No, I don’t work for Autodesk, but I have a relative who programs for a large company and hear the horror stories of ‘fixes’ that weren’t tested thoroughly before being implemented.

Have done this on several occasions to others as well and in every instance it has yielded a return and action. An invoices on the books present problems for the accounting staff. Some have thought of just ‘binning’ them but that is actually risky particularly if there are late payment penalties attached; and I have done that also. It only takes one or two statements and someone wakes up to the fact action needs to be taken.

I like you are a small business; our effort, interruptions and inconvenience is no less valuable than another’s and I can see little reason why a problems created by employees, of or another company, should not be corrected and if they cannot, or are un-willing to do so, then their employer/the company should compensate.

Additionally, it’s ok for people to complain publicly about problems with products – any product, bugs etc. – I do also, but I only do so if I am prepared to go further. I believe if a person is only prepared to complain verbally it is pointless unless the complainant is prepared to act!

Terms and Conditions are the classic: nobody likes them, many whinge, few take action; vendors take advantage!

This is a great topic Steve; one which you probably don’t want me to pursue, but I’m happy too. I may be able to fit in between what I need to do and the submission being prepared for the new consumer laws relating to software ‘contracts’

Can I add it is long overdue for users of Autodesk products to start applying some real commercial business principles and pratices to their dealering with Autodesk. Applying some commerical restraints, possibly collectively will achieve what a simply request or complaint will not.

When you have those costs worked out, and to hand, do two things with it; first publish your findings, openly describing how you arrived at them so otherS can see their relevance to you and possible them.

Secondly send a copy of those finding to Autodesk along with an INVIOCE for your losses. Doing this will bring the point right home to Autodesk showing just how their actions have inconvenienced you or your company and put a bill, and paper work, into their business system that cannot be ignored.

YOU WANT ACTION, THEN TAKE ACTION.

i.e. i have a framing square that i use a lot for various projects, however i rarely use it for laying out stairs. why would i get a new framing square that is heavier, and marked less clearly than my old one if the new version comes with additional stair layout charts on the side? if the new one was lighter and had clearer markings, and i got a discount for sending back my old one (upgrading my license) i’d be all about it.

How many existing customers, especially subscription customers, are dropping AutoCAD and flocking to the competition? Virtually nobody. They are going after new customers, plain and simple, and “rebuilding the program and patching known issues” is not going to sell new seats. They need the flashy new look, and big features to do this. If that doesn’t please some existing customers, then so what…?

Could (and should) there be a little more balance? Sure. The easiest way to fix this IMO would be to extend the period between releases in order to have more time to “bake” the new features, patch known issues, and streamline other things that never seem to get attention.

accurate would be (paraphrasing you): no, we try to balance adding new features with streamlining current workflow processes and we want to get those new features out as soon as possible, irrelevant of the impacts to workflow for implementing new features in the workplace.

you did not, however, address actually fixing all the bugs and streamlining the code. you did not address why given the rigorous alpha and beta testing autodesk is still releasing products that need to be patched several times a year. now, granted there will always be unforessn bugs, and patches are necessary, but i suspect that there could be massive improvements in system performance if say the 2012 release focused solely on rebuilding the program and patching known issues.

i’d rather see a 5~10% boost in performance on the same machine than a new GUI or new way to automate some process, and i’ll wager that i’m not in the minority.

sure, give us a bonus command mid year, or quarterly, but tidy up the program.