From Jim Wilkinson: ...We generally do not put "newfunctionality" into service packs. Internally, there is no suchthing as SP3.1, 3.2, 3.3, ... 3.n. We plan to release SP3.0, SP4.0,SP5.0, etc. We target which defects (both found internally in QAand reported from users) to be fixed in a particular service pack.Then it goes to EV and if a critical issue is found in it, then wewill do a point release (like SP3.1). Otherwise, the point releasesare not planned. If we need to do a point release, it needs to gothrough the full suite of testing as any other service pack wouldgo through which takes a considerable amount of time so we can't bereleasing point releases all the time...
I apologize for ranting off topic in an unrelated thread. I'vestarted this thread in an effort to correct my error. I appreciateyour having taken time to explain the service pack system.
You seemed to be puzzled about what I'm upset about.
What do I want?Reliable 3D CAD software!
When do I want it?Now!
Now, as in SP0, not SP5.1 !
Since that is not possible given SW's perception of the prevailingcompetitive market, your release of remedial versions of SW is ahigh priority for me.
From my experience, the current paradigm of "planned" service packsincludes new functionality (e.g. changes to licensing systems),corrections to regressions (e.g. put back in the scroll bars), andfixes to new functionality that are widely reported.
Legacy flaws that are irritants to a minority of users are given alower priority (i.e. ignored).
The dot releases are patches for show stopping flaws - the goodnews is that they generally address a vital concern; the bad newsis that they represent a major embarrassment for SW and are issuedbegrudgingly.
I doubt very much that this rant will have any impact on the waythat SW conducts its business operation. However, I would suggestthat there are alternative methods for addressing quality problems.
First, (to paraphrase Shingo) if you don't want to spend timegetting rid of something, don't create it in the first place. Ifyou don't want to repair buggy releases, don't release buggysoftware. Don't release SP0 until it represents a stable, refined,and functional product.
Second, modularize. When the only way to issue a patch is to sendthe entire 3gb of executables, you do not have a modular system.
Third, offer a patch system that follows the Microsoft Updateparadigm - scan the installed libraries and replace those that areout of date. Allow users to schedule their downloads and/or toupdate on demand. Identify what each patch repairs and allow theusers to pick and choose what to fix or ignore.
Most importantly, treat this repair system as if it mattered. Myincome depends upon the quality of the tools that I use. When abuggy CAD system eats a day's work, it literally eats my lunch.
Issuing the patches at yourplanned convenience feels like the opposite of customerservice.
Alpha & Beta could be great programs. Early adopters could getthe latest and greatest, marketing could get all of the braggingrights. Sadly, SW only gives marketing buzz to Beta - it lacks theserious commitment of quality control.
At this point, SW08 SP3.0 should be in the final stages of Beta.It's nearly ready for release as SP0. However, there are gaffs inthe product that should be corrected before release as SP0 (e.g.virtual components).
How many bright minds are devoted to working on SW09 and SW10instead of polishing SW07 and SW08?
SolidworksGeneral
