cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Community Tip - Have a PTC product question you need answered fast? Chances are someone has asked it before. Learn about the community search. X

MathCAD Prime 1.0 is a step back

WalterSchrabmai
7-Bedrock

MathCAD Prime 1.0 is a step back

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

281 REPLIES 281

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.

Most users are well aware that it will take a few versions of Prime until it reaches the same level as previous versions of Mathcad.

You are correct, collapsed regions are not included in Prime 1.0 along with many other features which I currently use, but expected to be included in Prime 2.0. IMO I believe Prime has targeted new Mathcad uses, not current users. I personally will not be fully converting to Prime for a while.

Mike

Thanks Mike,

I will do that also, hopefully that the new spring-term will bring also a new (=old) licence for the versions 15 along. I think so, that MC 15 will be continued even when Prime is supported by PTC.

Walter

When you purchase Prime you also receive a copy of Mathcad 15

Mike

Mathcad Prime 1.0 has most of the functionality of Mathcad 15, in the sense that it has most of the functions (curve fitting, numerical integration and ODE solving, Design of Experiments, etc.), to include programming. The user interface (UI) is now a ribbon toolbar similar to what Microsoft introduced with Office 2007 -- that takes some getting used to. In addition to not having collapsible regions, Mathcad Prime 1.0 does not have 3D plots, symbolics, Math Styles, nor animation. Experienced users need to have patience. Whether or not you accept/like the ribbon toolbar, it seems that Mathcad Prime and its UI are the future of Mathcad. Yes, as Mike notes, it will take several releases (2.0, 3.0, ...) to get everything in. But I think it would be a mistake to wait. Here's my own plan (and Rx): 1. Start/continue learning Mathcad Prime now. 2. Take the tutorials. 3. Identify some of your simpler worksheets and convert them with the Mathcad 15-to-Mathcad Prime 1.0 worksheet converter (I think the converter is pretty good). 4. Note the features you need that are not implemented yet, prioritize them, and let PTC know via PlanetPTC. 5. Continue working with Mathcad 15 in the meantime. This will help to relieve anxiety about features that Mathcad Prime does yet not have, that you really need.

But I think it would be a mistake to wait. Here's my own plan (and Rx): 1. Start/continue learning Mathcad Prime now. 2. Take the tutorials. 3. Identify some of your simpler worksheets and convert them with the Mathcad 15-to-Mathcad Prime 1.0 worksheet converter (I think the converter is pretty good). 4. Note the features you need that are not implemented yet, prioritize them, and let PTC know via PlanetPTC. 5. Continue working with Mathcad 15 in the meantime. This will help to relieve anxiety about features that Mathcad Prime does yet not have, that you really need.

I am right with you on this one. I am very pleased with some of the features in Prime, especially the mixed unit tables and the compatibility of Prime - Excel. The problem I have is that Prime has not included some very basic features.

  • Collapsed areas for one - We have many worksheets which have been developed over the years in Mathcad and are setup in a way where the calculation can be run and the results displayed without giving the client too much information - by using collapsed areas.
  • Page borders - This might sound pedantic, but when I'm working on a design project I like to have all my calculations setup the same way. Prime 1.0 doesn't have borders included and therefore I will not change. Writing that makes me feel like a moaner

I'm not sure on your opinion, but I'm not a fan of the new ribbon. I liked the way Mathcad was different from the Microsoft software packages.

Mike

I'm not sure on your opinion, but I'm not a fan of the new ribbon.

I hate it. Passionately. It makes many operations that were a single click on an icon, or a right click to get a context sensitive menu, into operations that require two or three clicks. Assuming you can even remember where a particular icon is, because if you can't then it's time to go on a hunt-and-peck search through the various tabs and drop down lists. And there are no pop-up tool tips, so if you forget which operator is which then it's off to the help file....

In addition to not having collapsible regions, Mathcad Prime 1.0 does not have 3D plots, symbolics, Math Styles, nor animation.

Nor any components, math in text regions, global assignments....; 2D graphs are not as versatile, non of the handbooks, or their functions, are available, etc etc.

But I think it would be a mistake to wait. Here's my own plan (and Rx): 1. Start/continue learning Mathcad Prime now.

