Community
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
"guzie" <guzie@triton.net>I
wrote in message
href="news:f12043d.10@WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:f12043d.10@WebX.maYIadrTaRb...
was just going to type the same thing. On top of that each service pack needs
testing time before deployment. Fewer SP means getting some more time to test
them before deployment. Every patch they send out also has to be deployed
across the company user base. For a large company this can be quite a bit of
work. My IS department would kill me if we ran into the number of SP that SW
typically has. I wouldn't want the quick hotfix approach of heres a bug, fix
it and quickly throw out a patch.
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
href="news:02EA23E6ACBD0F24C4921A5015F4D7E6@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:02EA23E6ACBD0F24C4921A5015F......
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
"Brian Corbin" <>
href="mailto:brian@cadsense.co.nz">
size=2>brian@cadsense.co.nz> wrote in
message
href="news:5311523F59C1CC7F7D0DE9E6504F364A@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb">
face=Arial
size=2>news:531...
face=Arial size=2>...
> 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.
>
> ................
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
"Larry Caldwell" <
href="mailto:lc@houston.rr.com">lc@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
href="news:678F9F6909BE9A8AB746C71D9959BD89@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:678F9F6909BE9A8AB746C71D995......
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">
"David Radlin" <
href="mailto:adskng@synexus.ca">adskng@synexus.ca> wrote in message
href="news:02EA23E6ACBD0F24C4921A5015F4D7E6@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:02EA23E6ACBD0F24C4921A501......
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
"Brian Corbin" <>
href="mailto:brian@cadsense.co.nz">
size=2>brian@cadsense.co.nz> wrote in
message
href="news:5311523F59C1CC7F7D0DE9E6504F364A@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb">
face=Arial
size=2>ne...
face=Arial size=2>...
> 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.
>
> ................
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
"Ed Rasmussen" <
href="mailto:edras@a-concepts.com">edras@a-concepts.com> wrote in
message
href="news:EC25D4313D66A4C09F90EEE2F38CD466@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:EC25D4313D66A4C09F90EEE2F38......
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">
"Larry Caldwell" <
href="mailto:lc@houston.rr.com">lc@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
href="news:678F9F6909BE9A8AB746C71D9959BD89@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:678F9F6909BE9A8AB746C71D9......
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">
"David Radlin" <
href="mailto:adskng@synexus.ca">adskng@synexus.ca> wrote in message
href="news:02EA23E6ACBD0F24C4921A5015F4D7E6@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb">news:02EA23E6ACBD0F24C4921A5......
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
"Brian Corbin" <>
href="mailto:brian@cadsense.co.nz">
size=2>brian@cadsense.co.nz> wrote
in message
href="news:5311523F59C1CC7F7D0DE9E6504F364A@in.WebX.maYIadrTaRb">
face=Arial
siz...
face=Arial size=2>...
>
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.
>
> ................
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.