Essential features not included in Mathca Prime

[CarlosVillaseño]

I'm disappointed with the drastic reduction of Marhcad functionality on the Prime 1.0 edition. I don't understand which the target is. If the final version doesn't include the features like components, programming, controls, etc., I really prefer to keep working with Mathcad 14. Mathcad Prime 1.0 at this time doesn't represent an option to upgrade. How can this software to compete itself when it will offer less features than the previous version? How PTC will say to the users "hey! now we offering you a new version but its power do fewer things than your current version...! :-((" I'm sure that the answer will be "no way!"
Mathcad 14 has no limits, only the user creativity is the limit.
If PTC intent to sell the missing features separately, why not reincorporate the missing features in Prime 1.0 for more cost? The software is worth. As user I can wait more time expecting nothing less than software with awesome improvements in the existing features. If more cost is not the target I think that PTC is making a mistake because many users will reject the upgrade.


Carlos Villase�or

[IRstuff]

This question has been asked a few times, already, and the basic answer is that MP2 will the version that competes with the existing product.

Presumably, PTC may have some strategy of offering MP1 as a very low-end product, perhaps back in the $99 range, and an upgrade path to MP2 with more features and capabilities.


TTFN,
Eden

[PhilipOakley]

On 8/19/2009 5:12:21 PM, eden_mei wrote:
>This question has been asked a
>few times, already, and the
>basic answer is that MP2 will
>the version that competes with
>the existing product.
>
>Presumably, PTC may have some
>strategy of offering MP1 as a
>very low-end product, perhaps
>back in the $99 range, and an
>upgrade path to MP2 with more
>features and capabilities.
>
>
>TTFN,
>Eden

I doubt even that, It is likely to be an add-on to
the PTC CAD products for the first release. It
will probably do quite well for them (something
better than nothing...)

I suspect it will be perhaps even the third or
fourth release (PTC normally do a 6 monthly
maintenance cycle for the big products), so within
18 months..

That would be doable, and the feedback and lessons
from MP1 would feed M010, then M020, then M030,
finally MP2 as a direct comparison to V14 M060 (by
then)


Philip Oakley

[RichardJ]

On 8/19/2009 6:03:38 PM, philipoakley wrote:

>so within
>18 months..

Mathcad 14.0 was released in Feb 2007. Since then we have had 3 service releases that did nothing more that fix a few bugs. All the remaining resources were presumably poured (although that might be the wrong word to choose) into this. If it took that long to get this far, with even basic features such as global assignments, areas, prefix and postfix operators, embedded math in text, etc, missing, and other features as badly implemented as the 2D graphs are (let's face it, they are a joke), how long will it take to implement programs, 3D graphs, support for older files, scripted components, user DLLs, Excel and Matlab components, e-books, animation, decent 2D graphs, etc etc. I would be prepared to stake a fairly large sum that it's not going to happen in 18 months.

Richard

[CarlosVillaseño]

On 8/19/2009 6:03:38 PM, philipoakley wrote:
>On 8/19/2009 5:12:21 PM, eden_mei wrote:
>>This question has been asked a
>>few times, already, and the
>>basic answer is that MP2 will
>>the version that competes with
>>the existing product.
>>
>>Presumably, PTC may have some
>>strategy of offering MP1 as a
>>very low-end product, perhaps
>>back in the $99 range, and an
>>upgrade path to MP2 with more
>>features and capabilities.
>>
>>
>>TTFN,
>>Eden

Hi Eden.
I understand the strategy, but I think that is not enough, Mathcad has sixteen years in the market practically with few variations and improvements about the features that has offered since the beginning (components, programming, operators, numerical methods, etc.), in other words, there are many users that are accustomed with the current functionality and implements so many solutions on engineering and many other scientific matters, so what will happen with those jobs?
Please take in mind these considerations in the development politics, all of us (the users), included me, only want to attract a great deal of attention, please don�t kill this valuable tool.
We prefer to wait till a true update is available.

Carlos Villase�or

[RichardJ]

MP2 will have more of the missing features, but I do not believe it will have everything that is needed. Not unless MP2 is released about 3 (or 6?) years from now, anyway. Look how long it took to get what's in 1.0.

It also can't read a .mcd file or a .xmcdz file. That means it can't read 100% of my existing files. Even if I load my files into MC14 and resave them in .XMCD format (which I am not about to do, since I have over 2000 Mathcad files) none of them work, because collapsed areas, global assignments, programs, 3D plots, etc etc etc don't work. It also can't save to older formats. At this point, as far as I can work out, it has a 0% backwards compatibility success rate with my existing worksheets.

The only way to look at Mathcad Prime right now is as a completely different product to Mathcad, with a mutually exclusive audience. And when you can get something lile this for free:

http://en.smath.info/forum/default.aspx?g=posts&t=131

I have to wonder who would pay even $99 for Prime 1.0.

Richard

(As you can tell, I am not impressed).

[SM1]

>>And when you can get something lile this for free:
http://en.smath.info/forum/default.aspx?g=posts&t=131<<

Simply Amazing! PTC take a note.

>>I have to wonder who would pay even $99 for Prime 1.0.<<
I doubt anyone. I was hoping with PTC take over, MC will improve drastically. Very disappointed. Bring back MC 11 team.

