I have been asked by my boss to try to gather some kind of data to
help justify the expense of upgrading our whole engineering group's
computers (approx. 18-20 seats).

Right now, we are using some real dinosaurs. They are not very much
fun to model on.  They are so slow that you loose your train of
thought for having to wait so much.  I'd say we spend just as much
time waiting as we do actually modeling or drawing.

The management and IS have talked about upgrading since I have been
working here (about 9 months).  They even come as close as to spec a
new system from IBM (and it would have been rocket ships too).  But
nothing ever happens.  My guess is that nothing will happen until they
can no longer get support for these ancient systems.

Anyway, our current systems specs are all basically as follows:

Brand - Acer
P4 - 2.6GHz
2GB Ram
3Dlabs Wildcat VP880
Seagate Barracuda ST340014A - 40GB (formatted FAT32, yes you read that
correctly)
WinXP Pro SP2

These are basically office computers for today's standards.  We do (or
at least attempt to do) some fairly complex parts and large assemblies
with these systems such as plastics, sheetmetal, wiring, etc.  We also
run some analysis sometimes with Moldflow, Cosmos, and the built in
Geometry Compare utility.  We would even like to get into doing some
Photoworks renders.  But with these systems, it's near to impossible.

Does anyone know of any data, or any other means to gather/create data
that would help justify an upgrade?  My boss is all for new systems.
And eventually it will have no choice but to happen.  I just need to
provide him some ammunition with management and IS to help speed up
the process of getting new computers in here sooner.

Thanks,
Seth Renigar

Check out Anna Wood's thread at the SW disussion forum in the
"performance" section.  She's creating a spreadsheet of benchmarks for
different systems.  From what she's shown so far the E6600 Core 2
Duo's are pretty fast.  You can also find the information on her blog
http://designsmarter.typepad.com/solidmuse/

On May 31, 11:57 am, Seth Renigar <sreni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  I just need to
> provide him some ammunition with management and IS to help speed up
> the process of getting new computers in here sooner.

a notepad beside the keyboard can be used to quickly jot down the wait
times for typical tasks.  at the end of the day, this will add up.

maybe bob z. is a little dense...  o.k., bob z. is A LOT dense.  why
don't you (well, not *you* exactly) buy one or two computers every
month or so?  this doesn't seem to or at least shouldn't hurt the
bottom line as bad as buying all at once.  if a bad month comes along
and you can't buy the computers, you'll just have to wait until the
next month!
a previous employer of bob z. had approximately 20 seats of swx and
there was a process in place similar to this.  they weren't buying
computers every month - it was closer to every 6 months, but it was
like a light at the end of the tunnel.  everyone had hope.  what is
life without hope?

bob z.
p.s. alfalfa, will you swing me before we have lunch?  sure, darla.

There is a performance monitor that ships with every seat of Windows.
In it you can gather statistics including CPU time used by particular
executables. Once you collect a days worth of data on one or more
systems you look at the amount of time the CPU spends versus the
amount of time the person was actually sitting at the machine doing
something. If CPU time is above 10% of the time someone is using a
machine it is probably justifiable to change. Or you could just walk
around at lunch and at close of business and see how much time is
racked up in task manager (providing SW hasn't crashed).

TOP

PS CPU time is time spent waiting.

On 31 May 2007 10:22:05 -0700, TOP <kellnerp@cbd.net> wrote:

>There is a performance monitor that ships with every seat of Windows.
>In it you can gather statistics including CPU time used by particular
>executables. Once you collect a days worth of data on one or more
>systems you look at the amount of time the CPU spends versus the
>amount of time the person was actually sitting at the machine doing
>something. If CPU time is above 10% of the time someone is using a
>machine it is probably justifiable to change. Or you could just walk
>around at lunch and at close of business and see how much time is
>racked up in task manager (providing SW hasn't crashed).
>
>TOP
>
>PS CPU time is time spent waiting.

You have to justify it with numbers and dollars. 

Use a spreadsheet, jot down hourly rates, time waiting, etc, wasted
time, crash/restarts, etc.  Try to find some speeds of your machine,
video card, etc so you can compare it to the speeds of a new
machine(benchmarks). New computers are 'greener' too!  Don't forget to
throw in a 22" widescreen LCD...go all out.

Now estimate a time to complete a task on the old and new, from boot
up to rebuilding an assembly.  Convert the time wasted into dollars,
then multiply that by the number of seats.  If you have to, rent a
computer for a couple days to compare apples to apples.

Your bosses will fall on the floor, when they realize how much the old
machines are costing them.  Convert the dollars into 'Return on
Investment' time, and they will realize the longer they wait, the more
they are wasting.  Compare it to driving a 20 year old vehicle.  Also
tell them that computers have a life span of about 3-5 years, because
the technology has increased speeds by 4 times.

Bosses like to see the words 'Cost of ownership', and 'Return on
Investment'.  Don't worry about your IS department, they are the ones
who will do the installation.  Why does your IS depatment have all new
computers?  I'll bet they do.

Put this into a nice report, take your bosses out to lunch, and have
them look it over.

samurai.

I will have my spreadsheets updated this weekend with the results
people have sent me this past week.

There is no doubt that the new Intel and AMD hardware is much faster
then the old Intel P4 CPU's.  I lean to Intel's C2D at the moment for
the performance advantage.  We look at about three years for
engineering workstations before they are moved to other parts of the
company.  Sometimes a bit sooner if circumstances warrant it.

