|
Welcome to the COE Discussion Forum!
|
|
|
|
To participate in the discussion forum, you must be logged in to the website. If you forget your login information, please contact COE Headquarters at coe@coe.org or (800) 263-2255.
If you are new to the COE Discussion Forum and would like to participate, please register.
|
|
| Forum Highlight: CATIA V6 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
| You are not authorized to post a reply.
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
COE-FORUM-USER
 |
| 27 Jun 2002 09:05 AM |
|
All I am asking is there a company or better yet an industry that will make a formal business case and an enhancement request for the support of OS X? If there is great - I would like to see V5 Solutions (CATIA, ENOVIA, & DELMIA) common and accessible to as many companies as possible. With out someone (company or industry) doing the groundwork of justifying this change it will not get done. Shipbuilding Industry was able to slide the release schedule to the left for there functionalities with the proper case that was built. It is not the fact that the Macintosh is not able to provide the performance or other tools that engineering companies require. The wants of the End Users aside - is there a company that has gone to DS and requested V5 Solutions to run on Macintosh under OS X?
PTC Website - Answers to Questions from the Pro/DESKTOP Webcast and Demo - March 2002
http://www.ptc.com/company/mail/express200203/desktop_qa.htm
"What's involved in porting Pro/DESKTOP to the new Macintosh OS X-based machines? There is an enormous educational market out there, and these machines are EXTREMELY fast. We are aware of the Macintosh platform and its impressive capabilities. The decision to develop a MAC port requires commercial justification and we are interested in any input which contributes to the business case."
MAC World - August 1996 page: 38 - Science/engineering: Mac CAD Does Fine Without AutoCAD http://www.macworld.com/1996/08/news/2330.html
"Second, unlike, say, word processing or graphics software, adopting CAD software is a major commitment - a company typically spends much more on training than on the software itself. AutoCAD was a relative latecomer to the Mac market, and only 15 to 20 percent of Mac-based firms using CAD were willing to face the downtime associated with a major changeover to AutoCAD."
Author: Timothy J. Suhr |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 20 Jun 2002 08:33 AM |
|
I will say during the last CATIA Operators Exchange the question was asked about a LINUX version and who wanted one and the response was not very encouraging. Apple MAC & OS X pose a greater question to the software developers - namely "Does the investment justify the return." Most engineering houses use UNIX or Intel based computers for their CAD Solutions. The task related to recoding many platforms and operating systems needs to justify it self. Can the OS X followers show a great enough demand to justify this investment?
Author: Timothy J. Suhr |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 20 Jun 2002 04:48 PM |
|
[[[I will say during the last CATIA Operators Exchange the question was asked about a LINUX version and who wanted one and the response was not very encouraging.]]]
That's actually understandable since LINUX in my opinion is a great *hoby* OS. (sorry if I offend anyone) The truth is, LINUX is a great mid-range server OS. It really isn't intended for desktops. There is just too much variation. Likewise people (engineers and all) have to consider that the ultimate operating system is not a command line with a thin graphics shell on top.
You see, there's sort of a fallacy. LINUX never has been, nor never will be a
viable desktop solution for the mainstream or in my opinion serious engineering; (especially when work NEEDS to get done and there are deadlines to meet. Considering most engineers don't really want their tools to get in the way of what they want to do, wasting time configuring an OS to suit their needs seems like an incredible waste of time. In any case, for LINUX to be such a solution, it would have to be designed with those particular purposes from the beginning... It was not.
LINUX is what it has always been -- a reasonable implementation of a UNIX
based operating system, that is not bad as a low-end server (that has grown
into the mid-end -- and may someday grow into the high-end thanks to IBM et al). It is not a bad foundation to build a turnkey server system for some enterprises to use (as turnkey solution). But that is not the same as "consumer-level / user-friendly / everyday desktop solution". Therefore, I'm not convinced that LINUX has ever been anything close to a consistent, predictable user-friendly desktop solution. As for the usability and interface -- I believe that a colleague of mine summed it up best when he said:
[[[We have to remember that Linux, (and Unix interfaces in general) are designed
by committee. Large groups of people hashing, arguing, testing ideas, until they get the one that they can all agree on.
Examples of this are:
KDE
CDE
OpenWindows
WorkPlace Shell
Gnome
Windows
Blech!
To design a good interface, you need talent, but you also need *vision*.
Committees never ever have vision. They have meetings. ]]] - JCW
My friend Del Miller also has some interesting points to make. Del is an aerospace engineer (among other things). He prefers to use the Mac whenever possible because it simply works better for a lot of engineers, He only uses Wintel / Lintel solutions when there is absolutely no other choice. Here is how he describes it:
[[[We as engineers, as well as those in the design and engineering fields have to start to realize that there is a lot more to a desktop platform than just the OS; it's the entire infrastructure that matters. A solid desktop OS needs all manner of support from font foundries, file conversion utilities, installers and a general ability to open and work with documents across all other platforms in friendly fashion. Mac OS X provides this and is getting better with every release. The situation is quite different with LINUX.
In general Linux has been fairly grim when it comes to these issues (seriously speaking). OSX provides an answer to all this that is so strong that the question of desktop Linux has gone from "How?" to "Why?" ]]] - Del Miller
In other words, OS X offers everything that LINUX offers except it has the necessary functionality with dedicated, dependable support along with being incredibly useful across ALL platforms. Now that Apple has released their Xserve server systems and soon to be fiber channel version -- It has become an even stronger possibility for enterprise use. Apple is now, by far the worlds largest distributor / developer of a UNIX-based operating system. Please, I encourage you to visit the articles and information linked to the URL's that I posted in my initial thread.
