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

[PatriceBujard-d]

I don't know anything about Prime versions. What would be interesting in further developments is the possibility to create executable files for people who do not have Mathcad installed on their computer and also do not want to learn Mathcad. Something similar to Labview excecutables but for data analysis and not for instrument controls. Dor example, I wrote Labview files and colleagues can use them wihout having to know Labview. It would be great to have the same colleagues be able to run excecutable "Mathcad files" for data analysis, once measurements are completed, on a computer where Mathcad is not installed. I know I could do it all with Labview but I find Mathcad more convienent for data analysis. Does anyone know if we can insert a Mathcad file within a labview file and then create an excecutale ? (may be too naive, I don't know)

[ValeryOchkov]

Patrice Bujard wrote:

I don't know anything about Prime versions. What would be interesting in further developments is the possibility to create executable files for people who do not have Mathcad installed on their computer and also do not want to learn Mathcad.

Mathcad Prime Calculation Server?

Mathcad Calculation Server - see http://twt.mpei.ac.ru/ochkov/Mathcad_12/MAS/index.html

[MBuck2]

Mike

I can understand that MathCad Prime is a new product and all that but why implement features which are less flexible, less capable and less esthetically pleasing than than its predecessor? A case in point is the graphing capability - the plots look ugly, you cannot have a second axis and they even don't support gridlines? Maybe I have overlooked a setting or something but I cannot seem to even change the max and min plot range of the axes. Yet I recall reading that PTC asserts that the plotting is a big improvement in comparison to earlier versions; well we will have to agree to disagree on that one. I would love to start using MathCad Prime but everytime I try to do something I come away disappointed with what seems to me anyway a "half baked" version of MathCad.

My 2 cents on the matter.

[mzeftel]

Mark,

To change the minimum and maximum range on each axis of the plots, just click on the numbers and delete and replace them with the new minimums and maximums. To change the interval of the tick marks, click on the second number on each axis and set the interval. In testing, users said that was easier than having to calculate how many grids to use for each plot.

We are adding new features to Mathcad Prime on yearly release schedule. Second y-axis and gridlines on the plot didn't make it into the first release, but are listed for a future release.

Mona

[MikeArmstrong]

I can understand that MathCad Prime is a new product and all that but why implement features which are less flexible, less capable and less esthetically pleasing than than its predecessor?

I am not entirely sure to be honest. I have openly criticized the new programming layout, well the double line which has replaced the bold black line. I also don't like the solve blocks, but I can live with those.

A case in point is the graphing capability - the plots look ugly, you cannot have a second axis and they even don't support gridlines? Maybe I have overlooked a setting or something but I cannot seem to even change the max and min plot range of the axes.

I would have to disagree. I think the plots look more professional and I understand there are additional features to come in future versions. The min and max values can be changed - just click on the values and manually type in the number in.

I would love to start using MathCad Prime but everytime I try to do something I come away disappointed with what seems to me anyway a "half baked" version of MathCad.

I feel the same way. Just a thought - continue to play around with it and use M15 for all other work. I fully believe that Prime 2.0 will have the majority of key features M15 has and a few nice additions.

Mike

[DaleLabitzke-di]

I must be one of the old timers. I started with MathCAD for DOS. The change to Windows was OK but took a few hours to get used to. Every upgrade took a bit of time to get used to. All the "ugrades" added some value although I thought some added more value to MathCAD's pocket than to my capability.

Prime 1 looks like the Suits got a hold of it. There's a lot of pretty banners and another "new" product to release, but overall a loss of functionality. I'm with the group that wants to keep on using ver 15 while Prime 2 and Prime 3 are developed. But I'll spend my idle time exploring Mathematica. It makes a lot of pretty pictures too.

[NormanDanis]

I am one of the old timers too. Started in '91 since I had to start working off site (at home). I may re-install Mathcad 11 since I still have the disk, but since I talked the chief into paying, so I bought Matlab 7. I think Mathcad was doomed the moment the PTC buy-out paperwork was in place.