If you would like and do not have NDA issues, send me a couple of your
problem files.  I can run them on my systems I have and post times for
re-build.  I am hoping to get a library of parts to have available for
people to do some benchmarking with.  My e-mail is on my blog.

One of our systems down in our CNC department went south today, so we
will be getting a new Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 computer up in
engineering to replace the system we will hand down to the CNC guys.
I have a Dell Precision 390 spec'ed out and I hope that management
will let me get some competitive bids from Xi, Boxx and HP.  The
Dell's are a bit pricey in my mind and I am hoping some bidding with a
few vendors will get us some better prices.  I will be able to add to
the results in my benchmark in a few weeks when our new systems
arrive.

Regards,

Anna Wood
http://designsmarter.typepad.com/solidmuse





On May 31, 9:32 am, robrrodrig...@gmail.com wrote:
> Check out Anna Wood's thread at the SW disussion forum in the
> "performance" section.  She's creating a spreadsheet of benchmarks for
> different systems.  From what she's shown so far the E6600 Core 2
> Duo's are pretty fast.  You can also find the information on her bloghttp://designsmarter.typepad.com/solidmuse/

Seth,

From places I've worked, especially larger companies - the world is 
controlled by accountants!
Therefore reduce it to what only they can understand = numbers.
This would be how much they are bleeding in time.
Hours numbers = dollars numbers.
I would imagine upgrades to computers will happen fairly soon after ?

-- 
Neville Williams
Z-Axis Design - NZ
"remove the KNOT to reply"
"Seth Renigar" <srenigar@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1180627070.707341.52740@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

> Does anyone know of any data, or any other means to gather/create data
> that would help justify an upgrade? 

On 31 May 2007 08:57:50 -0700, Seth Renigar <srenigar@gmail.com> wrote:

>Does anyone know of any data, or any other means to gather/create data
>that would help justify an upgrade?

  Install Vista <g>?
-- 
Cliff

I have published a Google Spreadsheet of the results for re-builds on
my punch holder part.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pz7wTpIkC7LA28ybEyxyTPw

Regards,

Anna Wood
http://designsmarter.typepad.com/solidmuse


>
> On May 31, 9:32 am, robrrodrig...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Check out Anna Wood's thread at the SW disussion forum in the
> > "performance" section.  She's creating a spreadsheet of benchmarks for
> > different systems.  From what she's shown so far the E6600 Core 2
> > Duo's are pretty fast.  You can also find the information on her blog
> > http://designsmarter.typepad.com/solidmuse

Thanks for doing this Anna!

No doubt it will help a lot of people justify a new PC, it's convinced me 
buying an M90 is not, too, much a waste of my money. Although I will go for 
the fastest processor available.

John Layne
www.solidengineering.co.nz



"Anna Wood" <anna@acrodesigns.com> wrote in message 
news:1180941151.008325.168030@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>I have published a Google Spreadsheet of the results for re-builds on
> my punch holder part.
>
> http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pz7wTpIkC7LA28ybEyxyTPw
>
> Regards,
>
> Anna Wood
> http://designsmarter.typepad.com/solidmuse
>
>
>>
>> On May 31, 9:32 am, robrrodrig...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Check out Anna Wood's thread at the SW disussion forum in the
>> > "performance" section.  She's creating a spreadsheet of benchmarks for
>> > different systems.  From what she's shown so far the E6600 Core 2
>> > Duo's are pretty fast.  You can also find the information on her blog
>> > http://designsmarter.typepad.com/solidmuse
> 

On Jun 4, 3:12 am, Anna Wood <a...@acrodesigns.com> wrote:
> I have published a Google Spreadsheet of the results for re-builds on
> my punch holder part.
>
> http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pz7wTpIkC7LA28ybEyxyTPw
>
> Regards,
>
> Anna Woodhttp://designsmarter.typepad.com/solidmuse
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 31, 9:32 am, robrrodrig...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Check out Anna Wood's thread at the SW disussion forum in the
> > > "performance" section.  She's creating a spreadsheet of benchmarks for
> > > different systems.  From what she's shown so far the E6600 Core 2
> > > Duo's are pretty fast.  You can also find the information on her blog
> > >http://designsmarter.typepad.com/solidmuse- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Anna,

Been a while since I posted on this subject.  Still no new computers
in site.

I showed your list to my boss and showed him where we fell in the list
(3rd from last at 348 sec).  The fasted speed listed is approx. 3.5
times faster.  That is a VERY significant difference.

Since this time is based on rebuild times, my boss asked me how much
time that would save us a day.  I told him that I was not sure,
because it depended on how much time was spent rebuilding in a day.
He asked how many times we typically did a rebuild in a days time, so
I guessed at a number here.  He asked me to start keeping a tic-mark
count of how many times I rebuild in a day.

I started doing this today and realized that it wasn't really going to
tell me what I needed to know, in order to help justify new
computers.  What I truely need to know is not how many times I
rebuild, but how much time is spent rebuilding.

Does anyone know if there is some way to track how much time is spent
doing a rebuild during a day?  Surely there has got to be some utility
or macro that turns on a timer or something when a rebuild begins, and
turns it off when the rebuild is finished.  If not there should be.
If I could get an average time spent rebuilding in a day, based on the
comparisons in Anna's list, I could easily determine how much time
could be saved just doing rebuilds.  This alone would definately be
enough to justify new systems.  Not to mention other non-rebuild
related time savings.

