probably meaning to take a rip at people who worship SolidWorks
SW has (had?) a very loyal and dedicated community. But we collectively were hardly devout.
Old school PTC users, on the other hand… 
In reality, here’s what happened when they switched over:
They already had utilities that created BOMs and assembly drawings in AutoCAD, and they now had to > start over learning > how those processes worked in SolidWorks.
Shop floor tools such as viewing utilities, NC software, drill machine interfaces, etc. didn’t work as expected anymore.
Users required > extensive training > on SolidWorks, and they were working more hours to do the same tasks in new ways.
Personally i feel this example is really ironic…
If you are switching a system entirely, of course you will need to start over learning, same goes with your other software that work with your CAD system…
Expecting users to know how to do everything the moment you switch without any training is just… wrong…
It is just a matter of whether the time for training and re-setting up the system justify the benefit of switching.
Take the SWYMP as example, lots of us is here because we don’t see the benefit of training ourselves to be a SWYMP master as there is literally no benefit there.
There are some truths to the articles, and thanks again for posting them. I understand the writer’s bias, but I don’t necessarily agree with all of his analysis. The analogy that you don’t need to kill a fly with a sledgehammer when a fly swatter will do, does hold true to some extent. On the other hand, the argument of why fix something if it isn’t broken, is simply wrong. I never understood this reasoning. Yes, the status quo maybe good, and may in effect yet be the best present-day solution out there, but shouldn’t we continually strive to see if there is a better way to do things. Scientific breakthroughs and achievements happen because someone decides that we can do and should do better. Evolution and progress are inevitable, as are the growing pains that come along with them.
Last year I was tasked to prepare a report on how to best use the two CAD programs in house (AutoCAD & SWX). Basically, to determine if completely switching over to SWX for all manufacturing purposes was the way to go (which was my initial bias leaning – more continuity in manufacturing). Both CAD programs have been in use here for the last 20 years, prior to that it was solely 2D. After speaking with colleagues and considering their proficiency in both CAD systems, I came to the conclusion that both were still necessary. It basically came down to aptitude, or the lack there of, and the efficacy of certain AutoCAD elements. (Due to the nature of our industry, architectural, which is still heavily AutoCAD based, for the moment, 2D software is still necessary for manipulating shop and architectural drawings.)
Over the years our department has developed many 2D AutoCAD templates, that contain complex dynamic blocks, for standard product types where the number of variables is known. For example, a simple curved metal ‘C’-shaped wall molding. The unknown variables are; direction of curve (in or out), material type, finish type, thickness, width, height, length, and radius of molding. We have an AutoCAD template that allows the end user to input these variables (attributes) and the template in turn generates a fully dimensioned drawing, along with the corresponding DXF flat development for exporting. There is no drawing layout manipulation required as the curved view of the molding is intentionally drawn not to scale, and there is very limited title block requirements because most fields are automatically populated. It is simple, accurate and quick. Can this this template be reproduced in SWX? Yes, definitely, with two file types to maintain (sldprt & slddrw) and most likely with drawing view manipulation being necessary. In this case the 2D approach is still preferred.
I guess it comes down to the type of work being done, and knowing which tool is the ideal tool for which job.
SamSpade Our industry is much the same. Simple, repetitive, minor tweaks to a known design within certain ranges just don’t require any 3d. In some cases they have gone even simpler than AutoCAD and have the drawings in a PDF package with some calculations and macros to update quantities. One PDF file containing several drawings and BOMs. Speed is super important and as long as they are within the ranges and limits of the design, it works fine.