V3.7 or V4.1?

[Bruno2]

I would welcome any constructive input on the following:

We are currently running (when it is not crashing) V3.17MR2. We have been offered V4.1 as a replacement.

Is V4.1 more stable?

Is V4.1 less problematic?

What kind of learning curve would we expect in going from V3.7 to V4.1?

What about V4.2? Is this the solution (or V4.1)?

Using various software programs over the past 15 - 20 years, I have never had such a litany of bugs and errors as I have with PCDMIS. This is supposed to be a mature product. Usually mature implies problem free or nearly problem free.

I was recently told that they do not have the time to debug PCDMIS because it is so popular and the developers are addressing the features the customers want to have added. Therefore, they don't have time to fix anything and blame their customers for wanting more bells and whistles.

[bob mappes]

IMO use 4.1

4.1 is more stable, but still has some issues, crashes less often.
4.1 is very much like 3.7 in the interface aspect, looks just like 3.7.
4.1 has more background changes than foreground

4.2 is where things are really different looking

I still use 4.1 instead of 4.2 just because 4.2 is so different it is taking time to re-learn where everything is

HTH
bob

[JamesMannes]

IMO use 4.1

4.1 is more stable, but still has some issues, crashes less often.
4.1 is very much like 3.7 in the interface aspect, looks just like 3.7.
4.1 has more background changes than foreground

4.2 is where things are really different looking

I still use 4.1 instead of 4.2 just because 4.2 is so different it is taking time to re-learn where everything is

HTH
bob

Bob I think you are mistaken 4.1 and 4.2 are pretty much the same except things have been fixed in 4.2.

[Paul Sarrach]

I have ran PCDMIS since the start. I jump from 3.7mr3 to 4.2 I was told to junk the4.0 Now I am a big hater of change. And with 4.2 it is a whole new ballgame but I am not bored, fustrated, yes. Why are you being offered 4.1 and not 4.2? If you are going to have to relearn like me, you might as well go with the 4.2 and do the learning curve together as you can see by the posts. It better to be at the cutting edge of the software and be able to peddle you knowledge than not get a job because you can not run the software. my .02

[Paul Sarrach]

Bob I think you are mistaken 4.1 and 4.2 are pretty much the same except things have been fixed in 4.2.

I thought so too. Hey dont you ever go home? Or dont you have any friends to talk to at home

[JamesMannes]

Maybe I'm a retard but this forum is my home page. So I see it all the time. I would rather have this than like msn or something full of ads.

And I don't have any friends.

[Roberto]

I recently switched from 3.5MR2 to 4.2MR1 big change on formats and menus.
Other than that no big complaints so far

[bob mappes]

Bob I think you are mistaken 4.1 and 4.2 are pretty much the same except things have been fixed in 4.2.

4.1_4.2compared.jpg

I can see how they are the same....can't you see how they are different?....very different....many more buttons and options...not easily found

but, that's just MY opinion

[Cumofo]

Maybe I'm a retard but this forum is my home page. So I see it all the time. I would rather have this than like msn or something full of ads.

And I don't have any friends.

http://mud.mm-a4.yimg.com/image/2804984734
Would you like to be friends?







G

[JamesMannes]

Sorry Gabe I think we already are.

[JamesMannes]

[ATTACH]1543[/ATTACH]

I can see how they are the same....can't you see how they are different?....very different....many more buttons and options...not easily found

but, that's just MY opinion

Bob, if that is the case, I have been on the 4.2 pills for too long. My apologies for questioning your post.

[#2#]

I would welcome any constructive input on the following:

We are currently running (when it is not crashing) V3.17MR2. We have been offered V4.1 as a replacement.

Is V4.1 more stable?

Is V4.1 less problematic?

What kind of learning curve would we expect in going from V3.7 to V4.1?

What about V4.2? Is this the solution (or V4.1)?

Using various software programs over the past 15 - 20 years, I have never had such a litany of bugs and errors as I have with PCDMIS. This is supposed to be a mature product. Usually mature implies problem free or nearly problem free.

