MathCAD Prime 1.0 is a step back

[WalterSchrabmai]

Hi friends,

well I just must realize, that Prime is a step backward. One the one hand important functions are missing and on the other hand all the experts out in the communities who has Mathcad 14/15 can not work with the MathCad Prime worksheets as it is not backward compatibility.

I think PTC must improve PRIME quite a lot, as now the userbility is other but not better. Where is the useful collabsable region feature in Prime?

comments are welcome.

Walter

[MikeArmstrong]

But it’s in our nature to complain about change, isn’t it? Remember many users have complained since Mathcad 12 onwards.

People didn't complain about MC12 just because "it's in their nature to do so". They complained because it was a much worse version of Mathcad than MC11. The new features turned out to be things that either few people cared about (e.g. XML file format), or that were worse than before (e.g. SUC). The situation going from MC11 to MC12 was very different to the current situation though, for two reasons.

I didn't mean to sound derogatory about the people who complained, I was just trying to indicate that most users have not been totally satisfied with the Mathcad releases since M11.

Secondly, Mathcad is no longer owned by Mathsoft, it's owned by PTC. That's not meant as a comment on the relative general competence of the two companies, but I think it makes a big difference. Mathcad was Mathsoft's core (or at the time of sale only?) product. As such their interest had to be a stand alone math package that catered to as large a user base as possible. They mainly concentrated on engineering, but they didn't lose sight of the scientists, geologists, astronomers, mathematicians, economists, etc, that also had uses for such a product. But Mathcad is certainly not PTC's main product, let alone their only one. They have made no secret of their desire to integrate it with their other products, especially Pro/E//Creo. PTC also cannot have such an independent, or neutral, view of the various user groups. Their main product is a CAD program, so the main company focus will inevitably be on the group of people that use CAD, such as mechanical engineers. The upshot of all that is that resources will be directed towards specific features of Mathcad that many (or even most) of the current users don't care about. Development resources are always limited, so when a large chunk of those resources is directed towards a very specific user group, fewer resources are directed towards the general needs of everyone else. I fear that might not bode well for the future of Mathcad as a general purpose product. I'll note that the main competing packages, i.e. Matlab, Maple, Mathematica, are all still owned by companies for which that is either their primary or only product.

This is a very good point and I do expect to see a large increase integration capability with ProENG, but I also expect to see future integration with Excel, which can only be a good thing. I am actually in the middle of a ProENG course in house with my employer so the integration might come in useful.

Mike

[RichardJ]

I am actually in the middle of a ProENG course in house with my employer so the integration might come in useful.

So you are one of the minority of existing Mathcad users that would find that useful. I do occasionally do CAD work, so if PTC saw fit to give me a couple of seats of Creo I might find it useful too. I think we will even have MDAs long before that happens though.

[MikeArmstrong]

So you are one of the minority of existing Mathcad users that would might find that useful.

I have tried this before with Autocad and setting up the drawing and parametres was more hassle than redrawing every time.

Mike

[PhilipOakley]

replying to Gerfried, Mike, Stuart and Roger's comments..

I view the PTC-Mathcad in a similar way to Roger, in that PTC have a big business in mechanical CAD, and that market is not served at all well for computational support.

Many design draughtspeople will be using Excel as their primary calculation support. Before the Mathsoft sell-out, it too was chasing the excel market, as that was an area with hordes of users who would benefit from MathCAD's capability (though whether mathcad suites such users is a separate discussion).

PTC has a history of swallowing up small specialist firms, which then re-appear a few years later in a whole new form.

MathCAD, even now, isn't bothering to address the same market as the MatLab's of this world, and in some senses it shouldn't because it is so much better. However it has failed to even acknowledge an important part of the modern use of computation, that of simulation and automation. It still has the mathematician's "once through is the answer" view (that you only have to calculate 2 x 2 = 4 once). Most of the activity in most of the other languages mentioned (C, Matlab, Python, etc) is repetion and simulation, oh, and a lot of debugging.

PTC will push MathCAD to the (its) draughting market, plus the design consultants that require certified calculations (I understand that such certification requires 'stamps' and similar in the USA). This will make PTC's CAD offerings more valuable, just like it bought Arbortext at the same time for doing automatic illustrations direct from its CAD drawings.

