42 Replies Latest reply on Feb 21, 2018 10:10 AM by Sebastyon Champion

    Death to SW2019!

    Roland Schwarz

      Way past time to stop naming SW editions after year of issue. We don't need a new, mediocre release every year. Slow your roll, Dassault.

       

      Switch to version naming, which does not proclaim a version's perceived obsolescence in its own name. Space out new versions every two or three years. Take time to get it right. Let your user base defragment a bit and get more of them on the same version for longer stretches of time.

        • Re: Death to SW2019!
          Rob Edwards

          Probably the wisest post on this forum.. ever!

          • Re: Death to SW2019!
            Josef Kasik

            Good idea Roland Schwarz! Slowly, but better.. User does not have to upgrade every year.. And a lot of another benefits.

            • Re: Death to SW2019!
              Steve Calvert

              Perhaps, but don't you think there's a better effort this year to notice performance over gadgets?

               

              Steve C

                • Re: Death to SW2019!
                  Rob Edwards

                  Hi Steve

                  The way I see it is that there is a release every year but also 5 service packs.  What's that on average? - a new release every 9 weeks!  Surely that's incredibly inefficient for everyone involved

                    • Re: Death to SW2019!
                      Steve Calvert

                      Hi Rob

                      Every piece of software has service packs.  There's always something that needs updating or fixed AND new stuff gets pushed out there as well.  I know when we had Unigraphics, their updates were just that, simple updates and not a complete install of the version.  I wish SW could adopt that.  I don't really have a good argument one way or the other, hell, we're still on SW2015.

                       

                      Here's how I voted BTW

                       

                       

                      Steve C

                  • Re: Death to SW2019!
                    Dave Bear

                    I totally agree Roland, however I doubt the bean counters will

                     

                    Dave.

                      • Re: Death to SW2019!
                        Rob Edwards

                        however I doubt the bean counters will

                         

                        Dave Hammer / Nail / Head me thinks

                        • Re: Death to SW2019!
                          Steve Calvert

                          If their model wasn't efficient, they'd change... (or at least I hope they would)

                           

                          Steve C

                            • Re: Death to SW2019!
                              Alex Lachance

                              If the money keeps flowing through, why would they fix something that doesn't need to be fixed for them.


                              I agree this would be in the best optic but unfortunately, most companies do these switch when it's too late, when users have started moving to another program with people who are more open and aware to discussing and improving the program.

                                • Re: Death to SW2019!
                                  Adrian Velazquez

                                  The real question is why would they fix something that is ancient and bound to be obsolete regardless how much time/effort they invest in it?

                                   

                                  In terms of architecture, SW has not changed since is initial days. It's become a complex monster (software development-wise). In order to considerably improve reliability, I believe it would need to be re-written from the ground-up. I think they are actually trying to do it, the problem is that DS determined it should be re-written using the V6 engine, not Parasolid... so here we are caught in between.

                            • Re: Death to SW2019!
                              Paul Salvador

                              ..so,.. they should call the next version...  "SW-DEATH"?    (kind of like it!... or, SWorks to Death?)

                              • Re: Death to SW2019!
                                Francisco Martínez

                                SolidWorks-BFE

                                Bug Free Edition

                                • Re: Death to SW2019!
                                  Anna Wood

                                  Roland Schwarz wrote:

                                   

                                  Way past time to stop naming SW editions after year of issue. We don't need a new, mediocre release every year. Slow your roll, Dassault.

                                   

                                  Switch to version naming, which does not proclaim a version's perceived obsolescence in its own name. Space out new versions every two or three years. Take time to get it right. Let your user base defragment a bit and get more of them on the same version for longer stretches of time.

                                  DS has been working on that for years...  Why do you think they have been pushing the Catia v6 Lite, 3D Experience platform since 2010.

                                   

                                  DS would love that and all of us on monthly subscription with no access to our data if we do not pay up.

                                   

                                  Be careful what you wish for....

                                    • Re: Death to SW2019!
                                      Paul Salvador

                                      ..ya know,.. whenever I see the logo (image).. to this day, I only see two letters.

                                      bs.png

                                      • Re: Death to SW2019!
                                        Dennis Dohogne

                                        Anna Wood wrote:

                                         

                                        Roland Schwarz wrote:

                                         

                                        Way past time to stop naming SW editions after year of issue. We don't need a new, mediocre release every year. Slow your roll, Dassault.

                                         

                                        Switch to version naming, which does not proclaim a version's perceived obsolescence in its own name. Space out new versions every two or three years. Take time to get it right. Let your user base defragment a bit and get more of them on the same version for longer stretches of time.

