CUI Editor Enhancements

[dcochran]

Hello,

We are looking at ways to improve and enhance the CUI Editor in AutoCAD. As a customer, what improvements would you like to see with CUI?

Thanks in advance for your input!

Doug Cochran
Autodesk, Inc.

[Anonymous]

Doug,
Can you comment on Autodesk's feelings about what you have seen here?
Any business person knows that you taylor your words to whatever the audience is, in order to accomplish what you want
to.
I feel in the dark on who we are really talking to. Is this getting the attention of the product managers?
Since its our money Adesk wants, do they realize the trend is to start dropping subscription?
There may be still some pockets of momentum for subscription, but I think everyone is starting to realize its a bad
thing. It wil take people a while to drop, but get ready.

We are paying ahead of time for a product without a scope. You can only do that if the customers trust you.
That trust got killed with the CUI introduction, as well as the release per year groove.

While we are at it, lets call the king naked.
Civil 3D is failing by any measure. I see so many parallels between the CUI and Civil 3D its not funny.
Maybe things will change in time, but C3d is a 747, and the civil industry does not have the pilots for it, and won't
for at least 5 more years the way things are going.
I get no pleasure out of saying that, I paid for the software like everyone and want it to be great.
Autocad is the best cad program I have seen and Adesk deserves the monopoly it has.
I think people are getting tired of landing on Boardwalk every year though, meanwhile Adesk takes our rent and build
more houses for the next go around. That game does not last...

dcochran <>
|>Hello,
|>
|>We are looking at ways to improve and enhance the CUI Editor in AutoCAD. As a customer, what improvements would you like to see with CUI?
|>
|>Thanks in advance for your input!
|>
|>Doug Cochran
|>Autodesk, Inc.
James Maeding
Civil Engineer and Programmer
jmaeding - athunsaker - com

[Anonymous]

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:56:34 +0000, Jeremiah Farmer <>
wrote:

>it has nothing to do with Microsoft.
>It's what they teach at the Bangalore tech universities. It's becoming the trademark of outsourced programming to have everything stored in these supposedly XML files...[snip]

It doesn't add anything to the conversation to engage in
overblown and pointless political and xenophobic overtones
on a purely technical subject.

XML is simply the flavor of the day, and everyone seems to
be pushing for implementing it as a way of storing data
instead of using something appropriate, like a real
database.

Until someone finally gets the fact that endlessly parsing
ASCII files ain't the way to do it, we are all in for a
really long, dark time.

Matt
mstachoni@comcast.net
mstachoni@bhhtait.com

[Anonymous]

Well written James (and everyone else as well)
now we're getting somewhere. Doug you've seemed to have open up quite a
can...no barrel no wait ....vat of worms
So many replies to your simple question, but at least thanks for asking. So
many brilliant sugestions and requests. So many frustrated users that demand
a interface that is years ahead what you have given us thus far. And it begs
the question Why? Yearly releases with half baked implementations and
sub-standard execution. New features for new features sake? Who's doing
quality control and testing and listening to workers in the trenches.
If this response is anything but a small sampling of concerned and troubled
subscribers, then its just a figurative tip of the iceberg. This should be
resolved through a collaborative dialog similar to the one witnessed here.
Listen to your users who have voiced their concerns so honestly and
thouroughly.
The customer is always right
Richard



wrote in message news:5146408@discussion.autodesk.com...
Hello,

We are looking at ways to improve and enhance the CUI Editor in AutoCAD. As
a customer, what improvements would you like to see with CUI?

Thanks in advance for your input!

Doug Cochran
Autodesk, Inc.

[Anonymous]

Bud,

I tried with the beta, but haven't loaded the release version because
there are no drivers for my plotter yet, and I'm waiting for 2007
versions of some of the tools I run.

The 8 seconds on first open is irritating -- I don't like waiting -- but
the bigger issue is that there's a whole new system to learn, and the
brief trials I've had with the CUI have been frustrating because, well,
customizing with it is complicated. MNS is very straight-forward. The
CUI editor is not. Nothing in it works quite like I expect it to. With
the CUI it takes hours to do anything significant because I keep making
mistakes and have to start over because I can't figure out how to back
up, or the customizations just don't work, or it's been too long since
the last time I added anything and I've forgotten all the tricks. I can
build a tool bar in MNS in a few minutes, and all the context I need to
recall syntax and such is right in the file.

