Upgrading to 2004

[Ken Alexander]

Our "Cad Manager" (used loosely) Has approached the powers to be about upgrading to 2004. I have been asked to assess the customization side of things. Naturally I would like to upgrade for no other reason than "just because". But, I would like to know if there have been big strides towards the customization. I have read in other threads that there have been some bugs worked out. But my first thought is there is no real benefit to upgrade.

 

[Devin]

I developed a program for sheet metal panels. The program would have various errors in 2000. I upgraded to 2004 and it works smooth so far.

I think, from what Luis told me if I got it right, that some of the active x errors have been eliminated.

Devin

 

[Walt Engle]

There are no huge benefits to upgrading, but there are some that would be useful. Customizing is more of a personal thing but you can migrate your customizing to 2004.

 

[Luis]

Ken,

To me the only benefit is that many of previous bugs have solved, like for example I have some isometric tools that I made using entmake calls and use to have a lot of problems when there was a combination between active-x functions from another routines and also others with reactors included, now in A2004 there are no problems at all.

In the other hand I never got impresed by the new dialog interfaces and colored scenario...

Luis.

 

[Tom Smith]

I don't do reactors or active-x, so I don't see any difference in functionality as far as cuistomizations go. All my menus, toolbars, and lisp functions went from 2000i to 2004 without a hitch.

Whether there's any benefit in terms of software functionality depends on your priorities. Some folks elsewhere rave about it. Personally the new look leaves me cold, and the actual differences in the product are very slight.

Then there's the whole issue of the folder "organization" if you can call it that. It took me longer to figure out than in any previous version, and cost me a lot of aggravation. I very nearly decided to just shelve it and wait for our subscription to bring us something better. I'm sure you've seen the discussion elsewhere. IMHO the installation is very poorly thought out with respect to the varying needs of real-world users.

 

[Rudy Tovar]

Should there even be an issue about upgrading other than the useless interface dialogs, I personally dislike.

As taken from a programmers point of view it doesn't really matter. We see things in a different light, than the casual CAD User.

We see much more than the body, but the frame, and the inner gut.

Onward...

I don't use the menus personally, pure command line or shortkey's (my own).

My 2 cents

 

[John Uhden]

Ken:

Any idea as to his /her motivation to make the switch? I could see the economic argument if you're currently running 2000x, because it's got to be upgraded or out by 1/15/2004. But are there other arguments?

Anyway... having paid basically no attention to 2004 customization standards, I've found thus far that everything 2000+ works fine.

 

[Ken Alexander]

John,

I believe his main motivation is Windows XP. I ran XP on my machine for a while to test it. I found Acad2000 to be unstable with some of my routines. Now all cad users are stuck with Windows 2000. I know upgrading is inevitable, at some point we will have to.

 

[Ken Alexander]

Thanks for the input from everyone. It would be nice to be rid of some of the glitches. As the user interface and colors go, I think that will not be an issue with our cad guys most all of them like that kind of stuff. Thanks again. I will still monitor this thread, we have a while yet to hit the deadline. Any other input is appreciated.

 

[Murph]

Ken,
Just tagging on to point out a few other things.

First the tool pallets are cool in a way for adding some customization and ADSK is making them better each day. Gives the user the power of lisp in a Design Center environment with out all the clutter and lost real estate.

Second. The support paths to each workstation can be a pain with R2004 being XP compliance, most of the custom files (mnu profiles etc) are in the C:\my documents\User\.............. and makes it a little harder to find the right file to make changes.

$.02
Murph

 

[Walt Engle]

As a side point, being "stuck" with windows 2000pro is not a bad idea. I have it and have no intention of upgrading to XP. My wife has XP and it has given her some problems that do not occur with 2000pro. I am aware that at some time in the future I will have to upgrade, but will wait until the very last dying breath. With 2000pro, I run Autocad 2000 and 2004 and have no problems whatever. The only problem I initially had with 2004 was in customizing the acad.mnu and acetmain.mnu. This was difficult until I grapsed Autocad's new placement of the menus in various places - which I found to be rediculous and childish (I am reminded of Autocad's 52 patches to make R13 work). Other minor problems with 2004 is that it has omitted several lsp functions that were available with 2000, 2000i & 2002. In these instances, I have had to add these items from information gleaned from these groups.

 

[Devin]

What routines have been omitted in 2004?