It's understandable why there was some reluctance with respect to LINUX. OS X on the other hand is a little more robust and far more viable a solution.
[[[Apple MAC & OS X pose a greater question to the software developers - namely "Does the investment justify the return." ]]]
Well, I've been looking at that argument for some time. It seems to be a variation of the "what comes first, the chicken or the egg" question. My conclusion is that this argument makes little sense when you get deeper into it. And to be quite frank, I never saw this argument as anything but an excuse. Forgive me, but I simply find the logic lacking -- It escapes me.
If you really look at both LINUX and OS X, surely you could see the advantages of embracing an operating system that actually has a dedicated level of support, rather than the mishmash that comprises the LINUX world as it is -- we covered this already. LINUX makes for an effective server OS, but nothing more. It lacks total consistency.
However, aside from that fact, this whole argument seems to spawn the very question that is at it's heart and hence, has been keeping back development for the Mac. That is -- How can one use market share or rather the "return on investment" as an indicator if these wares aren't being made available as a choice to begin with?
For instance if I'm weighing the various platforms against each other how can I make a fair judgment when certain apps that I require are absent from the choice? The Mac very well be a platform that people would love to use, you just have to be willing to let the user decide and the user can't make a reasonable decision if one platform is at a disadvantage because of lack of software. It's like buying a BMW and finding out that Goodyear doesn't plan on manufacturing tires for it. As anyone well knows, Goodyear never looks at market share. In that I mean that Goodyear doesn't only sell tires for Chevrolets and Toyota Corollas. They provide solutions for everyone. OS X *is* UNIX. period. Porting existing UNIX apps over wouldn't be difficult at all judging from the other articles on Bioinformatics software (and many others types) that I posted earlier. Apple would undoubtedly provide all the assistance that is required. Again, I'm not convinced there would be too large an initial investment as most developers would have us believe. Simply because these ports are already being done. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet that you could run CATIA through X-Window right on the OS X desktop after some minor tweaks and a recompile. Again, this type of thing is already being done. See here:
http://osx.hyperjeff.net/Apps/
http://osx.hyperjeff.net/Apps/Unix.html
http://osx.hyperjeff.net/Apps/Xwin.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[[Most engineering houses use UNIX or Intel based computers for their CAD Solutions. ]]]
And? They also upgrade these machine quit often as I understand it.
[[[The task related to recoding many platforms and operating systems needs to justify it self. ]]]
If you took the time to explore my earlier post, these types of things are trivial. Again, to test the waters, the ideal thing to do would be to allow CATIA to run through X-Window on the OS X desktop. Remember, OS X *is* UNIX-based. If this sparks a following then it would signify a more *platform specific* version is desirable. In that case, CATIA, with the assistance of Apple could make it a completely compliant OS X application, but the key is to at least make some attempt to test the waters. How difficult would it be to recompile the existing code to run on Darwin? Think about it.
[[[Can the OS X followers show a great enough demand to justify this investment?]]]
There's that question again... How can someone ask that question if the App was never made available in the first place? In order to ask that question one has to test the market for that demand, otherwise it's a silly question. Market share is very misleading. When someone hears 5% market share they think *small*, forgetting the fact that 5% could amount to 40 million potential users... Not to mention the users who couldn't answer that question relating to demand because they were never given the option to decide between CATIA on OS X or CATIA on some other platform. One cannot know the level of demand unless it id actually put to the test. One way to spark an interest would be to recompile the code and at the very least get it to run on OS X.
http://osx.hyperjeff.net/Apps/
http://osx.hyperjeff.net/Apps/Unix.html
http://osx.hyperjeff.net/Apps/Xwin.html
Best
--
Ed M.
Author: Ed M. |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 20 Jun 2002 05:37 PM |
|
[[[There's that question again... How can someone ask that question if the App was never made available in the first place? In order to ask that question one has to test the market for that demand, otherwise it's a silly question. Market share is very misleading. When someone hears 5% market share they think *small*, forgetting the fact that 5% could amount to 40 million potential users... Not to mention the users who couldn't answer that question relating to demand because they were never given the option to decide between CATIA on OS X or CATIA on some other platform. One cannot know the level of demand unless it id actually put to the test. One way to spark an interest would be to recompile the code and at the very least get it to run on OS X. ]]]
I am not forgetting the fact the 5% of the market could amount to 40 million potential users how many of the 40 million potential users would or could fork over the money for the licenses for using the functionality. It is not cheap. Have you ever asked why MicroSoft does not recode Flight Simulator for OS X? Same reason - Cost of coding for OS X. This I can say comes from the head of the FS program at MS. I think you may over simplify the recoding and recompiling efforts that a software developer goes through. It is not like Goodyear and the design of a tire. Can you take a graphic card designed for a PC and use it as is in a MAC? I think not. Don't get me wrong I think that if CATIA was changed to run under OS X (Unix) it would give other Unix boxes a run for the money. However you must know the comparison in performance of CATIA V5 for NT or Unix - The NT will win. Just look at the CATbench results. V5 Is developed on NT then ported to Unix. OS X Users still would have to show them selves willing to license and use V5. A company in the software business requires it for profitability. Find a industry that is willing to put the money be hide the effort and I would think that DS would have to consider the OS X because their customers are requesting it.
