Comments on: Autodesk’s 12-month release cycle - Is it harmful?

By: Tino

Tino — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:30:25 +0000

I hate and love it. I am curious for every new release, some functions i love, other I ignore. The advantage is, that there is not so much change at one time. But for real work I use one release for longer time - and only “play” with newer release. So I worked with
- Autocad 9
- Autocad 12
- Autocad 14
- Autocad 2000
- Autocad 2004
- Autocad 2006
- Autocad 2008
but there is no reason to use every release.

I hope there will be no force from autodesk, to give up older versions, that would be very bad.

By: Joe

Joe — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 02:16:37 +0000

The 12 month release cycle is typical of Autodesk’s arrogance and greed, as well as their subtle (and not so subtle) disregard for their customers. They pretty much have a monopoly on the CAD industry, so why not behave like an arrogant money hungry corporate machine of the worst kind? ACAD 2009 is nothing more than UI changes. From a practical and common sense standpoint, it’s like a slap in the face to CAD users. If someone released a viable, cheaper CAD alternative tomorrow, I think you’d be surprised at how many people would drop Autodesk like a bad habit. I use their software, and for the most part I like it, but my hatred and utter disgust with the company speaks volumes. The 12 month release cycle is a crime; on many levels.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:26:57 +0000

Wow, I just tried 2009 and 12-months is far too soon - features like the ribbon proved enough for me. 2006 and 2008 were fairly good releases, 2004 is still the work-horse though. Service packs would be a better solution - fix the problems of the last version released, rather than create new problems with a new release. I just got used to 2008 - no way am I spending that money on 2009 to just relearn the software and slow my work even more - I’d rather go back to 2004.

By: Lamar

Lamar — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:57:29 +0000

Hate it! Increases my stress level 10 times. Users want to be left alone to finish projects, not have a new release of AutoCAD to deal with. The latest UI changes suck and experienced users refuse them. Trying to get Autodesk to fix an issue with 2008 is impossible after 2009 is released. STOP the madness, or at least explain what the rush is all about. We are still trying to get some of our custom menus from 2004 to work. Given a choice our user base, 420 would prefer to stay in 2004 and get some work done. Of course Autodesk has made this impossible. Please reconsider.

By: metis

metis — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:43:30 +0000

it’s terrible. new features are rolled out w/o useful vetting, and gui changes are made for no good reason. the tool palates are potentially great for certain types of design, but the ribbons are absurd, especially given the reduced floating tool bar size.

program functionality shifts not necessarily in the means of a better more stable file, and software bloat goes nuts. why on earth is 2009 significantly slower than 2008? where’s the shiny in that? someone should be publicly humiliated for that screw up. put on stage at AU in front of cases of tomatoes. yes, dynamic layer manager is great, but not great enough to take up to 2x as long to do day to day work in the program.

personally i’d love a subscription program with major updates every 3 years, with public discussion about feature improvements, and programming tweaks and added express tool type additions in the interim. if i can install acad x and have it get faster and more functional over several years i’ll happily stay on subscription to get better builds and support, but there’s no reason for me to upgrade every year.

(now, revit is another ball of wax because the program still really is in devolopment, and updates to the file structure are necessary to manage the changes in how it handles content)

By: Stefan Boeykens

Stefan Boeykens — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 08:31:03 +0000

We teach AutoCAD (and other software) to students of architecture and have decided to only upgrade every three versions (or so), even if EDU licenses are cheap. Since we need to teach the basics, most of what we explain the students has not really changed dramatically since AutoCAD 2000 anyways.

By: Robert

Robert — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:51:40 +0000

As a 20+ year customer I’m dissapointed to see the endless parade of change for change’s sake. Customer Service is in the toilet, the direction of the product has suffered deeply, and now another unneeded redesign of the UI. Autodesk’s ivory tower has gotten so tall that end users can’t even see the top anymore.

By: R.K. McSwain

R.K. McSwain — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:06:19 +0000

Big features like CUI and SSM suffer because they cannot be developed and tested properly in this short cycle. Then these features are forgotten in the rush to develop even more new features for the next release. The end result is features that never seem to reach their potential.

By: Matthew Ritzman

Matthew Ritzman — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:19:00 +0000

The release cycle is too fast for a variety of reasons:

1. AutoDesk can’t devote enough time to fixing the errors in the current version of the software. They are working on next year’s version and the year after that.

2. The users don’t have enough time to learn and truly evaluate the software before it is no longer available. Most of my users haven’t taken advantage of useful features released over three years ago.

3. A feature that is released while clunky causes users to avoid it well after it is fixed or improved.

4. Users develop a work around for a clunky feature. If that feature stays with the program and isn’t fixed quickly, when future improvements are finally implemented they are met with resistance as users have come to rely on their work around.

The end result is that the feedback loop is broken. The users feel alienated by the software and their inability to catch up to the newest version. AutoDesk doesn’t get the feedback that would truly help the products. The feedback they receive is conflicting. And they can’t act on the feedback that they have received to improve the software that is currently on the user’s desktop.

Now that subscriptions are de rigueur, AutoDesk can’t climb out of this viscous cycle without offending somebody. Users, shareholders, and the market would all have difficulty with a missed release date.

By: ralphg

ralphg — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:44:40 +0000

The 12-month cycle is harmfull to book publishers, becaues they need at least two years between releases to make back their expenses on producing and printing AutoCAD books.

I’ve raised the issue several times with Autodesk executives, but that’s not in their focus of interest.

As for the AutoCAD suffering from annual releases: each year, the feature set becomes weaker. A couple of years ago, they shoveled in the layer-related express tools. How many man-hours of programming did that require?

AutoCAD 2009 is mostly about user interface changes. Virtually nothing new for the heads-down drafter — or for those who paid for the subscription.

By: Sunith babu

Sunith babu — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:55:26 +0000

Hi,

I feel a 12 month release is very much essential, since the growth rate of the CAD Market is at its vertical. It will continue to grow . . . .