style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
"Dave.F" <dfaykosh@shaw.ca>That
wrote in message
href="news:f143126.19@WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:f143126.19@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
Marshall Lipton guy must be from the moon with that
logic
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
"Marshall Caudle" <
href="mailto:idaho@vnet.net">idaho@vnet.net> wrote in message
href="news:C8E23F1F0C212FA32C810689A53BCBC0@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:C8E23F1F0C212FA32C810689A53......
Let's take an example of an office with 10
licenses. For this example let's use man-hour costs at $50/hr.
Depending upon the specifics upgrades cost could easily go like
this.
10 licenses @ $500
$5000.00
Hardware Upgrades
$7000.00
Training 24 hours
each $12000.00
Lost production (billable
hours)
when changing over
$8000.00
From a management point of view that's $32,000
that have to be recovered before the new software can justify itself.
Unless the new software can save enough time to replace either capital or
labor there is no justification. Somehow I think CAD developers are
yet to realize this. An individual or even a company can only do a
certain amount of work in a years time. In order for software to justify
itself, it must enable a firm to either do more work with the same amount of
people or do the same amount of work with less people. It's a "capital
versus labor" thing and software vendors have yet to realize this. Due
to the current state of the economy, management of firms that produce drawings
have finally started to realize that fact. That is the very
reason many firms got off the wagon and are still using r14 and probably
one of the reasons Autodesk abandoned license upgrades after a certain date
for r14. They saw their revenue stream declining and had to force
something on the consumer. Autodesk's management first loyalty has
always been to the stockholder - not the end user.
Don't get me wrong, the upgrade from r14 to
r2000 was well worth the aggravation for me, even after the countless hours I
spent learning the new plotting paradigm. There were a couple of tweaks
from r2000 to r2000i that made that jump worthwhile. For me those tweaks
were not there between 2000i and 2002 (and they are all still release
15.xx).
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
"Dave.F" <dfaykosh@shaw.ca>That
wrote in message
href="news:f143126.19@WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:f143126.19@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
Marshall Lipton guy must be from the moon with that
logic
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
"Mike Weaver" <
href="mailto:mweaver.sheathing@bettisworth.com">mweaver.sheathing@bettisworth.com>
wrote in message
href="news:3789532F2AFD24B9B94BBBE82F6FB24B@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:3789532F2AFD24B9B94BBBE82F6......
Martin,
Even without the new release, those with a
subscription get all of the extensions. Take a look at the reference
manager extension. Or the cad standards extension. Both good
extensions for some people. There are other extensions as
well.
Mike Weaver
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
"Martin Troudt" <
href="mailto:herman_engraving@msn.com">herman_engraving@msn.com>
wrote in message
href="news:E77F35D53F2B0F9D26CC41E8763C63E5@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:E77F35D53F2B0F9D26CC41E87......
While the subscription is good in theory
it still isn't the best. Anyone who upgraded around this time
last year and got the subscription did not get any new release of
Autocad. With that little fact your boss may not want to put money
each year without getting at least a major release.
Martin
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
"dfaykosh" <The
href="mailto:dfaykosh@hotmail.com">dfaykosh@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
href="news:f143126.18@WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:f143126.18@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
subscription program sounds like the way to go,
thanks
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
"Marshall Caudle" <
href="mailto:idaho@vnet.net">idaho@vnet.net> wrote in message
href="news:C8E23F1F0C212FA32C810689A53BCBC0@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:C8E23F1F0C212FA32C810689A53......
Let's take an example of an office with 10
licenses. For this example let's use man-hour costs at $50/hr.
Depending upon the specifics upgrades cost could easily go like
this.
10 licenses @ $500
$5000.00
Hardware Upgrades
$7000.00
Training 24 hours
each $12000.00
Lost production (billable
hours)
when changing over
$8000.00
From a management point of view that's $32,000
that have to be recovered before the new software can justify itself.
