AutoCad R10 for sale

[cadmaster]

> >Where have you been since 1999? R14 to R2000 was the most significantupgrade since maybe R11 to R12 Tell me why. Tom Berger

Here is a good start:

http://www.cadinfo.net/ac2k/400-MDE.htm

[CW]

Not a good start at all. The article says the same thing over and over.
Nothing really significant in any case.
"cadmaster" <thecadmaster@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b873862a.0306240808.3966016d@posting.google.com...Where have you been since 1999? R14 to R2000 was the most significantupgrade since maybe R11 to R12 Tell me why. Tom Berger Here is a good start: http://www.cadinfo.net/ac2k/400-MDE.htm

[TomD]

Didn't bother with the article, but a totally revamped plotting system
isn't significant?

CW wrote: Not a good start at all. The article says the same thing over and over. Nothing really significant in any case. "cadmaster" <thecadmaster@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:b873862a.0306240808.3966016d@posting.google.com...>Where have you been since 1999? R14 to R2000 was the most significant>upgrade since maybe R11 to R12Tell me why.Tom Berger

[Tom Berger]

TomD <dcbnetadmin.nospam@stargate.net> schrieb:


Sorry, was on vacation for a few days.
Didn't bother with the article, but a totally revamped plotting systemisn't significant?

I could do my plots perfectly well before R2000. IMO linewidth and
polar snap were the only reasons to justify the switch from R14 to
R2000.

Tom Berger

--
ArchTools: Architektur-Werkzeuge für AutoCAD (TM)
ArchDIM - architekturgerechte Bemaßung und Höhenkoten
ArchAREA - Flächenermittlung und Raumbuch nach DIN 277
Info und Demo unter http://www.archtools.de

[CW]

No. The old system plotted just fine.
"TomD" <dcbnetadmin.nospam@stargate.net> wrote in message
news:3EF89415.8080003@stargate.net... Didn't bother with the article, but a totally revamped plotting system isn't significant? CW wrote: Not a good start at all. The article says the same thing over and over. Nothing really significant in any case. "cadmaster" <thecadmaster@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:b873862a.0306240808.3966016d@posting.google.com...>>Where have you been since 1999? R14 to R2000 was the most significant>>upgrade since maybe R11 to R12>>Tell me why.>>Tom Berger

[RMM]

"TomD" <dcbnetadmin.nospam@stargate.net> wrote in message news:3EF89415.8080003@stargate.net... Didn't bother with the article, but a totally revamped plotting system isn't significant? CW wrote: Not a good start at all. The article says the same thing over and
over. Nothing really significant in any case. "cadmaster" <thecadmaster@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:b873862a.0306240808.3966016d@posting.google.com...>>>Where have you been since 1999? R14 to R2000 was the most
significant>>>upgrade since maybe R11 to R12>>>>Tell me why.>>>>Tom Berger
"CW" <clinton.magers@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:DYkKa.17701$3d.11573@sccrnsc02... No. The old system plotted just fine.

I agree. In fact I got so frustrated with the new way of plotting that I
still use R14 to plot with.

RMM

[CW]

Car wrecks are also significant. Do I need or want one?

"TomD" <dcbnetadmin.nospam@stargate.net> wrote in message
news:3EF9F6B9.4090405@stargate.net... I think you missed my question. I asked if it was significant, not if you, personally, liked it.

[TomD]

You just like silly arguments, don't you? So, it is in fact
significant. I didn't say you wanted it.

Knock the chip off your shoulder and READ.

CW wrote: Car wrecks are also significant. Do I need or want one? "TomD" <dcbnetadmin.nospam@stargate.net> wrote in message news:3EF9F6B9.4090405@stargate.net...I think you missed my question. I asked if it was significant, not ifyou, personally, liked it.

A

[Tom Berger]

TomD <dcbnetadmin.nospam@stargate.net> schrieb:
You just like silly arguments, don't you? So, it is in factsignificant. I didn't say you wanted it.

For me a _significant_ improvement in a software update is a function
that enables me to do what I couldn't do with the previous version, or
that makes my work _much_ faster.

Plotting in R2000 is different from R14, but there is absolutely
nothing that I couldn't already do with R14. And I don't see an
improvement in the user interface (indeed I have the feeling that now
I need much longer to configure my plots).

Maybe that some people like the handling of the new plot dialog better
than that of R14, and they may consider an improved user interface as
a _significant_ improvement. I had absolutely no problems with the R14
plot dialog, but I know that many people didn't like it. Indeed I
still prefer the R14 way of plotting where I didn't need two different
unit sytems (in R2000 plot units are fixed to inch or millimeter, and
I use 1 meter as a drawing unit).