As Roger has said PTC sells big seats to Aerospace, same as Mathworks do for universities and industry. Getting basic MathCAD seats into Academia, Aerospace or Industry is hard because it isn't a big activity. In my case I personally converted a set of individual seats (within a couple of specialist sections) into a corporate resource (there was an initiative many years ago in the UK that allowed this). Without that opportunity we wouldn't be using it.

PTC, while not indifferent to existing users, will have a bigger agenda of supporting its users of Pro/e Creo users who have a different set of needs to those of the existing power users. This causes some of the conflicts we see at the moment. In some senses the new devbelopers of mathcad have a new vison of what it needs to be. No longer is it a whiteboard based tool, instead it is a drawing sheet focussed tool (Prime). It wouldn't be so bad if it was a superset approach, but I have a feeling that the existing power user needs aren't even understood. This isn't a great feeling.

Philip

edited by: Philip Oakley because paste didn't work properly!

[Efried]

Exactly - you are starting such work I recommend. Analyse what duties there are out in the field and if there is a Mathcar USP what people are willing to pay. I have been nearly continuously using Mathcad in my career and may tell you that there were some nice attempts in the past to link CAD with Mathcad allowing parametric working flows (do you see some coincidence here ;-)( But the solutions were not stable and productive enough to be attractive.

There are to few engineers outside who are in need of pen and paper clalculations which could and should be transferred to mathcad. Most of the crowd switched to special CFD, FE and oder ready to use simulation software, others do not need 99% of the Mathcad functionality and may live with a webform and javascript calculations if you want to go standard. Only a few of engineering staff is capable of building their own models and for them it is to hard if you try to go that long way with mathcad. Researchers are to few and also building matlab models, because of the possibility to handle larger data sets in a more logical ande iterative way.

I tried my best to condemn excel for engineers but we have to realize that the difference in price plus the added effort for partial compatibility (improved I agree) will not make Mathcad a sucessful alternative to office or other free calculation software. But I trust in PTC that they find a niche for PRIME or integrate it into CAD but please allow us few to work further with a stable and productive Mathcad version. So please will you revive Mathcad 11 !!!!!

[h_nas]

True. even worse my computer respond slowly, crashes as amuch as possibe if I used MathCAD Prime 1.0,

[mzeftel]

Hana,

Mathcad Prime 1.0 is very stable, based on alpha tester reports and our testing inhouse. It sounds like you might have installation issues. What is your operating system? Please post what exactly is happening.

Thanks,

Mona

[MikeArmstrong]

True. even worse my computer respond slowly,

To be fair I have noticed a distinct lack in my computers performance when Prime is running.

Mike

[Lazyhead]

I've only tried Prime for a short while but can't imaging using it for work (in it's current form) because it is just soooooo sloooooow....

Now I'm not the fastest typest in the world, three, maybe four fingers tops (with some thumbage on the space bar) but Prime seems to struggle to keep up when I'm completing text boxes - and dialogues take forever to open.

Don't get me wrong, I love the look of it and I'm not against the ribbon, and being able to override the automatic units is fantastic (I work in hydraulics so want to use bar for fluid pressure and MPa for stress and Mathcad 14 will only let you have one or t'other)

I read somewhere that Prime won't be fully functional until version 3, which raises 2 questions...

1. Why isn't Prime a freeby for all v14 and v15 users to beta-test, rather than pretend it's the real deal?

2. If I execute a huge about-turn and cough-up to upgrade from v14 to v15 (+Prime) will I get the next couple of versions of Prime included in this - or are PTC expecting me to pay for the upgrades that bring Prime up to the standard at which it should have been released in the first place?

[RichardJ]

I've only tried Prime for a short while but can't imaging using it for work (in it's current form) because it is just soooooo sloooooow....

I guess I'll throw in my 2 cents worth on the speed issue as well. Like others, I find Prime to be excessively slow. It takes so long to even launch I feel like going to get a cup of coffee while I'm waiting

[MikeArmstrong]

I find Prime to be excessively slow. It takes so long to even launch I feel like going to get a cup of coffee while I'm waiting

Or make a roast

Mike

[RogerMansfield]

Right now I'm working on a vintage-2004 HP Pavilion desktop machine with a 2.6 GHz Pentium 4 processor (with Windows XP SP3). Here are some run

statistics.