Unless the new software can save enough time to replace either capital or
labor there is no justification. Somehow I think CAD developers are
yet to realize this. An individual or even a company can only do a
certain amount of work in a years time. In order for software to justify
itself, it must enable a firm to either do more work with the same amount of
people or do the same amount of work with less people. It's a "capital
versus labor" thing and software vendors have yet to realize this. Due
to the current state of the economy, management of firms that produce drawings
have finally started to realize that fact. That is the very
reason many firms got off the wagon and are still using r14 and probably
one of the reasons Autodesk abandoned license upgrades after a certain date
for r14. They saw their revenue stream declining and had to force
something on the consumer. Autodesk's management first loyalty has
always been to the stockholder - not the end user.
Don't get me wrong, the upgrade from r14 to
r2000 was well worth the aggravation for me, even after the countless hours I
spent learning the new plotting paradigm. There were a couple of tweaks
from r2000 to r2000i that made that jump worthwhile. For me those tweaks
were not there between 2000i and 2002 (and they are all still release
15.xx).
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
"Dave.F" <dfaykosh@shaw.ca>That
wrote in message
href="news:f143126.19@WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:f143126.19@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
Marshall Lipton guy must be from the moon with that
logic
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
"DaveF" <We're
href="mailto:gilbertd@aurorabio.com">gilbertd@aurorabio.com> wrote in
message
href="news:f143126.31@WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:f143126.31@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
talking about upgrading existing software, no mention of any new programs,
hardware or humanoids or anything here. SolidWorks has been trying to get in
here for a while and management won't even let them in for a demo. Let's not
get carried away.
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
"DaveF" <We're
href="mailto:gilbertd@aurorabio.com">gilbertd@aurorabio.com> wrote in
message
href="news:f143126.31@WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:f143126.31@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
talking about upgrading existing software, no mention of any new programs,
hardware or humanoids or anything here. SolidWorks has been trying to get in
here for a while and management won't even let them in for a demo. Let's not
get carried away.
Ok... you calculated the outlay... now let's calculate the savings...
assume you save 20 min per day per user... So... saved time = 20 min x
10 CADdies X 4.25 days per week (assume 85% of week due to loss time, like
sick & vacation) X 52 weeks per year = 44,200 min / 60 min per hr =
736.67 hours saved. So calculate billable time saved = 737 hours x $50
per hour = $36,850! Thus you can justify the purchase!!
Ciao!
~Terry
Marshall Caudle wrote:
Let's take
an example of an office with 10 licenses. For this example let's
use man-hour costs at $50/hr. Depending upon the specifics upgrades
cost could easily go like this. 10
licenses @ $500
$5000.00Hardware Upgrades
$7000.00Training 24 hours each
$12000.00Lost production (billable hours)when changing over
$8000.00 From a management
point of view that's $32,000 that have to be recovered before the new software
can justify itself. Unless the new software can save enough time
to replace either capital or labor there is no justification. Somehow
I think CAD developers are yet to realize this. An individual or
even a company can only do a certain amount of work in a years time.
In order for software to justify itself, it must enable a firm to either
do more work with the same amount of people or do the same amount of work
with less people. It's a "capital versus labor" thing and software
vendors have yet to realize this. Due to the current state of the
economy, management of firms that produce drawings have finally started
to realize that fact. That is the very reason many firms got
off the wagon and are still using r14 and probably one of the reasons Autodesk
abandoned license upgrades after a certain date for r14. They saw
their revenue stream declining and had to force something on the consumer.
Autodesk's management first loyalty has always been to the stockholder
- not the end user. Don't
get me wrong, the upgrade from r14 to r2000 was well worth the aggravation
for me, even after the countless hours I spent learning the new plotting
paradigm. There were a couple of tweaks from r2000 to r2000i that
made that jump worthwhile. For me those tweaks were not there between
2000i and 2002 (and they are all still release 15.xx).