                                        DS has been working on that for years... Why do you think they have been pushing the Catia v6 Lite, 3D Experience platform since 2010.

                                         

                                        DS would love that and all of us on monthly subscription with no access to our data if we do not pay up.

                                         

                                        Be careful what you wish for....

                                        Anna Wood, were you at SWW or did you see the general sessions?  They were touting their online version, 3D Experience, and it does look pretty promising in a lot of respects, but there are always pros and cons to every situation.  I find the potential for data-held-hostage to be a big con, but the pro of not having to install updates or dealing with differing versions to be very appealing.

                                          • Re: Death to SW2019!
                                            Anna Wood

                                            Not this year....   But I have been watching them try to get 3D Experience packaged into a product companies will want to purchase since the debacle of SWW 2010. That led to the mother ship taking control of SolidWorks and the departure of a lot of original SolidWorks people.

                                             

                                            It is Catia V6 technology built on an Enovia database.  DS is having a hard time selling to their Catia customers and are trying like hell to re-package and sell it to the SolidWorks community.

                                             

                                            Of course they are touting their online version.  Luckily for DS they have a crappy product, very few want, and have not barged forth with cutting off their customer base like Autodesk has, forcing Autodesk customers to find, very capable, solutions.  The DS balance sheet has been reaping the rewards of that mis-step.

                                             

                                            I am not anti-subscription based software.  I happily pay Adobe money every month for my subscriptions to their products.  There has to be value there and DS, along with the entire mainstseam CAD industry, hasn't figured out that out yet.

                                              • Re: Death to SW2019!
                                                Mark Biasotti

                                                Never going to happen guys (+gal-Anna) - It all about the $$ (subscription services.) From a financial standpoint it doesn't make sense for Dassault to do this.

                                                 

                                                Just my 2 cents.

                                                  • Re: Death to SW2019!
                                                    Elmar Klammer

                                                    Hi Mark,

                                                     

                                                    That's the part I don't understand. The idea would be to get rid of major version updates but still maintain subscription revenue. I am not against yearly subscription. I am against unnecessary short life cycles. Say you maintain Version compatibility but change the licensing structure from "never ending" to "yearly". Subscription wouldn't change. Neither would their ability to penalize skipped subscriptions.

                                                    But it would make dealing with the software much easier for all others. Windows does it, I know it happens with Acrobat DC, Office does it.

                                                    So all in all it's not new.

                                                    I am certain it also has something to with Power. Anyone knows that switching a CAD system is costly, difficult and almost impossible from a business side. That's the power SW has and that unfortunately makes SW inefficient and lagging behind.

                                                    I haven't seen a big shift in performance over the last decade. The speed in drawings & complex models has trickled up maybe a little but by no means improved in strides. Instead we are bombarded with often redundant feature additions that seem to be new but are essentially existing code that is packaged into a new (bigger) button. Real new ground breaking functionality has been far & in between. And that's why I think this yearly release of new Versions has nothing to do with technology but with poor business fundamentals.

                                                    Maybe it's more difficult to maintain older code as you move forward with enhancements. I don't know.

                                                    Not to mention the latest tendency for all those new packages. Honestly I don't know much about it. But I don't think this is helping our cause.

                                                    Now it's not all negative. No, but realistically speaking, SW pads itself on the back much more than is justifiable.

                                                     

                                                    Elmar

                                                    • Re: Death to SW2019!
                                                      Mark Biasotti

                                                      I predict that the only way Dassault can make 3DX succeed, is the purposely kill SW - i.e. last version: SW2020. This will force current SW users to adopt the new platform or look elsewhere. In other words, as long as they continue to take their most current stance: we'll offer you choice, 3DX will be very slow to be adopted.

                                                    • Re: Death to SW2019!
                                                      Adrian Velazquez

                                                      From my perspective the main problem is they are developing ans marketing the 3DX stuff  as COMPETING product to SolidWorks Desktop (SWD). Ever since Mechanical Conceptual and Insdustrial Designer, some of us where excited about those, then they mention the price tag, and the fact that they are not compatible with SWD. Why would anyone in their right mind pay more for those than SWD Professional?

                                                       

                                                      Now they have xDesign (100% Browser) and 3DX SW Product Designer which is a Hybrid Installed software that is compatible with xD but not SWD. They are competing packages priced individually... now the Customer has a really valid rea$on to evaluate On and Fusion as alternatives if they really wanted to leave SWD.