The CUI is a great whiz-bang feature, but it adds no value for me, just
complexity and bloat. It might be different if I had a large shop, but
for my one copy of Autocad and two copies of LT the CUI is just
unnecessary fluff. I appreciate the programmers' efforts, but I'd
rather see their time spent fixing bugs or speeding up Autocad in
general. The CUI costs me money because it takes longer, and that means
I get less paying work done. At this point I still use R2004 for most
things because it's significantly faster for the 2D work I do than 2005
or 2006. I suspect a lot of the reason is .net. An extra 0.1 second
per command may not seem like much, but multiply by several thousand
commands a day and it adds up.

My biggest complaint with Autodesk is that every year there's a new
version. Every year I have to wait for drivers and utilities because
they're not available day 1, then I waste several days on sorting
through the new stuff [the only feature in 2006 that stayed was the
coloring of crossing boxes, because the other new features didn't
improve my productivity, were unnecessary for what I do, or duplicated
(more or less) custom tools I already have], migrating my set-up, and
de-bugging. I don't have spare days to do that, and I'm the only IT here.

Martin


Bud Schroeder [Autodesk Inc.] wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> Have you tried this in 2007? We actually increased speed quite a bit. For
> example on my laptop I can open the CUI Editor in about 8 seconds. Then
> next load is almost instant. If that is not fast enough then can you tell
> us why? I know I was a CAD Manager for 12.5 years and did a lot of
> customization, but we spent most of our time drawing in AutoCAD not
> customizing it. Once we had our customization in place we just used it so
> for our shop this speed would be more then fast enough.
>
> Also can you give us examples about what you would like to see it do that
> you can't do today? Or where it needs to be faster? These are the kinds
> of examples we need to make improvements here.
>
> Thanks for taking time to give us the feedback.
>
> Bud Schroeder
> AutoCAD Test Development
> Autodesk Inc.
>
> "Martin Shoemaker" wrote in message
> news:5148056@discussion.autodesk.com...
> If the mnu option is discontinued and the CUI isn't fixed (speed to
> open, ease of use, reliability, etc.) it will guarantee that I will drop
> my subscription and find an alternate program. I'm an engineer. I
> don't need someone to hold my hand or pretty up an interface. I need
> something that's fast, efficient, and reliable. The CUI isn't any of
> those at this point.
>
> Martin
>
> mark wrote:
>> in A2k7, mnu was going to be discontinued ...it did not,
>> but Autodesk might stop supporting it in future versions, who knows
>>
>> "Laurie Comerford" wrote in message
>> news:5146492@discussion.autodesk.com...
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> It will never be acceptable until you can make it start instantly.
>>
>> The 10 second average delay to respond to the command to open the dalog
>> box
>> is a reflection of incompetant programming.
>>
>> With my slightly modified MNU editing system I can make a change to the
>> MNU
>> file and reload the modified menu in less time than it takes to open the
>> CUI
>> editor.
>>
>>
>> Laurie Comerford
>> CADApps
>> www.cadapps.com.au
>>
>> "mark" wrote in message
>> news:5146421@discussion.autodesk.com...
>> give me an option without goowee (GUI)
>> just plain old text editor option, so i can fine tune
>> and be in full control
>>
>> thanks
>> mark
>>
>>
>> wrote in message news:5146408@discussion.autodesk.com...
>> Hello,
>>
>> We are looking at ways to improve and enhance the CUI Editor in AutoCAD.
>> As
>> a customer, what improvements would you like to see with CUI?
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your input!
>>
>> Doug Cochran
>> Autodesk, Inc.

[Anonymous]

the funny part, is that your response indicates several things.

first of all, XML is hardly a "flavor of the day". secondly, one of the incredible benefits of the utilization of XML is the ability to edit it as raw text, in fact very much like parsing an ASCII file.
If you had ever worked with XML, you would know two very simple things: (1), it's a dream to work with, and it's unsettling why more companies don't must move everything to XML, for instance, just move the MNU/CTB/PGP formats directly into XML; (2), the cumbersome, quasi-1.1 utilization that companies such as Intuit and Autodesk have gone into can hardly even be called XML, as it does not follow two of the basic tenants: all information stored as plain text attributes, and able to be edited by a text editor.
I'd agree that where they got the idea to use XML is hardly a worthy discussion topic. But the XML schema that they settled on truly is. The vast recurring theme of posts in here is the desire to be able to edit a configuration file manually in a text editor. Converting the menu system to XML should allow that. But Autodesk has chosen to use XML as merely a database format. Since they are not moving CTB and other formats to XML, it can hardly be taken as an indication of supporting the standard.
And lastly, since they clearly did outsource the creation of the CUI, I feel that is also a perfect point of contention regarding its design.