[Wallynorm]

Norman:

When MathCAD was sold to PTC, I spoke to about a half dozen of my contacts in the mechanical engineering department who had been using both Pro-E and MathCAD. They unanimously told me to move to another tool because MathCAD would soon be ruined. I should have listened to them then.

I have purchased four or five Mathcad upgrades over the many years I have used it. Not one change provided me with any necessary capability improvements. The upgrades were required to transition from Mac to PC and to keep up with the the ever chumming of operating systems and hardware and lack of backward compatibility.

Upgrades, in general, make it harder to work (more pull-down options and more point-and-clicks creating the equivalent of DOS with a mouse), take money from me to remain compatible with my work machine, lower my productivity, provide less and less useful features, and make a few people filthy rich.

I don't understand why people think change is good no matter what the cost. We got change three years ago and the economy collapsed. We got more change a year ago and look how much better off we are.

Then again, maybe most of the audience here are like the little texting orange critter in the AT&T cell-phone commercials. "If it is more "techno-neat, I gotta have it."

[MikeArmstrong]

When MathCAD was sold to PTC, I spoke to about a half dozen of my contacts in the mechanical engineering department who had been using both Pro-E and MathCAD. They unanimously told me to move to another tool because MathCAD would soon be ruined. I should have listened to them then.

On what basis did they say this because I have seen decent upgrades of Pro-Eng since PTC took over.

provide less and less useful features,

I doubt that the upgrades of Mathcad provide less and less useful features. Even M14 - M15 add a new useful features. Excel compatibility was improved just to name one.

I don't understand why people think change is good no matter what the cost. We got change three years ago and the economy collapsed. We got more change a year ago and look how much better off we are.

Then again, maybe most of the audience here are like the little texting orange critter in the AT&T cell-phone commercials. "If it is more "techno-neat, I gotta have it."

I'm not sure who your getting at here because I haven't seen many members writing about how pleased they are with 'change'.

Mike

[RogerMansfield]

Glenn,

It is just too early to call now regarding PTC's stewardship of Mathcad -- but I do hope that PTC proves your contacts wrong.

I'm going to give PTC a chance with Mathcad Prime. I'm continuing to create most of my content with Mathcad 15, but if I think that a Mathcad 15 worksheet will convert to Prime 1.0, I try it.

I'm writing new content in Mathcad Prime 1.0, too, and there are some things about Prime that I really like (but not the ribbon UI).

I do have to strongly disagree with one thing you said. I am sure that no one at PTC is getting "filthy rich" off Mathcad. Unfortunately, this perception is, for sure, one of the reasons why no one is getting filthy rich off Mathcad. If Mathsoft had been getting filthy rich off Mathcad, they would not have sold the product to PTC.

My fear is that if enough single users don't buy into paying annual maintenance for Mathcad, then the Mathcad product will eventually die due to insufficient revenue*. This fear was my principal motivation for having purchased a node-locked, Mathcad 14-to-15 upgrade license, with annual maintenance, last summer.

But I really do also want to have as much visibility into the entire Mathcad product development process as I can. That was my second reason -- which could have been, I think, sufficient justification by itself.

*Don't forget that, even if PTC never introduced a single new Mathcad feature, they would still have to pay the cost of keeping up with fixes/upgrades to the Windows operating system.

[MikeArmstrong]

Just out of curiosity what version are you running now?

I think Mathcad was doomed the moment the PTC buy-out paperwork was in place.

Bold statement. Have you tried Prime yet?

Mike

[MikeArmstrong]

There's a lot of pretty banners and another "new" product to release, but overall a loss of functionality. I'm with the group that wants to keep on using ver 15 while Prime 2 and Prime 3 are developed. But I'll spend my idle time exploring Mathematica.

How much time will you have to spend learning a new product?

I think the development of Prime 2.0 will be underway as we speak. I believe PTC would have put all the features which M15 had into Prime, but ran out of time. Being devils advocate for a second; do you think it would have been wise for PTC not to release another version of Mathcad until Prime matched M15? Remember Prime will seem very user friendly to people going to uni, work and school for the first time.