Thanks for any help.

Seth

"Seth Renigar" <srenigar@gmail.com> a �crit dans le message de news: 
1185892711.234307.95910@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
Write the proc. time dedicated to SW on the task manager.

On Jul 31, 7:38 am, Seth Renigar <sreni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 3:12 am, Anna Wood <a...@acrodesigns.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have published a Google Spreadsheet of the results for re-builds on
> > my punch holder part.
>
> >http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pz7wTpIkC7LA28ybEyxyTPw
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Anna Woodhttp://designsmarter.typepad.com/solidmuse
>
> > > On May 31, 9:32 am, robrrodrig...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > Check out Anna Wood's thread at the SW disussion forum in the
> > > > "performance" section.  She's creating a spreadsheet of benchmarks for
> > > > different systems.  From what she's shown so far the E6600 Core 2
> > > > Duo's are pretty fast.  You can also find the information on her blog
> > > >http://designsmarter.typepad.com/solidmuse-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Anna,
>
> Been a while since I posted on this subject.  Still no new computers
> in site.
>
> I showed your list to my boss and showed him where we fell in the list
> (3rd from last at 348 sec).  The fasted speed listed is approx. 3.5
> times faster.  That is a VERY significant difference.
>
> Since this time is based on rebuild times, my boss asked me how much
> time that would save us a day.  I told him that I was not sure,
> because it depended on how much time was spent rebuilding in a day.
> He asked how many times we typically did a rebuild in a days time, so
> I guessed at a number here.  He asked me to start keeping a tic-mark
> count of how many times I rebuild in a day.
>
> I started doing this today and realized that it wasn't really going to
> tell me what I needed to know, in order to help justify new
> computers.  What I truely need to know is not how many times I
> rebuild, but how much time is spent rebuilding.
>
> Does anyone know if there is some way to track how much time is spent
> doing a rebuild during a day?  Surely there has got to be some utility
> or macro that turns on a timer or something when a rebuild begins, and
> turns it off when the rebuild is finished.  If not there should be.
> If I could get an average time spent rebuilding in a day, based on the
> comparisons in Anna's list, I could easily determine how much time
> could be saved just doing rebuilds.  This alone would definately be
> enough to justify new systems.  Not to mention other non-rebuild
> related time savings.
>
> Thanks for any help.
>
> Seth

Seth, this sounds to me like another valuable tool that should be in
the SolidWorks toolset to allow the users to be able to quantify how
they spend their time, so they can evaluate efficiency compared to
other users and other machines.

This is the sort of down and dirty tool that is long overdue.  And I
can see for users who do large assemblies, it could be a life/
frustration saver in getting FACTS in front of decision makers.

Bo

On Jul 31, 10:46 am, "Jean Marc" <jean-marc.brun> wrote:
> "Seth Renigar" <sreni...@gmail.com> a =E9crit dans le message de news:
> 1185892711.234307.95...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> Write the proc. time dedicated to SW on the task manager.

I don't follow what you are saying here.  If you are talking about the
CPU column on the Processes tab, that is always fluctuating.  It
doesn't add up the processing time.

Or is there something I am missing?

Seth

On Jul 31, 10:58 am, Bo <b...@tilikum.com> wrote:
> On Jul 31, 7:38 am, Seth Renigar <sreni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 4, 3:12 am, Anna Wood <a...@acrodesigns.com> wrote:
>
> > > I have published a Google Spreadsheet of the results for re-builds on
> > > my punch holder part.
>
> > >http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pz7wTpIkC7LA28ybEyxyTPw
>
> > > Regards,
>
> > > Anna Woodhttp://designsmarter.typepad.com/solidmuse
>
> > > > On May 31, 9:32 am, robrrodrig...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > Check out Anna Wood's thread at the SW disussion forum in the
> > > > > "performance" section.  She's creating a spreadsheet of benchmarks for
> > > > > different systems.  From what she's shown so far the E6600 Core 2
> > > > > Duo's are pretty fast.  You can also find the information on her blog
> > > > >http://designsmarter.typepad.com/solidmuse-Hidequoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Anna,
>
> > Been a while since I posted on this subject.  Still no new computers
> > in site.
>
> > I showed your list to my boss and showed him where we fell in the list
> > (3rd from last at 348 sec).  The fasted speed listed is approx. 3.5
> > times faster.  That is a VERY significant difference.
>
> > Since this time is based on rebuild times, my boss asked me how much
> > time that would save us a day.  I told him that I was not sure,
> > because it depended on how much time was spent rebuilding in a day.
> > He asked how many times we typically did a rebuild in a days time, so
> > I guessed at a number here.  He asked me to start keeping a tic-mark
> > count of how many times I rebuild in a day.
>
> > I started doing this today and realized that it wasn't really going to
> > tell me what I needed to know, in order to help justify new
> > computers.  What I truely need to know is not how many times I
> > rebuild, but how much time is spent rebuilding.
>
> > Does anyone know if there is some way to track how much time is spent
> > doing a rebuild during a day?  Surely there has got to be some utility
> > or macro that turns on a timer or something when a rebuild begins, and
> > turns it off when the rebuild is finished.  If not there should be.
> > If I could get an average time spent rebuilding in a day, based on the
> > comparisons in Anna's list, I could easily determine how much time
> > could be saved just doing rebuilds.  This alone would definately be
> > enough to justify new systems.  Not to mention other non-rebuild
> > related time savings.
>
> > Thanks for any help.
>
> > Seth
>
> Seth, this sounds to me like another valuable tool that should be in
> the SolidWorks toolset to allow the users to be able to quantify how
> they spend their time, so they can evaluate efficiency compared to
> other users and other machines.
>
> This is the sort of down and dirty tool that is long overdue.  And I
> can see for users who do large assemblies, it could be a life/
> frustration saver in getting FACTS in front of decision makers.
>
> Bo- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Bo,

Yeah I agree.  It seems like someone would have already created some
sort of tool like this already.  That's why I'm asking if anyone knows
of one.