--J

[Anonymous]

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 20:50:12 +0000, Jeremiah Farmer <> wrote:

>first of all, XML is hardly a "flavor of the day".

It is for companies who are indiscriminately using it for working with data,
outside the sphere of developing Web applications and/or sharing data that is
system independent, where XML was intentioned to be used, without regard for how
it affects their end users and the corporations who employ them.

In other words, Autodesk.

XML is a markup language. A great mechanism to tag and store information that is
created on one system (Windows) and read on another (Linux). As such, XML is an
excellent data interchange format that is not reliant on any particular OS,
DBMS, or any other application more sophisticated than a web browser.

I'm not suggesting it cannot be useful in the CAD world. Certainly, it would
make a better DXF format than DXF, and allow DWG data to be easily transferred
from one CAD app to another with a high degree of fidelity. But that would
require standards between software companies in a market where cooperation is
seen to be an evil impediment to profitability.

But XML can hardly be considered proper for dealing with an application-specific
component like the CUI, tool palettes and such. In essence we are using the
wrong tool for the job.

>secondly, one of the incredible benefits of the utilization of XML is the ability to edit it as raw text, in fact very much like parsing an ASCII file.

Okay. Hands up, everyone here who finds working with CUI files in Notepad to be
easy and fun. And, how often are you encouraged to edit any AutoCAD-generated
XML file outside of a GUI provided by AutoCAD?

>If you had ever worked with XML, you would know two very simple things: (1), it's a dream to work with, and it's unsettling why more companies don't must move everything to XML, for instance, just move the MNU/CTB/PGP formats directly into XML; (2), the cumbersome, quasi-1.1 utilization that companies such as Intuit and Autodesk have gone into can hardly even be called XML, as it does not follow two of the basic tenants: all information stored as plain text attributes, and able to be edited by a text editor.

All information generated in a CUI is stored as plain text; all data is stored
inside of attribute tags, defined by a schema, in a hierachical fashion; and it
is all able to be (painfully) edited with a text editor. I don't see how it's
anything else BUT XML.

It is hideously formatted, of course. The only "violation" that Autodesk has
committed here is that it is so convoluted, not to say undocumented, as to make
editing any of this stuff through Notepad to be a horrible experience.

>I'd agree that where they got the idea to use XML is hardly a worthy discussion topic.

I argue that the idea to use XML IS a worthy discussion topic, because it is
clearly evident that moving menus to it was the wrong move. I simply fail to see
how using XML to store menu data is any better than the MNS/MNC format. The CUI
editor is oviously more comprehensive than MENULOAD, but that's not saying much.

>The vast recurring theme of posts in here is the desire to be able to edit a configuration file manually in a text editor. Converting the menu system to XML should allow that.

MNS did this already, and you didn't hear everyone complaining. The beauty was
that it compiled down to very small, fast loading MNC files. Also, if you
screwed up, it was simple to fix. If a CUI file gets corrupted, you could be
seriously up a creek.

> But Autodesk has chosen to use XML as merely a database format. Since they are not moving CTB and other formats to XML, it can hardly be taken as an indication of supporting the standard.

Maybe it's because they realized how bloated it became to store such data in
XML, and figured it was a bad move. My CTB file is 5KB. I would hate to see what
it would be in XML.

>And lastly, since they clearly did outsource the creation of the CUI, I feel that is also a perfect point of contention regarding its design.

And you have evidence of this...where, again?

Matt
mstachoni@comcast.net
mstachoni@bhhtait.com

[Anonymous]

Cheers for the heads-up Matt, but don't you think it should go where you put it, regardless?!!!!!
A bug worth fixing.

[Anonymous]

Allow me to assign which tool bar I create the command in initially.

Right now everything defaults to the ACAD All Commands file and I have to put it in a toolbar there before I can place it in a custom toolbar.

[Anonymous]

well thanks jim - that solves my biggest problem
lgs

(be nice if that was documented a little better)

[Anonymous]

Ditto, I still recompile the mnu because that way I am in control. I place
all of my bitmaps in a dll.
Please keep the mnu structure, so I can format it like I want.

