etc.

[Philip C. Hart <phart@polar.Bowdoin.EDU>]

Bill D'Amico's posting has prompted me out of my "lurker" role on this forum.
I have wanted to comment on the Malcolm Davies business but have not done
so for two reasons:
1. As Bill points out, since we don't know what REALLY is happening at
Cadkey, speculation is pointless - especially given the history of
Cadkey's relationship with DataCAD (the product) and DataCAD (the user
base).  At this point, only product matters.

2. Danielle's immediate, and defensive, response to David Pendery's
(rather mild) grumbling served as a reminder that Cadkey is watching this
discussion area.  Speculation on the Malcolm Davies business will probably
just result in "clarification" from Cadkey's P.R.  Who wants to add to the
confusion by prompting another level of "truth" to the situation?

On another subject:  best evidence is that, again, an A/E/C product based
on CODe (Cadkey New Technology, Parthenon ...) is at least nine months to
a year away.  We have been told point blank that the first release of the
product will not provide a level of practical production-oriented tools
equal to DataCAD (look to the second and third releases, DBUG was told by
Malcolm Davies last Spring).

So..It looks like those of us who believe in DataCAD and use it
(effectively) in a production environment, are looking at 2-3 year wait
before Cadkey can deliver a product that supplies BOTH the bells and
whistles that they have bragged about for the past 4 1/2 years and the
productivity of DataCAD 4.06.

In the meantime, we get to "upgrade" DataCAD on a periodic basis.  Right
now we have to decide whether "filtered" layer selection and improved
handling of line tails on custom line types are worth $70.

>From a marketing point of view, it is probably sufficient to continue to
pump the money out of DataCAD by selling it (and upgrades) cheaply. 
However, the credibility of the product (and the company) are beginning to
suffer.  How "professional" can Cadkey's commitment to the A/E/C
marketplace be if they cannot do direct .DWG reads and writes?  How
"professional" are Cadkey's DataCAD users when they can affordably run
Pentium 90 systems with huge hard disks, heaps of RAM, etc...and have to
run at VGA resolution because "Cadkey is not in the driver business any more"?

The lack of .DWG translation and upgraded graphics drivers were (barely)
tolerable two and three years ago when the "Windows Product" was "6 to 9
months away."  Today, it is ludicrous.

Cadkey has much to be commended for.  But if they expect to hold and
build upon the user base that they have "grown" in the last year, I think
that they have to recognize that that user base must be fed with some
substance.

I reiterate that I am a commited user of DataCAD and a stauch defender of
its use in professional practice.  I do not mean the above aa "Cadkey
bashing," but as some observations about the state of affairs in the
DataCAD world.

Philip Hart   phart@polar.bowdoin.edu