In my case, and I think this will be true for many other current Mathcad users, that is not practical. Prime 1.0 is missing so many things it is almost guaranteed that for any given project I will want or need something that it is missing. If I could reliably convert a worksheet from Prime 1,0 to Mathcad 15 perhaps that would be a minor issue, because I could just switch to Mathcad 15 when I hit a roadblock (this was my approach to the introduction of SUC in version 12, the MuPad symbolic engine in version 14, etc). However, such a conversion is not even possible, let alone reliable. So there is no way I am going to work in Prime, knowing that there is a >95% chance I will just have to do everything again in Mathcad 15 later.

As Mike says, Prime 1.0 is really aimed at new users. They are not nearly as likely to want most of the missing features as an experienced Mathcad user is.

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.

Mike and Richard,

I don't care for the ribbon, either, for all the reasons that you "diamond guys" detailed. But I have tried to take heart in the fact that Mathcad Prime worksheets do really look nice, and I like the way regions snap to the grid. I, too, will still continue to construct most of my new worksheets in Mathcad 15. But I plan to invest a lot of time, too, becoming proficient in Mathcad Prime 1.0, and lobbying PTC (my 2 cents) to put the missing Mathcad 15 features in subsequent releases of Prime. I know you guys will, too. BTW, most of my really useful worksheets, like yours, are too complicated for other-than-customers to want to look at -- not good candidates for Prime. But I really do work at trying to produce occasional short, tutorial worksheets that illustrate concepts from the calculus and DEs. These kinds of worksheets are good candidates for Prime, and it feels good (it is therapeutic) to create them.

Roger

I agree that Prime has some nice features, and in version 2 it will hopefully have more. And although I really dislike the ribbon it would not stop me from using it. What stops me from using it is the combination of two things: it is lacking features I need, and I cannot save the file back to MC15 format. The latter, to me, is a huge hole in the product. Apart from the fact that I can't convert a Prime sheet to a MC15 sheet for my own purposes (i.e. when I hid a roadblock in Prime) I have one customer that has MC14. So if I develop in Prime I can't send them the work they paid for, except as a pdf!

Prime is the way formard, but it's going to be at least version 2, and probably version 3 (or 4?) before it's of any real use to me.

I'm new to these discussions and I never heard of Prime until a few weeks ago, probably because a am a single user. But I am puzzled, to say the least, why PTC is going down this road at the risk of totally alienating Mathcad customers who have been faithful to the Mathcad way of doing things. (I started with mathcad in 1991 when I had to work at home.) Is this because PTC is not concerned with eventually discarding old Mathcad customers? Does the customer base for PTC comprise a much vaster domain than what Mathcad's was? I really don't understand why PTC doesn't just make improvements (real improvements) to Mathcad, and keep the Mathcad domain a separate but respected part of the PTC business base. So far they mostly just talked about Mathcad improvements without any substantial changes (except in price for upgrades) --such as from Mathcad 14 to 15--all of which made me suspicious of PTC's intentions for the future. I'm not particularly cynical but I wonder what other people have been thinking in this discussion. I can't imagine being saddled with a Prime 1 or 2 or 3 that makes me sorry I didn't break the marriage contract early in the game and get Matlab, or something else. Can any of you shed some light on this? Am I hopelessly old-fashioned? Mathcad filled a real need for so many years for a flexible tool which didn't cost an arm and a leg.

MikeArmstrong
5-Regular Member
(To:NormanDanis)

--such as from Mathcad 14 to 15--all of which made me suspicious of PTC's intentions for the future.

Unless I'm mistaken, Mathcad 15 was just a upgrade of 14, basically 14 with all bugs fixed.

I can't imagine being saddled with a Prime 1 or 2 or 3 that makes me sorry I didn't break the marriage contract early in the game and get Matlab, or something else. Can any of you shed some light on this? Am I hopelessly old-fashioned? Mathcad filled a real need for so many years for a flexible tool which didn't cost an arm and a leg.

I don't know the price of Prime, do you?

I'm new to these discussions and I never heard of Prime until a few weeks ago, probably because a am a single user. But I am puzzled, to say the least, why PTC is going down this road at the risk of totally alienating Mathcad customers who have been faithful to the Mathcad way of doing things.