--

Gary


"Warren Trost" wrote in message
news:5146476@discussion.autodesk.com...
Ability to use the old method without all the jumping through hoops. I
still enter all changes in the mnu file and recompile. It's the mnu because
I don't do icons. Much easier to control for what I'm doing. When I need
the AutoCAD menu I call it up by shortcut keys but that is rare.


wrote in message news:5146408@discussion.autodesk.com...
Hello,

We are looking at ways to improve and enhance the CUI Editor in AutoCAD. As
a customer, what improvements would you like to see with CUI?

Thanks in advance for your input!

Doug Cochran
Autodesk, Inc.

[Anonymous]

i didn't read through the whole post yet but i installed 2007 awhile back hoping they had truly incorporated tool palettes into the cui. well they haven't streamlined them at all from what i can see. what i wanted to see is the linking of xtp files to xpg files so i can just import groups rather than individual palettes then individual groups then associating them one by one. everytime i install autocad (which is often) i spend tons of time doing this retarded process. if i am missing something please tell me. if not please fix this it's veeeeery annoying.

[Anonymous]

Thanks, for keeping the mnu.
--

Gary

"Bud Schroeder [Autodesk Inc.]" wrote in message
news:5148849@discussion.autodesk.com...
Hello,

Thanks for the feedback. I have seen a couple people say we are dropping
support for MNU/MNS. We are not dropping this, and will continue to convert
the MNU/MNS files. In 2007 we made a lot of improvements to the help for
CUI. I would be curious to see what you think of that help. If it covers
what your looking for.

Thanks again for the feedback on this, it really helps.

Bud Schroeder
AutoCAD Test Developemnt
Autodesk Inc.


wrote in message news:5148317@discussion.autodesk.com...
To say I'm disappointed at this cui thing is an understatement.

When introducing new features, especially such significant ones, please do
your testing. Test, test and test again before release! And please provide
adequate documentation to make usage and customization not so difficult.
How many users here are satisfied with the documentation of sheetset manager
in the VBA reference? Autodesk had the whole year to improve it since they
introduced it in 2005. But seems nothing was done to this regard. And now
we're looking at this ugly cui thing which is even worse. It is not a $30
or $300 software. Users are expecting something better. I suppose most
companies need to make money. Who can afford that amount of time to having
employees debugging software? This is supposed to be Autodesk's work.
Plus, Autodesk is releasing new version every year! (This probably can be
another topic.) IMHO, most new features, if not coming with sufficient
documentation which allows customization, using lisp, vba, arx, or whatever
else are probably not worth trying for those who have been customizing
AutoCAD, because they probably have spent their time to figure out how to
accomplish that already. Maybe in different ways, but they work, and they're
under full control.

Finally, whatever Autodesk is going to do with cui, please don't drop mns.

Thanks.

[Anonymous]

That is what I use, works great, for all of my menus.

--

Gary


"Laurie Comerford" wrote in message
news:5149550@discussion.autodesk.com...
Hi Bud,

A further thought arising from Matty's post.

At the monent we handle bitmaps by putting them into a DLL file.

It would be nice to have a DLL editor where you could drag the bitmap files
into the DLL file. Compare the multi-mouse click process we currently use
in "Resource Hacker"

--

Laurie Comerford
CADApps
www.cadapps.com.au

"Bud Schroeder [Autodesk Inc.]" wrote in message
news:5148846@discussion.autodesk.com...
Hi Matt,

Thanks for the feedback. Some of these things where implamented in 2007
but you still have some great suggestions. I posted some of the updates we
did in 2007 below next to your comments.

Thanks again for the feedback this is very helpful.

Bud Schroeder
AutoCAD Test Development
Autodesk Inc.


wrote in message news:5148446@discussion.autodesk.com...
Thanks for the opportunity, Doug.

(I use Autocad 2006, so disregard any of these suggestions that have already
been added to 2007.)

A.
I think the drag'n'drop from the 'Command List' to the 'Customisations in
all CUI files' section needs to be fixed. It automatically scrolls at
(fairly) high speed as soon as you enter the scroll area. The only way
around it is to do an anti-clockwise semi-circle maneuver with the mouse.
BUD: This should be better in 2007. We have made some changes here.


B.
I don't know if this is already possible, but how about relative paths for
bitmap locations?
BUD: For 2007 we have a default ICON path and you can change it to the path
that you want to use.

C.
Workspace import and export (or drag'n'drop)?
BUD: You can do that today in the Transfer TAB. Just open the menu that
has your Workspace on the left side and the menu that you want to transfer
to on the right. Grab the Workspace and drag it.