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">"Dave.F"
<dfaykosh@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:f143126.19@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...That
Marshall Lipton guy must be from the moon with that logic
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
"dfaykosh" <Can
href="mailto:dfaykosh@hotmail.com">dfaykosh@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
href="news:f143126.-1@WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:f143126.-1@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
someone please help me with any info to help justify upgrading my AutoCAD
software. How can I convince management to keep my software current? I have
2000i and need to convince them that an upgrade would be both beneficial and
productive to the company. Their attitude is if it ain't broke, why fix it.
Or, are you missing something? or does something not work? In the past,
upgrading the CAD package was only possible when my R14 licence was about to
expire. This forced an upgrade (or the company would risk paying full price
for a new AutoCAD seat). And I was only allowed to upgrade to the 2000i level
when AutoCAD 2002 was already being released. I still have 2000i and not much
chance to move up until this license is due to expire. (Please tell me 2000
and 2000i expire soon!) In the meantime, I'm missing valuable hands on
training on new features. Articles in magazines are useless. Training is no
longer available by the time they decide to upgrade. Job Posting call for
experience in the latest AutoCAD version. I fear I will be behind if they let
me go here. Anyhow, if there are any articles, good web sites, magazines,
anything at all to help me, please let me know. I would certainly appreciate
it. Thanks for your time.
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
"Terry Drewes" <Hi
href="mailto:tmdcad1@attbi.com">tmdcad1@attbi.com> wrote in message
href="news:3E4D642A.B9A2C235@attbi.com">news:3E4D642A.B9A2C235@attbi.com...
Marshall!
Ok... you calculated the outlay... now let's calculate the savings...
assume you save 20 min per day per user... So... saved time = 20 min x 10
CADdies X 4.25 days per week (assume 85% of week due to loss time, like sick
& vacation) X 52 weeks per year = 44,200 min / 60 min per hr = 736.67
hours saved. So calculate billable time saved = 737 hours x $50 per hour =
$36,850! Thus you can justify the purchase!!
Ciao!
~Terry
Marshall Caudle wrote:
Let's take an
example of an office with 10 licenses. For this example let's use
man-hour costs at $50/hr. Depending upon the specifics upgrades cost
could easily go like this. 10
licenses @
$500
$5000.00Hardware
Upgrades
$7000.00Training 24 hours
each
$12000.00Lost production (billable hours)when changing
over
$8000.00 From a management
point of view that's $32,000 that have to be recovered before the new
software can justify itself. Unless the new software can save enough
time to replace either capital or labor there is no justification.
Somehow I think CAD developers are yet to realize this. An individual
or even a company can only do a certain amount of work in a years
time. In order for software to justify itself, it must enable a firm
to either do more work with the same amount of people or do the same amount
of work with less people. It's a "capital versus labor" thing and
software vendors have yet to realize this. Due to the current state of
the economy, management of firms that produce drawings have finally started
to realize that fact. That is the very reason many firms got off
the wagon and are still using r14 and probably one of the reasons Autodesk
abandoned license upgrades after a certain date for r14. They saw
their revenue stream declining and had to force something on the
consumer. Autodesk's management first loyalty has always been to the
stockholder - not the end user.
size=-1>Don't get me wrong, the upgrade from r14 to r2000 was well worth the
aggravation for me, even after the countless hours I spent learning the new
plotting paradigm. There were a couple of tweaks from r2000 to r2000i
that made that jump worthwhile. For me those tweaks were not there
between 2000i and 2002 (and they are all still release 15.xx).
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">"Dave.F"
<dfaykosh@shaw.ca> wrote in
message
href="news:f143126.19@WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:f143126.19@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...That
Marshall Lipton guy must be from the moon with that
logic
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
"Marshall Caudle" <
href="mailto:idaho@vnet.net">idaho@vnet.net> wrote in message
href="news:74526B91A76BD80686B4CD3ADF84ED36@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:74526B91A76BD80686B4CD3ADF8......
Terry:
<snip>