I'm sure there are many of us that fight the battle with management
about computer upgrades.  A tool like this would definately help a lot
of people that are frustrated using their turd computers, like me.
Though there would still be some in management that would not be
swayed by the numbers, it would still help the the majority.

Seth

if you go to the task manager and go to the process tab then go to 
 >view>select columns you can select CPU time as a column then you can see 
how much processor time each application is using.

You may be able to make a corellation to processor time used and processor 
speed.


Steve R


"Seth Renigar" <srenigar@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1185896864.048799.22720@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 31, 10:46 am, "Jean Marc" <jean-marc.brun> wrote:
> "Seth Renigar" <sreni...@gmail.com> a �crit dans le message de news:
> 1185892711.234307.95...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> Write the proc. time dedicated to SW on the task manager.

I don't follow what you are saying here.  If you are talking about the
CPU column on the Processes tab, that is always fluctuating.  It
doesn't add up the processing time.

Or is there something I am missing?

Seth

"Jean Marc" <jean-marc.brun> wrote in news:46af4b40$0$4182
$426a74cc@news.free.fr:

> 
> "Seth Renigar" <srenigar@gmail.com> a �crit dans le message de news: 
> 1185892711.234307.95910@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> Write the proc. time dedicated to SW on the task manager.
> 
> 

This will show only the time for the current session, and SW pegs to core 
when rotating the view no matter the processor. So, this will not givea 
measure of time spent on rebuilds.

What is needed is an add-in that watches for rebuild events and times them, 
writing a log that spans sessions. Beyond my abilities, unfortunately. 
Something similar could also monitor load and save times, if I'm not 
mistaken. 

On Jul 31, 12:27 pm, Dale Dunn <daled...@atjamestool.com> wrote:
> "Jean Marc" <jean-marc.brun> wrote in news:46af4b40$0$4182
> $426a7...@news.free.fr:
>
>
>
> > "Seth Renigar" <sreni...@gmail.com> a =E9crit dans le message de news:
> > 1185892711.234307.95...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> > Write the proc. time dedicated to SW on the task manager.
>
> This will show only the time for the current session, and SW pegs to core
> when rotating the view no matter the processor. So, this will not givea
> measure of time spent on rebuilds.
>
> What is needed is an add-in that watches for rebuild events and times the=
m,
> writing a log that spans sessions. Beyond my abilities, unfortunately.
> Something similar could also monitor load and save times, if I'm not
> mistaken.

Dale,

I didn't know you could do this in the task manager.  This is close to
what is needed.

But I agree with you.  The important thing is that it needs to track
rebuild events only.  Not everything that SW does.  Even most of the
slower processors can handle the medial SW tasks without any
significant slowdown.  There is no benefit to track CPU time for those
chores.  I even saw the task manager tracking CPU time just by mousing
over faces.

However, this same add-in/utility/macro could also have added features
to help with justifying other hardware areas, such as what you
mentioned, load and save times.  This might be useful to help justify
a new hard drive.  But this would simply be a bonus, not necessary

Programming is like WAY over my head as well.  Is anyone up to the
"task" of creating something like this?

Seth

You could create a performance log/alert and track all the values you're
looking for.  It will take some setting up, but you get exact data.  But no,
you can not track specific actions within the program, just what the system
resources are doing.

My best justification for a new computer is to set up an assembly that
requires a rebuild, bring in your boss to show him something or ask his
input, then tell him to hold on I this has to rebuild.  Why he's there
staring at the Windows hourglass with you, he usually tells you to look into
getting a new computer.  It takes only 1 time for them to realize how much
time you waste a day to justify new computers.  

--Scott


>>> On 7/31/2007 at 7:38 AM, in message
<1185892711.234307.95910@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, Seth
Renigar<srenigar@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 3:12 am, Anna Wood <a...@acrodesigns.com> wrote:
>> I have published a Google Spreadsheet of the results for re-builds on
>> my punch holder part.
>>
>> http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pz7wTpIkC7LA28ybEyxyTPw 
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Anna Woodhttp://designsmarter.typepad.com/solidmuse
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 31, 9:32 am, robrrodrig...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > Check out Anna Wood's thread at the SW disussion forum in the
>> > > "performance" section.  She's creating a spreadsheet of benchmarks
for
>> > > different systems.  From what she's shown so far the E6600 Core 2
>> > > Duo's are pretty fast.  You can also find the information on her
blog
>> > >http://designsmarter.typepad.com/solidmuse- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> Anna,
> 
> Been a while since I posted on this subject.  Still no new computers
> in site.
> 
> I showed your list to my boss and showed him where we fell in the list
> (3rd from last at 348 sec).  The fasted speed listed is approx. 3.5
> times faster.  That is a VERY significant difference.
> 
> Since this time is based on rebuild times, my boss asked me how much
> time that would save us a day.  I told him that I was not sure,
> because it depended on how much time was spent rebuilding in a day.
> He asked how many times we typically did a rebuild in a days time, so
> I guessed at a number here.  He asked me to start keeping a tic-mark
> count of how many times I rebuild in a day.
> 
> I started doing this today and realized that it wasn't really going to
> tell me what I needed to know, in order to help justify new
> computers.  What I truely need to know is not how many times I
> rebuild, but how much time is spent rebuilding.
> 
> Does anyone know if there is some way to track how much time is spent
> doing a rebuild during a day?  Surely there has got to be some utility
> or macro that turns on a timer or something when a rebuild begins, and
> turns it off when the rebuild is finished.  If not there should be.
> If I could get an average time spent rebuilding in a day, based on the
> comparisons in Anna's list, I could easily determine how much time
> could be saved just doing rebuilds.  This alone would definately be
> enough to justify new systems.  Not to mention other non-rebuild
> related time savings.
> 
> Thanks for any help.
> 
> Seth

