Jump to content

Talk:Creo Parametric

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Technical support request

[edit]

License request failed for feature PROE_986895: -25:License server does not support this version of this feature.

Sounds like someone needs to convert their license or upgrade their license server or something. --ssd 2 July 2005 14:36 (UTC)
Yup, that sounds like the issue. --Alphachimp talk 21:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

It would be nice to have a history of this product. Right now there isn't even a date for the first release, and the CAD and Parametric Technology Corporation articles give conflicting information. --S Roper 14:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:ProE Splash screen.jpg

[edit]

Image:ProE Splash screen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I've removed all but the official site link here for discussion:

These are all pretty questionable links per WP:EL, and some look like WP:SPAM--Ronz 15:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have inserted comments on the links, partially to compare with what external links are on other pages. DCDuring 17:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PTC/User is billed as "The official user organization for people who use Pro/ENGINEER®, Windchill®, Arbortext®, Mathcad®, ProductView™ and other PTC products." I have been using Pro/ENGINEER for about 11 years and this site is a huge wealth of knowledge, either in their email archives or the many seasoned users who participate on the site. PTC does monitor the threads on PTC/User and I personally have had discussions with PTC employees as a result of questions I have posed. Posting this link in "External links" does not constitute SPAM in my opinion. Ditto for Olaf Corten's website. Though it is ad-supported, he does a lot of work with creating benchmarks for computer setups to gauge if a system is working at its potential with Pro/E. Olaf has a significant prescense, or he did when I was active a few years back, on the PTC/User site. My 2¢. ♫ Bitch and Complain Sooner ♫ 17:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)PTC USER IS independent indeed[reply]
I would have guessed at those being the sites most worth keeping, but forums aren't normally linkable, as I read WP:EL. They would have to have other worthwhile content at least. If you take out the forum, it all looks like advertising or restricted use. Please correct me if I'm wrong. DCDuring 18:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'd rather have the links hold closely to WP:EL, and encourage editors to add references to the article. This article seems to attract a lot of spam and low-quality links, while the content of the article itself remains almost unchanged. --Ronz 19:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Olaf Corten is not shilling for anyone. His was one of the first reliable exchanges. Three d dave (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto that on Olaf Corten. He was around helping Pro/E users back when the Internet was useful. Pre-google, pre-adcrap :( As for content, he's got a bunch of tools for benchmarking different versions of Pro/E, a bunch of utilities for use with Pro/E, and various articles illustrating features and methods to use the Pro, etc etc. Or did, I haven't been there in a while. Things often turn to poo on the internet nowadays 116.231.73.114 (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vista and x64 Support

[edit]

More information on this would be nice, similar to the Solidworks page. Thanks Tmaull 18:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're waiting for some sales-rep to contribute any edits at all, let alone something useful, you will be disappointed. I've never seen it happen from any company. We're on our own with this.Goatchurch (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is CLASS A Surfacing is possible using Pro-Surfacing

[edit]

Is CLASS A Surfacing is possible using Pro-Surfacing, What is the advantage of ISDX module over Pro-Surfacing. ???

thanks< —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.73.4 (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

As Parametric_feature_based_modeler redirects to solid modeling should the links be consolidated, and perhaps the text cleaned up a bit? It was confusing to me as a novice looking for information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.251.17 (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

184.44.135.76 (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)== Lack of Criticism Section, NPOV == I see no criticism section describing how PTC has systematically misrepresented and oversold its products. I am a design engineer and our company wasted more than two million dollars attempting to switch from AutoCAD to Pro/Engineer from 1997-2000. It was buggy, constantly crashed, and didn't do what the salesmen said it would. Our effort became a failure, a devastating waste of resources, and this experience was widespread throughout the industry at the time. What PTC's salesmen did was criminal and some companies actually sued. There are a lot of engineers out there who have vowed to never buy a PTC product again, and we still talk about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.177.137 (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a similar experience with my business: their 'customer service' seems far more interested in overcharging and fighting than delivering a fair and honestly represented product. Based on my use of other of their (MathCad) products and a student version of ProEngineer, it was hard to get good technical help, while ProE (student vers.) itself was extraordinarily buggy. Of course, they always insist it's not their problem (nothing like arguing with tech support to make you feel positive about the product). Currently in a legal dispute based on their charges for products I never used, but will drop it if they get some common sense. Felt like we got trapped into this one. By the way, they like to cultivate that 'mystery factor' in more ways than one:--no warranties, no trials, no 'peeking', then you realize the product is oversold, misrepresented, and more. Classic hardsell tactics in the computer age. Your only recourse is to go legal--for all their attempt at scientific glitz, they are quite lacking in fair-play and even-handed practices. --another, Jan. 26, 2013.

I would mostly ignore the two comments above. The people at PTC are well-known for not being warm, cuddly, and helpful to small companies but the product works. It's not "buggy", it doesn't "constantly crash", the student version was free (or low cost at other times in their history), there's nothing it won't do except create intelligence in the empty heads of some users. Every major company on the planet uses it succesfully, which should tell you something about the unattributed comments above. 116.231.73.114 (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

{{move|Creo Elements Pro (formerly Pro/ENGINEER)} PTC has recently re-branded one of its larger products, formerly known as Pro/ENGINEER. You can see from the page's edit history that I (and perhaps others) have gone through and attempted to correctly reflect that change. The page title change would also help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abelniak (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creo_Parametric&oldid=1217355172"