A lot of users where complaining that M15 wasn't a full upgrade so it would have been pointless PTC releasing a M16 with a few new features. I think we should be patient. After all, we would be moaning even more if PTC would have kept Prime under the hat for another year while they implemented all the missing features.

Mike

[EETStoodent]

There is such a simple solution to this issue. If MCPrime1.0 does not yet have all of the features of MC15, but loyal Mathcad users want to go ahead and try it out, then they should just call it beta until it has all of the same features. "duh"

"just sayin"

They are still offering the 30 day trial of MC15 (bugs and all).

(I just thought of something:

I wonder if they are planning to increment the version numbers of MCP with only prime numbers?

Hmmmm.)

[Imanobody]

Prime [version] numbers

The good news is Microsoft's Win7 has a few years before they decide to stir things up again, MC15 is perfectly usable until they completely break it.

Roger & Mike are the MathCad's "Good Cop - Bad Cop" duo , keep it up guys.

[RichardJ]

The good news is Microsoft's Win7 has a few years before they decide to stir things up again, MC15 is perfectly usable until they completely break it.

Yes, that is an important point. If MC15 became unusable before Prime was ready for Prime Time, then I for one would be up a certain creek without a paddle. Fortunately, the timing of Microsoft's OS releases (and the fact that Win7 is not a complete lemon, like Vista) means we will probably not have an incompatibility problem before it's possible to switch to Prime.

[RogerMansfield]

Right on, Patrick (the good cop/bad cop comment) -- it tickles me that you said that;-)

Roger

[MikeArmstrong]

There is such a simple solution to this issue. If MCPrime1.0 does not yet have all of the features of MC15, but loyal Mathcad users want to go ahead and try it out, then they should just call it beta until it has all of the same features. "duh"

"just sayin"

This has been said by Valery along with other forum members earlier in the thread.

(I just thought of something:

I wonder if they are planning to increment the version numbers of MCP with only prime numbers?

Hmmmm.)

Mike

[Efried]

I think most people are missing the crucial point for professionals. I would advise PTC to undertake a professional analysis for different segments and not ask nerds simply what they want. Where do people spend their time when working with Mathcad and what should be improved so they want to spend money on upgrades. I was not any longer that familiar with Mathcad internals to discover bugs in a programm quickly, this took me weeks to solve them. Now Mathcad 15 works with me but it is painful. Longer calculations do not show a progress bar. Saving the xmcad files takes tremenduously long and sometimes it stalls completely and work is lost, even after doing some file clean-up like recommended by PTC.

The UI and a clear logic behind it certainly is important for productivity but debugging capability is important too and stability is most important. My guess however is that for catching a new clientele new libraries with open calculation code shoud be created. May be also there should be emphasis on offering a way offer transition of mathcad code into pseudocode and then into C#, python etc...

I don't know PRIME enough to say whether it is a good step to solve the mentioned problems but I hope.

[MikeArmstrong]

I think us Mathcad 'nerds' are missing the point.

Do you honestly think Mathcad would have the appeal factor to pull competent users of say Matlab, Maple or Mathematica away and get them to learn Mathcad...No.

When PTC bought Mathcad, do we know how the product was doing financially? Was it losing customers, gaining customers I have no idea. Where long time users upgrading?

IMO PTC have gone down the route of converting their newly acquired product to look more like the standard programs around; ribbon and general interface. (I am not a fan of the ribbon by the way). This of course has upset a lot of users who liked the old Mathcad layout. But it’s in our nature to complain about change, isn’t it? Remember many users have complained since Mathcad 12 onwards.

Having said all this, Prime 1.0 might seem more attractive to universities, colleges and schools who are looking for a new Mathematical teaching tool with a similar layout to standard software - Office. Instead of looking at all the negatives, why not look at some of the improved features Prime has over Mathcad 15, not many, but there are a few which I would be happy to have in M15.

To sum this up – will competent users of Mathcad switch to another product because of Prime – I don’t think so. It would take a lot longer to learn another software package and get to the level many collabs on this forum are at.

Just a thought - Have a glance at Prime 1.0, and aid with the improvement by suggesting new features for Prime 2.0, because I am 100% confident that by about the third version of Prime we will have a better product than we currently have.