D.
Copy'n'Paste of whole or partial toolbars, pull-downs etc. (mentioned by
other replies)
BUD: Something we are looking at for future versions.

E.
Vaguely related: More than one enterprise menu. An enterprise path? Used
only for items called from the enterprise cui.
BUD: You can kind of do this now, but It depends on why you want multiple
Enterprise CUI files. For example you can have an Enterprise CUI file with
partial CUI files loaded in that same file. They are all treated as an
Enterprise CUI file. For different CUI files, you could use a profile and
change the Main and CUI paths to different CUI files.

F.
How about utilising right-clicks a little more?
BUD: What would you like to see used more in the Right Click?

G.
Multiple copy of strings of text, like Microsoft Office.

H.
A filter for the 'Command List'. As in the layer dialog.
BUD: You can filter and search the command list today? Are you looking for
more granularity in how you filter?

I.
Search and replace of text. (Checkboxes of which fields to search.)

J.
How about a more simple way of ordering the pull-down menus?
BUD: Can you tell us more about what you would consider more simple? Right
now you just click on the Workspace in CUI and expand the Menu. Then just
drag them where you want them to show up. Are you looking for a different
way? Thanks.

K.
Once again, vaguely related: How about fixing the toolbar placement & lock
facility? I still have toolbars that don't stay where I want them to.
BUD: Sorry that one is not in the CUI except for the default location of the
toolbars. And that actually is the same as it was in the old MNU format.
But I will pass it on to the team that implamented the locking. Can you
give me some examples of the issues your seeing so that I can share that
with them?

L.
How about being a bit more HELPful? Context sensitive help would be great,
especially with stuff like the Element ID.
BUD: We did a lot of work on Help in 2007 including adding videos to show
how the dialog flows. I would be curious to see what you think of the help
in 2007 and if it's more helpful.

M.
How about having the images in the 'Button Image' area in groupings of where
they come from. dll, bmp file, etc
How about which menu (or partial) they are related to?
BUD: Would it be just the groupings or the entire image/icons section?
Most of this comes from the old MNU system. Also if you add a custom icon
you do see the path in the propertie. But it sounds like you want to see
more here.

As for going back to mns files?
Yes mns files were easier to edit, but the CUI system is OK.
Autodesk have been moving towards complete Windows integration for years,
obvious to anybody who wanted to see the patterns.
The mns system was (obviously) incapable of being modified to suit the
advanced requirements.
I just hope Autodesk don't add those (Microsoft Office style) silly
shrinking pull-down menus!! ;-)))

Anyway, cheers!

Matt

[Anonymous]

i have also noticed that autodesk has incorporated a restore for cuis but a better idea would have been the ability to autosave so if a cui gets corrupt i could restore it back to before it was and not have to start over completely unless i'm missing something?

[Anonymous]

i had setup an enterprise cui and wanted to set it up so i created 2 profiles. 1 had acad as the main and enterprise as the enterprise (user). the other had enterprise as the main and no enterprise (admin). i was told that the only way to prevent users from creating a profile as i have and opening up the enterprise cui and dragging elements into their main cui was to only grant permissions to the the enterprise folder to certain users. ok so we created permissions to only certain users but i had to move the location to make it easier to assign permissions. now i open autocad and try to change the path it will not allow me into the folder to path it. so do i need to remove the premissions then path it then reassign the permissions. i have no ability to assign permissions so everytime this happens i have to involve IT which i would rather avoid. so i would like a better way of being able to edit the enterprise than creating a profile and switching back and forth. i would also like a way of protecting it from being opened other than assigning permissions to the source folder. the problem is that i configure our machines because our IT guys don't have time or knowledge to do it but i don't have time or knowledge and will not likely be given rights to apply permissions on my own. so i would like to have a way to truly make our enterprise read only without involving IT.

[Anonymous]

i had setup an enterprise cui and wanted to set it up so i created 2 profiles. 1 had acad as the main and enterprise as the enterprise (user). the other had enterprise as the main and no enterprise (admin). i was told that the only way to prevent users from creating a profile as i have and opening up the enterprise cui and dragging elements into their main cui was to only grant permissions to the the enterprise folder to certain users. ok so we created permissions to only certain users but i had to move the location to make it easier to assign permissions. now i open autocad and try to change the path it will not allow me into the folder to path it. so do i need to remove the premissions then path it then reassign the permissions. i have no ability to assign permissions so everytime this happens i have to involve IT which i would rather avoid. so i would like a better way of being able to edit the enterprise than creating a profile and switching back and forth. i would also like a way of protecting it from being opened other than assigning permissions to the source folder. the problem is that i configure our machines because our IT guys don't have time or knowledge to do it but i don't have time or knowledge and will not likely be given rights to apply permissions on my own. so i would like to have a way to truly make our enterprise read only without involving IT.

