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]

people hated the ribbon in Autocad so much:

http://www.blog.cadnauseam.com/2008/06/16/autocad-2009-why-do-you-hate-the-ribbon/

that Autodesk has made it possible to have the old toolbars back:

http://www.blog.cadnauseam.com/2009/06/16/autocad-2010-putting-things-back-to-normal/

I was about to say this in the other post. I have recently had my work machine upgraded to AuotCAD 2011. A simple task like dimensioning a drawings turned into a chore. It does have the option to lay all toolbars out as in previous versions.

PTC, can we please have this option too!

This was requested so many times through the Prime section in the old forum. DOCKABLE TOOLBARS.

If this isn't implement, it might be worth spending a little time learning the shortcuts

Mike

[RichardJ]

I was about to say this in the other post. I have recently had my work machine upgraded to AuotCAD 2011. A simple task like dimensioning a drawings turned into a chore. It does have the option to lay all toolbars out as in previous versions.

I have Autocad 2002! I don't use it much though, because I also have Alibre Design. I don't use that all that often either. I know just enough CAD to be dangerous

If this isn't implement, it might be worth spending a little time learning the shortcuts

It will be just like the good old days of DOS! I remember having a collection of cards I could prop up on my keyboard with all the important keyboard commands for different pieces of software.

[MikeArmstrong]

Like certain sexually transmitted diseases, you mean?

Now now.

Take a look at this, a review of Autocad 2009 and 2010:

http://thecadgeek.com/blog/2009/02/autocad-2010-%E2%80%93-the-new-contextual-ribbon/

note in particular "While I got used to the Ribbon inside AutoCAD 2009, I never became a huge fan. The primary reason for that was because I found myself having to click too much to find the tool(s) I needed. Apparently I wasn't the only one..."

I indeed found this a challenge. If your a competition user of AutoCAD, unlike me, you don't have to use the ribbon as most of our senior draftsman use the text commands.....

Mike

[ValeryOchkov]

Mathcad Prime is one step back (1.0) and two steps forward (2.0)... I hope!

[ViktorKorobov]

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin about Mathcad Prime 1.0: "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back".

[MikeArmstrong]

Mathcad Prime is one step back (1.0) and two steps forward (2.0)... I hope!

I believe.

Mike

[ptc-1371556]

Hi

I think you guys are being too nice about the Prime product. What is wrong with a bit of honesty and realism.

I have spent only a short time (perhaps 2 -3 hours) trialling it on fairly simple tasks. Just a few quick comments:

1. The user interface is cumbersome and slow. Much mousing is needed to continually go to the ribbon, click a tab to choose a group task, then click again to select a particular item to insert into the worksheet. Writing up a worksheet will frequently take 3 clicks. There are no other toolbars / palettes as in Mathcad (or other products) which were implemented purely to improve the usability of the product. Doing anything in Prime will be hugely frustrating to write anything more than a 1 -2 page worksheet. Writing many pages of programming etc would be really inefficient of the user's time. The user's interface is essentially unusable.

2. The mouse is not correctly configured. Simple example. You write a variable name into the worksheet. You then try to select it and copy to paste into another part of the worksheet. Normally you try to do this by selecting it, right mouse click and copy but this does not work. This is standard mousing protocol in just about every piece of software on a PC and has been so for many years. Instead the user is forced to go to the ribbon to copy (possibly three clicks away) and then ironically, you can use the right mouse button to paste.

3. I experimented with the 2D graphs such as axis limits etc. The 2D graphs do not always display correctly. There were even a couple of times my computer locked up and I had to re-boot the computer. I regard the 2D graph as being buggy and unreliable.

Text blocks are a good idea and seem to work OK, but then I did not really check that or other features as my opinion of Prime shifted from hopeful to dismay that this software release was so inadequate. I did not want to waste any more time on Prime as I realised it was not ready. I know PTC have stated Prime is still short of a lot of really important features in Mathcad, but there are problems in what has been implemented to date. In my opinion, Prime should not be released at this stage as I suspect it will get hammered by its competition. I regard Prime as still being in the prototype phase. Who does PTC think will use this product?!

It appears PTC has decided to devote its resources to Prime. It seems likely it will take a long time before Prime is a properly functioning product. It may well be an excellent product by that time. But my concern is the existing Mathcad line, which I still believe could be improved with not much effort given the many practical suggestions over the years from the collaboratory, will stall on the sidelines. So current Mathcad users may see no change to their existing product for a couple of years. This is a long time to wait in any software market as the mathematical programmes out there continually improve, as they have done for the last few years.