Tom Berger

--
ArchTools: Architektur-Werkzeuge für AutoCAD (TM)
ArchDIM - architekturgerechte Bemaßung und Höhenkoten
ArchAREA - Flächenermittlung und Raumbuch nach DIN 277
Info und Demo unter http://www.archtools.de

[TomD]

Tom Berger wrote:
<SNIPPED here and there> For me a _significant_ improvement in a software update is a function that enables me to do what I couldn't do with the previous version, or that makes my work _much_ faster.

My comment was that the plotting change was significant, not that it was
a significant improvement. For some it is, for some it isn't.
Plotting in R2000 is different from R14, but there is absolutely nothing that I couldn't already do with R14. And I don't see an improvement in the user interface (indeed I have the feeling that now I need much longer to configure my plots).

You must not use a wide range of colors, lineweights, etc. in your
plots, with a vast range of unpredictable output needs. Many of the
plots I do with 2K are virtually impossible using R14, unless you
consider constantly changing PC3 files an acceptable method.

Consider a zoning map with most of the background in shades of grey.
Each type of zone being a color, with each level being a different
shade. How about a site plan where your boss decides 5 minutes before a
meeting that he wants just the waterline to be plotted blue, the rest
left black? Maybe he wants just the trees plotted green, with some
shading in the forest area.

These situations are all very easy to accomplish with A2K, and I can
teach my son (7 years old) how to do it in 5 minutes. Not so with R14.
Maybe that some people like the handling of the new plot dialog better than that of R14, and they may consider an improved user interface as a _significant_ improvement. I had absolutely no problems with the R14 plot dialog, but I know that many people didn't like it. Indeed I still prefer the R14 way of plotting where I didn't need two different unit sytems (in R2000 plot units are fixed to inch or millimeter, and I use 1 meter as a drawing unit).

For me, the interface isn't the issue. The method of lineweight tied to
color was always obsurd. Like most others, I accepted it and learned to
live with it, typically getting what I wanted out of the system.

If you think I'm full of it, let me know. I'll dig up my R14 plot
standards and you can compare those with the 2k standards. You can tell
me which you'd rather explain to someone, or better yet, use yourself.

Yes, our R14 standards worked ok, but A2K is much simpler for users to
understand and use as well as providing much more flexibility with the
output.

[CW]

I read just fine and, apparently, so do you. Your comprehension could use a
little work though.
"TomD" <dcbnetadmin.nospam@stargate.net> wrote in message
news:3EFC495C.8020507@stargate.net... You just like silly arguments, don't you? So, it is in fact significant. I didn't say you wanted it. Knock the chip off your shoulder and READ. CW wrote: Car wrecks are also significant. Do I need or want one? "TomD" <dcbnetadmin.nospam@stargate.net> wrote in message news:3EF9F6B9.4090405@stargate.net...I think you missed my question. I asked if it was significant, not ifyou, personally, liked it. A

[TomD]

Tom Berger wrote: TomD <dcbnetadmin.nospam@stargate.net> schrieb:Yes, our R14 standards worked ok, but A2K is much simpler for users tounderstand and use as well as providing much more flexibility with theoutput. As I told before: I doubt this. And I also told this before: for some people A2K plot may have been an improvement, and for some it wasn't. The discussion about that point startet because you made your opinion in that case a general rule - which it certainly isn't.

You have an open invitation to drop by. I'll be more than happy to
demonstrate. Bring a child with you, and I'll demonstrate how they can
be taught to use A2K plotting within 10 minutes.

For the record, my first post in this thread was:

"Didn't bother with the article, but a totally revamped plotting system
isn't significant?"

CW, are you paying attention this time? Nothing in that question
implies usability for a specific purpose, just significance. If the
change was insignificant, why use it as partial justification for
staying with R14?
In A2K for plotting I need to use two different unit systems, and I need to explain newcomers to plot old drawings using the color-lineweight-scheme and new drawings the lineweight-lineweight-scheme. And I don't know what to tell my people when they insert old blocks into new drawings and vice versa. IMO plotting in A2K is _much_ more difficult and inconsistent (!) compared to R14.

This seems to go to the inertia reason stated in the article posted by
CW. Seems so many are comfortable with the old way that even
considering something else is dismissed right off the bat.

I don't doubt that for some companies, sticking with color based styles
(or even R14 for that matter) is best. I just cringe when I hear folks
telling newbies that color based is "the way" to do things. That's an
absurd statement and should be called as such.

[Tom Berger]

TomD <dcbnetadmin.nospam@stargate.net> schrieb:
You have an open invitation to drop by. I'll be more than happy todemonstrate. Bring a child with you, and I'll demonstrate how they canbe taught to use A2K plotting within 10 minutes.