Even AutoCAD only offers their product for Intel based systems. Apple has to this point not shown from the user base to be CATIA needy. That may change but DS wont just code it hoping they will come. Would You? Would Goodyear develop a 33-inch tire without the truck manufacturing industry driving the need for such a thing?
Author: Timothy J. Suhr |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 20 Jun 2002 06:54 PM |
|
[[[It is not cheap. ]]]
No kidding.
[[[Have you ever asked why MicroSoft does not recode Flight Simulator for OS X? Same reason - Cost of coding for OS X. This I can say comes from the head of the FS program at MS. ]]]
And you actually believe that? From the company that literally pirates all of it's functionality, most of which it got from Apple?? The fact is that it would NOT be in M$'s best interest. I simply cannot believe that you are blind to the politics. Still, I can see that from a developers perspective going for the easy catch generates the most profit. Isn't it odd that they are choosing the most ubiquitous (and worst of the bunch) instead of the better option? I don't want to get into a platform war here. I use them both, but to claim the NT is the best solution is very disturbing.
[[[I think you may over simplify the recoding and recompiling efforts that a software developer goes through. ]]]
That is incorrect. I've said nothing. Now we could bandy the technical issues back and forth, but it still remains that developers of science/medical/biological applications are doing just that which you say I'm oversimplifying. They are claiming the ease of the porting, not me. I suspect that these apps are as compute-intensive as any CAD package -- including CATIA. As are apps such as Maya. As far as developers go... I talk to a few and the best part is that they are all cross-platform Windoze / Mac OSX. So I get a pretty decent balance. You'd be surprised at which platform they'd rather support.
[[[It is not like Goodyear and the design of a tire. ]]]
And how much do you suppose it costs Goodyear to design, develop, market and sell a particular tire from start to finish? Now multiply that cost by the actual number of unique tires that they actually develop. In any case I don't see them discriminating saying "We will only offer this tire to owners of Toyota Carollas". I'm not sure I like the direction this thread is headed. On the other hand, if Apple were to fund the project I suspect that the opinions would change dramatically. Just a guess.. ;-)
[[[Can you take a graphic card designed for a PC and use it as is in a MAC? I think not. ]]]
Um, that would be a good thing? Let me ask you this, will your cars wheels fit mine? Bad analogy. Bad example. It seems to be a DRIVER issue more than anything. Nvidia is developing solutions that are also available for the Mac. Again, in many instances it's been *suspected* that it's really only an issue of *drivers*. Macs don't require some special slot. They use the same industry standard slots as anyone else.
[[[Don't get me wrong I think that if CATIA was changed to run under OS X (Unix) it would give other Unix boxes a run for the money. However you must know the comparison in performance of CATIA V5 for NT or Unix - The NT will win. ]]]
Well, that's not completely believable. Not that NT *wins* but rather the port is from x86 code. (my God when are people going to move forward!) Mac hardware is just as effective (don't get caught up in the advertised numbers) As a matter of fact, Apple hardware can offer UNIQUE advantages. This is where DS could really capitalize and make for a really intimate OS X version. After all, having something running that close to the metal will surely profit from platform specific optimizations (read: AltiVec).
[[[V5 Is developed on NT then ported to Unix. ]]]
That's part of the problem. I don't know how DS *ports* it's products, but again, they are doing an injustice if their code and optimizations favor a particular platform. You said this yourself... People are spending BIG dollars. Why shouldn't they demand a platform specific version that is just as effective as say -- an NT version? Again, the bulk of the code is only written once and *maintained* afterwards.
[[[A company in the software business requires it for profitability. Find a industry that is willing to put the money be hide the effort and I would think that DS would have to consider the OS X because their customers are requesting it. ]]]
Well, how do you *really* know for sure? Has anyone even contacted Apple. Apple keeps a large data base of applications that it's users are requesting. I'll ask again... Has anyone from DS even contacted Apple (or vise versa) or are just assuming that since they've heard *nothing* then no such demand exists? What about the possibility of a "light" or stripped down version for OS X?
Maybe a more important question would be to ask you if you've ever actually *used* a Mac and OS X...
You can learn about OS X at:
www.apple.com
Seriously, go have a look around
[[[Even AutoCAD only offers their product for Intel based systems. ]]]
Hmmm. I talk to the person running the Architosh website from time to time. Perhaps you should check out the latest:
http://www.architosh.com/news/2002-06/2002c-0619-acadupdate.phtml
Be sure to pay attention to the 'Related Articles' area at the bottom.
[[[Would Goodyear develop a 33-inch tire without the truck manufacturing industry driving the need for such a thing? ]]]
That argument would hold *if* Goodyear *only* supported 33-inch tires for trucks that required them and only on one particular variant of that truck -- call it the "Wintel Truck". In fact, Goodyear does none of the above. They support all markets where a tire is required. That is, they support Peterbuilts, Macks, et al Oddly enough GE does the same. Imagine if you couldn't use their lightbulbs in a Sylvania socket.. ;-)
I strongly suggest that you have a gander at what's actually going on in the computing arena with respect to the Mac. You can start here:
http://www.apple.com/scitech/research/
You might also check out the AppleSeed project that's been under way for some time already:
http://www.apple.com/scitech/stories/decyk/
And for developers:
* http://developer.apple.com/hardware/ve/
* http://developer.apple.com/hardware/ve/acgresearch.html
As far as the potential of the Mac and OS X and it's performance you might be wise to check out distributed.net
Now, if you can test things that are independent of OS APIs and are using similar code (like image operations in Photoshop, computation in distributed.net or SETI@home), then you can really compare the performance across platforms.