I really like the Mathcad product, I have used it for 7 years now and I still believe it has enormous potential. But I am really disappointed in the overall situation now.

Are my comments above too hard? No.

Regards

David

[RogerMansfield]

Yes, I think we have all tried to be nice. Your comments are not "too hard" -- they are well thought out, and thankfully very civil. I'm not with PTC, yet I can assure you that your criticisms will be noted and acted upon. I have watched Mathcad evolve and have participated in its evolution for a long time (I don't want to date myself, nor do I want to come off as "bragging"). The transition from Mathsoft to PTC has been difficult. There were some times when I really considered not upgrading. But things have gotten a lot better in the last two years. Jakov has stated PTC's goal that Mathcad Prime 3.0 be able to replace Mathcad 15. That's about two years away. O.K., let's assume that this goal is met. Are you going to wait two years and then all of a sudden pick up on Mathcad Prime? If you were shocked by your first look at Mathcad Prime 1.0 now (I think you were, and understandably so), think what a shock you would get two years from now. What I think you will do (based upon the care that you took in writing up your criticisms), is that you will devote more time to learning more about Mathcad Prime 1.0. To the point where you will find some things to like. Because you don't want to give up on Mathcad -- you care about its future. I myself believe that Mathcad Prime is Mathcad's future. I also believe that honest, constructive criticism such as you have just voiced will help to shape that future. P.S. Consider volunteering to be a tester for Mathcad Prime 2.0. Just a thought.

[RichardJ]

I think you guys are being too nice about the Prime product. What is wrong with a bit of honesty and realism.

I didn't think I was being that nice

Perhaps the fact that we were not nastier is because many of us knew was was coming in Prime 1.0, so there was no shock when we saw it. We also know about the road map for Prime, and that the end goal is to make is as capable as MC15. The general aspects of that road map, although perhaps not the details, are public knowledge. I get the impression that you were not aware of what Prime was going to look like until you fired it up, which must indeed have been a shock!

It appears PTC has decided to devote its resources to Prime. It seems likely it will take a long time before Prime is a properly functioning product. It may well be an excellent product by that time. But my concern is the existing Mathcad line, which I still believe could be improved with not much effort given the many practical suggestions over the years from the collaboratory, will stall on the sidelines. So current Mathcad users may see no change to their existing product for a couple of years. This is a long time to wait in any software market as the mathematical programmes out there continually improve, as they have done for the last few years.

I have not been specifically told this, but I tihnk it is safe to assume that there will be no Mathcad 16, ever. There may be some more patches for version 15 (which will be supported until Prime is ready for the mass migration), but the future is Prime, and you are correct that almost all the resources are going into that product. So if, like many of us, you want to stick with Mathcad then you have a couple of options:

Plan A: Go into a holding pattern with MC15 until Prime 3.0 is ready (I think at least 2 years)

Plan B: The same as Plan A, except that, as Roger suggests, you use Prime at least a little, and throw in your 2 cents worth to try and make sure that when we get Prime 3.0 it is actually what we want.

Most of us have gone for plan B. It has the added benefit that when we see the next version of Prime we will not fall off our chairs backwards with shock

[jhardy1]

I note that a number of respected contributors (Richard, Roger, et al) are proposing a course of action of "dual use" - Mathcad 15 for the "heavy lifting", Mathcad Prime to "get used to the new look", and contribute to its development, in the hope that Mathcad Prime 3.0 (or so) will be a fully-featured and mature product.

Just my $0.02 worth, but I am afraid this is not a viable plan of action for me, and I suspect many other users too. I absolutely NEED a fully-featured and reliable product NOW, and I can't afford the time at work to struggle to convert existing worksheets and / or develop new ones, only to discover that all too many critical features are simply not implemented. I would be prepared to contribute a bit of time "Beta Testing" a product which is effectively fully-featured now, but just needs some final end-user bug cleansing before final release. But "dual use" in the hope of getting what I really need in a couple of years? No way!

I am concerned that PTC's strategy in releasing Mathcad Lite Prime will alienate many existing users, and PTC may find it is a tough job to woo them back in a few years time when they finally get round to releasing the product that their existing user-base wants and needs NOW.