There is a utility in windows called performance monitor. Go to >start>run 
and type in    perfmon    this will bring up a utlity that will track 
processor usage.

Go here:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/Windows2000Pro/reskit/part6/proch29.mspx?mfr=true


for a tutorial on using the app.


Have not used it myself but this came up by doing a google search using 
"performance counters" as a search string.


Steve R


"Seth Renigar" <srenigar@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1185897460.667442.40050@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 31, 10:58 am, Bo <b...@tilikum.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 31, 7:38 am, Seth Renigar <sreni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 4, 3:12 am, Anna Wood <a...@acrodesigns.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > I have published a Google Spreadsheet of the results for re-builds on
>> > > my punch holder part.
>>
>> > >http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pz7wTpIkC7LA28ybEyxyTPw
>>
>> > > Regards,
>>
>> > > Anna Woodhttp://designsmarter.typepad.com/solidmuse
>>
>> > > > On May 31, 9:32 am, robrrodrig...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > > > Check out Anna Wood's thread at the SW disussion forum in the
>> > > > > "performance" section.  She's creating a spreadsheet of 
>> > > > > benchmarks for
>> > > > > different systems.  From what she's shown so far the E6600 Core 2
>> > > > > Duo's are pretty fast.  You can also find the information on her 
>> > > > > blog
>> > > > >http://designsmarter.typepad.com/solidmuse-Hidequoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Anna,
>>
>> > Been a while since I posted on this subject.  Still no new computers
>> > in site.
>>
>> > I showed your list to my boss and showed him where we fell in the list
>> > (3rd from last at 348 sec).  The fasted speed listed is approx. 3.5
>> > times faster.  That is a VERY significant difference.
>>
>> > Since this time is based on rebuild times, my boss asked me how much
>> > time that would save us a day.  I told him that I was not sure,
>> > because it depended on how much time was spent rebuilding in a day.
>> > He asked how many times we typically did a rebuild in a days time, so
>> > I guessed at a number here.  He asked me to start keeping a tic-mark
>> > count of how many times I rebuild in a day.
>>
>> > I started doing this today and realized that it wasn't really going to
>> > tell me what I needed to know, in order to help justify new
>> > computers.  What I truely need to know is not how many times I
>> > rebuild, but how much time is spent rebuilding.
>>
>> > Does anyone know if there is some way to track how much time is spent
>> > doing a rebuild during a day?  Surely there has got to be some utility
>> > or macro that turns on a timer or something when a rebuild begins, and
>> > turns it off when the rebuild is finished.  If not there should be.
>> > If I could get an average time spent rebuilding in a day, based on the
>> > comparisons in Anna's list, I could easily determine how much time
>> > could be saved just doing rebuilds.  This alone would definately be
>> > enough to justify new systems.  Not to mention other non-rebuild
>> > related time savings.
>>
>> > Thanks for any help.
>>
>> > Seth
>>
>> Seth, this sounds to me like another valuable tool that should be in
>> the SolidWorks toolset to allow the users to be able to quantify how
>> they spend their time, so they can evaluate efficiency compared to
>> other users and other machines.
>>
>> This is the sort of down and dirty tool that is long overdue.  And I
>> can see for users who do large assemblies, it could be a life/
>> frustration saver in getting FACTS in front of decision makers.
>>
>> Bo- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Bo,
>
> Yeah I agree.  It seems like someone would have already created some
> sort of tool like this already.  That's why I'm asking if anyone knows
> of one.
>
> I'm sure there are many of us that fight the battle with management
> about computer upgrades.  A tool like this would definately help a lot
> of people that are frustrated using their turd computers, like me.
> Though there would still be some in management that would not be
> swayed by the numbers, it would still help the the majority.
>
> Seth
> 