                                                        • Re: Death to SW2019!
                                                          Paul Salvador

                                                          Adrian... yeah, it's as if they are trying to make the customer choose or go elsewhere... very different marketing technique now a days..

                                                            • Re: Death to SW2019!
                                                              Dennis Dohogne

                                                              Paul Salvador wrote:

                                                               

                                                              Adrian... yeah, it's as if they are trying to make the customer choose or go elsewhere... very different marketing technique now a days..

                                                              I had the opportunity to talk to several of the guys at the top of the software development side of SWX about the online version of the software.  I've had most of a week to dissect and digest what they said and what they didn't say.  These guys ALL said, one way or another and independent of each other, that they were going to go where the customers want them to go.  They do not have an agenda to replace the desktop version unless years from now that is what the customer base wants (I doubt the desktop version will go away for quite a long time if that is the case).

                                                               

                                                              For me, the online version has some interesting possibilities and benefits, but I'm not willing to make the leap to that version.  Maybe in a year or two it will be much farther along with a bidirectional path with the desktop version.  THAT would eliminate a lot of risk for us and they'd be much more likely to get people to consider it, but I don't know if that is in the plans.

                                                    • Re: Death to SW2019!
                                                      Nikhil Phatak

                                                      Way past time to stop naming SW editions after year of issue. We don't need a new, mediocre release every year. Slow your roll, Dassault.

                                                       

                                                      Switch to version naming, which does not proclaim a version's perceived obsolescence in its own name. Space out new versions every two or three years. Take time to get it right. Let your user base de-fragment a bit and get more of them on the same version for longer stretches of time. 

                                                      Roland Schwarz 

                                                      I completely agree & I think

                                                      Solidworks should be able to make its own space in Design and not the general purpose software which is always used as an option.(Only advantage of Solid-works is being easy, user friendly & cost, compared to others) & as a design engineer, for me its OK not to have thousands and lacs of features and magic tools but i will be pleased if whatever tools i have are completely robust, bug free and crash free and straightforward without any workarounds.[So Swx 2010 or Swx-2020 or Swx 2200 doesn't matter we are also fine with Swx-10,000 B.C.].

                                                      Anyway I  am a complete fan of SolidWorks and all of its products and I really appreciate the efforts and contribution of SolidWorks towards design. But "Good Job" will always be the most dangerous statement to hear from anybody isn't it

                                                       

                                                      Nikhil

                                                      • Re: Death to SW2019!
                                                        Rohit Rajan

                                                        it will go on deaf ears! blind eyes..

                                                        • Re: Death to SW2019!
                                                          Vladimir Urazhdin

                                                          Excellent idea! I'm just curious to know the opinion of Dassault Management Team about this topic.

                                                          • Re: Death to SW2019!
                                                            David Matula

                                                            If there was not new version I would not get to see my var at the rollout...It is about the only time I get to see them unless they show to a user group meeting. 

                                                            all the great new stuff that they keep coming out with also that I will hardly ever use, cause I'm getting old and set in my ways.  Things like mouse jesters come to mind.  Now neat new things like a hole wiz I like that and ohhhh when they came out with weldments....that was great....

                                                            • Re: Death to SW2019!
                                                              Matt Peneguy

                                                              I didn't see anyone post how this idea ties in with ONE and TWO. Maybe someone mentioned it and I missed it.  I really think this idea needs to take priority number 2 next to One and Two and let me explain the reasons.  If the release cycle goes from 1 to say 2 years, it gives the developers more time to fix existing bugs.  And, it gives them more time to work on the new features that they inevitably add; which will give them time to fix the bugs in those new features.  So, from a bug fixing and stability perspective I believe this is a great idea.

                                                              As others have stated, the billing could remain the same. 

                                                              Rick Becker and Dennis Dohogne, I know y'all didn't ask to be the One and Two spokespeople, but ya kind of are our One and Two liasons, anyway.  What do you think?

                                                                • Re: Death to SW2019!
                                                                  Jim Steinmeyer

                                                                  Matt Peneguy wrote:

                                                                   

                                                                   

                                                                  Rick Becker and Dennis Dohogne, I know y'all didn't ask to be the One and Two spokespeople, but ya kind of are our One and Two liasons, anyway. What do you think?

                                                                  Oh, but they did:

                                                                   

                                                                  IMG_6265.JPG

                                                                  • Re: Death to SW2019!
                                                                    Rick Becker

                                                                    Matt Peneguy wrote:

                                                                    ... If the release cycle goes from 1 to say 2 years, it gives the developers more time to fix existing bugs. And, it gives them more time to work on the new features that they inevitably add; which will give them time to fix the bugs in those new features. So, from a bug fixing and stability perspective I believe this is a great idea.