1. Launch Mathcad:

MP1: 50 sec
MC14: 17 sec

2. Use Mathcad's Radau integrator to integrate numerically a system of 18 nonlinear, first-order ODEs for 1000 steps:

MP1: 12 sec
MC14: 4 sec

So yes, Mathcad Prime 1.0 appears to run about 3x slower than Mathcad 14. But surely you guys have faster machines than my old HP -- it's so old, it even has a floppy disk drive.

I expect Mathcad 15 results to be similar, but I cannot try MP1 vs. MC15 until this weekend.

[MikeArmstrong]

So yes, Mathcad Prime 1.0 appears to run about 3x slower than Mathcad 14. But surely you guys have faster machines than my old HP -- it's so old, it even has a floppy disk drive.

I wouldn't be sure. My computer is at least 7 years old, but I have updated it.

11 seconds to boot up M15, not got prime on my home computer.

Mike

[MikeArmstrong]

1. Why isn't Prime a freeby for all v14 and v15 users to beta-test, rather than pretend it's the real deal?

I don't know? Maybe because PTC can make money out of it? I do think that this version should have been called Prime 0 and been given free to all people who have version 15.

2. If I execute a huge about-turn and cough-up to upgrade from v14 to v15 (+Prime) will I get the next couple of versions of Prime included in this - or are PTC expecting me to pay for the upgrades that bring Prime up to the standard at which it should have been released in the first place?

PTC are hoping not expecting. I fully believe Mathcad Prime 2.0 will not be far away from M15 in terms of functions and it will also have additional features.

Mike

[jkucan]

1. Why isn't Prime a freeby for all v14 and v15 users to beta-test, rather than pretend it's the real deal?

Mathcad Prime 1.0 is not free. However, all Mathcad users on active maintenance are eligible for upgrades to new release of Mathcad. So if you are on active maintenance, you are entitled to a license of Mathcad Prime 1.0.

2. If I execute a huge about-turn and cough-up to upgrade from v14 to v15 (+Prime) will I get the next couple of versions of Prime included in this - or are PTC expecting me to pay for the upgrades that bring Prime up to the standard at which it should have been released in the first place?

Again, with active maintenance at the time Mathcad Prime 2.0 is released, you'd be eligible to upgrade.

When you buy Mathcad, you get a license for the newest release of Mathcad (today, this is Mathcad Prime 1.0). This license will work with prior vresions (back to Mathcad 14.0).

[MikeArmstrong]

Mathcad Prime 1.0 is not free. However, all Mathcad users on active maintenance are eligible for upgrades to new release of Mathcad. So if you are on active maintenance, you are entitled to a license of Mathcad Prime 1.0.

Jakov,

I didn't say Mathcad Prime was free, I was essentially saying M15 is free when Prime is purchased.

Actually was that reply meant for me??????

Mike

[AWeighell]

Please could PTC add a voting system for all posts.

All I can say is that I agree totally with all posts whinging about Prime.

The ribbon bar, lack of backwards compatibility with MC15, speed of operation, etc. Prime is a complete waste of time. I would plead that we get Prime equal to MC15 and then move on to fix the things that Mathcad has been missing for nearly the last 25 years. e.g. full set of scientific fonts, over-bar for mean, dot for rate etc, MS Office 2003 split screen and so on. The move backwards was very disappointing. The ribbon bar just added insult to injury.

Andrew

[WilliKlein]

Dear friends,

Please tell me what I have to do with my MathCAD sheets from the last twenty years?

My library contains more than 200 projects from 10 to 80 pages!

It is incredible what PTC does.

[jkucan]

You should be able to convert the worksheets developed in prior versions of Mathcad using the MCD, MCDX Converter functionality in Mathcad Prime 1.0.

Depending of what functionality you used in those 200+ projects, not all worksheets may completely work in Mathcad Prime 1.0. The converter should tell you as it encounters content it cannot faithfully convert: for example: unsupported calculation, unsupported formatting, calculation differences, etc.

If you try converting few examples, you'd be able to quickly tell whether it makes sense to start using Mathcad Prime 1.0 or wait until Mathcad Prime 2.0 comes out. This is why Mathcad 15.0 will be fully supported at least until Mathcad Prime 3.0 is released.

