MathCAD Prime 1.0 is a step back - Page 3

WalterSchrabmai · ‎Jan 11, 2011

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

RichardJ · ‎Jan 20, 2011

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.

Jakov said the target to get all the MC15 features implemented was Prime 3.0. In which case, IMHO, 2 years is optimistic.

RichardJ · ‎Jan 20, 2011

Yes we may have the "bath water" but where is our "baby".

When the authorities found out that the baby had been in the bath for over a year, and was destined to spend another 2 years being very slowly washed, they decided that constituted child abuse and took it away.

MikeArmstrong · ‎Jan 20, 2011

When the authorities found out that the baby had been in the bath for over a year, and was destined to spend another 2 years being very slowly washed, they decided that constituted child abuse and took it away.

Great analogy!!!!

Mike

uni · ‎Jan 21, 2011

I completely agree with backward compatibility. Also I want to notice (for Jakov Kucan), how compare functionality of mathematical programs (Mathcad vs Prime).

Comparison of mathematical programs for data analysis

http://www.scientificweb.de/ncrunch/

Why there isn't present Mathcad? This question for Mathsoft, of course, but I see similar and for PTC.

As you know MS Visual Studio 2010 doesn't use MS Office type tool bar (NetBeans, Eclipse and many others too). Why not?

Because it's a professional tool, not for "one-click-programmers and users"

I want a normal debugger. I had to write my own for Mathcad, but now it is used in other program:

http://en.smath.info/forum/default.aspx?g=posts&t=767

"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."

It not absolutely truth

MC11 ("xx(*).mcd"):

http://rapidshare.com/files/425466234/Tom_Gutman_MC14_documents_13.10.2008.7z

MC14 ("xx(*).xmcdz"):

http://rapidshare.com/files/425466807/Tom_Gutman_MC14_documents_12.10.2008.7z

Also I have downloaded all messages from old collab. I have full copy, but without files. I knew that collab will close, therefore have tried to keep at least something.

Mona Zeftel wrote:
"Mathcad Prime 1.0 has dynamic units, not static unit checking. Units are a major feature of Mathcad Prime 1.0."

Look at this:
http://smath.info/wiki/Units.ashx
Video examples of calculations with units for hydraulics (G.Urroz): See Part 2 SMath Studio
http://www.neng.usu.edu/cee/faculty/gurro/Classes/ClassNotesAllClasses/CEE3510/LabFiles/CL01_ComputationalTools01.htm

Very small program already has mixed units, but it isn't the basic (major) function (feature)

uni (from old collab)

Siberia, Russia

P.S. If PTC can't improve Mathcad we will make it. In Russia we do so and it's strange to me to observe as you here cry instead of achieving. MP is only new tool for other products PTC (as they say: "new program"... "for new users" - I add), but not improved mathematical program for old users.

Efried · ‎Jan 30, 2011

I will certainly give smath a trial in one of my next projects. I think the most importnat asset would be having old German Democratic Republic Sourcebooks (calculation cookbooks for engineering problems) translated into smath code however. Taking that repository you may not be beaten anymore....

Wallynorm · ‎Jan 31, 2011

I stated working with MathCAD in 1991 when it became available for the Mac for $100. I have been a loyal user and advocate for the software in many discussions against MATLAB and Excel. I thoroughly have enjoyed MathCAD over the years with the only exception being the lack of control of contour and 3D plot formats.

I have always maintained the same version on my machine at home that I have at work. When I changed employers a year ago, I purchased MC14 as that was the version I now had at work. For some reason, I delayed putting 14 on my machine and started using it at work a great deal.

What a disaster! I have never had any problem with any version of MathCAD through 13. I have had so many problems with 14 that I have never put it on my home machine.

When I develop and run programs at work in 14 and save in 13, I can run them at home but if I modify and store them in 13 at home, they will not work in 14. For example, I have to retype all data storage assignments and requests for them to work.

I also have to retype value equals statements "x = " if I move them on the page in 14.

Now, some of my 14 quick keys have stopped working.

Will I buy 15? No way.

Will I wait for MathCAD Prime? Not unless I am guaranteed backward compatibility.