I doubt this too. At least when you need to plot old drawings, and
drawings with new and old parts. Then you'll need to teach the old way
of plus the new way. But I certainly would like to see the 10-year-old
genius who understands the AutoCAD plot function within 10 minutes :-)

BTW - I used to teach AutoCAD at many different companies and at our
local university, and from time to time I still teach it. I never had
problems to teach my students how to set up their drawings in paper
space.
This seems to go to the inertia reason stated in the article posted byCW. Seems so many are comfortable with the old way that evenconsidering something else is dismissed right off the bat.

I know many AutoCAD veterans who still don't use paper space, so
inertia is a problem. But between R14 and A2K there simply is no
significant improvement as far as plotting is concerned. There is
nothing in the A2K plot command what I couldn't do in R14 - and in
most cases plot setup as faster in R14.
I don't doubt that for some companies, sticking with color based styles(or even R14 for that matter) is best. I just cringe when I hear folkstelling newbies that color based is "the way" to do things. That's anabsurd statement and should be called as such.

I don't talk about color or lineweight based styles. Lineweight is an
improvement, and the R14 plot command didn't need to be replaced to
support lineweight without color-lineweight translation.

Tom Berger

--
ArchTools: Architektur-Werkzeuge für AutoCAD (TM)
ArchDIM - architekturgerechte Bemaßung und Höhenkoten
ArchAREA - Flächenermittlung und Raumbuch nach DIN 277
Info und Demo unter http://www.archtools.de

[Tom Berger]

TomD <dcbnetadmin.nospam@stargate.net> schrieb:
But I certainly would like to see the 10-year-old genius who understands the AutoCAD plot function within 10 minutes :-)Again, invitation is open. If you don't have a child to bring, I'll gohome and get my 7 year old. ;)

Thanks. When you book the flight for me, then please choose Frankfurt
as the origin :-)

I am sure that your seven year old kid already knows that 1/100 equals
to 0.01. So how do you explain your kid, that in A2K when it uses
meters as drawing units in model space, it needs to zoom viewports
10xp for a 1/100 plot scale? A few years ago you could have helped me
a lot with a good tip, since when I gave update seminars I usually had
to do with people who used to scale 0.01xp for 1/100.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying you agree thatcolor should not determine lineweight? Hehehehe.

No, I didn't say that. Lineweight by color has worked for over 20
years. But now, where everybody owns a color printer/plotter and where
some people want to plot the same color to different lineweights, the
addition of a true lineweight property of objects was necessary (and
was introduced quite late, if you ask me).

And I don't know why you ask what I am saying. Which of the following
words don't you understand:

"the R14 plot command didn't need to be replaced to
support lineweight without color-lineweight translation"

Tom Berger

--
ArchTools: Architektur-Werkzeuge für AutoCAD (TM)
ArchDIM - architekturgerechte Bemaßung und Höhenkoten
ArchAREA - Flächenermittlung und Raumbuch nach DIN 277
Info und Demo unter http://www.archtools.de

[TomD]

Tom Berger wrote:
<SNIPPED> Thanks. When you book the flight for me, then please choose Frankfurt as the origin :-)

I said you have an open invitation, not that I'd pay for the trip! ;)
I am sure that your seven year old kid already knows that 1/100 equals to 0.01. So how do you explain your kid, that in A2K when it uses meters as drawing units in model space, it needs to zoom viewports 10xp for a 1/100 plot scale? A few years ago you could have helped me a lot with a good tip, since when I gave update seminars I usually had to do with people who used to scale 0.01xp for 1/100.

The viewport scaling is simply a ratio, or am I not understanding your
comment?

I made the reference to kids regarding lineweights, colors, etc. The
explanation would go something like this:

To set lineweight, set the lineweight property.
To set color, set the color property.
Etc., etc.

Much simpler than:

For an 0.021" lineweight, plotted black, use color 120.
For an 0.021" lineweight, plotted green...oh, sorry, our standard
doesn't account for that.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying you agree thatcolor should not determine lineweight? Hehehehe. No, I didn't say that. Lineweight by color has worked for over 20 years. But now, where everybody owns a color printer/plotter and where some people want to plot the same color to different lineweights, the addition of a true lineweight property of objects was necessary (and was introduced quite late, if you ask me). And I don't know why you ask what I am saying. Which of the following words don't you understand: "the R14 plot command didn't need to be replaced to support lineweight without color-lineweight translation"

LOL........ok, now we're back to why we were having a discussion. I was
pounced on because I expressed my belief that the plotting in A2K was a
significant change to the plotting in R14.

IMO, the plotting in 2K is big improvement. Necessary? Well, I suppose
nothing is necessary. Did they drop the ball? Absolutely. IMO, the
way devices and sheets are handled is absolutely hideous. They got it
all right until they started actually connecting to output devices.

From one of your earlier posts:

"For me a _significant_ improvement in a software update is a function
that enables me to do what I couldn't do with the previous version, or
that makes my work _much_ faster."