[MikeArmstrong]

Just my $0.02 worth, but I am afraid this is not a viable plan of action for me, and I suspect many other users too. I absolutely NEED a fully-featured and reliable product NOW, and I can't afford the time at work to struggle to convert existing worksheets and / or develop new ones, only to discover that all too many critical features are simply not implemented. I would be prepared to contribute a bit of time "Beta Testing" a product which is effectively fully-featured now, but just needs some final end-user bug cleansing before final release. But "dual use" in the hope of getting what I really need in a couple of years? No way!

I am concerned that PTC's strategy in releasing Mathcad Lite Prime will alienate many existing users, and PTC may find it is a tough job to woo them back in a few years time when they finally get round to releasing the product that their existing user-base wants and needs NOW.

That may be the case, but if current uses want to continue using the latest PTC (Mathcad) product they'll have no choice.

This is the first real stamp PTC has made since acquiring Mathcad. This version might not be aimed at current competent Mathcad users; this version might be aiming at new users and educational needs.

PTC couldn't win either way. They wanted to bring out their own product, not just continue with the layout Mathcad currently has. Would we have been happy if PTC took three years to get Prime up to speed with the current version of Mathcad? I doubt it. If they didn’t release Prime now they would risk losing customers, as other software packages might seem a better product.

Mike

[RichardJ]

I note that a number of respected contributors (Richard, Roger, et al) are proposing a course of action of "dual use"

Just my $0.02 worth, but I am afraid this is not a viable plan of action for me, and I suspect many other users too. I absolutely NEED a fully-featured and reliable product NOW, and I can't afford the time at work to struggle to convert existing worksheets and / or develop new ones,

Actually, if you read back up though the posts, that is exactly what I said.

As far as "dual use" goes, what I said was "I will play around with Prime 1.0, but mainly so that I can start to learn it a little before a useful version arrives, and so that I can get my 2 cents in about what needs to come next." So no real dual use at all, just enough to stick my oar in before things go so far down a particular (possibly very bad) road that there is no going back. I choose to spend a little time doing that because the only other possible options are :

a) Switch to a different product, which means learning everything all over, and rewriting a huge amount of material. This will require more than just a little time.

b) Say nothing, and just wait to see if we eventually get something I can use (and if all the current users were to take that approach I would say the chances of that happening are close to zero). If we don't get something usable, go for option (a), but now with several more years worth of worksheets to convert.

[ValeryOchkov]

One saving idea:

Mathcad Prime 1.0 (without some functions) must have a name StudyWorks Prime (Do you remember StudyWorks - a little brother of Mathcad? see http://collab.mathsoft.com/~studyworks)

Mathcad Prime 2.0 must have a name Mathcad Prime 1.0

Mathcad Prime 3.0 must have a name Mathcad Prime 2.0

etc

[ValeryOchkov]

The Moscow branch of the PTC has asked me to add an official announcement of Mathcad Prime (see attach) a small comment. I wrote this:

PTC’s Mathcad, innovative and very popular engineering calculation software used by millions of engineers and students around the world, gets second wind with the release of Mathcad Prime. As Mathcad Prime is taking over the baton from traditional Mathcad, some past experience is worth remembering.

Transition to Mathcad Prime can be compared, in terms of its importance, to the transition from the DOS versions of Mathcad to the Windows versions. Yong people do not remember this revolutionary transition but older generation would appreciate the sentiment. Many resisted the Windows versions of Mathcad, thinking “an old ox named DOS makes a straight furrow”, but later realized the advantages of new technology. I am confident that the same fortunate turn of events is in store for Mathcad Prime!

PS

"An old ox named DOS makes a straight furrow" - in Russia we say "An old horse will not spoil a furrow"

PPS

Mathcad Prime is one backstep to DOS Mathcad - we cannot use buttons of palettes but must use hotkeys!

