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

[RichardJ]

In all honestly, I cannot see Prime 2.0 being at the same level as M15.

It's not going to be. It's not even on PTC's road map that it will be. I personally doubt that even Prime 3,0 will be at the same level.

[MikeArmstrong]

It's not going to be. It's not even on PTC's road map that it will be. I personally doubt that even Prime 3,0 will be at the same level.

Hopefully it gets to a point where it has all the features needed to make the transition, otherwise I'll be using M15 for another three years.

Mike

[RichardJ]

otherwise I'll be using M15 for another three years.

Yes, could be

On the upside, it could be worse though. Although MC15 has some holes, overall it's a decent piece of software. Decent enough that I use it almost every day

[LucMeekes]

"Sometimes (quite often, in fact) I need to process several hundred data files in a folder. The only way to do that is to use a scripted component to get the list of filenames (and the fact that this capability is not built in to Mathcad in the first place is a big failing of Mathcad!)."

Ahum.... although not documented, the function Files(Pathname), where pathname is a string, returns a vector listing all files that exist on the given path alphabetically sorted.

So Files("C:\")= gives whatever is in the root directory of your first drive.

I just found out that it even lists subdirectories, they are shown as "<subdirectory_name>", embedded in the list (the sort happens before items are marked as directories)

Works in MathCad version 11. The function accepts a second parameter 'file type', which must be a string, but so far I haven't been able to find a 'file type' that the function recognizes.

Success,

Luc

[Loris]

LucMeekes wrote:

"Sometimes (quite often, in fact) I need to process several hundred data files in a folder. The only way to do that is to use a scripted component to get the list of filenames (and the fact that this capability is not built in to Mathcad in the first place is a big failing of Mathcad!)."

Ahum.... although not documented, the function Files(Pathname), where pathname is a string, returns a vector listing all files that exist on the given path alphabetically sorted.

So Files("C:\")= gives whatever is in the root directory of your first drive.

I just found out that it even lists subdirectories, they are shown as "<subdirectory_name>", embedded in the list (the sort happens before items are marked as directories)

Works in MathCad version 11. The function accepts a second parameter 'file type', which must be a string, but so far I haven't been able to find a 'file type' that the function recognizes.

Success,

Luc

I just tried in M15 but I got a "this variable is undefined" error

maybe in PTC they tough that no one would need it

[LucMeekes]

It may have been removed in as early as version 12, where many other goodies have been removed...

Luc

[RichardJ]

It may have been removed in as early as version 12, where many other goodies have been removed...

I think so, yes. I don't have 12 installed, but it's gone in 13.

[RichardJ]

Ahum.... although not documented, the function Files(Pathname), where pathname is a string, returns a vector listing all files that exist on the given path alphabetically sorted.

Interesting. They kept that secret very well! I wonder why they never told us or made it an official, documented function.

[mzeftel]

I'm not familiar with the "files" function, since it was undocumented. But my guess, is that it was one of the Maple functions that slipped in, and we did not have permission to use. When we discovered functions that were not part of our Maple contract at the time, we removed them.

However, I have logged this as a useful feature request for Mathcad Prime 3.0.

Mona

[LucMeekes]

I doubt that the function was part of the Maple set. That set only evaluates symbolically. Files doesn't..... OK it returns itself: Files("C:\") ->Files("C:\").

While building a Folders() function, using the Files() function I finally, again by accident, found out what the second argument 'file type' wants: It wants one or more file 'attributes'.

With Files("C:\","D")= I get the directories, with Files("C:\","H")= I get the hidden (files and directories), and with Files("C:\","HD")= I get a list of hidden and directories etc.

File attributes are ADHRS: Archived, Directory, Hidden, Readonly and System respectively.

I haven't found what the default attribute is, since I get directories with a mixture of different attributes embedded in the result list if I call Files with only the first argument.

Maybe this quirky behaviour caused that the function was never published.

Luc

[MikeArmstrong]

"if you are building a car, which is the higher priority for version 1: the wheels, the engine, the steering wheel, or the brakes?".

Good point.

Mathcad MUST have the same features as Mathcad 15. Another year spent developing the software should be enough to bring it up to scratch. I have stated before that if Prime 2.0 doesn't support collapsed area's, I cannot use it for work purposes.

Mike

[StuartBruff]

Richard Jackson wrote:

As sub- and superscript in Word!

I see. Yes, I agree those are basic requirements. But that just brings me back to what I have said many times. The problem with Prime is that it is missing very many basic requirements. I do not consider 3D plots "decoration", I consider them another basic requirement. Until Prime has all those basic requirements it is of no use to me. If version 2 has superscripts and subscripts for text, but no 3D plots, I can't use it. But if version 2 has 3D plots, but no superscripts and subscripts for text, I also can't use it.

