We understand, but...
To start with ANY function which is built using the old style (pre-NX 5.0) dialogs will never be usable with Journals which will limit your ability to add a next level of productivity by capturing common workflows and assigning them to a toolbar icon or menu item.
Second, in the case of something like Edit -> Transform, these older functions were not feature-based which means that again you will be limited in how well they could be integrated into smart models and product templates which may allow you to capture reusable design intent for items and products where future examples are simple variations-on-a-theme type designs.
Third, if you don't remove (or at least initially hide) the old functionality this will make the product look even MORE complex as users will see multiple functions which appear to do identical or nearly identical tasks.
There's an old adage in the software business which states that
"You cannot make something simpler by adding to it".
Along with this, if we DO leave the old functions in then what level of documentation and help files do we need to maintain? Again, this will make the product look more complex than it really is, particularly to new users who have NO emotional attachment to the legacy commands yet are still seeing them as supposedly fully supported (they're on the toolbar/menu and there's help files/documentation describing what they do).
Fourth, and while many existing users scoff at this idea, but the truth of the matter is that these legacy functions, when they are not hidden, makes NX look old and outdated and as such makes it harder to sell against products which have the 'luxury' of still using the same consistent user interface they've always had (that is they never evolved from a pre-Windows, totally hierarchically-menu driven interface). And while it might be hard for longterm customers, particularly those who ARE emotionally attached to these legacy functions, to appreciate or even accept, if we do NOT continue to sell our software to NEW customers or expand it's usage inside of existing customers (which often entails the same issues as selling to a new customer if we're dealing with large and diversified companies) and increase our maintenance paying client base, we will not remain a viable entity nor will we be able to continue to invest in our products to keep them up-to-date and leading edge.
And lastly, which is a corollary to the industry adage I quoted above, if these functions are left in the product, even if well hidden, they still have to be maintained by our R&D staff, meaning that the code has to be tested, verified, certified on new platforms, internal documentation maintained, debugged when changes elsewhere impacts these older routines, etc. All of this activity takes away from the resources needed to continue to enhance and maintain the fully supported functionality.
I know this is a highly contrived example, but bare with me for a moment. The first car I learned to drive had an 8-track tape deck factory installed in the dash just below the radio. Now what if I had purchased a bunch of 8-track tapes and when I went to buy my own car I demanded that it have an 8-track tape deck in it despite the fact that cassette tapes where the current state-of-the-art. Now I had started to buy some new cassette tapes so I wanted to have both style of tape players in my new car. Now a few years later, I've still got my oldies on 8-track, a bunch of cassettes and I've even started to acquire some CD's, so now I'm demanding that the manufacturer include THREE media players to meet my needs, emotional though some of it is might be. And now when I look at a new car I realize that if it's Bluetooth enabled I can access the playlist on my new iPhone, but since I've still got those now really valuable 8-tracks I still want to listen to once in awhile, and then there's those cassettes and I can't just dump my CD collection... Well, you get the point, eh? ;-)
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Design Solutions
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