I am too close to retirement to justify investing in one of the big packages (MAPLE, MATLAB) so I will likely soon return to my old friend, FORTRAN, that I can get for essentially free, an inexpensive plotting packge with the features I need, and Mathtype to provide text quality equations. It will not be able to replace my cherised older MathCAD versions, but it will be more pportable and compatible. I'll bet I willbe able to load sofware I wrote thirty years aho and quickly get it operational..

MAthSoft, why did you do this to us?

RichardJ · ‎Jan 31, 2011

What a disaster! I have never had any problem with any version of MathCAD through 13. I have had so many problems with 14 that I have never put it on my home machine.
When I develop and run programs at work in 14 and save in 13, I can run them at home but if I modify and store them in 13 at home, they will not work in 14. For example, I have to retype all data storage assignments and requests for them to work.
I also have to retype value equals statements "x = " if I move them on the page in 14.
Now, some of my 14 quick keys have stopped working.

None of this should happen. Which version of 14 are you running? If it's not M020, download and install that. Also, have you tried repairing the installation?

I am too close to retirement to justify investing in one of the big packages (MAPLE, MATLAB) so I will likely soon return to my old friend, FORTRAN,

Fortran? OMG! Don't do it! Retirement is not so bad that it justifies slow suicide!

Seriously, I would stick with Mathcad, but if you want to try some other packages there is an open source version of Matlab you can get for free, called Octave:

http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/

You could also look at Python, which I am about to teach myself (although not because I am intending to dump Mathcad). It is open source, free, and it has very extensive function libraries, which even includes a library for unit checking:

http://numpy.scipy.org/

http://www.scipy.org/

http://pypi.python.org/pypi/units/

Here's an introduction to Python:

http://www.swaroopch.com/notes/Python

Wallynorm · ‎Feb 03, 2011

My machine at work has the M020 upgrade. (another reason I will not load M14 on my home machine....PTC hasnlt earned any more money from MY pocket).

Like most software (including FORTRAN) the MAth CAD has gotten bigger, fatter, more capable, more confusing, and more burdened with features important to only a small minority of users.

If I choose to go back to FORTRAN, I will obtain a well-revised version with minimum bugs and, after re-learning the basics (create, store, modify, run, output) I know I will have an engine that I can use uninterrpted for 20 years should my body last that long.

I am sick and tired of software vendors continually chumming the marketplace with unnecessary upgrades that serve only to frustrate, confuse, and delay long-time usere who just want to calculate some numbers from a routine written more than five years ago. Maintaining backward compatibility is not beneficial to their cash flow.

Wait...wait! I think I just figured it out. Under the guise of secrecy unheard of since Disney started buying palmetto groves and swamp land in Central Florida, Microsoft now owns PTC!

That explains everything.

MikeArmstrong · ‎Feb 03, 2011

Like most software (including FORTRAN) the MAth CAD has gotten bigger, fatter, more capable, more confusing, and more burdened with features important to only a small minority of users.

Don't agree with this in the slightest.

I am sick and tired of software vendors continually chumming the marketplace with unnecessary upgrades that serve only to frustrate, confuse, and delay long-time usere who just want to calculate some numbers from a routine written more than five years ago. Maintaining backward compatibility is not beneficial to their cash flow.

If long term users don't want to use the new features implemented in future releases, they are perfectly entitled to ignore them.

Mike

RichardJ · ‎Feb 03, 2011

Like most software (including FORTRAN) the MAth CAD has gotten bigger, fatter, more capable, more confusing, and more burdened with features important to only a small minority of users.

Like Mike, I disagree. Some of the features are only used by a small minority, but some aren't. Even for the ones that are, if there are enough of them then collectively they are important to many users. And some new features may be necessary. An example is that the latest version of FORTRAN can handle objects, albeit in a really clunky way. That's necessary, because if you want a language that is worth anything in the Windows environment it has to be able to use COM objects somehow.

If I choose to go back to FORTRAN, I will obtain a well-revised version with minimum bugs and, after re-learning the basics (create, store, modify, run, output) I know I will have an engine that I can use uninterrpted for 20 years should my body last that long.