From my perspective, many of the requests I see actually date back over 7 years and are now available in several of Mathcad / Prime's competitors. I understand Valery's point, but I come from a long line of highly visually-oriented predators. I like to see pictures that convey a sense of how things change rather than look at tables or interpolate stacked 2D plots. Multi-dimensional plotting with colour and shape encoding of points should have been in long ago - it was present in Axum along with many other useful graphic forms, as should programmatic control of plots. Mathcad should also allow a much greater range of mathematical notation, such as the J_ν(x) notation for Bessel functions rather than just J(ν,x). I remain convinced that Mathcad has to adopt a 'cradle-to-grave' approach to supporting mathematical, scientific and engineering development, with the ability to sketch out (literally) ideas in whiteboard form, tidy them up for presentation and expand them as (and if) they progress to publication or product release. And that includes better documentation facilities such as left and right super/sub scripting and automatic entity numbering.

Sigh. But I've said this before. Many times.

It's like asking "if you are building a car, which is the higher priority for version 1: the wheels, the engine, the steering wheel, or the brakes?".

If it's all the same, I think I'll go for the retractable coffee-cup holders. I can use those even when the engine isn't turning, the wheels are flat, the steering wheel's come off in my hand and the brakes have seized ... or leaked hydraulic fluid everywhere just as I crest the brow of the steep mountain pass.

Historically, the cruise control will be removed, a mandatory speed limiter introduced (with non over-rideable factory settings targetted at brand new and very nervous drivers) and the turbocharged fuel-injection system will be replaced by a single carburettor. However, that is one bright and shining example of hope - the speed limiter has gone in Prime.

[RichardJ]

From my perspective, many of the requests I see actually date back over 7 years

In some cases, rather more than 7

[Loris]

Richard Jackson wrote:

From my perspective, many of the requests I see actually date back over 7 years

In some cases, rather more than 7

I'm afraid the last version that was really up to time (as features, look etc) was around M2001, for me the following are basically minor improvement.

If you see M15 you feel is a program made around 2003. Take The GIMP as reference, it's an opensource image editor, and haven't ribbonbar too, but if you use it you feel it behave as you expect from a 2011 program.

You cannot say the same about M15, and neither prime.

And there are a lot of many little thing that would be improved with a very minimal effort and are still present.

Just to say, when you plot3D (ok, i'm the only one using 3dplots here ) as data point, the lines between the last point of a row and the first point of the next are present from M11, althoug they are conceptually wrong and make your plot messy.

Having them version after version makes me upset.

Loris

[ValeryOchkov]

It will be good to have in Mathcad Prime *.0 a possibility to switch on/off calculations in areas not only commands help but by help a variables values.

See too http://communities.ptc.com/docs/DOC-1966

[TheoGagner]

I am disappointed but not surprised at the general response to Mathcad Prime. In full disclosure, the first thing I thought when I saw this product was Hallelujah! I didn't think that because I thought the product was complete/finished/perfect, I thought it because the change represents something I need from the product to become more efficient.

I think I might differ from other users because I am a recent graduate of an engineering college and so we have different experiences with engineering software. I am a strong user of Excel, MATLAB, LabVIEW, Mathematica and MathCAD. I graduated from the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities, where we have 0 seats to MathCAD. It is not a software package used frequently in Universities - the scene is dominated by MATLAB and simpler tools, like Excel. So my experience has been on-the-job (where we share floating licences) in 12 months of internships and now full-time employment. So my user experience is that I use a variety of tools for their various strengths, but I'm not at a superior level of proficiency in any. I didn't jump on the Mathcad horse a decade ago, I have no love for the current GUI (I use Mathcad 15).

I really disagree with the generalization that ribbon style formatting is not a significant improvement over nested menus. This is a common complaint with Excel 2007/2010 also. Here's the thing: I can teach a 14 year-old to use Excel 2007 as efficiently as any 50 year-old power user using Excel 2003. When I teach people how to use the more recent versions of Excel, all I do is train them how to think about what they are looking for and the ribbon catagory naturally follows. From a GUI programming mentality, Mathcad's/Excel 2003 historical nested menus always include the trivial and useless abstract menus such as "tools". "tools" is trivial, because unless modifying/saving/printing the file - you are always looking for a way to modify the environment. So then you tranverse from this trivially abstract programming level to the next mystery box menu item (you select "tools->whatever_submenu_item). In a new GUI element, a popup dialog box treats you to a multi-tab environment where perhaps the item you are looking for resides. Assuming you found what you were looking for, you encountered:

• Minimum of 1 trivial menu
• 1 transient GUI element (popup)

So assuming you were correct in knowing where your necessary element resides you still have the above programming inefficencies. If you are wrong in finding the function you encounter (at minimum) x times 3 elements:

• 1 trivial menu
• 1 nontrivial menu
• 1 transient GUI element

IMO here is why ribbons are superior:

1. Initial menu is proper abstraction. Old: I'm looking to create a custom function in Excel - start with "tools"? New: Formula ribbon.
2. Tools reside in existing GUI. I love that the tool like "Margins" already resides in my existing space - I don't have a new popup invading my window.
3. Mistakes cost less. If you are not exactly sure where your desired function resides, searching through ribbons (1 element) is far faster then nested menus (3 elements)- no comparison.
4. Better graphical feedback. Ribbon subelements have icons associated with them to help you understand what they do - submenus don't.
5. Fast object modification. You paste an object (picture/graph) into Word 2007 and now a highlighted formatting ribbon shows up with all the modifications that can be made to that object. You paste an object into Word 2003 and try and think of what submenu item/s could possibly relate to your object.