PTC and the Mathcad team has not abandoned users, that like you, have a vast library of worksheets. We are well aware of the need to preserve and bring forward the valuable content you and users like you have created over the years. Unlike prior releases of Mathcad, Mathcad Prime generation of products brings significant changes that dictate the transition over a sequence of release.

If you are able to share some of your worksheets with the Mathcad R&D team, please let us know. This would be a great help to us in ensuring better quality of the conversion process.

[MikeArmstrong]

There can be issues such as trying to convert a worksheet which has collapsed area's, because Mathcad Prime 1.0 does not support collapsed area's. Really it is a case of suck it and see.

And stated above Mathcad 15 is free when you purchase Prime, therefore you shouldn't have any issues.

Mike

[GeoffreyStone]

MC1 is a work in progress and the engineering and scientific community has been asked to help with its developement. I hope it grows into a low cost widely used product that appears on every engineer's desk. I agree with the critism levelled at it at the present however if the criticism is made constructively PTC should listen and develop the product. If they fail to do this then the product will not be successful.

I think the issue about the ribbon will die a natural death as users get used to it or give up and stay with MC15.I dont see PTC changing on this one as it would be too politically embarassing. I am sure that they see the next generation being familiar with it. They may be wrong of course.

I have suffered with another product takeover. i used Pipepak for pipe stress analysis. Autodesk took over Algor and the product was dropped. If MC is dropped in favour of MC Prime then it will be another nail in my professional coffin. The beach with gin and tonic in hand is looking even more inviting.

[RichardJ]

If MC is dropped in favour of MC Prime

Not "If", but "When".

[MikeArmstrong]

I have suffered with another product takeover. i used Pipepak for pipe stress analysis. Autodesk took over Algor and the product was dropped.

Just trawling through old posts..... You say you use Pipepak, is this for Subsea Pipeline Installation?

If MC is dropped in favour of MC Prime then it will be another nail in my professional coffin. The beach with gin and tonic in hand is looking even more inviting.

It's not a matter of if, more a matter of when. I would get the gin in

Mike

[SolarDiver]

Couldn't agree more.

Mathcad 11 was a good working product for an engineering sketchbook. For compatibility reasons I was forced to upgrade to 13. Migration to Winows 7 appears to require an upgrade to MC-15. Newer is not always better. The cost of the learning curve on the new systems to the user base can be extremely expensive. The new program versions often take substantial hours to come up to speed on. Coupled with operating system changes and hardware changes now coming out represent huge time sinks for the working engineer. From personal experience with going from windows Vista to Seven, Office 2003 to Office 2010 the time sink and frustration when trying to get out a product/report/edit a document are expensive. These issues need to be considered by PTC as well. The bulk of the market numbers wise has been the working engineer. Having experienced the move to ribbons. NIX. The functionality for the single engineer of mathcad 11 to 13 were fine. The collaboration tools unnecessary frills. The non supportability of these programs under windows 7 is a problem. Again need to consider the engineers viewpoint. "Better is the enemy of "Good Enough". In a cost environment when in need a functional math sketch tool, I cannot afford the time required to come up to speed on a whole new system. Products need to be supported through changing platforms.

Werner F. Hoyt, PE

Mare Island Shipyard

ADR LLC

[MikeArmstrong]

Things move on though. PTC bought Mathcad and they have to put their own stamp on the product.

Mike

[ValeryOchkov]

 I see one but main difference between Mathcad and Mathcad Prime!
 Mathcad was created by a physicist.
 Mathcad Prime was created by an IT-specialist.

[SteenGroðe]

You are right and it should have been designed by a mathematician with great interest in communication and collaboration. A goal could have been to make it the google.docs of mathematics with options on concurrent sketching and modelling. But it wasn't to be this time around.

[MikeArmstrong]

Mathcad Prime was created by an IT-specialist.

How do we know this?

Mike

[ValeryOchkov]

Mike Armstrong wrote:

Mathcad Prime was created by an IT-specialist.

How do we know this?

Mike

I know both - Mathcad and Mathcad Prime creators!

[MikeArmstrong]

I know both - Mathcad and Mathcad Prime creators!

Ok, cheers Valery.

I thinks it's going to be interesting watching the development of Prime.

Mike