Dream on! There have been numerous version of FORTRAN, and an even more numerous number of compiler revisions. There's a very good chnace a piece of old FORTRAN will not even compile with the latest compiler. The older the piece of FORTRAN, the highr the chances.

I am sick and tired of software vendors continually chumming the marketplace with unnecessary upgrades that serve only to frustrate, confuse, and delay long-time usere who just want to calculate some numbers from a routine written more than five years ago. Maintaining backward compatibility is not beneficial to their cash flow.

Surely you can't seriously expect software vendors to view their primary market as some users that want to run 5 year old routines?

Maintaining backward compatibility is not beneficial to their cash flow.

Of course it isn't. Maintaining backward compatibility costs resources and money. You have to maintain the code, or even port it so it works with the new compiler or even language (e.g. a transition from C to C++). The older the code, the higher the cost. As the cost increases with age, the number of users that care about the backward compatibility also decreases. At some point it is just no longer cost effective to maintain that backward compatibility. That's just the way it is.

And in addition to the monetary cost, sometimes you just have to move forwards. FORTRAN is also a good example of that. It was written as a procedural language, and basically still is. Unfortunately, the world has moved on and object oriented languages superceded procedural ones for most tasks many years ago. That means FORTRAN now has a clunky function interface to try and handle such things as COM objects. It's past it's prime, and it's time to move on. Maybe it will still be around in 20 years, although I have my doubts, but if it is it will basically be a language with dozens of patches and kludges designed to try and make it work in the modern world (and certainly not designed for backward compatibility with ancient code!)

NormanDanis · ‎Feb 01, 2011

Right On Glenn!

You express my feelings exactly--see my Jan 16 response and good luck.

MikeArmstrong · ‎Jan 20, 2011

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

The above features are a massive plus in my opinion. Those new features alone will keep me interested in Prime.

I have said before, I truley believe PTC will improve Mathcad, even if it does take a few versions

Mike

CESARLUIZDANIEL · ‎Feb 17, 2011

15 steps behind!

Indeed, the Prime Mathcad, are 15 steps behind, okay it's more cute, but where's the features:

- Much slower!
- Cade work on cell Mathcad 15?
- Cade connection to excel, (without my having to import data)?
- The most weird is that I have to connect to the previous page. Then ask why put pages in a file even if a page can not understand each other;
- Cade tables Mathcad 15?
- Working with data and presentation of data (results)?;
- Presentation of results more ugly!

Want something better than Mathcad 15, then:
1) Keep the connection to excel at least;
2) allows to insert the excel page Mathcad Prime (as in Mathcad 15);
3) when set global variable on a page, so that it can be seen on all pages of the file open.
4) ability to include tables and presenting results of data numbers on page own or in a new window of data.

My friends better!

SteenGroðe · ‎Feb 18, 2011

Jakov Kucan wrote:
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.
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.)
Grid for region alignment
The overwhelming feedback on usability has been positive.
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?

Let me try just to compare some of your remarks with what we had in version 11.2:

Dynamic unit checking, better (compared to Prime and any Mathcad since v11) unit handling in plots, but you are right: back then we asked for mixed units.

We had the easy matrix editing - and I really can't figure out what you are refering to.

A much more easy programming set of tools to a mathematician. Once again you have change something to be more strange to a mathematician to make it easiere to a programmer (maybe).

I am not sure regarding the equation editor. I find v11 to be more easy, but others may not agree. What I know for sure is that text editing was more easy and the change between text and math much better in v11. Another issue in this area is that you can not use Prime as a tool to work out mathematics. One exampel: You may begin writing and equation and at some later point you want to have this equation in a solve block. In Mathcad you can build the block around your equation but this is not a option in Prime. You can manage by cut'n paste, but this is not useful.

The grid has always been there and this is infact one of the issues in Mathcad that needs to be improved. This is not what has happened in Prime, more the opposit. Take a look at CorelDraw and make the grid like they do, this will be an improvement.

I really don't get how the feedback on usability has become positive.

But all that aside lots can be done to Mathcad 11 to improve it. I wonder why PTC never have tried that.

DavidLWalker · ‎Jan 29, 2011

Mathcad Prime is a huge step backward!