I have made my thoughts quite clear over Prime, but your saying Mathcad are at risk of alienating customers who have faithful. Have all of these customers bought upgrades since Mathcad 11? A lot of users have not upgraded since 11 and still deem Mathcad 11 the best version. IMO PTC cannot look after everybody's needs, they need to look at the bigger picture.

I truly believe Mathcad Prime 2.0 will be close to Mathcad 15, with additional features included which M15 doesn't have. Prime has the ability to have multi unit tables, which has been a massive problem of the years, the interface with Excel is also a lot better.

Mike

Unless I'm mistaken, Mathcad 15 was just a upgrade of 14, basically 14 with all bugs fixed.

All?

MikeArmstrong
5-Regular Member
(To:RichardJ)

Richard Jackson wrote:

Unless I'm mistaken, Mathcad 15 was just a upgrade of 14, basically 14 with all some of the bugs fixed.

All?

Mike

Mathcad 15 does have new features. The most notable ones are over 20 new DOE (Design of Experiments) functions.

It also added interoperability with Excel 2007.

And connections to some partner applications.

And many bug fixes 🙂

Mona

Efried
1-Newbie
(To:mzeftel)

will there be an V15 update, so we have meaningful error messages in programms and a better graphic engine (I see double number frintings for example)?

The stepping 00 of V15 I'm testing now with is as bad as V14

thanks

jkucan
1-Newbie
(To:Efried)

Yes, there will be a maintenance release of Mathcad 15.0. Next maintenance release is M010 and is currently scheduled for mid 2011. Please file the issue that you are seeing with Technical Support, so we can track it. I can't tell whether this can be address for M010, as we need to take a closer look and prioritize with other issues planned to be addressed in M010.

MikeArmstrong
5-Regular Member
(To:mzeftel)

Mathcad 15 does have new features. The most notable ones are over 20 new DOE (Design of Experiments) functions.

It also added interoperability with Excel 2007.

And connections to some partner applications.

And many bug fixes 🙂


Yes it does.


I have to admit that Mathcad 15 is my favorite version of Mathcad released to date


Mike

Unfortunately, one thing Mathcad 15 also has with its new Design of Experiments functions is severe dyslexia. Whoever coded the design matrix functions for fullfact() and fracfact(), to name two of them, did it wrong. Standard Order (check any textbook, or even the NIST engineering handbook) for a 2-level 4-factor full factorial design looks like this:

I A B C D

+1 -1 -1 -1 -1

+1 +1 -1 -1 -1

+1 -1 +1 -1 -1

+1 +1 +1 -1 -1

+1 -1 -1 +1 -1

+1 +1 -1 +1 -1

+1 -1 +1 +1 -1

+1 +1 +1 +1 -1

+1 -1 -1 -1 +1

+1 +1 -1 -1 +1

+1 -1 +1 -1 +1

+1 +1 +1 -1 +1

+1 -1 -1 +1 +1

+1 +1 -1 +1 +1

+1 -1 +1 +1 +1

+1 +1 +1 +1 +1

The Mathcad 15 functions get it exactly backwards (e.g. they alternate D every line, and A every 8 lines). This is simply the flat-out wrong way to present the design, and means I essentially cant use any of those DOE analysis functions with a properly-designed experiment matrix because the order is different than Mathcad expects. Please reference any textbook on Response Surface methodology & analysis (that I've ever seen at least, making 3 of them) to see what I'm talking about.

Having Mathcad do it backwards is also bad because anyone who hasn't been formally schooled in DOE and who relies on Mathcad to generate their experiment design is going to be seriously confused when trying to work with Minitab or Design Expert later (which do it right, but suck at matrix algebra), or if they try to work with a coworker who has studied DOE at a university.

FYI....

Henry,

Thank for the feedback and sources. We followed other sources, that did not require a standard form. The developer is going to make the change to standard form for the design matrix functions, so that we are more compatible with other programs like Minitab. We are scheduling and prioritizing this revision now. We are planning it for Mathcad Prime 2.0 and a maintenance release for Mathcad 15.

Mona

Well, I have been using Mathcad since V1. I recall the thrill when I began using it. There was nothing like it at all on the market, so even though it did so much less than, say, V14, it did things for years that no one else did. I think that there are several products now vying for the same slot on the market. I don't think of M' as a step backward; I see it as a step sideways. It can't be a step backward for me, because it in no wise replaces, or attempts to replace, M14. Perhaps in the future it will be a reasonable replacement. When the day comes that PTC no longer supports M15+, and I must decide to use M' or switch to another product, then I will see if it is a step backward or not. I think that I understand the market decisions that PTC is making now.