Mike

[StuartBruff]

Mike Armstrong wrote:

I think us Mathcad 'nerds' are missing the point.

Do you honestly think Mathcad would have the appeal factor to pull competent users of say Matlab, Maple or Mathematica away and get them to learn Mathcad...No.

It might have done if it had kept up with times and fulfilled the potential that the concept is capable of (eg, see the links in my recent 'Documentation' post).

When PTC bought Mathcad, do we know how the product was doing financially? Was it losing customers, gaining customers I have no idea. Where long time users upgrading?

The figures should be available.

IMO PTC have gone down the route of converting their newly acquired product to look more like the standard programs around; ribbon and general interface. (I am not a fan of the ribbon by the way). This of course has upset a lot of users who liked the old Mathcad layout. But it’s in our nature to complain about change, isn’t it? Remember many users have complained since Mathcad 12 onwards

Whilst there might have a few users who complained because it 'different' in some form, many of the longer term users complained because M12 represented a major drop in capability and had several annoying (and not particularly beneficial) incompatibilities with older versions (particularly M11).

Static type checking was a particular bug-bear, because it consigned many useful techniques to the dustbin; indeed, it was perceived by some to be 'nannyware' and thought to have been introduced because some 'suit' had whined about it not stopping them entering metres and seconds until they tried to add them. It certainly didn't have supporters rushing up in droves to support its introduction ... the BEST thing about Prime is that SUC has finally gone. Hurrah! Apart from SUC, I was particularly hit by the negative changes to recursion, including the implementation of nanny limit on recursion depth rather than providing better error handling. Overall, it looked like the M12 changes were made to cope with complete newbies who would be intellectually challenged by velcro shoes and were made by software types who didn't use Mathcad on a day-to-day basis. Although, SUC was still there in later versions, many of us breathed a big sigh of relief when M13 came along and straightened a few things out.

Back to your point, if you look back at the history of suggestions on the old Collaboratory, you will note that several of us wanted far more radical changes to Mathcad to give it the kind of capabilities that attract people to its rivals: programmable graphics, multi-dimensional arrays, symbolic manipulation of units, LaTex output, formatted strings (capable of display without quote marks), free-hand entry - even 'simple' things such as multiple windows onto a spreadsheet and automatic program line wrapping. The list is very long and many of the same requests have popped up from new users for over a decade. Some of the ideas could be implemented, and quickly distributed, as mpl files (eg, new functions).

To sum this up – will competent users of Mathcad switch to another product because of Prime – I don’t think so. It would take a lot longer to learn another software package and get to the level many collabs on this forum are at.

There are many reasons, in general, why users switch products. One of them is that a product doesn't meet their growing expectations but others do. Furthermore, the learning gaps aren't as big as you might think because some other products allow relatively new users to do things that Mathcad 'experts' have to think about or are impossible. Resting on Laurels is not a good idea, as many a manufacturer has found out to their cost.

Stuart

[MikeArmstrong]

Whilst there might have a few users who complained because it 'different' in some form, many of the longer term users complained because M12 represented a major drop in capability and had several annoying (and not particularly beneficial) incompatibilities with older versions (particularly M11).

I fully understand the reasons for users complaining about M12 onwards. I still don't fully understand why PTC decided to change from dynamic unit checking.

Back to your point, if you look back at the history of suggestions on the old Collaboratory, you will note that several of us wanted far more radical changes to Mathcad to give it the kind of capabilities that attract people to its rivals: programmable graphics, multi-dimensional arrays, symbolic manipulation of units, LaTex output, formatted strings (capable of display without quote marks), free-hand entry - even 'simple' things such as multiple windows onto a spreadsheet and automatic program line wrapping. The list is very long and many of the same requests have popped up from new users for over a decade. Some of the ideas could be implemented, and quickly distributed, as mpl files (eg, new functions).

Stuart as you are one of the members on this site were I trust your comments a 100% I find the above worrying. Which way is Mathcad heading then. I agree that M15 could have been improved without much effort, well a lot less than it must have taken to create Prime.

