From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Engineering (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Better screen shots[edit]

The screen shots provided are at such a low resolution that they don't provide any information, I would suggest larger ones if not full scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:00, 31 March 2010

I think it is copyright fears that there is no higher resolution screenshot. But, globally, the layout of the Autocad screen is not exactly top secret.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikejens (talkcontribs) 17:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No free support[edit]

I believe it noteworthy that Autodesk does not offer any free support (aside from activations) for the AutoCAD LT software. Many other software companies offer free support for at least a specific duration after the purchase. (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

AutoCAD Civil 3D[edit]

Why is AutoCAD Civil 3D a redirect to AutoCAD? While Civil 3D looks like a vertical product, it has been a parametric, object-based modeling tool operating inside the AutoCAD interface for 6 years, whereas AutoCAD itself has only had parametric drafting tools for a year. AutoCAD Civil 3D, as a BIM/VDC tool, needs its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an open community and you are free to create the page for AutoCAD Civil 3D. (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC) (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

There was a microcomputer-based system prior to AutoCAD[edit]

Dear Sirs,

I recently read the introductory history about AutoCAD and due to the fact that several of our employees, including the Chief Financial Officer Alvin Green, went from another first microcomputer-based CAD company to AutoCAD and influenced the direction of AutoCAD, I modified that introduction based on my first hand knowledge and experience as Vice-President of Systems Development of Cascade Graphics Development. Two years prior to AutoCAD's first release, our company actually used an Apple IIe microcomputer with a 68000 mother board to produce the first micro-CAD system in 1980. Significantly, this system was marketed by McGraw-Hill and distributed both domestically in the U.S. and in Europe. An editor removed the edit and stated, "Sorry, we do not write about ourselves on Wikipedia." Is this true--that one cannot relate facts that one is intimately familiar with on Wikipedia pages? For an external reference, I show a picture taken of me (with my own camera) sitting at the First microcomputer-based system in the offices of Cascade Graphics Development back in 1980. I could cite several high-level executives that could confirm that what I have related (such as Jake Voogd, a Dutch businessman who was Chief Executive Officer of Kinetics Technology International Corp.) was factual.

Gary S. Goldman, Ph.D.
Computer Scientist —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, one cannot relate facts that one is intimately familiar with on Wikipedia pages -- unless one can cite verifiable reliable sources. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
See my comment below, #AutoCAD origin bogus. —QuicksilverT @ 07:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Version history list[edit]

The Release column did show the number of the release before. Now it shows the ACADVER number instead. Should the column heading be changed? Should we have separate column as well? What do you think is useful to see here? Jimmy Bergmark (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

How many DWG files are there?[edit]

This part needs cleaning, fact checking:

"In 2006, Autodesk estimated the number of active DWG files to be in excess of one billion. In the past, Autodesk has estimated the total number of DWG files in existence to be more than three billion.[2]"

idledebonair (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Qt and .Net[edit]

autocad 2011 GUI has based on qt and no more .net?? [1] -- (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Release / Version numbers[edit]

Someone has changed this column to show a numeric count up of each release. To me this is wrong and has little relevance, as far as I can find AutoCAD 2009 is never referred to as "release 23", nor AutoCAD 2010 as "release 25". The internal version number however is of relevance and is used to refer to the products (some third party applications designed to work with AutoCAD use these versions to show which versions of Autocad they are compatible). Also as far as I can see it is not normal on Wikipedia to number software by how many times its been released. I'm going to revert this back to how it was before this column was changed and hopefully this can be discussed. HughMillard (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above i've found this . If nobody disagrees i'll update the table later to show a column for both version and release numbers HughMillard (talk) 10:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


Hi All,
Im an Interior designer based in Nairobi Kenya and a long time user of AutoCAD (1997 to date).I would like to know how the name AutoCAD came about.

Alex Odhiambo Odero —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

AutoCAD origin bogus[edit]

The origin of AutoCAD, as currently described in the article, appears to be totally bogus. Here's a quote from a 1992 article by G. Pascal Zachary that appeared in the Wall Street Journal:

Read more:

QuicksilverT @ 07:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Late response but -- one should read John Walker's Anatomy of a Smear to get a sense of what insiders thought of Mr. Zachary's article. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Corrections read and noted. I tend to give Mr. Walker and The Autodesk File more credence in this matter. — QuicksilverT @ 07:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

AutoCAD copy paste problem[edit]

Here is a common bug on old versions of Autocad that needs to be mentioned: AutoCAD Services & Support Hotfix - Cut and Paste There are many other discussions on the Net regarding this issue. If someone finds a proper way to develop a new section about this issue... My question is: I feel this is a good information and I find useful. Does it also work for wikipedia? --TudorTulok (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


I think version 2013 is out now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You're right! Someone has corrected that. Next time go ahead and make the change yourself. If something goes wrong there are people who get an email for every change - so it'll get fixed. Wikipedia:Be_bold --duncan.lithgow (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"According to its own company information..."[edit]

In the introduction of the [current version]is the passage: According to its own company information, Autodesk states that the AutoCAD software is now used in a range of industries, employed by architects, project managers and engineers, amongst other professions, and as of 1994 there had been 750 training centers established across the world to educate users about the company's primary products.

