http://www.jeffmirisola.com/2008/12/backwards-compatibility-a-users-perspective/ SolidWorks Tips, Tricks and Partner Reviews Thu, 15 Dec 2011 02:20:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://www.jeffmirisola.com/2008/12/backwards-compatibility-a-users-perspective/comment-page-1/#comment-220 Matt Lombard Mon, 22 Dec 2008 20:31:38 +0000 http://jeffsblog.solidworksheard.com/?p=177#comment-220 Jeff, Ken also sent me this paper. I'm glad you posted it. I hadn't yet figured out what to do with it. I liked and agreed with what Ken had to say. I'd like to add to it that there is simply no reason for Toolbox to get caught up in the version limitations. With all of the clever things SW can do, Toolbox at the very minimum should exist in a non-version specific state. Did you read Ricky Jordan's post about a library part being created by a macro? That's a great way to ensure version compatibility. SolidWorks has the talent to do this, it just does not have the will. Ken is right to challenge the "customer driven" claims. **I wasn't sure what to do with it at first, either. Like you, I agreed with what Ken had to say. In the end, it just made sense to post it and, hopefully, get a discussion started.** Jeff,
Ken also sent me this paper. I’m glad you posted it. I hadn’t yet figured out what to do with it.
I liked and agreed with what Ken had to say. I’d like to add to it that there is simply no reason for Toolbox to get caught up in the version limitations. With all of the clever things SW can do, Toolbox at the very minimum should exist in a non-version specific state.
Did you read Ricky Jordan’s post about a library part being created by a macro? That’s a great way to ensure version compatibility.
SolidWorks has the talent to do this, it just does not have the will. Ken is right to challenge the “customer driven” claims.
**I wasn’t sure what to do with it at first, either. Like you, I agreed with what Ken had to say. In the end, it just made sense to post it and, hopefully, get a discussion started.**

]]> http://www.jeffmirisola.com/2008/12/backwards-compatibility-a-users-perspective/comment-page-1/#comment-1455 Matt Lombard Mon, 22 Dec 2008 20:31:00 +0000 http://jeffsblog.solidworksheard.com/?p=177#comment-1455 Jeff, Ken also sent me this paper. I'm glad you posted it. I hadn't yet figured out what to do with it. I liked and agreed with what Ken had to say. I'd like to add to it that there is simply no reason for Toolbox to get caught up in the version limitations. With all of the clever things SW can do, Toolbox at the very minimum should exist in a non-version specific state. Did you read Ricky Jordan's post about a library part being created by a macro? That's a great way to ensure version compatibility. SolidWorks has the talent to do this, it just does not have the will. Ken is right to challenge the "customer driven" claims. **I wasn't sure what to do with it at first, either. Like you, I agreed with what Ken had to say. In the end, it just made sense to post it and, hopefully, get a discussion started.** Jeff,
Ken also sent me this paper. I’m glad you posted it. I hadn’t yet figured out what to do with it.
I liked and agreed with what Ken had to say. I’d like to add to it that there is simply no reason for Toolbox to get caught up in the version limitations. With all of the clever things SW can do, Toolbox at the very minimum should exist in a non-version specific state.
Did you read Ricky Jordan’s post about a library part being created by a macro? That’s a great way to ensure version compatibility.
SolidWorks has the talent to do this, it just does not have the will. Ken is right to challenge the “customer driven” claims.
**I wasn’t sure what to do with it at first, either. Like you, I agreed with what Ken had to say. In the end, it just made sense to post it and, hopefully, get a discussion started.**

]]>