SM

[RadovanOmorjan]

On 8/19/2009 7:21:50 PM, SatishMatani wrote:
>>>And when you can get something lile this for free:
>http://en.smath.info/forum/def
>ault.aspx?g=posts&t=131<<
>
>Simply Amazing! PTC take a
>note.
I agree, with no doubt.
This days will be released a new version. Much improvements in a short period of time. Considering that this is basically a "one-men" project - it is awesome.

Regards,
Radovan

[SteenGroðe]

Basically I believe they have to start more or less all over at Prime.
Somebody has made a very bad decision to make a the word processor with the same approach to math as Word. When you do that you'll have to be able to compete with Word with respect to both text and in math. PTC may be able to the last part, but they don't have a chance with regard to text. That's a lost fight from the beginning.
PTC has to realize that it is essential to keep what makes Mathcad better than programs like Word or Maple and at the same time upgrade the GUI and add some of the strength from Word (eg. a better word processor), Maple (eg. that any region can be converted from one state to another), CorelDraw (eg. nudging in any size), Excel (eg. formatting strings in math) and so on.

Steen Gro�e

[PhilipLeitch]

On 8/20/2009 11:30:41 AM, sgrode wrote:

>Somebody has made a
>very bad decision to make a
>the word processor with the
>same approach to math as Word.

I don't see this as any closer to Word as previous versions (other than Ribbon). Do you mean the page layouts?

Or do you mean Microsoft Math:
http://www.microsoft.com/learningspace/products.aspx?prod=math

(if not - post what you mean)

And at $20 the Microsft Math product looks better overall, and definately more complete. So that would make the Prime price somewhere around the $10 mark... right?

Maple is also fairly cheap, and seems to have more features than Prime. I'm not sure what's going on here.

Philip
___________________
Nobody can hear you scream in Euclidean space.

[PhilipLeitch]

Ahh - I see what you mean now. I didn't know that it was free add-in with 2007.

I agree that Mathcad is going to have to set itself apart from Word, et al. But I think if they make a couple of key changes they DO have a successful product. Firstly, they need to take strong note of the feedback provided here. There are a lot of very smart people who have created some excellent points that need to be addressed. The worst thing they could do is to rush Prime, because once a product has a bad name it is near impossible to recover from. Has anyone installed Vista of their own free will yet? It's a good product NOW, but it was so bad when it came out that people still stay clear.


But most importantly - to be successful they have to change their current model.

From my perspective they could do this in a number of ways:
1. Offer web versions where users utilise a thin client or web interface to do mathematics. With graphics technology like Silverlight, this is an option, and would mean that you would have extreme calculation ability from the simplest mobile phone OR any internet connected computer in the world. And you know what? Prime would be relatively easy to push down this path because they have used .Net (and XAML in particular), which are perfect for this.

The revenue would then flow in by subscription OR pay as you use (preferably subscription).

2: Focus on the student market. Imagine children learning to do mathematics on a simple tool. Then imagine that this tool can have complexity added as the child learns more and more mathematics. It's a tool where add-ins can be ticked for every year leave/course the child does from grade 3 through to university. My partner is a primary teacher (and engineer) and between us we have over two decades at University. We can see this as a "missing" piece of technology.

3: Focus in application integration (which it looks like they may be starting to do). That is - provide free versions of both the front and "engine" of the program for developers. From a development perspective I could have used a "Mathcad Engine" in MANY of my endeavours. Business Intelligence is an obvious one. It would be great if my data could include Mathcad calculations before showing the results. But also validation (including outlier detection), and quick data handling would be a great benefit to the "Desktop" programs I work with - including ERPs.

ERP (Enterprise Resource Programs) and other desktop applications deal with vast amounts of information and it is increasingly difficult to quickly and accurately work with that much data using the standard EPR tools.

Database Servers is another area that would be perfect for Mathcad integration. To some extent this hooks into the BI part I mentioned above, but more important to me is process impact analysis.

Points 2 and 3 are what I am using Mathcad for right now... but in a very ad-hoc fashion.

That's my 2 cents anyway...

Philip
___________________
Nobody can hear you scream in Euclidean space.

[IRstuff]

Just bear in mind that Mathsoft tried the student market once, with Studyworks. Still a good product; I have it installed on all my machines because for what little it does, it's bulletproof for that.

TTFN,
Eden

[StuartBruff]

On 8/21/2009 2:44:20 AM, pleitch wrote:
== Or do you mean Microsoft Math:
==
http://www.microsoft.com/learningspace/products.as
px?prod=math
== And at $20 the Microsft Math product looks
better overall, and definately more complete. So
that would make the Prime price somewhere around
the $10 mark... right?

Nice idea, but not quite in the same ball park as
Spirit. Math is effectively a smart calculator
and the output is indicative of that. It is also
quick to use and gives fast results, which the
Spirit developers should note.

One particular aspect I do like is the ability to
hand-write an expression; even with my useless
mouse-writing skills, it recognized I wanted the
integral of x². This is most useful
and in keeping with the use of Mathcad as a
whiteboard (see http://collab.mathsoft.com/read?
112745,12 ). Another useful feature is that that
it returns a string equivalent of the symbolic
expressions - another much requested feature for
Mathcad.

However, capability wise, I'd still say Spirit is
worth a few dollars more, particularly the ability
to 2D layout a document and (unless I've missed
it) let a user define a function 🙂