It's hard to keep up.. What's new in AutoCad 2005 1

[Ralph2]

Any one have any compelling reasons to upgrade (yet again) to AutoCad 2005? Currently our company has 2002, what would we gain that we can not do now?
Thanks
Ralph

 

[twlincoln]

http://www3.autodesk.com/gost/files/3970004_AutoCAD2005_Compare_w_Previous_Releases.pdf

(watch the word wrap)

 

[CRG]

For one thing, the drawings from 2004 & 2005 are not backwards compatible. If you have clients who request electronic drawings in the 2000 format, you will still be using your 2002 program. There's a problems with "export to ACAD 2000" function in ACAD 2004 & 2005 because many intelligent objects do not translate. Also, it may be necessary for everyone in your office to change to the newer version because of this problem. If a 2000 file is opened and any changes are made with 2004/2005, the file is no longer usable by earlier versions.

 

[SouthernDrafter]

"If a 2000 file is opened and any changes are made with 2004/2005, the file is no longer usable by earlier versions".

????? Of course it is. The guys in our office, all have 2004 except me. I am using 2002 still. In 2004, I have set everyone's comp to save as a 2000 dwg. so that I can access it.

When a 2004-5 dwg is saved normally as a 2004-5, it takes up roughly half as much space as it used to in 2002. This is one benefit. The other benefits of 2004, from what I can tell is mostly things like much broader control over x-refs, and viewported dwg's. The "undo" command has been exploited rather nicely also...you can thumb through previous commands and undo the one you choose, without having to go chronologically.

In any case (and I think I'll make this a topic unto itself) AutoDesk is simply driving the drawing industry CRAZY with upgrade after upgrade! It's costing companies small fortunes obtain the new software and the licensing. Does anyone remember R13? Loaded with bugs because it was the first step to operate on the windows OS. R14 debugged the system and everything was great for a long time. It took a while to get around to 2000, and it wasn't what it was cracked up to be. I know the world needs to advance, but most bosses do not realize they don't need to upgrade every single time a newer version comes out. In some cases it renders older drawings inaccessible. Our older dwgs are R14 and cannot be accessed by 2004. Thank God I still have 2002 on my machine so I can convert them.

Back to the point, I am using 2002 and it works great for me. The layout tabs are wonderful. I see no reason to change at this point, and being the senior drafter of so many years, no one else using 2004 in our office can come close to passing me just because of an upgrade.

 

[Spudnik]

My employer, a city government, has agreed with my suggestion to not be hustled anymore by AutoCAD. Therefore, we will be staying with R2000i. I figure that in slightly over 3 upgrades that I do not get, the money saved will buy a full release. (State contract pricing). We do 99% of our own tech support, anyway, and our ACAD provider will still support obsolete versions. (for $$$)

We also save $600-700 per seat in training. We also save the $1000 or so for many seats to upgrade 3rd-party engineering software. Besides, I refuse to upgrade until we figure out the 'new' plotting interface.

BUT . . . we are not 8-hr-a-day cadders. We do surveying, construction inspection, records entry, etc, too, so slight efficiency increases won't help us as much as others.

Cheers . . . Rocky

 

[advidana]

autocad as well as other software companies likes to make money, that is why they make all the upgrades and it also the reason why they made them not compatable to each other.