Mathcad Prime 10 vs Mathcad 11 (or 15)

[anthonyQueen]

I started my college years using Mathcad 11, and I still use it after two decades. And for many reasons: 

• I know its plus and minus points (more plus than minus).
• Once upon a time, I could integrate it with Excel and other software.
• It is reliable overall: no crashes or file corruption.
• It saves space and memory: in 100Mb of HDD and a few dozen Mb of RAM, it does what other mammoth software (including the following versions of Mathcad, not to speak of Mathcad Prime) do.

I always kept an eye on the PTC community to look at the reactions to Mathcad Prime's evolution. I think I am not alone in still using the Classic Mathcad (if not v.11, it will be v.15).  I am interested mainly in Calculus (so symbolic math solutions), Matrix Algebra Simulations, and a few Statistics. At the same time, I am not interested in integrating Mathcad to other PTC software.

Is it worth moving to (or trying) Mathcad Prime v.10? Given the above interests, how is it compared to the previous Prime versions and to Mathcad Classic? 

Thanks for any feedback.

[Werner_E]

If your main interest is symbolics I would say that you sure should stay with MC11, if you are able to..

MC11 has an (old) version of Maple under the hood for symbolic math and this sure outperforms muPad in MC15 and also friCAS/Axiom in P10.

But you should judge on your own and use the free 30-day evaluation version of Prime 10 and testdrive it using some of your typical use cases.

[anthonyQueen]

@Werner_E  thanks for your feedback. 

I know that the symbolic computation in Mathcad 11 (MC11) was taken from Maple, contrary to subsequent versions. I've managed to run MC11 on the latest Windows versions by mixing trial and paid versions that I kept from my college years.

You're correct in saying that trying out a new software yourself is a good approach. However, there's a problem nowadays. In the past decades, software was of 'manageable' dimensions. Now, even installing one of them can potentially overload your PC with several gigabytes of files. Additionally, uninstalling them is never a perfect operation. That's why I was seeking some feedback on the progress of Mathcad Prime (MCP) before deciding to give it a go.

[Fred_Kohlhepp]

At the risk of offending the PTC community monitors  I'd like to point out that Maple is developing what they intend to be a direct  competitor named "Maple Flow."  Still being refined but backed by the full Maple application.  Might be worth a look!

[anthonyQueen]

Yes, @Fred_Kohlhepp thanks.. I gave  Maple Flow a try two years ago. It was in v.1, and it had several shortcomings typical of a new software.  I do not know if it is matured since then. I'm keeping an eye also on a slim "mathcad version" as SMath. It is one of the few cases that is offered in a manageble Mb dimension. 

However, as you know, there is a "lock-in" effect in using a software. In this case Mathcad classic: you have files, a minimum expertise, etc. that in changing completely software you are throwing away: if not completly in part at least. And for this reason I am still here, looking at how things evolve with MCP - if they evolve.

[Derbigdog]

I tried it when it first came out and actually gave a short review. It needed a lot of work then. It is too bad that Maple and Mathcad never merged. What a great product that may have produced.

[LucMeekes]

Hi Anthony,

Being a happy user of Mathcad 11 myself, and having some experience with Prime (I have Prime 1 to 10 express installed, and got to use full prime 7 and 8 for a good 2 years), I think I can be of a little advice here:

- All versions of Prime are slow (compared to Mathcad). The loading of the software is slow, the loading of the symbolic machine is slow, equation entering is slow, and I find the calculations are slow as well compared to Mathcad, but that is subjective. As you can read here, Prime 10 did not go into the right direction.

- The symbolics of Prime have improved over the past few iterations, it will now symbolically solve (even sets of) differential equations, but then, Mathcad 11 can also solve a good few. But in general the symbolics of Prime are still a work in progress, is my opinion.

- The handling of matrices is a little better than Mathcad. Entering them is facilitated by a nice interface, you can address not only matrix columns, but also rows, and they support multiple dimensions. But, as in Mathcad, Prime has no specific support for multidimensional (>2) arrays.

- Prime automatically labels your inputs. It will detect and automatically label variables, (built in) functions, (natural) constants, system items, keywords and units. That's nice and often works, but the autolabelling feature also sometimes mistakes, leaving you puzzled for a while AND the set of labels cannot be expanded.

- Solve blocks are ugly. I'll leave it there.

- Graphics and plots...

- It's no problem to install Prime 10 on a windows machine, provided it's 64-bit. If the above doesn't discourage you, I suggest you try it out, if necessary on a different PC. If you dislike it, you can remove it again.

Success!
Luc

[Cornel]

---

@LucMeekes wrote:

But, as in Mathcad, Prime has no specific support for multidimensional (>2) arrays.

---

What do you mean by this?

[LucMeekes]

You cannot create a 3-dimensional array, and index the elements like:

M[i,j,k

Instead you have to create a matrix of vectors, or a vector of matrices, or a vector of vectors of vectors.

Success!
Luc

[anthonyQueen]

I am very grateful @LucMeekes for your account. And I am very happy to know that there are still people around who appreciate and use MC11. Software apps show a peculiar feature, as compared to standard machines or organisms: they never become older, so they can run indefenetly. Based on your feedback, I suppose it's best that I continue to stick with version 11.

A curiosity now. From time to time I look at Amazon for Mathcad books. Yesterday it was funny to have discovered that the most recent title completely dedicated to Mathcad was: "Mathcad 11. The complete Guide to the russian version", 2018. I am sorry that there is no an English version, with the same title.

[terryhendicott]

Try this pdf came from an earlier post on the community.

[anthonyQueen]

Thanks @terryhendicott I have the original PDF manual, but you're very kind to offer it again. I've been trying to collect as many Mathcad books as possible to learn from what they have to offer. I do the same for other math software as well.

The book I mentioned (see the page I was referring to) doesn't come from Mathsoft or PTC. I belive it is from an independent author and publisher.

Assessing the popularity and public interest of software is often done by looking at how many books are dedicated to it. Unfortunately, Mathcad has lost a lot of ground in this respect over the last decade or so, which is a pity.  Having said that, let me also stress that this community, with its main contributors, is a blessing for mathcad's enthusiasts.