Talk:AutoCAD
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] External links
I just deleted a bunch of external links. Some were obvious spam, some just didn't really have any real relevance to the article. See User:DragonHawk/External_links for my rationale. If you feel I deleted a useful link, please feel free to put it back, but I ask that you please also add some commentary here as to why you feel the link belongs in the article. --DragonHawk 01:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I deleted this line:
-
- Free AutoCAD tutorials|Tips and Help - Improve your AutoCAD with this free site by Clayton - Site consists of dozens of "Ads by Google" links and no information whatsoever. Spammer may of have squatted domain.
The links were simply linked to Autodesk website, which you can get just by searching the site yourself. - CobaltBlueTony 02:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] AutoCAD LT
Where did this story about AutoCAD LT meaning "AutoCAD Laptop" come from? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually it means "Latest Technology"
- According to whom? It certainly wasn't any "latest technology"; AutoCAD LT consisted of the main AutoCAD codestream, with lots of parts commented out. From what I can tell, the name "LT" preceded any meaning assigned to the letters. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
According to AutoDESK. I used to work for a dealer and when LT first came out I was attending "CAD CAMP" in San Rafael and was told on many ocassions that we were not to refere to LT as "LITE". It meant "Latest Technology". And in the beginning of the LT development there were several commands that were not implemented into the flagship AutoCAD product. Remember, back then the products were not on a development cycle that we have today (every spring we get a new release).
- Well, we'll need better documentation of that. I've asked one of my colleagues from Autodesk (the one who actually deprogrammed LT) for his recollection. I seem to recall that the "Latest Technology" was something of a hoax to give the name some meaning, rather than "just a name" -- becuase it really DID mean "light", because that's what it was. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Not to get into an argument with you here, but there were several commands that were in the LT version before they were in AutoCAD (full version). ie: Match Properties, Entity Linetype Scaling, etc. etc. etc.
Furthermore I don't believe that Richard Cunneo (the president at the time) would perpetuate a hoax in his own company and to his emense dealership network.
- It is very common for software company marketing departments to engage in this kind of revisionist naming/spin control, especially if they can't get the engineering department to change the naming/version numbers/whatever due to deadlines or other technical concerns. -Ehheh 16:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Cuneo wasn't president. He was senior vice president of sales. And yes, there were sometimes AutoCAD features that got released in LT because the release cycles were staggered (mostly to take the load off the QA department.) Anyway, Duff Kurland will advise me on the nomenclature issue. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Just talked with Godfrey Sullivan and he confirmed that the original meaning for LT was "Latest Technology". Godfrey would know this because he was the head of the Personal Solutions Group and they were the department to develop the "LT" release.
- Given the differing information from equally reliable sources, I think we need to leave the "original meaning" blank, then. We've got contradictory word of mouth from several sources Who Should Know (including me), none of which will stand as a verifiable reliable source. (We're probably doing original research here, too.) My memory of it was that this was during something of the "lite" craze in the early-mid '90s, and that when engineering staff first heard of it, the general opinion was "you're going to call it what??" followed by "yeah, right, LT doesn't mean Lite, we get it. Uh-huh." What I don't remember -- and Duff is busy travelling somewhere, so I can't get to him on this right now -- is where LT was actually conceived. A lot of stuff at Autodesk, at least throughout the 90s when I was there, was conceived first on the engineering side, and formal things like "what's the product going to be called" came later. In other words, Godfrey is likely right from the Official Company Point of View, Duff's memory of "Laptop" is likely right from the engineering point of view -- and I'm right that it didn't really mean a damned thing, and any meaning assigned to it is a "backronym". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree - it probably doesn't matter and could easily come out of the article completely. Nobody disagrees that it was called "LT" so why not leave it at that. I don't remember why what IBM XT or AT meant either - does it matter 30 years later? Not really. We don't need to explain it in the article. Do you remember what year LT came out? I've got a bunch of old Cadence magazines from the 1990's and maybe there's a review in there somewhere that might have a mention of what the name "officially" stood for. It's more of a curiosity now than anything else. As for the article, why don't we just take out the speculation and just call it LT? It's good to know Duff is doing well, BTW. He was always one of the good guys. Pete K 21:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- OK, I see now you already took it out. Cool! Pete K 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Overlay programs
I don't think "overlay programs" should be used. Or where does this comes from? Use "AutoCAD vertical's", "Software's build on the AutoCAD platform" or "AutoCAD software's" instead. 212.181.17.179 13:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Added some stuff
Hello everyone. I'm here at Wikipedia editing some other articles, but I thought I'd drop by and expand a few AutoCAD items. Unless anyone minds, I'll add a little info here from time to time. Pete Karaiskos - Pete K 02:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, somebody thinks calling blocks "powerful" expresses a POV. Is this article controversial? Is the idea that blocks represent powerful objects controversial? Blocks are probably the most powerful element in AutoCAD. Does anyone really deny this? Just curious. I think it's OK to use adjectives when they are accurate. Pete K 14:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Calling anything 'powerful' sounds like cheerleading to me, and is IMO not encyclopedic in tone. Honestly, I'm iffy on the section in general, because I don't really see instancing as all that noteworthy. But I'll leave it as-is for now. -Ehheh 19:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Fair enough. I changed it to "versitile". I don't know how much people would like in this article - we could cover lots of stuff here I suppose. I found a sub-section on blocks to be rather out of place in an encyclopedia too - but I thought I'd add to it in case people are interested in adding more stuff that's similar. "Blocks" seems to be a primarily AutoCAD term and that's why I thought it might be OK to talk about it. I don't know if AutoCAD "jargon" requires explanation at all. Pete K 20:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fixing double-redirect ("commenting" out)
In consequence of a move the link from the word "commenting" in the article leads now to a double redirect. I was going to fix it but the issue (pre-dating the move) is that the article about computer languages comment isn't particularly helpful to gather the meaning of "to comment out" for a computer newbie. So I'm wondering: would it be OK to change "commenting out" to "disabling"? In truth, I don't think we really know whether they used comments or, say, #if 0 / #endif directives :-) —Gennaro Prota•Talk 23:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes we do! Mostly it was #ifndef AUTOCAD_LT. But "ifdeffed out" is even more confusing than "commented out", I would think! The problem with disabling is that disabling/enabling can mean that the executable code is there, but somehow is being prevented from executing (as in a demo version of a program, for example); "commented out" does correctly indicate that the code was simply never compiled. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Category
This entry should be the the autodesk category as well. 128.253.229.12 19:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Books
Uh... should we have those books there? Looks an awful lot like advertisement to me. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 04:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