Back to the original question (sorry guys)...

Do you have more choices than 3.7mr2 and 4.1? As noted above, a lot of the guys recomend 4.2 but from what I hear it has quite a bit of learning to get up and running proficiently.

If you want to be up and running right away with as few problems as possible, I'd stick with 3.7 but move up to MR3. A lot of people here like 3.7MR3 and consider it one of the better releases. 3.7 MR3 has proven to be much more stable than MR2 for me. There are other things to look at too if you want to improve stability (adjusting system performance settings, installing the hotfix for XP service pack 2, etc).

Remember, before you do anything, backup everything!

I was recently told that they do not have the time to debug PCDMIS because it is so popular and the developers are addressing the features the customers want to have added. Therefore, they don't have time to fix anything and blame their customers for wanting more bells and whistles.

Well, history would seem to indicate that this is correct. I think though that in the recent past (starting with 4.1 and 4.2) they are maybe focusing a little more on bugs. Another way to put it is they are starting to put the focus on wowing the user and not the purchaser.

[Matthew D. Hoedeman]

Well, history would seem to indicate that this is correct. I think though that in the recent past (starting with 4.1 and 4.2) they are maybe focusing a little more on bugs. Another way to put it is they are starting to put the focus on wowing the user and not the purchaser.

(in reference to Bruno's posting about how they can't fix the bugs 'cause they are too busy adding features that the customers want.....)

Well, I don't think that is the correct answer, that may be the one they are giving out, but it is 100% bull-crap as far as I am concerned. It has been proven in the past that they worked on up to (and maybe MORE THAN) 3 different version (upgrade, whatever) all at the same time instead of working on the NEXT version, thus spreading their resources too thin to do much with. Also, I seriously doubt ANY user out there asked for the extra windows that I've heard pop-up and HIDE even MORE of the graphics window when you are programming. I have asked about things like this in the past and NEVER, NOT ONCE, did ANY user out there that visits this board say that this new thing or that new thing that was a total headache for ALL of us was what tyhey told B&S to add to the software.

Lets ask again...

How many of you out there called up B&S and told them (pre-V3.5) that you were tired of all the icons and functions and features being in the same place and that you wanted the entire structure changed around so that you could waste LOTS more time trying to find something that you could click on without even looking at the screen anymore? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

How many of you out there, after all your years of working with Pcdmis called them and told them that you wanted ALL the features in a program to be related FIRST to machine coordinates, then internally translated back to the alignment coordinates instead of how it was pre-v3.5, when all the features AFTER the alignment were related ONLY to the alignment and only the pre-alignment features were related to the machine coordinates? I doubt that ANY of you want this. Befire they made the change, if you were using a holding/checking fixture, you could align the fixture (internal or external alignment, didn't matter) and program the part. Then, MOVE the fixture to a new place on the table, re-align the fixture and have all the features POST ALIGNMENT still show up in relationship to the alignment that they were last measured at, now they show up in relationship to the machine coordinates to the alignment, meaning if you moved the fixture 100mm in X, then all the post-al features will now show 100mm off in the X axis, before they showed the same deviations as when they were last checked. Who asked for that?

The reason for the BUGS is simple, if you ask me, they are tring to do TOO [email protected] MANY versions at one time, putting too few of the programmers on a sinlge version, and I swear they have a high turn-over of programmers there. That is the easiest explaination for WHY things that have been the same for YEARS AND YEARS will suddenly change, a new programmer who did it differently on his last job, who wants to keep doing it 'his way' instead of following the current way at the new job. That is why, I think, so many of the simplest things get changed or moved, some 'new guy' had the icon for 'bite-me' under OPERATIONS at his last job, but Pcdmis had it under FILE so he moved it to the new location, then showed his boss how it was SO MUCH EASIER TO FIND AND USE THERE, simply because HE was not used to it's 'Pcdmis location' and HE and HE ALONE could find it/do it faster in the new location. And of course, the bnoss starts drooling, "Hey, that took 1/2 a second off the time, ALL the users will love it." and there you have it, WE GET THE ROYAL SHAFT AGAIN. And how about some of the even more hidden changes they put in, DON'T TELL ANYONE ABOUT, then expect us to pay for 'update classes' just so we can find out how they are going to screw us with THIS version.