There are many reasons, in general, why users switch products. One of them is that a product doesn't meet their growing expectations but others do. Furthermore, the learning gaps aren't as big as you might think because some other products allow relatively new users to do things that Mathcad 'experts' have to think about or are impossible. Resting on Laurels is not a good idea, as many a manufacturer has found out to their cost.

It has taken me four years of solid use to get to my current level, which I must say is not 'expert'. My employer uses Mathcad and have done for many years, so unless I want to learn a new product in my own time I won't be changing.

Mike

[StuartBruff]

Mike Armstrong wrote:

Whilst there might have a few users who complained because it 'different' in some form, many of the longer term users complained because M12 represented a major drop in capability and had several annoying (and not particularly beneficial) incompatibilities with older versions (particularly M11).

I fully understand the reasons for users complaining about M12 onwards. I still don't fully understand why PTC decided to change from dynamic unit checking.

PTC didn't. It was Mathsoft who decided to do that (well before the PTC buy-out). I don't know why they did, but there was certainly a perception amongst some of us that it was a (probably well-intentioned) attempt to protect naive users from either missing the fact that they'd made a mistake or having to find out what the mistake was only when the worksheet was exected. It has its uses and I've nothing against it in principle but only as a user worksheet option. It crippled far too many worksheets for negligible gain from an experienced user's perspective.

Back to your point, if you look back at the history of suggestions on the old Collaboratory, you will note that several of us wanted far more radical changes to Mathcad to give it the kind of capabilities that attract people to its rivals: programmable graphics, multi-dimensional arrays, symbolic manipulation of units, LaTex output, formatted strings (capable of display without quote marks), free-hand entry - even 'simple' things such as multiple windows onto a spreadsheet and automatic program line wrapping. The list is very long and many of the same requests have popped up from new users for over a decade. Some of the ideas could be implemented, and quickly distributed, as mpl files (eg, new functions).

Stuart as you are one of the members on this site were I trust your comments a 100% I find the above worrying. Which way is Mathcad heading then. I agree that M15 could have been improved without much effort, well a lot less than it must have taken to create Prime.

Well, here's some evidence to back up my assertion:

http://communities.ptc.com/message/132568#132568

http://collab.mathsoft.com/read?112745,12

On 6/3/2008 1:30:06 PM, philipoakley wrote:

== We have recently had the PTC / MuPad / V14 / Print Preview / M020 peice of rough track.

I'm not sure these issues are relevant to determining what the key features are. I think most people implicitly expect a product not to crash or take intolerable lengths of time to run (Hi Valery!)

== So I'...

http://collab.mathsoft.com/~Mathcad2000/read?112720,63 mentions, I believe that Mathcad should be viewed from several points of view to see what capabilities it should have.

The Whiteboard

The first viewpoint I take is that which led to the invention of Mathcad - The Whiteboard.

The concept of the whiteboard has moved on over the years to the extent that it is common to encounter active (or at least semi-passive) whiteboards that allow the user to capture what's written on a PC, with automatic text recognition and vectorization routines that 'tidy up' drawings. It's not too difficult to extend the concept to a more active whiteboard that does this live (eg, a fast touch-sensitive screen + supporting tools, eg automatic or on-demand visual 'tidying up' with automatic interpretation). It should have a drag and drop capability, so that, say, a variable could be selected and dragged into a place holder, or a subset of a matrix could be selected and copy-dragged elsewhere. Now imagine yourself either thinking things through by yourself or giving a lecture/presentation and think what features you'd find useful in such an active whiteboard - that's what Mathcad should have, eg, quick text formatting without quotes, or the ability to choose either freehand drawing or the ability to pick from a palette of simple drawing tools.

A major implication of this is that notation should be flexible to allow the maths Prof their J_ν(x) whilst letting the 'programmer' enter J(n,x). Instantly, this means both left and right superscripts/subscripts and the ability to format them independently of the main name.

Detailed Analysis/Implementation

It's fairly easy to imagine that the Whiteboard is used to sketch out the design for some particular problem and get buy-in to progress to a more detailed analysis (eg, Whiteboard: "I've got this great idea for a new nozzle design! Here's the outline ..." followed by Detailed Analysis: "OK, looks promising. Flesh it out and generate some test data we can drop into the lab people."). This would be an extension of the Whiteboard with improved data presentation and more automated control over plots and animations, and access to their data/images.