Take a look at where the AMD, P3, P4 and Itanium stand. They are incredibly slow. These are machines with huge numbers-ratings as compared to the Mac. Yet the Mac wins out. The point is... There is no other SIMD architecture that could possibly yield such a dramatic effect on RC5, no matter how much effort is invested into programming for it. And that's on the seemingly slothful 133 MHz. bus?
See for yourself:
http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.cgi?cputype=all&arch=all&contest=all&multi=1
On the other hand, if developers spent half as much time coding and optimizing for the PPC as they do the x86 variants, then we'd probably see far better performance than we realize now. Remember, it completely up to the developers to make the Mac a viable platform. Apple has provided them with extremely fertile ground. They just have to look beyond market-share. That little number is way too misleading.
--
Ed M.
Author: Ed M. |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 20 Jun 2002 08:15 PM |
|
I am sorry that I cannot help you understand the realities of life the business of software development.
Your right!
· Every one is against the MAC and it's users.
· MS Steals every thing from MAC and MAC is best at every thing!
I wont mention that if not for Xerox - Mac or MS/ IBM Compatibles would not have even a mouse much less a GUI. But your right and everyone else are wrong.
Better now?
Author: Timothy J. Suhr |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 20 Jun 2002 08:40 PM |
|
[[[I am sorry that I cannot help you understand the realities of life the business of software development. ]]]
Oh I understand the reality just fine. I just disagree with you that things cannot be changed.
Your right!
· Every one is against the MAC and it's users.
· MS Steals every thing from MAC and MAC is best at every thing! ]]]
The first part is clearly wrong, but we all know the dangers of a monoculture. Not to sound silly (even though you do), but have you *ever* studied history? Ever hear of the Potato famine? Same applies to computer systems friend. Second part:
[[[· MS Steals every thing from MAC and MAC is best at every thing! ]]]
You work for Boewing?? Jeez.. I'll be sure to say a few extra prayers before I board a plane... Sheesh! Seriously, in all honesty, you are being silly.
[[[I wont mention that if not for Xerox - Mac or MS/ IBM Compatibles would not have even a mouse much less a GUI. But your right and everyone else are wrong.
Better now? ]]]
Well, it's not about that really, but you really should brush up on your history a bit:
http://www.mackido.com/Interface/ui_history.html
Remember, you picked the platform-war rout. I wanted to talk viability of Mac OS X as a CAD solution. You are the one who is getting uptight and confrontational. You didn't even answer any of my simple questions regarding the actual use of a Mac and OS X. Again, I posted the thread to see if it would stir any curiosity. I've heard all the excuses before why something cannot be done or why something is "unlikely" to be achieved. The logic is simple... and the fact remains. Apple has provided the platform and now it's up to the *developers* to develop the demand. Not the other way around. Certainly anyone can see that without the apps or representation there will be no demand because at that point it isn't even an option yet. Again, I want posting to start a fight. I was posting to see if I could generate some curiosity and interest. It wasn't until you posted a few inaccuracies that I felt the need to set things straight. It's obvious you don't care for the Mac platform very much. And quite frankly it's those individuals that I try to avoid. I'm more interested in the open-minded professionals.
Sorry for any aggravation
--
Ed M.
Author: Ed M. |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 21 Jun 2002 02:48 AM |
|
I'm sure we'd ALL be happy to see CATIA running on OSX.
Dassault Systemes is certainly evaluating the cost and return on making OSX and Linux versions. And hopefully, one day we will start to see this happen.
But today they are having enough trouble supporting IRIX and the rest.
Incidentally, in Europe an Apple computer is VERY rare! They are expensive here, the schools use Windows and even some of the graphic designers are taking the cheaper NT path.
This will surely affect the decision.
Ian
PS. Boys, Nice thread! especially when it got to the insults! :-)
Author: ian phillips |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 21 Jun 2002 06:48 PM |
|
[I am not forgetting the fact the 5% of the market could amount to 40 million potential users how many of the 40 million potential users would or could fork over the money for the licenses for using the functionality. It is not cheap.]
Neither is Maya, or Lightwave, or MatLab. But all of those either run, or are being ported to Mac OS X. The cost of the software is not an issue unless you are writing games. If it's a good tool, people pay for it. I don't think that Maya is going to grab 40 million users, but they'll get enough. MatLab is going to be an XFree86 application, ala IDL/Envi, so the port from the Unix versions of that application are pretty simple. If Catia is already running on Unix, you don't need to Aqua-fy it, just configure it to run under X Window on Mac OS X. No real interface coding at all, so you can spend your time doing hardware optimizations.
[ Have you ever asked why MicroSoft does not recode Flight Simulator for OS X? Same reason - Cost of coding for OS X. This I can say comes from the head of the FS program at MS.]
Well, if MS used OpenGL instead of DirectX, that would be far simpler. There is one company with a port of Direct X to the Mac, and no one has really used it yet. If MS would get out of this mineminemine thought model, you'd have a lot more games going to many different platforms. but Direct X is really windows only. That is the code cost keeping FS windows only. And politics.
[Can you take a graphic card designed for a PC and use it as is in a MAC? I think not. ]
Um, AGP and PCI are platform neutral standards. The only issue is endian issues in the ROMs, and the drivers. Obviously it's not a real problem for Nvidia or ATI, so I'll hazard that it's not terribly difficult.
[However you must know the comparison in performance of CATIA V5 for NT or Unix - The NT will win. Just look at the CATbench results. V5 Is developed on NT then ported to Unix.]