On Jul 31, 1:54 pm, swizzle <swer...@talleyds.spaminator.com> wrote:
> You could create a performance log/alert and track all the values you're
> looking for.  It will take some setting up, but you get exact data.  But no,
> you can not track specific actions within the program, just what the system
> resources are doing.
>
> My best justification for a new computer is to set up an assembly that
> requires a rebuild, bring in your boss to show him something or ask his
> input, then tell him to hold on I this has to rebuild.  Why he's there
> staring at the Windows hourglass with you, he usually tells you to look into
> getting a new computer.  It takes only 1 time for them to realize how much
> time you waste a day to justify new computers.  
>
> --Scott
>
> >>> On 7/31/2007 at 7:38 AM, in message
>
> <1185892711.234307.95...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, Seth
>
>
>
> Renigar<sreni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 4, 3:12 am, Anna Wood <a...@acrodesigns.com> wrote:
> >> I have published a Google Spreadsheet of the results for re-builds on
> >> my punch holder part.
>
> >>http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pz7wTpIkC7LA28ybEyxyTPw
>
> >> Regards,
>
> >> Anna Woodhttp://designsmarter.typepad.com/solidmuse
>
> >> > On May 31, 9:32 am, robrrodrig...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > > Check out Anna Wood's thread at the SW disussion forum in the
> >> > > "performance" section.  She's creating a spreadsheet of benchmarks
> for
> >> > > different systems.  From what she's shown so far the E6600 Core 2
> >> > > Duo's are pretty fast.  You can also find the information on her
> blog
> >> > >http://designsmarter.typepad.com/solidmuse-Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Anna,
>
> > Been a while since I posted on this subject.  Still no new computers
> > in site.
>
> > I showed your list to my boss and showed him where we fell in the list
> > (3rd from last at 348 sec).  The fasted speed listed is approx. 3.5
> > times faster.  That is a VERY significant difference.
>
> > Since this time is based on rebuild times, my boss asked me how much
> > time that would save us a day.  I told him that I was not sure,
> > because it depended on how much time was spent rebuilding in a day.
> > He asked how many times we typically did a rebuild in a days time, so
> > I guessed at a number here.  He asked me to start keeping a tic-mark
> > count of how many times I rebuild in a day.
>
> > I started doing this today and realized that it wasn't really going to
> > tell me what I needed to know, in order to help justify new
> > computers.  What I truely need to know is not how many times I
> > rebuild, but how much time is spent rebuilding.
>
> > Does anyone know if there is some way to track how much time is spent
> > doing a rebuild during a day?  Surely there has got to be some utility
> > or macro that turns on a timer or something when a rebuild begins, and
> > turns it off when the rebuild is finished.  If not there should be.
> > If I could get an average time spent rebuilding in a day, based on the
> > comparisons in Anna's list, I could easily determine how much time
> > could be saved just doing rebuilds.  This alone would definately be
> > enough to justify new systems.  Not to mention other non-rebuild
> > related time savings.
>
> > Thanks for any help.
>
> > Seth- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Swizzle,

I have done this many times.  My boss is well aware of the need.  But
he is kindof in the same boat.  He has to give hard data to be able to
justify requesting $70,000 to replace all of our engineering
computers.  He actually gave me the task of gathering this data.
Hence my need for an app to track rebuild times.

I'm open to any other sources or ideas to help gather the data needed
though....

Seth

There's really no polite way to put this...

Every minute your boss spends stroking his...err...ego...and
preventing your engineers from getting decent computers to work on is
costing your company money.  LOTS of money.

It's not just rebuilds that will be faster with new systems -
everything will be 3x faster.

Let's say it saves on average 1 hour per designer/engineer per day.
At $50 per hour (I'm certain the burdened cost is far higher) x 18
users.  Your boss's knuckle-dragging is costing your company $900 per
day or $216,000 per year!

An HP xw4400 2.6GHz C2D system with 2GB RAM and FX1500 is selling for
$2150 right now.  You could probably get it for less from Dell and
other vendors.

Invest $38,700 or waste $216,000.

The choice is your boss's.

I'm not a boss put when I discuss this with my boss the question always is 
"will I get drawings faster" and the answer is usually "not really". What 
usually happens is that we do more and more sophisticated things in our 
models (ie we grow up to our hardware capabilites) once again reaching the 
limits of the machines, that allows us to get a better product out the door 
with fewer errors. Also that little bit of processor lag allows for a bit of 
thinking about what you are doing and your next step.

Don't get me wrong I am all for the fastest latest and greatest I don't 
think the issue is as simple as stated and any good boss will know that.


Steve R


"jimsym" <jim.zink@symsolutions.com> wrote in message 
news:1185909327.821808.200030@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> There's really no polite way to put this...
>
> Every minute your boss spends stroking his...err...ego...and
> preventing your engineers from getting decent computers to work on is
> costing your company money.  LOTS of money.
>
> It's not just rebuilds that will be faster with new systems -
> everything will be 3x faster.
>
> Let's say it saves on average 1 hour per designer/engineer per day.
> At $50 per hour (I'm certain the burdened cost is far higher) x 18
> users.  Your boss's knuckle-dragging is costing your company $900 per
> day or $216,000 per year!
>
> An HP xw4400 2.6GHz C2D system with 2GB RAM and FX1500 is selling for
> $2150 right now.  You could probably get it for less from Dell and
> other vendors.
>
> Invest $38,700 or waste $216,000.
>
> The choice is your boss's.
>
>
> 

This has been rolling around in the back of my head a bit. Just timing the 
rebuilds will underestimate the impact of processor speed, just like task 
manager overestimates. What I mean is, timing rebuilds only does not 
capture the friction in the UI, like waiting 10 seconds to place a 
dimension on a drawing of a large assembly.

So, I think the best we can hope for is an estimate, with task manager 
reporting the upper limit, and rebuilds giving the lower limit.

I wonder if an event is raised at the beginning and end of view 
manipulation. Subtracting that from task manager's report would get us 
where we want to be, assuming that we wouldn't spend less time trying to 
get the model positioned with a faster CPU.