[RogerMansfield]

Serious work on what is now Mathcad Prime began, as near as I can reckon from my own participation, no later than the beginning of 2009. So it took at least two years of planning and development to get to the release of Mathcad Prime 1.0 on January 10, 2011. If PTC had waited two more years to introduce Mathcad Prime at 3.0, no one but the testers would have gotten to see what is in the new Mathcad. The entirely new product, every new feature, would have been "dumped" on the user community all at once, two years from now. There would have been no opportunity for the general user base (vs. testers) to have input. Yet to Mathcad Single users who have not been a part of the last two years of testing, (e.g., David), even Mathcad Prime 1.0 looks like a big "dump" (pun not intended;-). David, volunteer as a tester for Prime 2.0. PTC needs your input. We who participate in PlanetPTC now have a golden opportunity to help shape the future of Mathcad. What really matters is what lies ahead. The ribbon UI will be refined -- not to everyone's satisfaction (for sure that's impossible), but it will get better. Clearly, Valery is onboard. So am I. For my own part, I'd like to stop defending Mathcad Prime 1.0 now and just focus on using it.

[ptc-1371556]

Hi

As I see it, software development needs two basic aspects to make it work:

(a) It must do what it is intended to do using code that is as lean, mean and as fast as possible. This assumes the underlying processes and structure of the written software are sound etc.

(b) The user can work quickly and efficiently to get their work done. It is imperative there are no bottlenecks for the user. User time is valuable - human costs are high given salaries etc. Purchasing of software is usually a relatively low cost item in comparison. So user productivity in all its different guises is really important.

As much as possible needs to be done by the software manufacturer whilst still at their "factory". This includes periodically developing the software to meet changes in user needs.

Just because Microsoft decided to change its interface a few years ago in Office from the previous menu & toolbars etc to the ribbon, it does not mean that PTC needs to copy it. I regard the ribbon interface as being slower for the user than the previous interface due the greater number of movements by the user. This applies in Office as well as in PTC Prime. A mathematical programme is a specialist one and I suggest a user is quite prepared to accept a non-ribbon Microsoft lookalike if it makes the user happier and more efficient. At the least, I suggest PTC needs to enable user-adaptibility of the ribbon such as via palettes / toolbars etc.

Given I have used Mathcad (relying on v11 since when I started in 2003, having tried and not liked or been indifferent to the more recent versions), for whatever it seems to be worth, I do offer some of my time for testing etc. (I offered some time ago with Prime, but not accepted at the time by PTC as perhaps they had enough testers).

However, PTC has gained, maybe unfairly as I do not really know, a perception at least with me to be somewhat indifferent to users etc. Are PTC really interested by listening to users or are they just going their "own sweet way" irrespective. Has PTC really listened to all you guys who have contributed so much to the collaboratory, who I regard as being expert in Mathcad and you all have a high level of engagement to the product? Over the years, many good suggestions have been made for the Mathcad product but not that many have been actually implemented. That of course is PTC's prerogative as owner of the Mathcad / Prime product. But users do not have accept what they do either : they do not have to buy or upgrade to their latest product.

I object strongly to the ribbon. If Prime does not make it more user friendly then I shall not bother to even test the product. This as at stands now is a total deal breaker for me. I do not want to spend my time experimenting with Prime given the inefficiencies of the ribbon.

I am running a small consulting practice. I need to develop my programmes to cover my work requirements (which continue to get more complicated with each passing year) and I cannot wait another 2 years for Prime to get to a point where it replaces Mathcad. How much extra functionality will Prime have over Mathcad in 2 years time? That is a valid question. In addition, I absolutely must make more efficient use of my time and try to improve my productivity, irrespective of the mathematical software I use.

Money is a consideration, but not the only factor for me. As mentioned above, my work requirements and productivity are paramount for me. I have to be commercial. Whilst Mathcad was good for me in the past (and I preferred it over Maple and Mathematica), I now need something more than the current Mathcad. The other mathematical products have changed over time. So I have just decided to spend $2,500 and buy Mathematica. I truly do not want to re-write all my programmes etc, but I feel I have no choice given my particular circumstances. I know I will need to spend a lot of time upfront to learn it and write my new programmes, but I am hoping my productivity gains in the future will more than compensate for the immediate workload. Other users will have their own requirements so please note I am not trying to influence them: I am just presenting my own views.

Deep down, I always liked the Mathcad product, so I intend to keep Mathcad on the side for the time being and keep an eye on Prime as it develops. But I am really disappointed that so little has gone into the Mathcad product over recent years.

Regards

David

[RogerMansfield]

David,

Every point you raise is valid, and I hope PTC is listening. I am reluctant to provide even this short affirmative reply, because I do not want to divert any attention from your post.