Documentation/Publication/Presentation

The next stage, having done the donkey work and got some results back from the lab/production people, is to formally document it and/or prepare it for publication or presentation. This requires an additional set of tools, such enhanced text formatting, equation numbering, and style-guides (plus checkers) and layout enhancements, such as 2-column presentation. As you've mentioned elsewhere, the ability to output in pdf or LaTex format would be essential (built-in not bolted-on, so that, for example, default output file names would be automatically related to the worksheet name.

I think all of the above are in keeping with PTC's (and Mathsoft as was) aim of having Mathcad at the heart of a one-stop calculation management system. Whilst I'm aware of the dangers of overkill (the UML saga referred to), there are a lot of capable and competent competitors out there and not doing enough is a much a killer as capability bloat.

http://collab.mathsoft.com/read?102673,12 (Sep 2007)

Here's a summary of some feature requests, in no particular order

Stuart

1. add plot component programming interface:
… a. allow component to return complete parameter set (eg, as one nested array or by specific functions)
… b. allow user to programmatically set parameters (eg, pass back complete parameter set or by specific function)
… c. add capability to ret...



http://collab.mathsoft.com/read?94485,12 (worksheet shows potential for enhancement using (undocumented) 3D plot component to set titles, define axes, etc)

3. http://collab.mathsoft.com/read?58646,12 (original request)

4. add multi-dimensional array capability, should:
… a. support hyper-rectangular arrays
… b. provide ragged nested array index support
… c. have an empty array
… d. support tensor operations
… e. should support tensor notation (eg superscript)
… f. accept string input and provide string output of array values (for example of this see http://collab.mathsoft.com/read?74389,11 )

5. add set support (eg, array to set, set inclusion, set join)

6. provide mnemonic names for functions defined as operators (eg, '+' available as 'add')

7. enhance definition and display capability:
… a. provide keyboard shortcuts for prefix, infix, postfix and tree operators
… b. allow user to replace standard operator symbols with other function names (eg, 2+3 could become 2 div 3)
… c. allow tree display of nested vectors
… d. convert expression between Mathcad and 'standard' programming string (eg, MuPad, Excel or C)

8. enhance symbolic capability:
… a. allow deferred evaluation (useful for passing expressions to functions rather than trying to evaluate them first)
… b. allow user to create names programmatically (eg, string to variable, so could write a:=3, b:=4, c:=a+var("b"), where var provides the conversion)

9. allow direct access to region properties (including values)

10. see thread starting at message http://collab.mathsoft.com/read?66893,77

11. provide multiple views onto a worksheet (eg, similar to MS Excel's multiple windows or split view (top/bottom)

12. provide automatic region numbering schemes (eg, global paragraph numbering, equation/figure/table numbering)

13. allow programmatic access to a component's script (both read and write)

14. allow direct means of viewing a component's script (ie, without opening it)

15. provide symbol concordance

16. (to support the latter 2 features, provide a view onto the worksheet that lists all 'hidden' attributes (such as ORIGIN, TOL or default result settings)

17. improve page breaks to avoid splitting text over a page break (particularly wrt programs)

18. provide rectangular area / sub-worksheet capability

19. ability to extend Mathcad by adding worksheets / e-books as libraries in a similar way to extension packs, rather than having to 'include' them.

20. provide programmatical control of animation (in addition to the clunky and ancient dialog method)

21. add subvector function to complement submatrix (I use my subvector implementation fairly frequently)

22. add 'sequences' as a proper data type that the user can define outside of a for-loop definition and can use in place of a range (as a range is a sub-type of a sequence).

