Well, I apologize for not being a little more clear in my presentation. I hope you can look beyond my poor writing and attempts at sarcasm to see the point.
Yes, things happen. It's not about mistakes, but what you do with them, and more important, what you do to avoid making similar mistakes in the future.
I've been using PTC products for almost 30 years. v.13. I've used many others, and like PTC's best, but I really get tired of the same silly issues over and over. Especially when the answer is right there and so easy.
I'm not talking about fatal errors, or bug-free software. I also know that most people just deal with what they are given instead of looking to the potential of what it could be. Some comments above indicate that. To those who don't have demands that require a high level of efficiency, I envy you.
I want the software to succeed. PTC has the best thing out there, if they could only wrap their hands around the core issues -- first being the bugs, and second being all the inconsistencies and slowness in the UI. 4 UI's later, and they still have similar problems. ** When I say slowness, I'm talking about all the extra actions required to get work done. Things like requiring sequential mouse picks back and forth across the screen; inconsistencies in what mouse buttons to use for what; differences in when you have to pause (like for a menu to appear) and when you can just go; all the various modes that require different user interaction; 11 different menu types which all act different; and the list goes on. Truly, Creo 9 is really slow to work with because the overall thinking behind it is not consistent.
The solution to both of the big issues is internal use. None of the people that design and manage the software actually use it. They dabble, but they don't use it. I met with several PTC PM's and execs years ago. I had several ongoing meetings with them, and we spoke about ways to steady the ship.
When I was there, I asked. None of the execs or PM's had ever created a 1000 feature model. None a 500 feature model. 1 a 100 feature model. None, while at PTC had spent a week hardcore on a project. It certainly appears that has not changed. They listen, but don't hear, because it's outside of their realm of experience. If they simply required the PM's and high-up developers to be doing that one day a week, the benefit would more than pay for itself. As they use the software with an eye to inconsistencies, to efficiency, to speed, to usability . . . . (the things that mean something to their customers) . . . . they would see the issues and figure out ways to really make it better.
Perhaps most important, if they really use the software, they would get out of their silos and cross-pollinate consistency. The Assembly PM could learn a lot from using Sheetmetal, and vise-versa. Both could learn a ton by doing complex drawings and considering how to make all the user interaction consistent.
In the meantime, put a ransom on the bugs, and pay it to customers who take their time to help identify them.
I've been away from the bleeding edge of PTC for a while. Dropping in now at Creo 9, and the issues are hugely obvious. So many inconsistencies and extra steps and chasing things around the screen. After more than a month of everyday, right now I'm running about 50% efficiency because of all the frustrations, bugs and inconsistencies. Even as a visionary, I don't believe I can ever be as fast and efficient with these new paradigms. Maybe it's newness, or maybe it's that I'm not callused to the inconsistencies. Either way, I'm positive that if the PM's and some developers at PTC really used the software, with that eye to consistency, efficiency, speed and usability, it could and would be so much better. Not to mention they would find these fiddly bugs -- like those I have reported just in the last month. It's just so silly not to do high-level, preemptive QC on a product this vast.
IMHO, PTC has wasted a ton of time and resources in the past 20 years chasing UI's simply because they are unwilling to view their product from the eyes of their customers. Sure, they talk to a lot of customers, but they don't really see through their eyes. In all of my consulting over the years, the best companies are those where the decision makers are also customers.