I may be thinking too hard. Waiting for rebuilds should show a significant 
return on a new workstation even though it underestimates the issue. I 
suspect that a full time user on medium to large assemblies should be 
replacing a CPU at least yearly. FEA users probably even more.

In the absence of precise tools to measure, I propose we find an acceptable 
percentage or range of percentages to take from task manager / performance 
log to use as an estimate for this sort of thing. I'm thinking 65-85% of 
reported CPU utilization is reasonable, depending on the user. Bias toward 
the high end for making drawings.

On Jul 31, 3:15 pm, jimsym <jim.z...@symsolutions.com> wrote:
> There's really no polite way to put this...
>
> Every minute your boss spends stroking his...err...ego...and
> preventing your engineers from getting decent computers to work on is
> costing your company money.  LOTS of money.
>
> It's not just rebuilds that will be faster with new systems -
> everything will be 3x faster.
>
> Let's say it saves on average 1 hour per designer/engineer per day.
> At $50 per hour (I'm certain the burdened cost is far higher) x 18
> users.  Your boss's knuckle-dragging is costing your company $900 per
> day or $216,000 per year!
>
> An HP xw4400 2.6GHz C2D system with 2GB RAM and FX1500 is selling for
> $2150 right now.  You could probably get it for less from Dell and
> other vendors.
>
> Invest $38,700 or waste $216,000.
>
> The choice is your boss's.

jimsym,

I disagree with your statement about everything being 3x faster.

I won't be able to hide parts 3x faster.
I won't be able to rotate my parts 3x faster.
I won't be able to draw sketches 3x faster.
I won't be able to move my mouse 3x faster.
I won't be able to navigate menus 3x faster.
I won't be able to read my email, web pages, or this group 3x faster.
I won't be able to create office documents 3x faster.
etc.
etc.

Don't get me wrong.  I want, and need a new computer.  And I know that
other aspects will be faster.  But I have got to be realistic in what
is actually being our bottleneck, so I know how to show the
justifications for it.  It would seem that any activity that taxes the
processor is our major bottleneck.  That would include anything from
rebuilds, to creating animations, to doing geometry compares, to
rendering scenes, etc., etc., etc.

With that being said, out of everything we do that really puts a load
on our system, rebuilds are by far the most commonly done.  This is
more than likely true for most people.

That is the reason for wanting a utility for measuring rebuild times
ONLY.

And by the way, the computers that they did look at for us at one time
were extremely, I mean extremely, high end system.  I don't remember
exactly what they were (been a few months).  But I read the specs, and
it was all like the best of the best hardware.  I believe the systems
were in the $5000-6000.  They will do that so that they won't have to
replace them as often.  That's IT's choice.  But I'm not going to
argue with them....  If it were me, I would buy something like you
described, more often.  It would definately be easier to justify.

"Seth Renigar" <srenigar@gmail.com> a �crit dans le message de news:
>
> I'm open to any other sources or ideas to help gather the data needed
> though....
>
> Seth

Not quite what you need, but there must be other people in your company that 
have obsolete machines. So upgrading the engineering computers is like 
upgrading a large number of machines as your machines will replace other 
machines in your company.
That's how I justify changing ours every other year. 

Seth,

Maybe you are going at this all wrong. Engineers understand numbers
like this, management doesn't.  You might take the tack that IS
doesn't have the qualifications to manage CAD. Of course I would
present this a little more tactfully or you might be running SW on a
TI55.

Over the years SW and in particular Greg Jankowski have done a lot of
work trying to support the management side of SWX. I know at the last
SWW the CAD Managers Boot Camp addressed a lot of issues that come up
in this area. Either your IS department gets qualified to manage SW or
Engineering should be given the latitude to do it themselves. Your
boss might be able to get a CAD Manager easier than a new computer.
The CAD Manager will then have the ear of management and be able to
secure IS cooperation.

TOP

> And by the way, the computers that they did look at for us at one time
> were extremely, I mean extremely, high end system.  I don't remember
> exactly what they were (been a few months).  But I read the specs, and
> it was all like the best of the best hardware.  I believe the systems
> were in the $5000-6000.  They will do that so that they won't have to
> replace them as often.  That's IT's choice.  But I'm not going to
> argue with them....  If it were me, I would buy something like you
> described, more often.  It would definately be easier to justify.

You might want to have them look into that to help with cost justification. 
A $6k system is going to be wated cash, because there will be a lot of 
money spent on things that won't help SW. Consequently, they will still be 
outdated in the same timeframe as a less well equipped machine.

Perhaps when you figure out how to measure rebuild time over a day (or 
maybe a project), you could submit that information with a suggested 
hardware configuration. The hottest possible SW workstation shouldn't be 
more than $3-3.5k, unless you build an 8 or more core monster for large 
analysis projects. More money that that and they'll be wasting it on things 
that don't help, like SCSI RAID 5 systems and Quad SLI and other silliness.

Dell has a very fast machine for about 10k. But to do CAD you have to
replace the video card. For what Dell is doing I could hand build a
machine for a lot less.

