HCBBS Forum (English)
Submit Chemical Projects / Find Solutions
Amplify Your Requirements on a Broader Chemical Platform *Engineering · Technology · Equipment · Solutions*
Submit Request

Which version of CAD do people think is better? Well-rounded functionality

2007-12-03View Original

Thread Content

Which version of CAD do people think is better? Well-rounded functionality
Reply #22007-12-03
The version that is widely used nowadays is 2004; although 2007 was also released, it is used by fewer people. People are more accustomed to using 2004 as it is more convenient. The original poster can install it and give it a try to see for themselves.
Reply #32007-12-03
CAD updates really fast; CAD 2008 came out before CAD 2007 had even been widely used. I’ve used CAD 2000, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. At first, I used the English version of 2005, as it felt very convenient to use. Currently I’m using 2006; at first I found it a bit hard to get used to, but now I’m accustomed to it and think 2006 is better. Notable new features include dynamic blocks and sheet set management. Since 2007, the focus has been on developing 3D functions; the 3D modeling space in 2007 was quite similar to 3DSmax, but I still prefer to use the classic modeling space. In my opinion, there’s not much difference between 2007 and 2006. So far, I’ve only noticed that the 2007 version of the 3D software has an additional lofting tool. Overall, I think it’s better to learn CAD version 2006 these days; avoid too old versions, and there’s no need to learn version 2008 either.
Reply #42007-12-03
I think 2006 is better; the printing in 2004 isn’t very good.
Reply #52007-12-03
I’ve also used the 2007 version; overall, it feels similar to version 04, with the addition of 3D drawing in version 07
Reply #62007-12-04
I have used versions from 2004 to 2007. If using AUTOCAD, version 04 is better; if using PCCAD, version 07 offers more functions
Reply #72007-12-04
The 2006 version is better, with more features.
Reply #82007-12-04
We use Tsinghua Tianhe on platform 05, and it’s very useful.
Reply #92007-12-04
It seems that the 2006 version is more stable; its file size is smaller than that of 2004, so it uses less memory as well and runs faster.
Reply #102007-12-04
2004+ Tsinghua Tianhe, it’s okay. I used 2005; I like the “CP” function in it – it’s more efficient than 2004. I haven’t tried the other features yet.
Reply #112007-12-05
Personally, I think 2004 was more user-friendly. No defects have been found for now. Our company makes extensive use of CAD. It is generally believed that among the various CAD versions, three are particularly widely used: R14, 2000, and 2004. The others are considered to be intermediate stages of transition, with insufficient development. So, so far, I think the one that works best is 2004. However, for those who are new to CAD, I recommend using version 2000; it has relatively fewer functions, but it helps beginners become more familiar with CAD commands, fostering the habit of using the left hand for commands and the right hand for the mouse. Get rid of the habit of using the mouse to click commands; this method seems faster than typing commands, but in reality it misleads people. These are just my personal opinions; please forgive any imperfections.
Reply #122007-12-05
I agree with the view from the 10th floor, as I’m using it too and think it’s okay
Reply #132007-12-05
I use versions from 2002, 2004, 2006, 2005, 2007, and 2008 for work. Overall, there’s no need to talk about 2002 – it’s too old. Version 2004 is quite stable and works well. A noticeable improvement in version 2006 was the addition of a buffering effect when using “zoom _e”, which makes it more comfortable to use; the text editing functions have also been improved. I’ve been using version 2008 for over half a year now, and it takes slightly longer to start up (just slightly), but everything else is fine! Full support for 2008! However, it is recommended that those who work with AUTOCAD on a daily basis, like in graphic design, don’t need to update it too frequently; 2004 is sufficient, or at most version 2006. I won’t give any evaluation for the odd-numbered versions; they seem to be products in a transitional phase.

Submit a Project

**Looking for Chemical Technology, Equipment & Solutions?** No Registration Required Broader Platform Exposure | Global Chemical Service Provider Connections

Submit Request — Free Consultation

Disclaimer

This is an automated machine translation of the original thread. Some technical terms may have inaccuracies; the original text shall prevail. Click "View Original" at the top right to access the source page, which supports IP-based automatic real-time language translation. Please watch out for contact details and sales inducements to prevent fraud. All content and translations are for reference only, representing solely the poster's personal views. For enquiries, email service@hcbbs.com.