The installation process completely disabled my already working Mathcad 15!

I spent all day Friday on the phone with PTC trying to get it running again.

It's Saturday and my Mathcad 15 still not running!

I might put a DOS machine together and see how Prime compares with one of the DOS versions.

From what I have seen of Prime it seems harder to use and have no more functionality then those versions.

If something doesn't change quickly MC 15 is my last Mathcad.

Efried · ‎Jan 29, 2011

I wonder why you are so positive about Mathcad15.

It crashes if calclulation results are out of bounds and it throeas totally meaningless error messages in programm blocks...

RichardJ · ‎Jan 29, 2011

It crashes if calclulation results are out of bounds

What do you mean? Can you post an example?

it throeas totally meaningless error messages in programm blocks...

It does have some meaningless error messages (as did 12, 13, and 14) but the ones you have posted here are not meaningless.

MikeArmstrong · ‎Jan 29, 2011

I wonder why you are so positive about Mathcad15.

I don't think it was David being positive about M15, it was me.

It crashes if calclulation results are out of bounds and it throeas totally meaningless error messages in programm blocks...

I have never had it crash as described above and I don't agree that it has 'totally meaningless error messages'.

Mike

RichardJ · ‎Jan 29, 2011

I don't agree that it has 'totally meaningless error messages'.

It does, but mainly it's associated with solve blocks. In versions 12 and later solve blocks only have one error message: "This variable is undefined". You get that message if a variable is undefined, if there's a unit mismatch, if is simply can't converge to a solution...... I usually figure out what the real problem is by looking at in MC11.

MikeArmstrong · ‎Jan 29, 2011

It does, but mainly it's associated with solve blocks.

I missed he was describing the error messages in solve blocks.

Mike

RichardJ · ‎Jan 29, 2011

I missed he was describing the error messages in solve blocks.

He wasn't. His error messages did mean something: that there was a unit problem. That unit problem may only have been a symptom of a deeper, underlying, problem, and in that sense perhaps the error message was not as useful as it might have been, but it did mean something.

Efried · ‎Jan 30, 2011

Please tell me how to get that MC11!

I do have MC8, MC 2001 and M14

thanks

RichardJ · ‎Jan 30, 2011

Please tell me how to get that MC11!

I think it would be very difficult. Version 11 was the first one that needed activation, so it might be hard to get a used copy. If you can get a copy it can be installed on the same PC as version 15 (11, 12, 13 and either 14 or 15 can coexist on one PC, with a couple of minor limitations).

Version 2001 will give you more-or-less the same error messages as version 11, but you cannot install it on the same PC as version 15 without conflict problems (at least, the dual installation has certainly never been supported, although I have heard of people doing it). Even if you do install it, version 15 cannot save to 2001 format.

SteenGroðe · ‎Feb 18, 2011

Gerfried Cebrat wrote:
Please tell me how to get that MC11!
I do have MC8, MC 2001 and M14
thanks

Leave a mail so you can have a private message...

MikeArmstrong · ‎Jan 29, 2011

Mathcad Prime is a huge step backward!
The installation process completely disabled my already working Mathcad 15!
I spent all day Friday on the phone with PTC trying to get it running again.
It's Saturday and my Mathcad 15 still not running!

Have you tried contacing the Mathcad license and install team?

-.

Mike

DavidLWalker · ‎Jan 29, 2011

"......

I spent all day Friday on the phone with PTC trying to get it running again........"

Unless it was all a pratical joke, I have to assume thats who I was talking to!

Imanobody · ‎Feb 05, 2011

"If something doesn't change quickly MC 15 is my last Mathcad" =:+1

I've been using mcad since the initial dos versions and wont take kindly to"attempts" to make it look more appealing with reduced functionality. How's your experience with Microsoft's new interface on Office 2010 products been going? Makes we wonder if these "improvements" are simply the results of a bunch of PTC marketing swap-heads seeing $$ and trying to figure out how to make the "numbers" to justify the next organizational [social] promotion. In my opinion PTC mgmt does not have a clue how to market this type of product because they are only looking for ways to get the volume and could really care less about the science of math. If they were smart they'd figure out a way to merge MathCad with Matlab to be more modular for advance functionality and offer two platforms.