One of them is the ribbon. Years ago, I was involved as a consultant with a very large company in the area of using their math tool efficiently. It was a very extensive effort, and resulted, I believe, in the product incorporating the best that professional users had to offer. I also was an early adopter of MS Office when it first hit the streets, because I believed that it would make a huge impact on the business community and be widely adopted (even though I didn't believe that it was the best product on the street those days). A few years ago, I upgraded to 2007, thinking that I wanted to be current. After struggling with the product for months, I gave it up and went back to 2003. I don't know of ANY professionals who like the ribbon, though I suppose that they exist. For any company to emulate another company's mistake for perceived market share shows a lack of real corporate character. If PTC really thought that they had a good product for the market, they would set the pace themselves rather than copy a sad UI such as the ribbon. Even so, providing for dual UIs would go a long way to keeping both sides happy. I have impressed many looking over my shoulder with the speed with which I can produce Mathcad worksheets and models, and I can tell you that I am far from using most of the power the M1x supplies. Can I do the same with M'? I cannot. I hesitate to even display it to my associates. (In fact, for some reason, though I have M15 licensed on this machine, M' will not run. I'm working w PTC to resolve that.)

I run a small software engineering company (have for the past 20 years). I recall going head-to-head with dome VPs over design issues when they wanted my company to do something foolish (like the ribbon). I simply will not allow my company name to be associated with a product that I know is defective in this manner. Some of the products have been in the field for 15 years, including upgrades and enhancements, and one of them has withstood several attempts by other companies to produce a competing product. They have failed. The feedback that I get from the field by companies who have compared our products with competing products is that our product is by far more usable than those produced by potential competitors: it is easier to use and faster in execution. The point of this paragraph is NOT to get more clients; it is to explain why I feel the way I do. My opinions are based on decades of experience in designing user interfaces and focusing on user efficiency. The ribbon may be cute and new, but THAT, folks is the real step backward for M', not just that it has not matured to the point where it will replace M15.

Ditto the new licensing scheme that is nothing but heartache for me. I still run M14 on most of my machines because I don't want to spend the cost of the labor to troubleshoot the licensing problems. I own several other development tools that cost $2-4K USD, and they have trivial license requirements by comparison.

Oh, and did I forget speed? Did PTC really think that folks with work to do will not notice the huge slowdown in performance? Maybe they are counting on all of us having the latest 16-core machines running @ 10GHz. I recall a company that we consulted with in the past that would not upgrade its developers' machines because they figured that if the developers thought the product was painfully slow they might be encouraged to find ways to improve it.

I intend to continue to work w M' as time and licensing restrictions permit because I don't want "upgrade shock" when PTC thinks that M' ready to replace M15. In the meanwhile, I'll stick w M14/15 for my work, and keep an eye on the competition. Maybe, as one of our Russian friends seems to have said, the replacement will come from someplace else. US companies used to have the every ethic that I think I saw in his post, but now not so much.

In the meanwhile, I appreciate just having had Mathcad for the past few decades and having it now. It's still the tool that I reach for most of the time, though I have the latest Maple and MATLAB programs installed and running.

~R~

Rich,

Thanks for the insights into how and why you use Mathcad, and for saying what you think about Mathcad Prime's new ribbon UI. I like your use of the word "thrill," (it was not in the context of the ribbon UI) because it reminds me of when I was first thrilled by Mathcad.

My introduction to Mathcad was at Version 2.0. But I didn't start really using Mathcad until Mathcad PLUS 6.0 for Macintosh, because that is when programming was introduced.

I'll never forget my excitement when I first discovered that Mathcad had now become a programming language, while retaining all of its capabilities as an electronic scratchpad.

It was thrilling to be able to program in Mathcad PLUS 6.0 some really powerful algorithms that I previously could only develop in programming languages such as FORTRAN, Pascal, and C.

Mathcad PLUS 6.0 was such a huge step forward. Perfect for exploring mathematical ideas in ways not possible, or not easy, in ASCII-text-based programming languages.