23. formalize and make available the Mathsoft Programming Language.

and here's a link to the Multi-Dimensional Array library I posted in 2004 to show how easy it would be to implement even a basic capability ...

http://collab.mathsoft.com/read?62589,11

[RichardJ]

I have a bottle of Champagne in the fridge that I was keeping for the day we finally got MDAs. It's been in there so long I think it might have gone bad by now though

[StuartBruff]

Richard Jackson wrote:

I have a bottle of Champagne in the fridge that I was keeping for the day we finally got MDAs. It's been in there so long I think it might have gone bad by now though

A solution presents itself. Buy a new bottle each year to consume on the anniversary of the request.

Of course, eventually, you'll have to sweet talk Matron into letting you keep it in the fridge in the Old Folk's Home ... and make sure she's got oxygen on hand in case Mxxx does implement MDAs - the shock could be quite detrimental to the old ticker.

Stuart

[RichardJ]

A solution presents itself. Buy a new bottle each year to consume on the anniversary of the request.

Excellent idea! In which case I think I am also owed a bottle for each of the anniversaries I missed.!

[RogerMansfield]

"Do you honestly think Mathcad would have the appeal factor to pull competent users of say Matlab, Maple or Mathematica away and get them to learn Mathcad...No."

I second this. I have had absolutely no success in getting Matlab users to try Mathcad. I've given up. I did a Mathcad workshop for mostly Matlab users back in 2007. Once an engineer has "bonded" with Matlab, he or she seems incapable of seeing that Mathcad stands above, and alone, in its power to facilitate the exploration of STEM concepts without having to write code.

"Having said all this, Prime 1.0 might seem more attractive to universities, colleges and schools who are looking for a new Mathematical teaching tool with a similar layout to standard software - Office. Instead of looking at all the negatives, why not look at some of the improved features Prime has over Mathcad 15, not many, but there are a few which I would be happy to have in M15."

I second this, too. In my opinion, the future of Mathcad lies in getting university engineering and science departments to teach with Mathcad. But Matlab is already so entrenched, at least in engineering departments.

I tried getting a certain physics & astronomy department to adopt Mathcad (after all, the department chair was an Mathcad aficionado, as well as a first-rate professor of electromagnetic theory -- and still is). The reply back was, half of the students are now coming in with Macintosh laptops -- is Mathcad available for the Mac? My answer was, yes it is, but it does not seem likely that students will be able to afford, nor will they want to purchase a third-party emulator and a copy of Windows XP just so that they can install Mathcad. (That was before BootCamp, but even with BootCamp, you still have to purchase a legal copy of Windows XP.)

I know of another physics department here in Colorado that used to teach with Mathcad, but went to Matlab when the dean of faculty determined that all of the science and engineering departments should switch to Matlab. (The mathematics department was using Mathematica, which most of the students hated and never used once they graduated.)

I think that science departments should be teaching with Mathcad. Science departments don't usually teach programming (there is not enough room in the curriculum for elementary computer science courses) -- graduate students are expected to learn programming on their own, as they progress through their graduate studies. Mathcad would be ideal because it allows you to do theoretical studies without having to learn programming.

I have the impression that PTC management is using the same model for Mathcad that they have used successfully with Pro/ENGINEER (Creo Elements). Sell lots of seats to big companies for lots of bucks. It ain't gonna work with Mathcad! This is what I meant about PTC/Mathsoft culture clash when I posted about this some years ago. Please, PTC, tell me I'm wrong with some numbers to prove it!

In the aerospace computer systems development community where I practice, the companies don't buy Mathcad seats. The really motivated systems engineers purchase Mathcad on their own (and that is too, too small a number in my experience). Aerospace companies are hugely hierarchical, bureaucratic, and process-bound, just like the military organizations that they serve. So good luck figuring out who to contact to sell Mathcad seats.

Well, Mike, I didn't mean for this to be a rant, but what we are talking about here is how to get more engineers to use Mathcad.

PTC has to do a better job of getting university professors to develop courses that require students to purchase the student edition of Mathcad. This is key to a wider acceptance of Mathcad in the science and engineering communities over the long term.

To sum up, I think we have to have success at the university level first. Mathcad Prime 1.0, even as it exists today, is a good product for students to start with. That was one of your points, Mike, and I completely agree.

Mathcad 15 continues to serve expert users, but new users should start now with Mathcad Prime 1.0 -- that's your notion, and I like it.