TOP

On Jul 31, 12:49 pm, "Steve Reinisch" <ste...@davis-eng.on.ca> wrote:
> I'm not a boss put when I discuss this with my boss the question always is
> "will I get drawings faster" and the answer is usually "not really". What
> usually happens is that we do more and more sophisticated things in our
> models (ie we grow up to our hardware capabilites) once again reaching the
> limits of the machines, that allows us to get a better product out the door
> with fewer errors. Also that little bit of processor lag allows for a bit of
> thinking about what you are doing and your next step.
>
> Don't get me wrong I am all for the fastest latest and greatest I don't
> think the issue is as simple as stated and any good boss will know that.
>
> Steve R
>
> "jimsym" <jim.z...@symsolutions.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1185909327.821808.200030@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > There's really no polite way to put this...
>
> > Every minute your boss spends stroking his...err...ego...and
> > preventing your engineers from getting decent computers to work on is
> > costing your company money.  LOTS of money.
>
> > It's not just rebuilds that will be faster with new systems -
> > everything will be 3x faster.
>
> > Let's say it saves on average 1 hour per designer/engineer per day.
> > At $50 per hour (I'm certain the burdened cost is far higher) x 18
> > users.  Your boss's knuckle-dragging is costing your company $900 per
> > day or $216,000 per year!
>
> > An HP xw4400 2.6GHz C2D system with 2GB RAM and FX1500 is selling for
> > $2150 right now.  You could probably get it for less from Dell and
> > other vendors.
>
> > Invest $38,700 or waste $216,000.
>
> > The choice is your boss's.

Steve, what you just hit on is "How Good is Good Enough?"  That really
applies to all jobs.

I do really feel that training can help eliminate unneccessary redraw
times and that a monitor to track them would at least quantify what %
of a days work is waiting for redraws as they are likely to be a
similar % of time regardless of whether the user is doing simpler or
more complicated constructions.

Bo

Drawings generally won't get faster, they will hold as SW continues to
require more and more resources.

TOP

On Aug 1, 7:01 pm, TOP <kelln...@cbd.net> wrote:
> Drawings generally won't get faster, they will hold as SW continues to
> require more and more resources.
>
> TOP

I am thinking of continuing my practice of generating most of my work
in earlier releases in SolidWorks as those releases work fast for my
designs, without problems, & on slower processors.

Then just importing them into the current release on an as needed
basis is something that is easy for me to do.  Obviously an
engineering group might not want to do this, but a few people might
choose to work that way, and simply take the best of what they can
that suits their jobs.

Bo

"Seth Renigar" <srenigar@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1185892711.234307.95910@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> I showed your list to my boss and showed him where we fell in the list
> (3rd from last at 348 sec).  The fasted speed listed is approx. 3.5
> times faster.  That is a VERY significant difference.


Seeing that my computer took 540 seconds convinced me that I REALLY needed 
to get a new computer.

Have any of you tried it with Verification On Rebuild turned on? I did. It 
took 30,388 seconds! That convinced me that I needed to turn VOR off and 
remember to check manually after every "significant" change.

Jerry Steiger
Tripod Data Systems
"take the garbage out, dear" 

"Seth Renigar" <srenigar@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1185915512.585851.274480@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> And by the way, the computers that they did look at for us at one time
> were extremely, I mean extremely, high end system.  I don't remember
> exactly what they were (been a few months).  But I read the specs, and
> it was all like the best of the best hardware.  I believe the systems
> were in the $5000-6000.  They will do that so that they won't have to
> replace them as often.

We replaced one of our computers with a Dell 690 that has the FX3500 
graphics card. It's fast (about 5X as fast as my old machine) and cost about 
that much. I'm pretty sure that I can get nearly the same usable performance 
with a Dell 390 and the FX550 that costs a little over half as much. We'll 
do some benchmarks when it comes in.

Jerry Steiger
Tripod Data Systems
"take the garbage out, dear" 

Jerry,

I have been looking at benchmarks that run across releases of SW. You
might find you can get the same performance gain by going back a few
releases in SW if that is an option. Some people buy new computers so
they can do bigger assemblies, bigger drawings or process more parts.
Some people buy new computers just to be able to do what they did last
year with the same speed.

I recently went on a one week crusade to fix an assembly that had a
reputation as a benchmark because it ran so slow. A week later people
were asking what I did because it ran so fast it couldn't be timed
accurately. Of course I doubt you are messing up the the way these
guys had done because you hang out here and listen to what has been
said by the many contributors.

As far as the specAPC benchmark, we may have found some kind of bug in
it that misreports results.

TOP

"TOP" <kellnerp@cbd.net> wrote in message 
news:1186232522.345628.6110@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> I have been looking at benchmarks that run across releases of SW. You
> might find you can get the same performance gain by going back a few
> releases in SW if that is an option.

With the kinds of shapes we do, we usually have to be running fairly close 
to the latest release. We can blame that on Mark Biasotti. We managed to 
skip 2003 and 2005, because the pain of switching was more than the gain 
from new functionality, but since 2006 we've had to keep up with all of the 
nice new stuff that makes generating shapes easier.

> I recently went on a one week crusade to fix an assembly that had a
> reputation as a benchmark because it ran so slow. A week later people
> were asking what I did because it ran so fast it couldn't be timed
> accurately.

Yes, that's been a very interesting thread. Fortunately, we don't do too 
many "large" assembly drawings, so it's mostly of academic interest to us.

> Of course I doubt you are messing up the the way these
> guys had done because you hang out here and listen to what has been
> said by the many contributors.

You would be amazed at the some of the screwball mistakes I make!

> As far as the specAPC benchmark, we may have found some kind of bug in
> it that misreports results.

Bummer! It may not be much of a benchmark, but it is the only one that gets 
very widely reported.


Jerry Steiger
Tripod Data Systems
"take the garbage out, dear"