I do envy your being able to afford to purchase Mathematica and spend time with it. If I could find the time and money to invest in another one of the "four Ms" (Mathcad, Matlab, Maple, Mathematica), Matlab would be next. But I do wonder: when you immerse yourself into one of the other M-communities, do you not find yourself bogged down in another, different set of bugs and problems?

I worked for many years on large software development projects, as a software developer with expertise in the mathematics of space flight. So I am sympathetic to the software developer's plight (PTC's, in this case) -- I have many times had to defend our command & control systems development schedule (and the inevitable delays) to the user commmunity. And we never, ever were able to completely satisfy the user community.

With difficult technical challenges and the ever-present constraints in personnel and budget, we always lagged. Sounds a lot like the situation with PTC today, doesn't it?

Roger

[f.kohlhepp]

If I could find the time and money to invest in another one of the "four Ms" (Mathcad, Matlab, Maple, Mathematica), Matlab would be next.

There is a MatLab "work alike" freeware-- do a search on Octave. No GUI interface (that I've found), but it will run most Matlab scripts with similar results.

[MySchizoBuddy]

if Mathcad Prime 1.0 was $100 everyone will stop complaining.

I would like to see a version of JUST Mathcad Prime 1.0 WITHOUT Mathcad 15 for $100.

[jkucan]

If one is looking at Mathcad Prime 1.0 as a direct replacement for Mathcad 15.0, I would have to agree with many comments in this discussion thread. For those of you that used Mathcad for many years, I understand you point of view, and I will reiterate that we intend to evolve Mathcad Prime to replace Mathcad 15.0 over the next few releases.

Let me, however, comment from a different perspective. Image you started working in Mathcad Prime 1.0 and were considering switching to Mathcad 15.0. Here are a few things that you would be missing (the point being, Mathcad Prime 1.0 is not just a subset of Mathcad 15.0 -- it is a new product).

• More comprehensive support for units including: dynamic unit checking, mixed units in matrices, unit handling in more functions, better unit handling in plots, automatic highlighting of units in equations, etc.
• Improved Fourier functions dft and idft (the new functions have improved performance and precision, handle more cases, and are used in many signal processing functions).
• Variable definitions in tables
• Easy editing of matrices (adding or deleting rows and columns)
• Improved programming operators (easier editing, more familiar if-then-else form, etc.)
• Easier to use equation editor (highlighting of operands, operator replacement, grouping of terms, etc.)
• Extension pack functionality merged into the core product
• Improvements to file read/write functions (READEXCEL, READTEXT, READ and matching WRITE functions)
• New 2D plot types (discrete plots, box plots, etc.)
• Improvements to contour plots
• Document view including WYSIWYG editing of headers and footers
• Grid for region alignment
• etc.

In addition, the usability of the product has been significantly improved. I see that some of you disagree with this statement, but we have been testing this product for usability in usability tests with ~90 participants in ~6 tests and 5 alpha/beta tests with ~200 participants providing comprehensive feedback.

The overwhelming feedback on usability has been positive.

At the end of the last Alpha test, 56% of testers surveyed, agreed that they would use Mathcad Prime 1.0. And 49% of testers would recommend Mathcad Prime 1.0 to other people in their company. Others indicated they would wait until Prime 2.0 releases.

We have also learned that some things cannot please everyone (e.g. the ribbon gets mixed reviews), and that some of the things need fine tuning. We have incorporated some of the feedback in Mathcad Prime 1.0 and plan to incorporate more of that feedback in Mathcad Prime 2.0.

Yes, we had to make some compromises in terms of fucnitonality to be able to release the product sooner, rather than later, but is Mathcad Prime 1.0 a step back? I don't think so, and I hope that most of users will agree with me after spending some time with the product.

[ValeryOchkov]

Mathcad Prime has only one drawback - it must have other name!

[MBuck2]

Yes I agree, MathCad Prime name certainly doesn't reflect its ability. In my view its certainly feels impoverished in comparison to MathCad 15. Yes it may have some new innovative features but can it get the job done? This in the end, is all that counts. It lacks so many features in comparision to MC 15 and so the answer to the later question is a definite NO.

The MS Office type tool bar is OK but formatting a document in my view is harder to do in MathCad Prime than in MC15. The look of the programming blocks with their horrible double vertical lines and the solve blocks with their vertical text which overlap and become unreadable is unappealing and amateurish. I even think that the way MathCad 15 implements imbedded excel worksheets is more intuitive - at least you can see the data that's contained in the excel worksheet without having to get properties on the link.