That's not surprising. i imagine the X86 code has a lot of X86 - specific optimizations that aren't redone for the Unix ports. This is the problem with porting software. To get a decent application, you still have to optimize a lot for it. NewTek is getting hit with this WRT lightwave.
[Even AutoCAD only offers their product for Intel based systems]
More acurately, Windows. Autodesk pulled the plug on *all* non-windows versions of Autocad years ago. So you can't run it under Linux X86.
If there is already a Unix codebase, then they have it running under X11. Therefore, getting it to run under Mac OS X is no harder than getting it to run under Linux, and oddly enough, Apple is now the #1 seller of Unix - based systems on the market. I find it odd that an OS that is obviously on the way out, Irix, is considered a more viable option than Mac OS X.
john c welch
Author: John Welch |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 25 Jun 2002 05:06 PM |
|
The whole purpose of this discussion was to draw attention not only to Mac OS X, but to entertain the idea of having CATIA first ported over and running under X-Window. At the very least that shouldn't be much of a problem at all aside from the politics that might be involved. Other than that I bet *that* particular port can be done easily and straightforward in very little time. That would certainly test to see if there is any demand for a Mac version. If there is a significant impact, then DS could explore the possibility of Making CATIA a full-blown app on OS X that takes advantage of everything the OS X and hardware have to offer.
--
Ed M.
Author: Ed M. |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 26 Jun 2002 04:03 PM |
|
Unfortunately you guys are barking up the wrong tree. I have been to a couple coe's in the last few years and Microsoft is playing a bigger and bigger part in the CATIA/Enovia enterprise. Come to think of it I went to a COE session and Steve Ballmer (Uncle Fester) was the keynote speaker. Just like IBM is in bed with Dassault/CATIA today, Microsoft is knocking on the door, the painting is on the wall. CATIA is the only "real" CAD player left and Microsoft has jumped on board. By offering CATIA on more then one OS is a double-edged sword. On one hand the competition keeps prices of hardware down but if you have ever had to maintain a multi platform environment you would know why I would vote against the idea. One more big thing will be when the third party players start inventing new functions they will now have to recompile for multi platform environments or they might just say they are only going to developed for one platform like they have in the past.
Author: Bill Gates |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 26 Jun 2002 10:30 PM |
|
I linked up to this discussion through Architosh. I just received the CATIA demo in the mail at work. I didn't run the software yet (no time - natch!), but we poked around a little bit and it looks like CATIA is running the same engine as SolidWorks? WOW - if SolidWorks was available for OS-x that would be fantastic. We have SolidWorks at the office, along with Rhino3d, AutoCAD, VectorWorks and Mechanical Desktop. I prefer SolidWorks by a LONGSHOT. Am I correct in my assumption - same rendering/modeling engine?
M
Author: Mick |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 26 Jun 2002 11:49 PM |
|
Well, Bill, It seems that Microsoft is under the microscope lately. I don't think it can afford to play the Godfather of the tech industry any longer. Microsoft's troubles haven't even begun yet. The case is in the remedy phase and stricter sanctions are highly likely. As is the possibility of a breakup. The proposed settlement (gift?) hasn't even been approved yet (as per the Tuney Act) Anyway, that's a whole other aminal... ;-) In any case, Microsoft had better stop leveraging it's monopoly in such a way. Not only that, but M$ is moving toward an increasingly CLOSED system. A simple box that they alone will control. Their goal is Palladium. Besides, who really *wants* Micro$oft's bugg-ridden products?
When is the tech sector going to wake up and realize that they have been duped into playing the part of that frog sitting in a pot of water on a stove? All seemed fine when it appeared that Billy-Boy gave them a nice big lake to swim in. He brought the heat up slowly and cooked them to death. Now they actually believe that they are dependent upon that entity. Micro$oft reminds me of a drug dealer. They tempt people with the goods, those people buy into the farce and [cause themselves] to become dependent and now they are at the mercy of M$. Not that M$ is the superior choice. Yet these people continue to throw GOBS of money in new versions and hardware that was supposed to solve all the problems of previous versions.
Anyone with a gram of intelligence could see that it's been that same exact marketing shpeil that M$ has been using since day one.. "Ooooooohhh, you guys better not look for alternatives.... Look at what we have lined up for you if you stick with us... Besides, you already have too much invested already; can you really afford to go somewhere else?" and so on. It's thinking like that that has allowed M$ to gain the foothold that it did. In other words, they've been promising everyone the world, keeping them in anticipation and actually delivering little. But wait, things will get better with the next version of our software; just wait and see!
The fact is that the these people and organizations can switch to an alternative if they really wanted to and developers would follow if there was actually an honest desire to migrate to an alternate platform. This mono culture that's emerging is quite unsettling. But that's enough of that. The topic and discussion is clearly aimed at people who are INTERESTED in seeing CATIA running on OS X in some form or another. Anyone NOT interested in seeing CATIA run under Mac OS X should quietly keep their opinions off and move along to other things.
I believe (as I'm sure many others do) that MOST people aren't interested in what can't be done, they are interested in what CAN be done. The one thing that can be done with minimal effort is to get CATIA recompiled so that it at least runs through the X-Window environment on OS X. However, it's likely that politics is holding CATIA on OS X back. Once that blockage is cleared, it's likely that many other scientists and engineers that rely on CATIA (and happen to prefer a Mac as their platform of choice) will come forward and request a more familiar, more Mac-like version. I say let Dassault test demand for an OS X version by recompiling it to run in the X-Window environment under OS X. Remember, the bigger this list gets and the more posts that accumulate, the more attention the topic receives and in turn a higher level of consideration from DS.
