Printing in Mathcad prime 3.0 takes extremely long

[smungar]

Hi guys,

I used Mathcad prime 3.0 to create a work sheet for On-Bottom Stability Design of Submarine Pipelines according to the DNV-RP-F109 recommended practice.

However, when i would like to print my page (as pdf or to printer) it takes extremely long and the program does not respond. Is there anything to solve this problem? Is it perhaps better to work in Mathcad 15?

I have spend a great deal of time in creating the worksheet and thus would rather keep working in Mathcad prime 3.0 instead of Mathcad 15, what is your advice on the matter?

kind regards,

Sagar

[VladimirN]

Try to

1) use XPS format (in main menu select "File" -> "Save as" -> "XPS");

2) partition your worksheet on several documents and print them separately.

[smungar]

Hi VladimirN,

saving to XPS also takes a way too long. Partitioning my worksheet is acctually something I would like to avoid. If the worksheet is small the printing goes fine.

[RichardJ]

I just tried printing it using CutePDF. It is extremely slow, but it gets there eventually. The printed document looks fine.

[VladimirN]

Well, I used Adobe PDF and eventually got a clean PDF file.

[smungar]

If I wait long enough I bet I can get a clean PDF as well. But If the same operation would be much faster in Mathcad 15 I would prefer to use Mathcad 15

[VladimirN]

For that you need to retype your document in Mathcad 15.

[smungar]

Yeah I know

But this is just the first sheet I made with mathcad. So for future sheets I think it is better to work in Mathcad 15?

[RichardJ]

Well, maybe we are all just biased and stuck in the past, but every long term user that posts to these forums uses MC15 either exclusively, or mostly. That probably answers your question.

[AdoS]

Hi Smungar, 

Great job with this calculation. I guess topic is concluded but since I'm working with something simillar at the moment I made small notice.  

One thing, might be me but I think this should state 0.01 instead of 0.02. h=(b-a)/n  --> (5,74-0,1)/283=0.02

I guess idea after this is to use approximation of trapezoidal rule, 

 Regards

[AdoS]

Now when I see it, complete equation looks wrong. Not sure which rule you used here, this is not Trapezoidal nor the Simpson's.