AutoCad is damn expensive especially in the context of 2D drafting so I don't expect a mass shift to this product as the expense implies planning. In otherwords unless you have several thousands dollars to throw around you don't buy an AutoCad seat on a whim.I doubt it. I worked at an architecture firm and there are a ton of things stopping them from upgrading to Macs...the biggest being that autocad licenses are so expensive that it stops them from purchasing new machines. I would also hope that they would be swapping over Revit as well.
Exactly. The first to go would be those already running AutoCad on a Mac via virtualization or boot camp. It would take others longer somtimes waiting for aux packages.The lack of inexpensive video cards which will run autocad are also pretty big. I'm not saying no one will switch over, but there are a lot of issues in the way.
When one of the specs that matters (to some people like myself) is the number of PCI slots, though 🙂Although, with the new iMac's, Apple has finally returned desktop grade processors to the iMac line, which does demonstrate a possible desire to strengthen the power to compete with midtowers (remember, Apple has deemed the iMac as a midtower "killer", an all-in-one system that doesn't take up a lot of space and [should] have the same specs as a desktop Dell, etc.).
Why have 1990's 2D Cad when 3D Cad is what people are using now? Autocad is not full 3D no matter how much they try to say it is.
If you want to say that Solidworks is a better 3D program, then I have no problem with that, but saying AutoCAD isn't really full 3D seems to be quite a lie.
It's funny that all these companies are coming to or back to Mac just as Apple are abandoning it.
I'm curious, how do you define "full 3D"? What can't AutoCAD do in 3D that it would be if it really was "full 3D" according to your definition? Even back when it ran on DOS, you could use AutoCAD to make 3D objects and move them around in full six degrees of freedom, and draw those 3D objects from any position or orientation.
If you want to say that Solidworks is a better 3D program, then I have no problem with that, but saying AutoCAD isn't really full 3D seems to be quite a lie.
AutoCAD isn't a full parametric 3D package. That's whu AutoDesk makes Inventor, which is. Inventor, SolidWorks, and Solid Edge are the mid-range CAD players, along with Rhino for more free-form surfacing.
Mac's the platform of the future, it seems.
Here's hoping ESRI gets religion and ports ArcGIS. ArcGIS and AutoCAD have a symbiotic relationship.
I would hope that this means that many engineering software companies would feel compelled to move to the Mac. Even if one doesn't use AutoCad this is a good thing.OMG. NICE!!!!
It was one of my engineering applications that I wanted on the Mac.
Next, I need CATIA, but thats way too big, I know it aint going to happen soon 😛
I actually think that Numbers needs to get a lot better. Numbers is the weakest iWorks package going and needs to be beefed up considerably.Now, if only Numbers could get a little better, and if only Apple made a bigger iWork with more apps.
Of all the MS office apps out there I see Access as the most troublesome and I have to wonder why you just don't use any of the Mac native databases?We need a Project Equivalent, Access Equivalent and Visio Equivalent, either by Microsoft or by Apple.
Until now, engineers are not going to look forward to Macs because I know there ARE solutions out there, but theyre not publicized enough. Office, on the other hand, is known by everybody.
Why have 1990's 2D Cad when 3D Cad is what people are using now? Autocad is not full 3D no matter how much they try to say it is.
I doubt it. I worked at an architecture firm and there are a ton of things stopping them from upgrading to Macs...the biggest being that autocad licenses are so expensive that it stops them from purchasing new machines. I would also hope that they would be swapping over Revit as well.
The lack of inexpensive video cards which will run autocad are also pretty big. I'm not saying no one will switch over, but there are a lot of issues in the way.
Vector Works > AutoCad...
no no no
Catia rules the world...
neener, neener, neener...
Man do people like to fight on MacRumors.
Why have 1990's 2D Cad when 3D Cad is what people are using now? Autocad is not full 3D no matter how much they try to say it is. Now this is something to look forward too in the near future, SolidWorks 3D Cad on Mac:
Well from your signature, it seems your nothing more than an iFan. When people refer to Apple abandoning the Mac, they mean the proper machines, the Mac Pro and MacBook Pro, not the consumer crap that Steve Jobs dreams about.
He mentioned two: Cost and graphics cards.You claim there's lots of issues, but you only mention one: price.
Actually, I think there are plenty of architects who would love to ditch their PCs, if for no other reason than that they can lower their IT troubleshooting budget. Most of the companies I know who have made the transition cite that as one of their top two reasons, the other being the lower cost of entry for alternate CAD programs.2. There is not likely to be a significant conversion to Mac by architects. Those who have gone Mac have done it despite AutoCAD for their own reasons, often being antipathy to AutoCAD. See #1.