Just a general reply to the thread, a few things I have recalled for reading it - I think a tiny amount of the "rewrite" impetus was to go to a 64 bit capable code. But the OP by Chris was a real eye opener. It is mind-blowing to me that (1) a decision that poor was made and further, in the long years since Mathcad 15, they haven't come close of achieving even the (nearly irrelevant) goals they set - other than Creo integration, apparently - we use Solidworks so I guess again we're out in the cold.
I posted screenshots in another thread showing the difference between my Mathcad 15 screen and the 5.0 screen. The ribbon interface is quite useless and a waste of valuable vertical space. But even the ribbon tabs aren't correct, if you make the thing less than full screen, the tab names are truncated because they don't adapt to the change in width. And as to documentation, text alignment between, say arrays and labels doesn't occur, the array values don't align to the grid, you cannot set margins except for their 3 presets, I could go on and on. So as a calculation documentation application, it falls flat on its face.
I feel bad saying these things. I love Mathcad, and I feel terrible for the coders - I well know how easy it is to criticize code versus write reasonably "idiot-proof" code. But my glory, Prime 5.0 isn't bad, it's awful. Especially for the tremendous amount of time it has taken to bring it this far.
We have used Mathcad here since MS-DOS days and have a tremendous load of legacy calcs. I just hope somebody can get this ship righted, but Chris's post doesn't give me a lot of hope. I said in the other thread that it appears there is something systemically wrong at PTC, and his post confirms that.
I'm a mechanical engineer myself and Mathcad Prime is useless for my line of work. I can't do everything with Prime I'm achieving with MathCad 15. Specifically:
The only useful feature of prime that I know of is mixed arrays. I.e. for me when I'm doing thermal assessments or data evaluations. MathCad 15 has its short comings but is still far more capable than MC prime for my work as a mechanical engineer.
You have my sympathies. We also have a compiled DLL library of "user functions" written in C, or C+ or C++ or maybe even C+/- (?!) I don't know... point is, it runs far slower linked with Prime than with 15. The thing that gets all of us, I think, is not only the shortcomings, but the fact that something like a decade has passed and the it still looks/acts in some ways like a beta release. Things like the tabs not resizing right; only 3 margin choices, only 2 grid choices. I cut and paste from 15 into Prime 5.0, I get an image, not working math. If I delete that immediately by hitting my delete key, it goes away; if I click away and click back into it, my delete key no longer deletes the image, I have to go up on that blasted Microsoft-induced ribbon and pick around until I find "Delete Region". It's like loose ends that aren't tied up.
Now as to the cut and paste, I know the data format is different; but for Pete's sake they've had 10 years to come up with "Paste from Mathcad 15". And I shoudn't have bothered saying that, I'll bet I could find the same sentiment expressed repeatedly on these boards.
They want to be a calculation documentation interface, but multi-line text and vector elements don't align with each other or the grid, and while I know that may be a tough nut to crack, it's been 10 years... 10 years, and that aspect still acts precisely like Mathcad 15. Maybe I'm supposed to be using tables. Maybe there are some things I don't understand about Prime that I should understand, and I wouldn't have these gripes. Maybe there is a magic font or pair of fonts where the kerning lines you up with one of the grids. I don't know. But it makes documentation just that much more difficult. Say I output a 4 element vector and I want to put labels beside the elements, just text labels, explaining the values. If I use multi-line text, it doesn't line up with the vector elements; if I use individual text boxes, the vector elements aren't lined up with the grid, so that doesn't work either.
And it's sad, like I keep saying, I hate lobbing rocks at this program - there are coders at PTC trying to do a good job, and believe me I know how hard it is. But it seems like either there aren't enough of them and/or (as the OP states) management sent them down the rabbit hole after the wrong objectives. Mathcad 15 is my go-to program, period. It is a wonderful platform for day-to-day engineering calcs - I've even done small FEA's in it, and haven't begun to test the depth of it's mathematical prowess. This kind of math interface is why we have computers; they could sell the daylights out of this thing. But it don't work!
"...Mathcad 15 is my go-to program, period. It is a wonderful platform for day-to-day engineering calcs ..."
I second this.
mathcad 15's versatility is what this software is about and PTC's management seems to regard it as a calculator only. It's a pity and I will switch to matlab as soon as MathCad 15 doesn't run on windows anymore.
Well, I hope:
(1) That PTC gets this ship righted and under power again soon, or---
(2) That it is a very long time before 15 doesn't run on Windows!
We are making PDF "prints" of record calculations anyway, so we don't lose the math.
Now note: I probably could use Prime. It's like I said, 9 times out of 10 or better, it's not like I'm doing PhD level math. And 15 is pretty good at that, too. It's just that I find no compelling reason to do so, when it's more awkward than what I've got.
1. You can do subscripts in text. You define a text region or block, define a math region in there, and add the math text with Subscripts etc.
That is saying that you can't do subscripts, but there is a workaround. I think the best way to look at the subscripts/superscripts problem in text is not that it is a problem (although it is), but rather that it is a symptom of a much bigger problem. This is considered basic text formatting in any serious documentation tool. In a math documentation tool it was inexcusable that it was not available in Prime 1.0. After all these years such a basic feature is still not available. That speaks volumes about Mathcad development at PTC.
If I get a chance, I may try some of these. But I must admit that at this point my agreement is with RichardJ - It's a workaround, a kludge. It'd take some exploring for me to figure out how it could be a better documentation tool than 15 with the various issues we've talked about here - for instance, I see the graphics add-in they've (finally) rolled out in 5.0 and for what I've seen I think that it looks more cartoonish or business board room than academic/physics/engineering professional , but that could be cosmetics that can be addressed.
Like I said, I really want Prime to succeed. But yow! It's been a loooong time, and we still aren't back to 15 yet, in many many ways.