hexagon logo
Register Sign in
  • Replies 28 replies
  • Subscribers 18 subscribers
  • Views 602 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

PC-DMIS Enhancements via Google Moderator

Brian Gudauskas
Have any of you ever used Google Moderator? Google Moderator

I'm considering starting one for forum users for PC-DMIS enhancements. Thoughts?

It wouldn't be "official", it'd be something I use to help forum users vote on their most requested enhancement.

It's just an idea based off of the many requests I get.

thanks.
  • Brian,

    I still have my Commodore 64. Could you make PC-DMIS run on that?
  • Heh, metrics? Either they fix what we ask, or they keep their thumbs up their azzez.

    By the way, I vote yes to this, but I'm a glutton for disappointment.
  • Labview and PC-DMIS are simply in different leagues with what they have to accomplish, number of seats (millions for Labview, do the math on that), etc.

    My moderator suggestion was directed only at the "they never put in what we want", I was hoping to collect votes on popular ideas that maybe we miss because users don't want to call technical support to ask for them.

    You guys all think that less releases is what everyone wants, but I constantly hear complaints when we don't support a new probe, or a Windows 64, or new versions of CAD, etc etc. Even Windows updates cause us to have to update often. It's very hard to please everyone, so I was hoping for a way to find out what was really desired.

    I'm open to other ideas. Telling me "just fix it" won't work, I know that already. And it's already central to everything we (including myself) are doing. Along with being most used and most loved, comes most picked on. We always need to do better, and we will.


    PS: Moving this thread, I put in CMM's because it's more PC-DMIS, but then it's really not for CMM's only.

    So it is OK that Hexagon releases bad code, because they do not ship many seats? You lost me on the logic there. You're the biggest in this industry!

    I realize what you try to accomplish. And this is not a bad idea. However, I am worried that it is another idea that will not get anything accomplished. Maybe more disjointed options that cause problems with code that used to work for years.

    Why not fix the serialization:alt issue, the one that eats programs? This error has been reported since I started posting on this board. These types of issues should be the number one priority. But it is still out there, worse in 2010 than in 4.3. I can not understand why it is acceptable to Hexagon to keep releasing code that has this bug in it.

    I have to admit, I gave up on suggesting new stuff. If I can't get real issues fixed, why worry about getting more features? Get my real issues fixed and then let's talk about adding stuff.
  • I'll let you enter that one because it makes me laugh. Wink

    Seriously some of the requests we get are funny, and aren't far away from that.

    Brian,

    I still have my Commodore 64. Could you make PC-DMIS run on that?
  • I would love to see the list of all the complaints and suggestions. And I would love to know what version each user is using and if it is with or with out cad. I would bet that most of the whiners do not have or have not paid for the PCDMIS EMS or the old Curves and Surfaces package.
  • Brian,

    I still have my Commodore 64. Could you make PC-DMIS run on that?

    I still have some cartridge games and a cassette reader for a C64 you might be interested in.
  • The alt problem does not happen in testing. We are trying to reproduce it. Anyone willing to capture a debug from when it happens and send to me, I'll give you a prize. I fully believe it has to do with a particular computer setup that we don't have.

    I never said bugs were ok, I was just saying that analogies only work if they are analogous. Labview is not a good comparison.

    Feedback for bugs still has to be logged into technical support, I am working on ideas for systems for customer bug reporting, but the problem I have currently is that the amount of data needed to reproduce an issue (OS, computer info, software versions, steps to reproduce, debug files, etc) is daunting. If I put that system out there, everyone will complain that it's too hard and not use it. That's why we have technical support do it, they can ask you the pertinent questions only, and fill in any blanks for you as well. It is the easy and friendly way for you to get your issue reported. I am also open to suggestions on this front as well. Reporting bugs on a forum is like shouting about government failures on the steps of city hall. There are more effective ways including voting, writing and calling your representatives. Discussion of issues however is totally acceptable as long as they are professional and help others.

    I noticed Jan that your ALT issue went away when you changed computers. Is it possible that the computer was part of the issue? Did you notice anything else about the symptoms or problems? Did you ever talk to technical support about the issue? Just trying to gather some information so I can report it. You can PM me, or do something outside this thread, so we can keep it clean. Thanks!


    So it is OK that Hexagon releases bad code, because they do not ship many seats? You lost me on the logic there. You're the biggest in this industry!

    I realize what you try to accomplish. And this is not a bad idea. However, I am worried that it is another idea that will not get anything accomplished. Maybe more disjointed options that cause problems with code that used to work for years.

    Why not fix the serialization:alt issue, the one that eats programs? This error has been reported since I started posting on this board. These types of issues should be the number one priority. But it is still out there, worse in 2010 than in 4.3. I can not understand why it is acceptable to Hexagon to keep releasing code that has this bug in it.

    I have to admit, I gave up on suggesting new stuff. If I can't get real issues fixed, why worry about getting more features? Get my real issues fixed and then let's talk about adding stuff.
  • The metrics do not need to be anything fancy. A simple recognition of whether those items voted most important get resolved, and in what version, would be helpful.
  • The priority should be fixing the current state of PC-DMIS, before starting collecting enhancements.

    Just my 2 SEK.
© 2024 Hexagon AB and/or its subsidiaries. Privacy Policy | Cloud Services Agreement