Ribbons are a flexible and succient way to organize program functionality. It makes newcomers into users and humble users into power users.

[Loris]

I am disappointed but not surprised at the general response to Mathcad Prime. In full disclosure, the first thing I thought when I saw this product was Hallelujah! I didn't think that because I thought the product was complete/finished/perfect, I thought it because the change represents something I need from the product to become more efficient.

To be clear, I've nothing against the rubber menu in general, and I understand that if you compare it with the standard menu it is faster. On the other hand, I prefer working in another way.

I just place my worksheet in the center of the monitor and detach tools windows on the right. That way you have ALL tools available with just one click, and you can see ALL command at once, without having to start moving between tabs to find the command you need when it is placed somewhere different from what you can guess. I think on every monitor over 17" you can do it. Avoiding rubberbar gives you also more space on the worksheet because it consumes a lot of space in vertical. Of course I don't say you must do that, just plese PTC, let us decide which way we prefer. I think rubberbar would be better for new users, but power users would prefer the old fashion.

However, what made me upset is not the rubberbar, I can deal with it, but the fact that after years of (in my opinion) poor development on Mathcad (still in my opinion, while PTC states every year a new M version, I see them as much as minor revision / bugfix of M2001), now, after 10 years, there is the new M', but when you try it you discover that lacks so much stuff that is almost unuseful for huge part of users, and I have to wait for M'2.0 (or maybe 3) to have again all the features of M15.

Loris.

[MikeArmstrong]

and I have to wait for M'2.0 (or maybe 3) to have again all the features of M15.

Loris.

Or maybe 4!!!!

Mike

[RichardJ]

and I have to wait for M'2.0 (or maybe 3) to have again all the features of M15.

Or maybe 4!!!!

My esimate of the probability that you will NOT have all the features of 15 in a given version of Prime is 5*exp(-4*N/5), where N is the version number.

[MikeArmstrong]

My esimate of the probability that you will NOT have all the features of 15 in a given version of Prime is 5*exp(-4*N/5), where N is the version number.

[RichardJ]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.

[MikeArmstrong]

It was meant to mean 'Doh' at the fact that it seems we're going to be waiting a while to get M15 full capability.

Mike

[RichardJ]

It was meant to mean 'Doh' at the fact that it seems we're going to be waiting a while to get M15 full capability.

We will see

[RichardJ]

Why no mention of the existing toolbars? With all the toolbars open almost everything I need regularly is available with one click. It's hard to get much more efficient than one click (mind reading maybe?). With the ribbon I have to use multiple clicks to achieve the same thing, and that is not efficient.

[MikeArmstrong]

Why no mention of the existing toolbars? With all the toolbars open almost everything I need regularly is available with one click. It's hard to get much more efficient than one click (mind reading maybe?). With the ribbon I have to use multiple clicks to achieve the same thing, and that is not efficient.

Many users have asked for floating toolbars to be put back in Prime and it doesn't look like it's going to happen anytime soon. That was a superb feature of Mathcad and made it much easier to create calculation.

Mike

[DonP]

Mathcad has been stepping backwards longer than this. The ability to open old worksheets has been, in my view, cavalierly neglected. It wouldn't take much doing and even if it is not going to happen as a patch, there should be at least a stand-alone translator that could be downloaded. I'm pretty sure that isn't beyond the wit of man.

Another thing is the no-longer functioning function packs. I expect an update free - not a huge demand for more cash.

My 2p

[Fred_Kohlhepp]

Donald Pearce wrote:

Mathcad has been stepping backwards longer than this. The ability to open old worksheets has been, in my view, cavalierly neglected. It wouldn't take much doing and even if it is not going to happen as a patch, there should be at least a stand-alone translator that could be downloaded. I'm pretty sure that isn't beyond the wit of man.

Another thing is the no-longer functioning function packs. I expect an update free - not a huge demand for more cash.

My 2p

I have been assured (by a PTC representative pushing Prime 2.0) that version 15 (as the official translator of mathcad) will open any version of mathcad (*.mcd) back to and including Macintosh Mathcad. There have always been examples of "the new mathcad won't execute the old sheet," the most glaring example being Mathcad 12.

My understanding of the function packs is that they are being dragged in their entirity into the basic version.

If you have examples of exceptions, please post!!

[DonP]

It stopped advancing materially about version 7. From there on the process has been largely adding bloat. All the "project management" stuff is, as far as I am concerned, dead weight. I would never use this kind of software for project management - its use is strictly task-oriented.

[RichardJ]

All the "project management" stuff is, as far as I am concerned, dead weight.

What "project mangement" stuff?

[DonP]

Has that gone? OK