No symbolics and who knows what else? Plus the two are not file compatible - are they serious? I tried to find detailed info on the features of Prime on PTC's website but only found terse and juvenal videos. No doubt PTC has not made any money on this product since it was purchased from Mathsoft. I also suspect there may be expiring licensing issues at play and may explain why certain functionally has not been included - only a guess?

Overall this is disturbing and shows handwriting on the wall. I'll stick with V15 for now and probably switch to Matlab when it becomes painful to use MathCad or what ever name PTC decides to rename.

Sorry for the rant and sounding so cynical - but this type of crap just pisses me off.

Grumpy..

RogerMansfield · ‎Feb 06, 2011

There have been a lot of negative posts about Mathcad Prime 1.0. It takes awhile to get used to the new equation editor and 2D graphing conventions. And some will never get used to the ribbon toolbar UI. But the equation editor and matrix handling are really better in Prime. And based upon my experience so far, pretty much all the function families of Mathcad 15, e.g., curve fitting, ODE solving, Design of Experiments, etc., are in Prime 1.0 now.

PTC plans to have the majority of existing Mathcad 15 capabilities in place by Prime 3.0. This commitment has been posted. It will take a lot of patience to wait for the addition of the features that bring Prime up to what is possible now in Mathcad 15 (e.g., symbolics, 3D plots, and animation).

But I'm assuming that Mathcad Prime will only get better. Definitely not as fast as I want, but I'm willing to spend time with it now. I predict that you will come around, too. Matlab has some great features, including better symbolics, but Matlab's ASCII-text-based programming and command-line interface are so "last century." You might as well program in FORTRAN, C, or Pascal -- because that's definitely a cheaper solution if you just want to write code. M-files are just code.

Mathcad users don't want to "just write code." We recognize that the Mathcad interface is unique, or we wouldn't be using it. Most of us will wait and see (and gripe a lot, too:-), but give PTC the benefit of the doubt in the meantime.

PTC has done some very positive things in the last two years. The Mathcad Engage virtual conference was one example. PlanetPTC is another. Via PlanetPTC, it has become possible to actually get to know and interact with the PTC people who are shaping the future of Mathcad. People like Mike Baldani, Jakov Kucan, and Brent Edmonds. We didn't have that kind of access when Mathsoft was in charge.

It is incredibly difficult to try to improve a product and please all of the existing users while doing so. And to please the shareholders of a publicly-held company as well.

Imanobody · ‎Feb 06, 2011

Well said Roger..

MikeArmstrong · ‎Feb 06, 2011

"If something doesn't change quickly MC 15 is my last Mathcad" =:+1

Something has changed - It's now called Prime

I've been using mcad since the initial dos versions and wont take kindly to"attempts" to make it look more appealing with reduced functionality. How's your experience with Microsoft's new interface on Office 2010 products been going? Makes we wonder if these "improvements" are simply the results of a bunch of PTC marketing swap-heads seeing $$ and trying to figure out how to make the "numbers" to justify the next organizational [social] promotion.

My god that's a little harsh. The end game were all in it for the money.

If they were smart they'd figure out a way to merge MathCad with Matlab to be more modular for advance functionality and offer two platforms.

Two different products. Way on earth would they want to do that????

No symbolics and who knows what else? Plus the two are not file compatible - are they serious? I tried to find detailed info on the features of Prime on PTC's website but only found terse and juvenal videos. No doubt PTC has not made any money on this product since it was purchased from Mathsoft. I also suspect there may be expiring licensing issues at play and may explain why certain functionally has not been included - only a guess?

It has been stated on numerous occasions that Prime 1.0 isn't a direct replacement of Mathcad 15. It will take a few versions of Prime until it has all the functions of M15. And how do you know PTC has not made any money from the product????

Overall this is disturbing and shows handwriting on the wall. I'll stick with V15 for now and probably switch to Matlab when it becomes painful to use MathCad or what ever name PTC decides to rename.
Sorry for the rant and sounding so cynical - but this type of crap just pisses me off.

I don't there is any need for the language is there?

Mike