                                                                    IMHO, any hard time limit can be counterproductive.

                                                                    Honestly, why is 2 years better than 1 year? It's still a hard limit.

                                                                    When we visited Waltham in November I brought this up as an issue. Announcing to the world that a new major release will occur every October forces the programming team to complete their work by specific dates. Hard limits. In time for alpha/beta testing. To me, this forces either a release before the code is perfected or, perfected code sitting around just waiting for the calendar to advance to the correct date.

                                                                     

                                                                    To me, a more natural approach involves choosing what specific features/functions/interface to fix/repair and what new features/functions/interface to add-in.

                                                                    Now get the programming team working.When it's all done proceed to testing. After proper testing and rework (if necessary) then, and only then, announce the release date. Regardless of calendar month or year.

                                                                    Sometimes you may wait 2 or 3 years for a major release, and sometimes you may have 2 major releases in a year. Que Sera, Sera.

                                                                     

                                                                    I can see both sides of this. The release in timed to allow accurate major news releases at SWW in February. The yearly release schedule makes bean counters and CEO's happy. Having set time to accomplish goals motivates people. Not having a release for a "long time" gives competition and conspiracy theorists ammo.

                                                                     

                                                                    Here's the most salient point.

                                                                    I don't know what it takes to revise and/or add on to a body of code that has millions and millions lines of code. I'm not a programmer. I don't know what motivates the team that does the programming. But we (Dennis Dohogne and I) meet with the top brass and the GI's. We talked to them, listened to them, asked them these questions. What we were told is that there are many different approaches. The yearly release schedule works for this group of programmers. They have 3 years of major releases in the programming pipeline and this works for them. Yes, toes get stubbed at times and, great advances happen at times. It's all part of the product life cycle.

                                                                     

                                                                    I'm guessing this subject is an issue out of frustration. I know it is for me. We want our software to be the best program ever. When we see a stumble we reach out and try to help. But, in this case, the programming team knows what works for them and I think we need to believe them and accept it. I do.

                                                                      • Re: Death to SW2019!
                                                                        Matt Peneguy

                                                                        Thanks for replying Rick.  You bring up some good points.  To clarify, I used 2 years as an example.  It gives the programmers twice as much time to fix bugs in existing code and to test out new features.  Maybe 3 years would be even better. 

                                                                        But, you do bring up a good point in that some bugs may be easy to fix.  If it is just a couple lines of code, a bug could be fixed and tested in a matter of days.  If the bug is more complicated, it could take a lot longer.  So, to some extent I agree that having a hard limit can be counter productive.

                                                                        But to your point:

                                                                        What we were told is that there are many different approaches. The yearly release schedule works for this group of programmers.

                                                                        Don't take this the wrong way, but what "works" is the system that is in place.  How do you compare a different release cycle to the current one in place and measure that it is better or worse than the current release cycle?  This is a hard thing to measure.  And, there is a lot of pressure from Corporate for the yearly release cycle.  So, all I'm saying is that this yearly release cycle may be contributing to a lot of these One and Two issues.  Take, for example, the Advanced Hole Wizard released in 2017....The information from Advanced Hole Wizard in 2017 doesn't even propagate to the freakin' drawings!  You can't tell me that they wouldn't have fixed that if they had a little more time to work on it (and I think they did in 2018).

                                                                        • Re: Death to SW2019!
                                                                          Dennis Dohogne

                                                                          In the early days of SWX they came out with an odd release schedule, annual releases most of the time starting with 1995 with these exceptions: 1997 had SWX 97 and SWX 97Plus, 1998 had SWX 98 and SWX 98Plus, 2001 had SWX 2001 and SWX 2001Plus,  There was not a SWX 2002.  All other years have been annual releases.  I think they got a lot of negative reactions to the odd spacing and so committed to annual releases (my speculation).

                                                                           

                                                                          My observation is that software falls into one of two camps: 1. Only major releases whenever a huge overhaul is accomplished.  This is often a spacing of around three to ten years (in my perception only, I have no data to support). 2. Major releases come out on a regular schedule.  SWX is obviously in this latter group.