Best
--
Ed
Author: Ed M. |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 27 Jun 2002 10:54 AM |
|
[[[All I am asking is there a company or better yet an industry that will make a formal business case and an enhancement request for the support of OS X? ]]]
Do you mean the company that develops the particular application or Apple supporting OS X for enterprise? It is completely obvious that former is the responsibility of the developer of the application. After all Adobe Alias|Wave front and many others already do this. If it is the later then that is available as well. Start by having a look at Apple's new Xserve offering found here:
http://www.apple.com/xserve/
Apple is already providing the necessary support for their hardware; not that it requires the support or the extremely high costs associated with Microsoft-based solutions. If you look at the specs of what Apple is offering enterprise you might be surprised. You can start by an in-depth review by John C. Welch. John provides a series of articles discussing Apple's enterprise offering from an IT perspective. Be sure to read each in the series
Part 1: http://www.workingmac.com/inetd/149.wm
Part 2: http://www.workingmac.com/inetd/154.wm
Part 3: http://www.workingmac.com/inetd/153.wm
Part 4: http://www.workingmac.com/inetd/155.wm
Part 5: http://www.workingmac.com/inetd/156.wm
[[[If there is great - I would like to see V5 Solutions (CATIA, ENOVIA, & DELMIA) common and accessible to as many companies as possible. With out someone (company or industry) doing the groundwork of justifying this change it will not get done]]]
I'm not sure what you mean by "justifying". Could it be that the need for LESS support staff is justification enough in this sluggish economy? Let's face it, there has been PLENTY of published reports stating that Macs simply cost less to support and maintain. This is where the Total-Cost-Of-Ownership comes in. Many people base their purchases on INITIAL price. They don't consider how much it's going to cost them in the long run. This is EXACTLY what M$ banked on when it duped everyone into relying so heavily on their products. Furthermore, it's that same industry that brought those costs upon themselves. If there was a more diverse playing field with more options and choices, Companies wouldn't come to rely on products for a single vendor or single solution. In this case Windows. Could it have to do with IT managers and support staff wanting to secure their jobs? I believe it is at least a moderate reason, and not so far-fetched. The sad part is that most of these support people really only know a single platform (again, Windows). Ask them to configure, support and maintain another platform and many will be stumped. Is this the kind of "expert" you want to higher to maintain your setup? If so, then be prepared to be married to that particular platform for a long, long time.
Being less diverse (and having less options) will end up costing a LOT more. So, I say support costs alone will be justification enough or at least go a long way toward a Mac-based solution.
[[[The wants of the End Users aside - is there a company that has gone to DS and requested V5 Solutions to run on Macintosh under OS X?]]]
That's a good question. Are you assuming that there isn't? I'd assume that there *must* have been. And that's what this list is supposed to (sort of) investigate. On the other hand, it gets back to one of my initial observations. If something wasn't offered as a solution to begin with, then why bother to seek that alternative? Here is a clear-ringing case where DS can simply port, through a recompile their CATIA environment to run under X-Window in OS X. If the infrastructure exists to support current UNIX versions then it will cover the initial OS X support as well.
[[[PTC Website - Answers to Questions from the Pro/DESKTOP Webcast and Demo - March 2002
http://www.ptc.com/company/mail/express200203/desktop_qa.htm
"What's involved in porting Pro/DESKTOP to the new Macintosh OS X-based machines? There is an enormous educational market out there, and these machines are EXTREMELY fast. We are aware of the Macintosh platform and its impressive capabilities. The decision to develop a MAC port requires commercial justification and we are interested in any input which contributes to the business case." ]]]
Well, not to sound like I'm thumping my chest, but I still have the e-mails that I sent to PTC over a year ago bringing OS X to their attention. They didn't even know it existed let alone know what it was. They seemed even more surprised that it was a Berkeley UNIX. Anyway, a brief dialogue was opened with them through e-mail for a while and I got some pretty positive vibes from them. However, what I think PTC is trying to say is that for an honest, all-out, true-to-design Macintosh version to happen, it would cost a fair amount in R&D. However, I'm not certain they are aware that OS X is *really* UNIX-based, so getting one of their other UNIX versions of Pro/E to run would be a LOT simpler and cost effective at first. Similarly, the engineers that rely on the Mac for specific tasks and also rely on Pro/E for Windows or UNIX for others can now unite the functionality under a single machine. Again the TCO comes to mind.
[[[a company typically spends much more on training than on the software itself. ]]]
That's another problem. Simply *training* someone on a particular product does nothing but make them knowledgeable of that specific product. Reminds me of trained chimps. Why not focus more on the background, concepts and ideas rather than on a particular application? Why shouldn't these people (who are paid big bucks) be able to move seamlessly from one application to another similar or related application with ease? Why should it be a task or in many cases, impossible? So, the role of schools should be places of learning - not as vocational education factories for training on particular applications; We can train just about anyone like that. The end result are individuals who aren't diverse enough to make the shift if one was to occur. But getting back to the PTC. That is interesting. It's been a common rumor for quite some time that Apple was in the market for a high-end CAD solution. Given Apple's recent buying-spree of high-end graphics companies, some of which only offered Windows-based products (i.e., Spruce Technologies) It could be that Apple is eyeing a High-end CAD company as well. Spruce, Nothing Real, Raycer, Prismo, Silicon Grail et. al. all offered extremely high-priced solutions to their customers. Some in excess of $13,000 a pop. So it is conceivable that Apple could acquire a company like PTC and develop their own in-house solution. So much for the Windows version though. That'll definitely be history. Unix and Linux versions will likely continue.