[Anonymous]

I agree with you, Jim.

It should be obvious by the response here that the CUI is the most
controversial thing Autodesk ever implemented. Notice that this is the
Customization Group, with the most experienced and capable users, yet the
vast majority here all mention what a huge time-sink it is, and totally
non-intuitive. I don't *ever* see the CUI being anywhere near as efficient
or reliable at the text based menu system.

Wouldn't it be something if Autodesk actually swallowed their pride and
admitted the CUI was a big mistake, and took us back to a tool we can use,
instead of this sinkhole everyone just ends up getting swallowed up by?...

John

"Jim Mims" wrote in message
news:5148052@discussion.autodesk.com...
After reading all the responses, this comes closest to what I was going
to voice.
I would add the ability to right-click and copy-n-paste, in addition to
drag-n-drop.

- Jim

MiD-AwE wrote:
> Previously mentioned was that with a simple setup you can end up with
> four places to decide shortcut menus and basically everything other
> than workspaces. I personally encountered a situation where it
> appeared that the partial menus (acad.cui & acetmain.cui) were
> overriding my custom.cui. That may not have been the case at all but
> I had no real way of discerning the truth. So, after a few costly
> hours I removed the intruding menus & toolbars from the partial menus
> just to get an "usable" interface.
>
> I would like to be able to set visibility by way of checkbox or -?-
> directly from within the cui editor. So that all available options
> are always present but I can simple check or uncheck if items are to
> be visible.
>
> One of the best customization features of the old mns/mnu/mnc system
> was with the toolbars and their ability to just drag a button from
> one toolbar to the next, customizing in real-time. Why is there no
> feature like that in the new system. I can imagine drag and drop
> menus and options, toolbars and buttons, tool palettes etc..
>
> cuiload & cuiunload are not very helpful since the entire cui
> structure is compromised each time you unload and then reload the
> cui-file. My issue is this; as soon as I unload the main cui file
> then the entire system forgets then loaded partial files too. What
> I'd like is to be able to unload any part of the structure and reload
> without having to rebuild the entire setup. The enterprise.cui and
> all partial menus should be remembered in the custom or main cui so
> that if or when I cuiunload and cuiload only the changes made to the
> custom cui file are committed to the customized user interface and
> I'm not forced to reload all partial files. Is there not a way to
> store associated structures?
>
> Hey, you asked 😉 but, thanks for listening.

[Anonymous]

This is a HUGE issue for us. The ability for users to easily create custom
toolbars that made sense for *them* by dragging and dropping led to huge
increases in productivity! If nothing else, *please* add this functionality
back in!!!

John

"Ralph Sanchez" wrote in message
news:5148711@discussion.autodesk.com...
Doug,

* Restore the ability to drag and drop buttons onto custom Toolbars in the
AutoCAD session without going into the CUI editor. All of my users used to
be very comfortable with creating their own toolbars graphically. The
novice users didn't necessarily know (or care) what MNx file their toolbars
lived in, but the method was intuitive enough for them to create exactly
what they needed. Even better, the advanced users knew to create their
custom toolbars in a separate MNx file so it could easily be applied to
future upgrades. Now, both novice and advanced users are confused.
"Partial WHAT?"

[Anonymous]

"the problem is that i configure our machines because our IT guys don't have time or knowledge to do it but i don't have time or knowledge and will not likely be given rights to apply permissions on my own. so i would like to have a way to truly make our enterprise read only without involving IT. "

I couldn't agree more! Password protect would be one way to want it to work.

[Anonymous]

yes password protection would be an excellent solution or maybe some other way. i will have tro read through this post more thoroughly. i think the root of all of the problems is autodesk releasing a new version every year. it is hard enough for vanilla cad users to keep up to date but for those of us who have custom tools and third party software is is impossible. you almost need a person to just handle it fulltime which is not likely to happen in most companies. the way it works at most places is they find the most computer saavy draftsman there and give them the responsibility of maintaining it all and it's simply not gonna happen.