Yes, in my view, its certainly not ready for 'Prime Time" viewing.

Mark Buckton

[ValeryOchkov]

Mathcad endured three attacks/strike :

1. Change the symbolic engine (Maple - MuPAD)
   
2. Changing base company (Mathsoft - PTC)
   
3. Emergence of a twin (or an impostor) - Mathcad Prime
   

I'm sure (I hope) that Mathcad is very strong and will withstand this third strike!

[MikeArmstrong]

Mathcad endured three attacks/strike: (1) the change the symbolic engine (Maple - MuPad), (2) the changing base company (Mathsoft - PTC) (3) the emergence of a twin - Mathcad Prime

I'm sure (I hope) that Mathcad is very strong and will withstand this third strike!

Valery I am with you on this. I sincerely hope that this (Mathcad Prime) doesn't push the more experienced users away from the software. Since moving to this forum we have seen several top participants from the old collab disappear, lets hope we don't see the same scenario with people actually using the software.

Mike

[NormanDanis]

I agree wholeheartedly. I liked Mathsoft as an outfit that one could just call and resolve a problem with no fuss. When there were bugs in the newest version they would send patches free of charge. And the upgrades were inexpensive. Now, "so-called" upgrades may have excellent improvements in areas I am not aware of, but to me the last few (up to 14) didn't have much to brag about and they cost too much. I was very disappointed when I learned of the PTC takeover.

[RichardJ]

Five strikes. You forgot

1) The rewrite of the compute engine going from 11 to 12. That resulted in a lot of problems, the most notable of which was SUC

2) The demise of the Collaboratory, and the very incomplete migration of the content to these forums. A lot of valuable information never made it here, and when the Collab finally disappears completely, it will be gone for ever.

[mzeftel]

Mathcad Prime 1.0 has dynamic units, not static unit checking. Units are a major feature of Mathcad Prime 1.0.

• Most functions now accept units. The ones that don't are only the ones where they don't make sense.
  
• You can now have mixed units in matrices and mixed units on plots
  
• And Mathcad Prime has dynamic unit checking.
  

Many of the other features in Mathcad Prime are a step forward from Mathcad 15.

Mona

[RichardJ]

Yes, the unit handling is better, and the mixed units in matrices (finally!) is a big step forward. Now we just need all the other stuff

[MBuck2]

Yes we may have the "bath water" but where is our "baby". Obviously PTC has limited resources and it shows. If I were PTC, I would immediately cease further development of MathCad 15. Employ more engineers and redirect all available PTC resources to MathCad Prime development. PTC must run to replace MathCad 15. Users cannot wait 2 years to see Mathcad Prime 3. A delivery timeframe of that length, in my view, is unacceptable. The window of opportunity is small. PTC, in my view are playing a high stakes game. They seriously risk loosing their existing customers base to competing products. The proof that any product is ready for "Prime Time" is when it can perfectly translate all earlier previous versions but in particular MathCad 14 and 15 worksheets must be able to translated without a hitch. Imagine the uproar if for example, Microsoft Office could not read previous word documents or if AutoCAD not read the dwg format. Backward compatibility for most software companies is their highest priority why does PTC think differently? If PTC can demonstrate a seamless translation then and only then, will users be confident in making the move to MathCad Prime. Although, Mathcad Prime unit handling may be better than MathCad 15, its graphing, formatting, object alignment, amateurish solve and program blocks and lack of global variables, in my view, make the program almost useless.

Mark Buckton

Concerned MathCad User

[MikeArmstrong]

If I were PTC, I would immediately cease further development of MathCad 15. Employ more engineers and redirect all available PTC resources to MathCad Prime development. PTC must run to replace MathCad 15. Users cannot wait 2 years to see Mathcad Prime 3. A delivery timeframe of that length, in my view, is unacceptable.

I don't think PTC has said it will take 2 years, it is the members of this forum assuming that it will. Could be in Prime 2.0.

PTC, in my view are playing a high stakes game. They seriously risk loosing their existing customers base to competing products.

I don't fully agree with this. How long would it take to pick up a new product and become competent with it? I would say about two years of solid use and who has the time to allocate to learning a new piece of software???? Would rather use M15 and wait for future versions of Prime.

Mike