I don't see the relevance of this, if it belongs anywhere it should be on the Autodesk page and not here. It's not AutoCAD specific information. (on a break from Wikipedia:Be_bold after getting burnt) --duncan.lithgow (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Release history[edit]

User: has added in [this revision] a table of AutoCADs release history. Is that useful? Can't we just link to it, perhaps this one: I just think it's clutter and don't see why it should be here. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Infobox change[edit]

This recent change asserts AutoCAD is written in C. Now, I've not been at Autodesk since 1998, and I guess my memory could be fuzzy, but I do seem to recall we converted the thing to C++ sometime before that... Is there a source for the current programming languages? --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

– Per discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks, User:Croctotheface raised the concern about the inclusion of examples of pages that do not follow standard English capitalization. Although there does not appear to be anyone in that discussion that thinks that these pages certainly violate the guideline, this requested move nomination is to test and open discussion on whether these pages do or do not currently go against the current guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks. New questions? 16:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose: These pages currently correctly follow the guideline because the page at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks has long stated, "editors should choose among styles already in use (not invent new ones)."--New questions? 16:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Speedy close nominator opposes request, and it seems formulated to fail anyways, with the inclusion of "AutoCAD". The discussion at WP:TM seemed concerned with "ooVoo" and "i-MiEV", while this listing is much broader, and much more likely to get in trouble individually, since many have separate concerns. -- (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I second this notion. This is the wrong way to go about this discussion. Croctotheface (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Also, this is bad form in yet another way; there's no reason to group these together. They don't raise similar stylistic issues; the only connection is that the nominator thought might go against the MOS. But I'd keep this article at "AutoCAD" and probably move some of the others. There's no reason to have opened this or to keep it open. Croctotheface (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Speedy close silly discussion. we should follow the software companies spelling and capitalisation which has long been AutoCAD, see: --duncan.lithgow (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Some are a bit tricky here, but I'm especially opposing AutoCAD which is 'Computer Aided Design', inSSIDer which uses 'Service set identification', and ooVoo is CamelCase which is up to the editor. --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 20:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As per the arguments above. We should be more respectful of brand names.--Mariordo (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose "AutoCAD", "CAD" is an acronym -- (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment "ooVoo" and "OoVoo" are exactly the same from Wikipedia's software perspsective, why bother listing it? -- (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Why "MA" instead of "Ma" if you're nominating "AutoCad" ? -- (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose – without individual evidence of what's in use in sources, there's no case here. A case could be made for M/A-Com and OoVoo, but they're not all that common, so would need some individual discussion, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. To the extent that any MoS page tells us to invent new spellings or capitalisations which are neither the most commonly used (in the real world) nor the most faithful imitation, that MoS page should be revoked, burned, and ignored. bobrayner (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Generally opposed to this exercise. I participated in the MOSTM discussion, which you can see here. I think that this is a bad, WP:Pointy sort of way to make this argument. RM discussions are shocks to the system, and they're not a good way to address the question I asked. Here's the question I asked: are styles like ooVoo deliberate choices because sources only use that style, are they cases where sources use a more standard style but we've chosen to ignore the guideline for some reason, or are they cases where we didn't standardize because people were unaware of the guideline. I hope we can close these RM discussions as improvidently started. Croctotheface (talk) 09:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As others have said, CAD is an widely understood acronym for Computer Aided Design, therefore should be capitalised. As an AutoCAD user for many years I've known people regularly use the format AutoCAD and Autocad, but rarely AutoCad. Sionk (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

AutoCAD Architecture[edit]

This article appears to be missing any mention of AutoCAD Architecture which include numerous drawing tools specific to architecture. I believe it is sufficiently different from their primary offering that it deserves mentions in the variants section. It's also expensive as hell at over $5K. ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanr (talkcontribs) 20:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi Seanr, that's not quite true, see the [extensions] section of the article. But maybe adding a section is a good idea. Try it and see! --duncan.lithgow (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

3d modeling[edit]

It's a popular misconception that AutoCAD LT is just 2d. In fact it can draw lines and simple entities in 3d, but what it lacks is 3d solid modeling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on AutoCAD. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)