HEY, here is another one, EQUATE ALIGNMENT. Now, in order for it to work, you MUST Measure the exact same features/locations from one alignment to the other. It USED to be that you could do a 3-2-1 (plane-line-point) alignment, do the level/rotate/xyz origins/xyz offsets using different 'datums' if you will and different offsets for the alignment, BUT BOTH TO THE SAME CAD CAR POSITION ORIENTATION and have it work, but not any longer. Whothehell wanted THAT? I have had fixtures on my table that were 2.5 times the length of the travel of the machine. I could measure the TOP (Z+ level, Z375mm) of the fixture base, no matter HOW it was set up on the table, and I could measure the SIDE (Y+ rotate, X1250) of the base, no matter where it was set up on the table. For the initial setup, I could get it so I could reach 2 dowels in the base in each set-up (even if I still couldn't reach all of the part), so I coiuld start with ONE dowel as the master, for the first alignment and measure the second one to get the master for the second alignment. Move the fixture, align to the second dowel (using the values from the first alignment), measure the third dowel for use in the third set up. I now had good, usable numbers for all the dowels and could make 3 alignments and shift the fixture to check the entire part, and by using equate, I could have ALL THE POINTS (1000+) all in the same program, printing on the same report, all at once with the 2 additional alignmetn and using the EQUATE function. Can't do THAT anymore. Nice change, eh? Who asked for that, by the way?

I will agree that some of the changes are asked for by the users, but SO MANY MORE are asked for by pencil-necked button counters that have absolutely NOTHING TO DO with any kind of actual inspection process anywhere. "Hey, George, it would sure look cool if each and every point we measure will report a TARGET PLOT, it would be pretty!" "Ya know, George, you're right, lets tell B&S that they MUST include target plots on the reports for each and every point measured because it will make a very pretty report" to which B&S replies, "Well, sure, we can force that down the throats of all the users everywhere. It will require a 95% re-write of all the code that we have been using for 15 years, but what the heck, they keep dumping all this SMA money on us, we have to do something with it."

RANT on McDuff and CURSED be he who crys, "NAY! ENOUGH!"

[inspector212]

I would welcome any constructive input on the following:

We are currently running (when it is not crashing) V3.17MR2. We have been offered V4.1 as a replacement.

Is V4.1 more stable?

Is V4.1 less problematic?

What kind of learning curve would we expect in going from V3.7 to V4.1?

What about V4.2? Is this the solution (or V4.1)?

Using various software programs over the past 15 - 20 years, I have never had such a litany of bugs and errors as I have with PCDMIS. This is supposed to be a mature product. Usually mature implies problem free or nearly problem free.

I was recently told that they do not have the time to debug PCDMIS because it is so popular and the developers are addressing the features the customers want to have added. Therefore, they don't have time to fix anything and blame their customers for wanting more bells and whistles.

I am suprised that you were offered V4.1 as opposed to V4.2. V4.X has the format changes but you will be having to update eventually. If you want to get updated then go to V4.2 but if are shy and don't like the new format then go to V3.7MR3. He!! install both and decide for yourself.

There is some truth to your last paragraph though. I would hope to see all bugs fixed before the updates come out but then I also would like all of my change after buying a bag of Fritos. I guess it is the cake and eat it too thing.

[bob mappes]

Bob, if that is the case, I have been on the 4.2 pills for too long. My apologies for questioning your post.

not a problem my friend

I am slowly getting used to 4.2, but still need to keep parts moving through my area, so 4.1 is my main version

the avoidance move issue has got me a bit miffed though...have been told it is fixed in the current beta version...and the beta versions are "locked", so that doesn't help

someday we will all laugh about the demon and its cohorts