Under Community Review

Setting this to under review even if it is not an idea strictly speaking.

Trados needs to improve the stability of its product.

Although Trados has been around for more than 30 years, it unfortunately still has many problems. The software runs unstably and has many bugs. Many times, it mysteriously cannot update the translation memory, can not add terminology databases, cannot recognize terminology accuratley, cannot validate, can nottranslate normally, or even can not export the tranlated document after several days of work on a project. This seriously affects translation efficiency and even delays deadlines. It is hoped that the stability of the product will be improved, and the entire software should maintain stability during operation. Otherwise, translators will have to spend a lot of time analyzing and repairing the software, Trados.

jack zhong
  • in reply to Paul

    Thank you for these extensive explanations Paul. It's true that the mere existence of this forum shows RWS is listening to us. But, in the same times, it is what is frustrating, since we should feel some more that our requests are heard
    Anyway, I do not go anywhere, I stay with Trados as my CAT platform of choice... and I hope we'll get the Studio we're all waiting for soon. :-)

  • in reply to Philippe Riondel

       

    Thank you for sharing your honest feedback about Trados Studio.  Despite anything you may think we do value input from our users as it helps us improve and evolve our product and we certainly don't focus on anything at the expense of stability and bug fixing.  We get your frustrations regarding what seems like longstanding issues and appreciate your patience as we work through some very complex challenges in software development as we are not just fixing one product as you may think.  Maybe consider all the products we have inherited as the company has grown (and it's not a small list), and then think about how much better it might be if we only had a desktop and a cloud product?  Also think about how this work might change the way something previously worked because now we don't have the same base anymore.  I'm not looking for sympathy or trying to make excuses, but there is a lot of complexity here that a smaller company with only one product doesn't have to think about.

    It's encouraging to hear that despite the problems you've encountered that you still find value in the ergonomics and overall functionality of Trados Studio. We are turning the corner and we have made some major steps forward under the hood which should result in us being able to do all the things you want us to do... because we also want to do them!  Our goal is to ensure that our products not only meet but exceed the expectations of our users. We're grateful for your support and hope to regain your full confidence in our product.

    In the meantime I'm not sure what to do with this "idea"?  I think these discussions, if you want to keep having them until the product is perfect, are best kept in the forums and not in here.  This is hardly an idea that nobody has had before and whether you get one vote or one thousand it won't change the work we have to get through, nor will it change our desire to do it.

  • Actually, Studio started in June 2009. And many of regularly raised issues are there for years, without being fixed. In the same time, bunches of new features appear, (essentially cloud stuff), while old bugs are even not solved. We still get the same cryptic and useless error messages when you want, e.g., to confirm a just merged or splitted segment. Studio sometimes crashes with no apparent reason, access to TMs from the Memory Tab can take minutes, and so on.
    I had to invest in memoQ for 2 clients lastly, and it shows perfectly where Studio should be after 14 years : complete, efficient, quick and stable, with unique features, such as receiving a tiny 500 byte file, on which you just have to click to open the software and be directly connected to the project and ressources of your client. Wow!
    Don't make me tell what I don't: I am still fond of Studio, of which I do like the ergonomics, but I cannot understand how it happened to lag as much the competition as it does. RWS people seem more eager to propose commercially potentially attractive new niche features, than to fix basic errors and stabilize their product. I do not want to make any promotion for memoQ, but I just would like Studio to be as performant and satisfying. 

  • It sounds as though these were occasional glitches inherent in the 32-bit programming that precludes full use of the 64-bit RAM resources. I therefore endorse the call for 64-bit programming, long overdue. For the time being, though, I find that saving the work in hand, then re-starting Studio. remedies some of these anomalies. At a pinch, even rebooting the machine helps.