--
Ed M.
Author: Ed M. |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 27 Jun 2002 11:18 AM |
|
[[Do you mean the company that develops the particular application or Apple supporting OS X for enterprise?]]
No I mean a using company like Ford, Boeing, Electric Boat, or another company that purchases the licenses for the use of the V5 Solutions.
May you could get the architectural firms to request this functionality!
Author: Timothy J. Suhr |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 27 Jun 2002 11:46 AM |
|
Well, that would mean a departure from their current "Windows-is-the-only-solution" mentality. To do that they would have to test their IT staff and see if they are diverse enough to make the shift or at least a partial integration. Most of these IT people like their job. They WANT M$ solutions because for the most part it's all that they know. If these companies were willing to higher people like John Welch (just using him as an example of someone who is diverse and knowledgeable about MANY platforms) instead of high-school kids and other people who are simply only MCSE certified. These are the people who are milking the company and the higher up fall prey to them.
--
Ed
Author: Ed M. |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 27 Jun 2002 12:20 PM |
|
So is there a company or industry that will make the case? Ed M. on the web you are a very outspoken person. You more than anyone should be able to build the support for a using industry to justify the addition of the Mac to the supported hardware for the V5 Solutions. What is your background in the CATIA products? For example I have 250 hours in V3, nearly 10,000 hours in V4, and 2,000 or so hours in V5- primarily in the design of electrical systems installations. Designing harnesses and harness support structure for aerospace applications. I am currently working within in a team that is developing common processes for my company and generating requirements for vendor software enhancements. I also co-Chair the Electro-Mechanical Engineering Development Planning Council at the CATIA Operators Exchange (COE) that I have attended since 1996 - Tell us about yourself. Have you Used CATIA? Do you participate in the design of a product for a company? Have you attended COE? If we can keep this forum and the thread about the support for the MAC civil the others here may be more supportive than you think. Let work together and share success in making V5 a great set of tools for product lifecycle management.
Author: Timothy J. Suhr |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 27 Jun 2002 01:43 PM |
|
[[[So is there a company or industry that will make the case? ]]]
Make what case? CATIA for OS X? Too much time and red tape. I already suggested what the CATIA team could do. They can either choose to recompile an existing UNIX version to run on OS X or maybe they can offer a stripped-down version. In either case, It seem that it would be far easier to gauge demand once something is actually available. You still see the problem in terms of "demand". I agree, but no option currently exists
[[[Ed M. on the web you are a very outspoken person. ]]]
Yes, I tend to be. Mostly regarding issues with Micro$oft. Not only that, but I see OS X as fertile ground for new development. Are you saying that we've pretty much reached a threshold where we don't really need another platform or solutions? I'm not sure I'm getting the gist of what you are getting at.
[[[You more than anyone should be able to build the support for a using industry to justify the addition of the Mac to the supported hardware for the V5 Solutions. ]]]
Well, I think that is being a tad sarcastic, but that's OK. Before I brought the subject up for discussion, was there any previous mention of OS X on this forum? Uhh huh, that's what I thought.
[[[What is your background in the CATIA products?]]]
Absolutely none :-)
[[[For example I have 250 hours in V3, nearly 10,000 hours in V4, and 2,000 or so hours in V5- primarily in the design of electrical systems installations. ]]]
That sounds very exciting actually. But what does that have to do with the proposal of bringing CATIA to Mac OS X? After all, this discussion is supposed to be for people who are interested in that end. It isn't to get railroaded on tangents and other off-topics irrelevant to this particular one.
[[[ ....... I also co-Chair the Electro-Mechanical Engineering Development Planning Council at the CATIA Operators Exchange (COE) that I have attended since 1996 ]]]
That's good. Perhaps you could introduce the possibility of CATIA on OS X to the development team. In any event, the main focus is to stir interest in OS X. Heaven knows DS was willing to bring their wares to the Windows platform. Surely this had to do with the fact that the Windows platform is the best suited for the task... After all, it has an extremely efficient interface and everything works as advertised.
[[[- Tell us about yourself. ]]]
Nah, I'm not interesting enough; besides, what does that have to do with considering CATIA for OS X?
[[[Have you Used CATIA? ]]]
I believe I already answered that.
[[[If we can keep this forum and the thread about the support for the MAC civil the others here may be more supportive than you think. ]]]
Actually, I think it's been very civil, but for some strange reason you seem very skeptical of the idea. Might I ask what your experience is with the Mac or OS X? Have you had any working relationship with Apple Computer exploring the possibility of developing solutions? I'm not sure any of our personal information is relevant to the discussion at hand. Again, I'd like to see developers diversify and offer solutions for various platforms instead of just one. This will ensure that there is ample choice for EVERYONE regarding the tools they choose to use. That said, I will continue to advocate and support the proliferation of Mac OS X and Mac OS X-based applications.
[[[Let work together and share success in making V5 a great set of tools for product lifecycle management. ]]]
Agreed, but we really should also be open-minded to the fact that other technologies actually do exist that could prove extremely beneficial to the further success of V5, and to realize that life isn't all about Microsoft and what they can try to do for everyone.