[MikeArmstrong]

"Do you honestly think Mathcad would have the appeal factor to pull competent users of say Matlab, Maple or Mathematica away and get them to learn Mathcad...No."

I second this. I have had absolutely no success in getting Matlab users to try Mathcad. I've given up. I did a Mathcad workshop for mostly Matlab users back in 2007. Once an engineer has "bonded" with Matlab, he or she seems incapable of seeing that Mathcad stands above, and alone, in its power to facilitate the exploration of STEM concepts without having to write code.

"Having said all this, Prime 1.0 might seem more attractive to universities, colleges and schools who are looking for a new Mathematical teaching tool with a similar layout to standard software - Office. Instead of looking at all the negatives, why not look at some of the improved features Prime has over Mathcad 15, not many, but there are a few which I would be happy to have in M15."

I second this, too. In my opinion, the future of Mathcad lies in getting university engineering and science departments to teach with Mathcad. But Matlab is already so entrenched, at least in engineering departments.

I'm glad someone actually agree's with my comments. I am a little disappointed that M15 wasn't updated and the features implemented into Prime wasn't used to create a Mathcad 16. But we now have Prime and unless we decide to jump ship this is the future.

Well, Mike, I didn't mean for this to be a rant, but what we are talking about here is how to get more engineers to use Mathcad.

PTC has to do a better job of getting university professors to develop courses that require students to purchase the student edition of Mathcad. This is key to a wider acceptance of Mathcad in the science and engineering communities over the long term.

To sum up, I think we have to have success at the university level first. Mathcad Prime 1.0, even as it exists today, is a good product for students to start with. That was one of your points, Mike, and I completely agree.

Doesn't sound like a rant at all. I just hope we receive clarification regarding the next release sometime soon to put everybody at ease.

Mike

[RichardJ]

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.

Firstly, MC12 was supposed to be the replacement for MC11. They even had an advertising slogan "the version that's here to stay". Ha Ha! However, although lot's of people are saying that Prime 1.0 is a step backwards from MC15, nobody has claimed that it was meant to replace MC15..As such, for the majority of existing users, it is not a step backwards, or a step forwards, or really a step anywhere. We have to wait until at least Prime 3.0 before it's supposed to be a replacement for MC15. Then, if we are patient enough to wait that long, we will see. I have got to admit that I have some real doubts though, because...

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.

[PhilipOakley]

Richard Jackson wrote:

.. Prime 1.0 // MC15: nobody has claimed that it was meant to replace MC15..As such, for the majority of existing users, it is not a step backwards, or a step forwards, or really a step anywhere. We have to wait until at least Prime 3.0 before it's supposed to be a replacement for MC15. Then, if we are patient enough to wait that long, we will see. I have got to admit that I have some real doubts though, because...

Secondly, Mathcad is no longer owned by Mathsoft, it's owned by PTC.... 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. ... 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.

I agree.

I still hope that they have a big vision.

One hidden question is: which are the key patents that stop others simply copying the 'whiteboard' approach. Maple and Mathematica would be the two contenders there. Matlab is a different kettle of fish, even though they do own the MuPad symbolic engine now embedded in MathCAD. Once the 'whiteboard' patents lapse there will be a bit of a free for all (Note how both mathematica and Maple require you to use command line entry as the 'primary' user interface / paradigm, rather than the mathcad 'write anywhere' approach)

Philip

[SteenGroðe]

Philip Oakley wrote:

One hidden question is: which are the key patents that stop others simply copying the 'whiteboard' approach. Maple and Mathematica would be the two contenders there. Matlab is a different kettle of fish, even though they do own the MuPad symbolic engine now embedded in MathCAD. Once the 'whiteboard' patents lapse there will be a bit of a free for all (Note how both mathematica and Maple require you to use command line entry as the 'primary' user interface / paradigm, rather than the mathcad 'write anywhere' approach)

Philip

I'm not sure if there are any left. This may very well be the reason for Prime. And the whiteboard approach is being done by other. Maple is one as you don't have to use command lines but probably better off is Smath as Maple seem to strugle with some (re)calculations issues.