This is why we disagree on so much of this issue. For me, R14 simply
cannot handle (in an acceptable manner) things I do easily with plotting
from 2K, so from my perspective, it was not only a significant change,
but a significant improvement.

By the way, what in 2K+ versions can't you do that was possible in R14?
(That's a serious question, I'm not being a wise-ass.)

[Tom Berger]

TomD <dcbnetadmin.nospam@stargate.net> schrieb:
By the way, what in 2K+ versions can't you do that was possible in R14? (That's a serious question, I'm not being a wise-ass.)

- VisualLISP - especially reactors make a HUGE difference (I had
VitalLISP for R14, and it would have been better if Autodesk wouldn't
have bought it - the original maker would have continued development
of VitalLISP - Autodesk stopped it)

- polar snap (they should have introduced it 10 years earlier - most
other CAD software had something like this long, long before) and
trace

- Lineweight is nice to have, but not a must

- Multi document interface is nice, but you could start R14 twice to
have the same effect

- Design Center - sometimes helpful

Did I forget something? I must have, because Autodesk charged some
thousand $$$ for updates from R14 to R2002 :-)

Tom Berger

--
ArchTools: Architektur-Werkzeuge für AutoCAD (TM)
ArchDIM - architekturgerechte Bemaßung und Höhenkoten
ArchAREA - Flächenermittlung und Raumbuch nach DIN 277
Info und Demo unter http://www.archtools.de

[TomD]

Tom Berger wrote: TomD <dcbnetadmin.nospam@stargate.net> schrieb:By the way, what in 2K+ versions can't you do that was possible in R14? (That's a serious question, I'm not being a wise-ass.) - VisualLISP - especially reactors make a HUGE difference (I had VitalLISP for R14, and it would have been better if Autodesk wouldn't have bought it - the original maker would have continued development of VitalLISP - Autodesk stopped it)

I've never used it. Has A2K's VLisp eliminated some functionality, or
is it the IDE that you miss? I've tried using Acad's lisp IDE and can't
stand it. Reminds me of trying to put my jeans on after I've put my
shoes on.

Brings an interesting question to my simple mind, though: Why no
frustration expressed at it's creators for selling out? For every
buyer, someone must have sold, no?

The rest weren't answers to my question, so I snipped 'em.

[Tom Berger]

TomD <dcbnetadmin.nospam@stargate.net> schrieb:
I've never used it. Has A2K's VLisp eliminated some functionality, oris it the IDE that you miss?

No, they just renamed some functions. The problem is, that Autodesk
stopped further development of VLISP
Brings an interesting question to my simple mind, though: Why nofrustration expressed at it's creators for selling out? For everybuyer, someone must have sold, no?

I don't complain about the fact that Adesk bought it, I complain about
the fact that they stopped further development - despite the fact that
after the aquisition they publicly promised strong support, costm
entities, CommonLISP functionality and much more

And if they would offer me a million for my applications, I sure would
sell :-)

It's quite obvious that Adesk had to buy the software because
otherwise we would find VitalLISP in Micrsostation (remember the time
when Bentley announced an AutoLISP compatible LISP interpreter for
Microstation?) and IntelliCAD today.
The rest weren't answers to my question, so I snipped 'em.

Oh, how did you do polar snapping before A2K?

Tom Berger

--
ArchTools: Architektur-Werkzeuge für AutoCAD (TM)
ArchDIM - architekturgerechte Bemaßung und Höhenkoten
ArchAREA - Flächenermittlung und Raumbuch nach DIN 277
Info und Demo unter http://www.archtools.de

[TomD]

Tom Berger wrote:
<SNIPPED> TomD <dcbnetadmin.nospam@stargate.net> schrieb:I've never used it. Has A2K's VLisp eliminated some functionality, oris it the IDE that you miss? No, they just renamed some functions. The problem is, that Autodesk stopped further development of VLISP

I know you're not the only one unhappy about that situation. I don't
know the full story, so I'm going to plead ignorance. When I started
fiddling around with VBA I quit learning the new VL functions, so I
couldn't even speak well to it's capabilities.

If what you're saying is true (and I'm certainly not disputing it), then
shame on them. I'm still mad at Adesk for going into the so called
vertical market. I keep dreaming of what Acad might be if their focus
remained with developing a good, solid, fast, flexible drafting
platform. .........sigh.......lol
And if they would offer me a million for my applications, I sure would sell :-)

I didn't doubt it for a second. ;) And I'd congratulate you for a job
well done.
The rest weren't answers to my question, so I snipped 'em. Oh, how did you do polar snapping before A2K?

I asked what you did in R14 that you couldn't do in A2K. From some of
your posts, I was getting the impression that A2K took out some
functionality that you had previously. I may have extrapolated a bit
too far. :o