                                                                           

                                                                          I have no problem with the annual release schedule.  As Rick mentioned, the developers have three generations of the software in the pipeline.  We had the opportunity to learn things like that that is not too commonly known.  We also learned about the personal integrity and character of the folks behind the software.  As angry as we (I) have been with the software (especially around this time last year) I saw that these guys were embarrassed about letting us down.  It's personal for them too and they wouldn't be embarrassed if they were just crank-turners that came into work and clocked their time and then went home.  They really do care about producing great software, but sometimes things happen that makes people angry (me) or embarrassed (them).  It's what you do about it that matters.  For SWX2019 the software team dedicated an unprecedented amount of their resources to fixing quality issues, not developing new features.  They even had a long period where they weren't even allowed to work on new features.  But wait, the story gets better.  Many of the bug fixes have been back-ported into earlier service packs, especially for SWX2018.

                                                                           

                                                                          Mistakes happen, but it's what you do about it that matters.  These guys in Waltham impressed us.  It IS personal to them and that is very important to me.

                                                                           

                                                                          I have been in product development for my whole career.  One of the things I learned, perhaps the hard way, is that schedules, as frustrating as they can be, serve a very good purpose.  They force decision points more then they force things to be finished.  I chose the word finished there for a reason.  Engineers are notorious for wanting to keep tweaking something to continually make it better.  Left alone they might never release whatever it is they are working on because "wait, I want to improve this one little thing" never ends.  A schedule forces a decision as to what to include and what to exclude.

                                                                           

                                                                          Sometimes a mistake is made and Marketing gets to wag the dog.  I'm an engineer and my work is technical and the things I buy are for technical reasons.  I hate dealing with a marketing person from a vendor.  I want to talk to a technical support person or a sales engineer.  If I were buying a product for its cosmetic or social affect then a marketing person can help me, but for technical stuff I need (and only trust) the folks that can adequately explain the technical stuff, not just blow marketing technobabble out some orifice.  But sometimes a mistake is made and Marketing wags the dog, they commit the technical staff to deliver on their premature promises.  We've seen this with the software when a slick new feature is promised for the next release, but it turns out it isn't fully ready and it it is released anyway as an incomplete feature.  Marketing doesn't get blamed for putting egg on the face of the company, but they are really the ones responsible.  Why do I bring this up in this post?  Because we heard something in Waltham that was quite refreshing.  (By the way, there were no folks from Sales/Marketing or anyone else from the business side in those meetings, just the software development team.)  We heard them say they were not going to release something that wasn't ready, even if it was in the plan for the next release - and this sounded like it was a recent thing they were able to establish (my perception).  Though the schedule was going to force a decision they were going to be more aggressive about withholding something if it wasn't ready, i.e., reliably perform the intended function - all of it.

                                                                           

                                                                          As far as valuing new features versus software stability/reliability goes, we had the very loud issue of ONE and TWO a year ago and Rick and I helped to beat that drum that so many of you joined in.  This year the Top Ten had the vote slider before even getting to the individual ideas.  For me I slid that bar to Increase Reliability to 85%, Improve Functionality to 8%, and Faster Performance to 7%.  My reasons are rather simple and fitting with the spirit of the original poster's comments.  The consequences of a crash or a corrupt file FAR OUTWEIGH the benefit of saving me a few mouse clicks in an hour.  I can get done now with the current version of SWX what I need to get done for my work.  Sure, new features would make some of this easier, but it could take a year for the reduced mouse clicks afforded by these new features to save me a whole man-day, but one crash or corrupt file will routinely cost me a half day in lost work and distrust of my methods when I restart.  So, when you have even one crash a week that adds up to a huge impact versus the benefits of a new whizbang feature.  My general sentiment was apparently shared by a lot of folks that voted because at the Top Ten session at SWWorld this year they showed and discussed the results of the voting: Follow-up to Top Ten and ONE and TWO from SWW2018   The developers listened.

                                                                           

                                                                          I'm enjoying SWX2018.  It seems to be markedly more stable and I have reason to expect even better stability in future service packs.

                                                                      • Re: Death to SW2019!
                                                                        Sebastyon Champion

                                                                        I agree with @Roland Schwarz, its getting to be like an apple product where once you get use to a system, they update and change little aspects without rebooting the ground floor.  So much has been piled in the software can be very confusing and overwhelming to new users.  I think they should slow down and do single one stage updates.  Make packages for "yearly" updates for optional add-ins, but leave the primary program alone until a new stage has been reached in stability and functionality.  From a marketing standing point this still makes sense, they can still charge to long time users and also reach out to older versions and persuade them to update at a more cost efficient rate.  Smaller companies like the one i work for have to bite a large bullet for mediocre yearly updates that do nothing more than slow down design until the new system is learned.  That being said 2018 was remarkably better than 17 in the features in presented, unless they can fix all the minor bugs (which should be background updates) the only interest i would have in 2019 isnt there.