Topic: Justifying the Upgrade

[Josh Nieman]

when grasping the the value of 2000 in the days of 2k8, I use an oft practiced method of comparison.

Autocad 2000 is to CAD
what
Vanilla Ice is to music.

[Atook]

2000i FTW!!!11oneoneone

Cadaver, the I disagree with you on the learning curve. When plotting changed it changed. Nearly the same learning curve from 2004(I think) to 2005 as from 2000 to 2008. And CUIs? There's no gentle learning curve there just a smack in the face. My thought process is for vanilla CAD. I'm sure your customizations throw another kink in the chain. I'm surprised that you'd rather deal with changes in those yearly rather than one bulk upgrade every few years.

I see nothing wrong with using software as long as you can. Not all subscription 'upgrades' are really upgrades, and sometimes the hassle of upgrading isn't worth the subscription cost.

That said, I'm pleased with 2008, I'm thinking/hoping it's up there with the r14 release as far as long term usability.

[Josh Nieman]

haha

2000i FTW!!!11oneoneone

hahaa.. I learned on 2000i :\  I got a uhm.  How shall I say QUOTE QUOTE "EDUCATIONAL" QUOTE QUOTE... version from...a .... friend... shall I say, a peer?  When I started college, and used it for 2 years or so, outside the classroom, until I won a copy via some contest of drafting PROWESS.

[MickD]

What about trying out some of the ODA cad vendors such as Intellicad, I have just bought a seat of FastCAD and it imports 2007 drawings just fine using an ODA plugin, some minor things which have more to do with FC than the import but still workable.
If you have to give the drawings back intact, something like Intellicad may do the job better thoguh.
Just a thought...and a lot cheaper!

[CADaver]

Cadaver, the I disagree with you on the learning curve.

gee that's never happened before 

Lesee, 2000 vs 2008 - pallettes, dashboard, push-pull, mouse control zoom, z track (ortho and polar), dynamic UCS, dynamic blocks, fields, tables, 3d grip edit, helix, polysolid, trim hatch, heads up command line, context sensirve heads up entry, scale annotations, dim break and jog, viewport layer control, workspaces, layer fading, mtext columns, multiline attributes and that's just what I can remember off the top of my head and dozens of existing command have been enhanced/modified such that old habits may not work at all.  Learning and becoming skilled at twenty new features a year is a lot easier than attempting to learn and become proficient with one-hundred and forty new features (including a new interface) on a project with a short schedule.  Now multiply that by however many users you have and consider those that may not pick it up as fast as others.  It is a definite cost that must be considered.

[deegeecees]

polysolid!

There's my justification, I'm upgradin'!

[Krushert]

Cadaver, the I disagree with you on the learning curve.

gee that's never happened before 

Lesee, 2000 vs 2008 - pallettes, dashboard, push-pull, mouse control zoom, z track (ortho and polar), dynamic UCS, dynamic blocks, fields, tables, 3d grip edit, helix, polysolid, trim hatch, heads up command line, context sensirve heads up entry, scale annotations, dim break and jog, viewport layer control, workspaces, layer fading, mtext columns, multiline attributes and that's just what I can remember off the top of my head and dozens of existing command have been enhanced/modified such that old habits may not work at all.  Learning and becoming skilled at twenty new features a year is a lot easier than attempting to learn and become proficient with one-hundred and forty new features (including a new interface) on a project with a short schedule.  Now multiply that by however many users you have and consider those that may not pick it up as fast as others.  It is a definite cost that must be considered.

I suppose you don't have any supporting data to back that up?   

[CaddmannQ]

I've been through about 9 or 10 AutoCAD upgrades over the years, and that doesn't include every version ever released of course. Typically it was every about other version.

The cost of the software has never been the lion's share of the expense, even when seats were too "stale" to legally upgrade and/or we had to pay full price for new seats.

The majority of the expense was always in upgrading hardware, O/S's, installation, configuration, debugging, training, and dealing with clients who were either ahead or behind us in the upgrade process, fighting to maintain job schedules, etc.

In general I'd say the cost of AutoCAD itself (always plain vanilla in my case) was only 30% to 40% (at most) of the total upgrade costs; but this is certainly just a seat-of-the-pants figure as there were just too many specifics to track.

My feeling has always been that every other upgrade is probably sufficient to keep things from going totally sour. I certainly wish we'd skipped r11 & r13.

We managed pretty well going from r14 to 2000 to 2004 to 2007, but your mileage may vary. For instance we rarely do 3D, and while we work from other people's digital files we rarely do our work on them.

[CADaver]

It is a definite cost that must be considered.

I suppose you don't have any supporting data to back that up?   

Actually I do.

[Guest]

13 stank.

14 was good.

2K is better

Correction:
Initial release of 13 stank... 13C4A (or whatever it was called) was pretty good.

[Guest]

We're on a two-year cycle here... We generally skip every other release, simply because by the time you get everything set up, tested, tweaked, etc... the next release is out.  Plus, we work with a lot of consultants who don't always keep up with the technology.  We're constantly having to save backwards to 2004 or even 2000.  If we get too far ahead of everyone else, it just becomes a pain in the dupa.  "I can't open your files."  "Everytime I open one of your drawings I get an error message that says eNot That Kind of Class".  Wah wah wah...

[M-dub]

Plus, we work with a lot of consultants who don't always keep up with the technology.  We're constantly having to save backwards to 2004 or even 2000.  If we get too far ahead of everyone else, it just becomes a pain in the dupa.  "I can't open your files."

Hence my reason for starting this topic.  Just forward them to this page! 


...and tell me if you lose info from the drawings they send back to you. 

[CADaver]

The cost of the software has never been the lion's share of the expense,

I'll agree with that.

The majority of the expense was always in upgrading hardware, O/S's,

We upgrade hardware all the time anyway.

installation, configuration, debugging, training,

Of the "new" release (whatever that is) yes this is a cost, especially in training.

and dealing with clients who were either ahead or behind us in the upgrade process,

Not a problem for most of what we do, especially with the latest DWGTrueView that comes with TrueConvert built in.

fighting to maintain job schedules, etc.

There's that learning curve cost.

I certainly wish we'd skipped r11 & r13.

Oh no, not R11, we got Paperspace and XREFs with R11.

For instance we rarely do 3D,

But you will.

[CADaver]

13C4A (or whatever it was called) was pretty good.

Yes it was, though it still had a quirk or two.

[M-dub]

I just thought of something...

If someone reading this topic (who has 2007 or 2008) is really bored today, could you create a sample drawing with... well, some of these features in it?

Lesee, 2000 vs 2008 - pallettes, dashboard, push-pull, mouse control zoom, z track (ortho and polar), dynamic UCS, dynamic blocks, fields, tables, 3d grip edit, helix, polysolid, trim hatch, heads up command line, context sensirve heads up entry, scale annotations, dim break and jog, viewport layer control, workspaces, layer fading, mtext columns, multiline attributes (etc...)

I'd like to try converting it using this program, send it back to you and have you take a look to see how much is lost.

Just a thought...