--
Ed
Author: Ed M. |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 27 Jun 2002 03:01 PM |
|
[[That sounds very exciting actually. But what does that have to do with the proposal of bringing CATIA to Mac OS X? After all, this discussion is supposed to be for people who are interested in that end. It isn't to get railroaded on tangents and other off-topics irrelevant to this particular one.]]
I believe it has everything with it. Let us look at the history of just CATIA for a moment. When CATIA was first developed it ran from mainframe computers running MVS. This was true well into version 4. When several businesses made the justification of bring CATIA to Unix OS. DS started porting their code from mainframe to Unix. This was because of the high cost of mainframes. During the time they ported their code into V4 they worked with their customers to develop new functionalities for V4 like E3D the Products that enhance my job. Also during this time customers were working on porting their code written to take advantage of the provided API's from DS to customize CATIA for their processes. Right now the V5 Activities are very similar to what happened in V4 Porting and Enhancement. After this activity or late in this activity if a customer can justify this enhancement they might.
[[[What is your background in the CATIA products?
Absolutely none :-) ]]]
Do you work for a company that uses CATIA or any of the V5 Solutions?
[[That's good. Perhaps you could introduce the possibility of CATIA on OS X to the development team. In any event, the main focus is to stir interest in OS X.]]
I would be happy to if my company had even one Mac in the product definition teams. Today we use a mix of Unix on varies Platforms and PC's using various OS's (Not Just Windows). We once had Mac's and no longer do. So a request from my company to DS for this functionality would not be justified unless we would commit to the Mac OS. We are not going to - unless you can show me the customers (IE the companies) that want it. I would be happy to talk with them to provide the need input to DS.
[[[- Tell us about yourself.
Nah, I'm not interesting enough; besides, what does that have to do with considering CATIA for OS X? ]]]
On the contrary every one who can wish that NewTek, PTC, or CATIA would market to Mac is very interesting. As for what does that have to do with considering CATIA for OS X - Think that soon even high end PLM Solution will be common even in Small Companies that may only have one seat. They may be a vendor to a bigger company that uses their products or services. If you had the right back ground DS could use your justification to start that work. But it will take a current user (Company) to convince DS to make that investment. If all you are trying to do is have each company code their software for every computer on the market then let us ask for OS X to run on a PC, Amiga, or a Sega game console. 8-{)
Author: Timothy J. Suhr |
|
|
|
|
COE-FORUM-USER
|
| 07 Jul 2002 11:48 AM |
|
[[[I would be happy to if my company had even one Mac in the product definition teams. Today we use a mix of Unix on varies Platforms and PC's using various OS's (Not Just Windows).]]]
Now I'm a bit curious... Which platforms and operating systems do you use? I'll bet that for the most part you've probably adopted what amounts to mostly Wintel machines. Of course I'm just guessing, but examining the breakdown further might be interesting. Do you have any idea what the support costs of supporting those platforms is? Again, I'm just curious. On the other hand, it might be wiser to look at the specifics. Perhaps you could provide us with the breakdown of what it takes for you company to support the Windows platform. In that, I'd be interested in the yearly $$ amount. The breakdown should include all the support staff assigned to the platform, the cost of upgrades (hardware and software), security patches / testing. Since I'm sure that these machines are set up on a network of some sort the cost-per-client should also be taken into account. This would be the roundabout figure associated with supporting the Wintel machines. Obviously I've skimmed over the details, but it would certainly be interesting to get an idea of what the yearly support costs amount to.
[[[We once had Mac's and no longer do. So a request from my company to DS for this functionality would not be justified unless we would commit to the Mac OS.]]]
And you dropped your Macs in what year?
[[[We are not going to - unless you can show me the customers (IE the companies) that want it. I would be happy to talk with them to provide the need input to DS.]]]
In other words you want to see other companies committing to OS X before you consider it? I'm not sure I follow the reasoning. Could you be a little more specific? I would think that Boeing would evaluate such an option on their own; unless of course the IT staff is comprised of people that are completely unfamiliar with it. I guess it depends on who is calling the shots and which platform they are familiar with.
[[[If all you are trying to do is have each company code their software for every computer on the market then let us ask for OS X to run on a PC, Amiga, or a Sega game console]]]
I'm not sure where you are going with this comment and considering you decided to support the Windows platform it almost seem comical (and I mean that). After all *someone* had to convince (persuade?) Boeing (and DS) to support Windows. I'd be curious to know what that justification was and what it *really* amounts to. I'm sure many of the reasons provided for the port could also be made for OS X. However, we've been getting a bit off target. The main focus of this discussion was to stimulate interest in OS X and to see how many would be interested in having CATIA available for it. You brought up the cost of porting the app. I'm not sure I'm *totally* convinced it would amount to that much. Even if it did, I'm certain Apple would be willing (and delighted) to pick up a large chunk if DS (or Boeing) inquired. Similarly, you brought up the point of *demand* and as I stated earlier, You can't gauge demand unless *something* is available so you can weigh the options. There is in fact no option.
To remedy that and to reach a common ground would be to simply recompile CATIA to run in X-Window on OS X. What this would do it cut down the porting cost way down and at the same time this move could be used as a barometer to gauge demand for a full-out OS X version. I say this because there are in fact UNIX versions of CATIA that are already being run. Getting it to run in X-window on OS X seems to be the perfect starting point and probably wouldn't incur any additional costs; support or otherwise. At this point it becomes a question of "why not?" rather than a question of "why?"
--
Ed M.
Author: Ed M. |
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.6
|
|
|
|