Now fast forward 15 years. We have Mathcad 15, but we now also have this new Mathcad Prime 1.0. You said that you have started working with Mathcad Prime in order to avoid "upgrade shock." I thought that was a good way to put it. That was my primary motivation, too, at first. But then I eventually found myself actually liking the product.

I like Mathcad Prime's blue grid (the coarse grid seems a bit too coarse) and I like the way newly-created regions snap to the grid. I like the page vs. draft options at the Document tab.

And I especially like being able to zoom the worksheet. When you are doing a presentation directly from Prime, being able to zoom means that you can adjust your briefing panels larger, as needed, to accommodate varying distances from the audience.

My point is that I have been really working with Mathcad Prime, and I see a promising future for it. The programming capability that was so important to me at Mathcad PLUS 6.0 is definitely there already in version 1.0. I've tested it with some pretty complicated programs.

Yes, we have to trust that PTC will eventually deliver all of the features in Prime that Mathcad 15 has now. But I look forward to the challenges of articulating to PTC, and defending to PTC, every feature of Mathcad 15 that ought to be in Mathcad Prime, of verifying that each feature got there, and of letting PTC know if it didn't.

It is reassuring to me to know that, in addressing these challenges, I'll be in good company.

Roger

Rich and Roger,


Thanks for your comments on Mathcad Prime 1.0. We are working hard on Mathcad Prime 2.0, and are adding enhanced features like symbolics, 3D plots, real support for 64-bit processing, and a new Excel component. There are other features we plan to add as well, depending on the schedule.

We just had some interesting design discussions on areas. We don't just want to add the same features as in Mathcad 15, but rethink how we can redesign them to address a number of user needs.

I've just started a new group called Enhancing Mathcad, where you and others can discuss feature suggestions. Dan is going to move these discussions over to the new group, as well as the other long thread on Feature Suggestions for Mathcad Prime. That way people can find and discuss individual features, rather than searching through a very, long thread.


To find the Enhancing Mathcad group, click on the Group icon in the Browse toolbar in the upper right. The Group icon looks like overlapping circles. We'll be announcing it with a bigger display soon.

Mona

RichardJ
19-Tanzanite
(To:mzeftel)

To find the Enhancing Mathcad group, click on the Group icon in the Browse toolbar in the upper right. The Group icon looks like overlapping circles. We'll be announcing it with a bigger display soon.

When I go to the groups directory the Enhancing Mathcad group is not listed (I found it by a different route, but that's not the point).

Richard,


I'll check why you can't see it. I can see it, but it might be because I set it up. I set it to be open to all, and two other people have already posted suggestions.

Mona

I agree with the views expressed here. Why was Prime necessary? If nicely formatted and standardised output was required then a few templates( and template rules ) could surely have accomplished this.

Change is fine if it is needed; I still use MS Office 2002 and 97 and detest the current product.

I was 75 on the day of the original posting of this topic; a supposedly retired EE. Mathcad has always been an exciting tool for me, providing much pleasure.

Used as a thinking tool and scratchpad made it a delight to use. Prime.......?

I fondly remember the opening lines of K&R, "C is a simple language.....". I hear the gurgle of bathwater!

John Archer

MikeArmstrong
5-Regular Member
(To:JohnArcher)

I agree with the views expressed here. Why was Prime necessary? If nicely formatted and standardised output was required then a few templates( and template rules ) could surely have accomplished this.

Change is fine if it is needed;

IMO I think PTC wanted to put there own stamp on the product, which is understandable.

I still use MS Office 2002 and 97 and detest the current product.

I'm not a major fan of MS Office's ribbon, but this seems like it's here to stay and more and more software packages are moving this way.


One way of looking at it is :- If most computer users are familiar with the Office ribbon, picking up Mathcad Prime won't look completely alien. Whether we like it or not, I believe that the ribbon is here to stay.


Mike

Whether we like it or not, I believe that the ribbon is here to stay.

Like certain sexually transmitted diseases, you mean?

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..."

Sound familiar? The primary complaint I have heard about the ribbon in Prime is the amount of clicking needed to get anything done. Autodesk evidently improved things going to 2010, so perhaps we just have to hope that the usability of the ribbon in Prime will also improve.

RichardJ
19-Tanzanite
(To:RichardJ)

But.....

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/

PTC, can we please have this option too!

RichardJ
19-Tanzanite
(To:RichardJ)

Top Tags