> not an
> > octopus !
> >
> > Right now I guess I'm "locked into it" (v7) unless I switch to something
> else
> > completely. Jury is still out on that.
> >
> > I bet by using LFN with 2.1, (lfn is a freeware, long file name support
> tool for
> > older 16 bit programs) it might be pretty useful however, I have a hunch I
> need
> > to grow a few extra arms for entering snap commands.
> >
> > CL
> >
> > John Howard wrote:
> >
> > > Many years ago I was introduced to AutoSketch 2.1, and even though I was
> a
> > > computer novice, I was up & running in short order. Since then I have
> > > upgraded to both VS.5 & VS.7 as well as AutoCAD Lt.VS.3. Always
> frustrated
> > > with the cumbersome tools, I would reverted to that which I knew. I
> have
> > > now after being convinced that Windows XP would run my VS.2.1, have
> found
> > > that I can't print. I have ordered a Autosketch VS.8 with the
> anticipated
> > > fear that it will resemble VS.7. I have also ordered an updated
> AutoCAD
> > > Lt. demo. I have no experience with Quick Cad. Is there a consensus as
> to
> > > which program is the least cumbersome to learn and what draw backs may
> there
> > > be? Are there other products that I should concider? My other recourse
> is
> > > to do a duel boot with Windows 98 and XP, any thoughts & or concerns?
> Would
> > > someone at AutoDesk R&D please persuade the almighty powers that be to
> > > resurrect AutoSketch 2.1.
> >

[Anonymous]

Just to clear up some misconceptions about 2.1. It is absolutely accurate
and precise. It is as accurate as AutoCad. I feel it is in many ways more of
a modern CAD program than the current flavors of AutoSketch because it has
the ability to create macros, and is setup to be VERY productive. I think it
was discontinued because it was too good. If I had changed over to the "new"
Autosketch, I would have paid for 5? upgrades and still would not have the
functionality that I still have with 2.1. The only drawback is because 2.1
is a 16 bit program and is no longer supported by AutoCad, then it is
getting more difficult to get it to run with newer operating systems.

[Anonymous]

Just a "heads up" if you still like to use a 16 bit program. There is a little
known program called LFNBLE that runs pretty quietly in the background on a 32
bit OS that allows you to type in long filenames as well as retrieve them in the
16 bit "Save As" and "File Open" windows. Most apps. work with it very well with
the only issue being if the files name is displayed somewhere on screen it will
truncate the long name with a tilde.

This program can be found at:
http://www.execnet.com/index.html?page=/filelibs/l400p013.html

Look for LFNBLE10.zip

I've used it without any noticable problems to affect other operations.

Chris L

Marshall & Susan Willey wrote:

> Just to clear up some misconceptions about 2.1. It is absolutely accurate
> and precise. It is as accurate as AutoCad. I feel it is in many ways more of
> a modern CAD program than the current flavors of AutoSketch because it has
> the ability to create macros, and is setup to be VERY productive. I think it
> was discontinued because it was too good. If I had changed over to the "new"
> Autosketch, I would have paid for 5? upgrades and still would not have the
> functionality that I still have with 2.1. The only drawback is because 2.1
> is a 16 bit program and is no longer supported by AutoCad, then it is
> getting more difficult to get it to run with newer operating systems.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, I didn't intend to imply that 2.1 wasn't precision, I meant to say
that I had trouble creating precision drawings with it, wheras I manage it
alot easier in V7. As for the macros, naver having used them I don't miss
them, which I suspect is the case for the majority of users - especially
those who never even visit here! Part of the point for dropping macros as I
understand it is that AS is a "low-end" CAD program and the cost of
supporting the macros would write off a large chunk of the profit for AS, as
would retro-fitting.

Yes, it is a bit of a bummer having mucho problem with 16 Bit apps, but
there it's nearly 7 years after the appearance the 32 bit bug, sorry,
Windows95. Maybe one day Microsoft will create a truly universal operating
system with no bugs, no security flaws, no patches needed (before the
product even hits the shelves), is compatible with everything, is free and
under open source licence! Then again...

"Marshall & Susan Willey" wrote in message
news:B33B5D042D9C5FA4F0963548B160E252@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Just to clear up some misconceptions about 2.1. It is absolutely accurate
> and precise. It is as accurate as AutoCad. I feel it is in many ways more
of
> a modern CAD program than the current flavors of AutoSketch because it has
> the ability to create macros, and is setup to be VERY productive. I think
it
> was discontinued because it was too good. If I had changed over to the
"new"
> Autosketch, I would have paid for 5? upgrades and still would not have
the
> functionality that I still have with 2.1. The only drawback is because 2.1
> is a 16 bit program and is no longer supported by AutoCad, then it is
> getting more difficult to get it to run with newer operating systems.
>
>

[Anonymous]

Marshall & Susan Willey wrote:

> If I had changed over to the "new"
> Autosketch, I would have paid for 5? upgrades and still would not have the
> functionality that I still have with 2.1.

Many of users just do not need significant upgrades. We need bug fixes. Many
people here are current and former Drafix 4.11 or AutoSketch 2.1. Both are
excellent programs. For many of us these programs are what we as users need.

But the programmers need something to do so they add new things that I never
header anybody here ask for. For example, how many people really needed the
fake 3D? I am sure there are a few but most of us just don't need it.

And AutoDesk want to make more money. So they throw a few features in and up
the revision. There is no revenue in a bug fix. (Hello AutoCAd 2002, 2003,
2004....)

Will they ever listen to their customers? I suspect it won't happen until large
numbers of us refuse to upgrade just for the sake of upgrading.

For me Drafix 4.11 and AutoSketch 6.01 is the ticket. I would like a few things
fixed and a few features but I am way to productive with these to risk
upgrading. (I also use AutoCAD LT 98, TurboCad 6, Office 97, Netscape 4.x...you
get the picture).

Billable output is the key.
--
Len Rafuse
Vision Engineering

[Anonymous]

V2.1 seems to run fine under Win2k, with all the OS patches applied and a
very good video card (nVidia GeForce3). I mention it because it seemed to
be broken and frustrating when Win2k first came out. But the march of
progress with the OS fixes to support legacy software and the better video
drivers seem to have fixed it. So you might want to consider Win2K and a
new video card, not necessarily as expensive a card as GF3 but a very recent
card and download the latest nVidia drivers (the "23.11" drivers).

"John Howard" wrote in message
news:6F075C84E48066151C1FF24C85369659@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
> Many years ago I was introduced to AutoSketch 2.1, and even though I was a
> computer novice, I was up & running in short order. Since then I have
> upgraded to both VS.5 & VS.7 as well as AutoCAD Lt.VS.3. Always
frustrated
> with the cumbersome tools, I would reverted to that which I knew. I have
> now after being convinced that Windows XP would run my VS.2.1, have found
> that I can't print. I have ordered a Autosketch VS.8 with the anticipated
> fear that it will resemble VS.7. I have also ordered an updated AutoCAD
> Lt. demo. I have no experience with Quick Cad. Is there a consensus as
to
> which program is the least cumbersome to learn and what draw backs may
there
> be? Are there other products that I should concider? My other recourse is
> to do a duel boot with Windows 98 and XP, any thoughts & or concerns?
Would
> someone at AutoDesk R&D please persuade the almighty powers that be to
> resurrect AutoSketch 2.1.
>