What version to use?

[Quazoosl]

Hello all,

For the company I work for I'm looking for a program for basic engineering calculations. The main thread where I ask what program would be best suited for the job can be found here. Since the reply's I got in the main thread are quite general and I'd like some mathcad secific answers I've started this thread.

I have some experience with a very early MathCad version (2001i) and I've tested MathCad prime 1.0 for a short while. In general I really like the way units can easily be converted and calculated with. In 2001i I especially liked that (once I knew what keys to use) I could really work fast and keep on typing formulas. Whilst I really liked the speed in which it could be used, the thing I missed in 2001i was a bit of intuitive design and ease of use.

When I used Prime 1.0 in my opinion they really tried to copy the microsoft way of interacting with the software in stead of making it as intuitive as advertised. Yes it looks good but working with quantity for example names I found to be really really timeconsuming. When I wanted to enter a single quantity or a several quantitys into an equation like F[sub]1[/sub]=10*N in 2001i I only had to type"F.1[spacebar]:10N" if my memory is correct. With mathcad prime I had to do something like type "F", select subscript with mouse, type "1", deselect subscript with mouse and so on. If there is a faster way it surely feels like the developers tried really hard to hide it from me...

Does anyone know if Prime 2.0 has improved on this? Perhaps we should be using a later pre-prime version like 15? I'm beginning to doubt it is still being sold since I can't find it on their website.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.


Since I'm not a native speaker I'd appreciate feedback on my (British) English

 

[Pederator]

Quazoosl: "I'm running a trial version of MC15 now and when I try to open files from 2001i it seems to have lost some functionality. It probably has gained a lot of functionality aswell but I expect some features didn't survive the code overhaul from 11 to 12 that IRstuff mentioned. I know what I want, I know 2001i could do it, but the error messages keep telling me it can't be done."

Functionality is one thing, the other is kernel (computation engine). As far as I know, MC < 13 have Maple engine, MC 14 and 15 have Mupad engine. This is why some things work different, or even don't work in a particular version of Mathcad.

All in all, at the moment I would recommend you M15, but keep in mind that the classic line of Mathcad has no future, and some day this ship will be abandoned. You should also try SMath Studio, maybe it will be sufficient for your purposes.

 

[GregLocock]

" If they can't do it in two, I doubt they can do it in three."

Your choice of course, but given that Mathcad only really settled down at v5, although 2.5.2 was also very usable, I think you are over estimating the speed with which large complex programs can be assembled.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[IRstuff]

According to PTC's presentation from November, M15 will be supported through 2014 with maintenance releases, at least.

TTFN
faq731-376

 

[sibeen]

<b>
Functionality is one thing, the other is kernel (computation engine). As far as I know, MC < 13 have Maple engine, MC 14 and 15 have Mupad engine. This is why some things work different, or even don't work in a particular version of Mathcad.

All in all, at the moment I would recommend you M15, but keep in mind that the classic line of Mathcad has no future,</b>

I can't even remember what it was now, but I moved from 13 to 14 and I found that some of my calculations didn't work, so I ported back. Haven't moved forward ever since. My first version was 6, came with lots of disks and an actual hard copy manual.

As for Mathcad having no future, as long as I can keep using 13, and even perhaps keeping an old computer running that can use the program, I can't see any reason why I'd need to upgrade. Realistically, for the calculations I do, I could probably still get away with the old version 6, except I've more than likely thrown out the disks.

 

[KM]

Hey, I'm still using v. 4.0 (!!!). It does all I need it to do except print clearly--it's legible, but ugly. Was thinking of upgrading, but after this thread decided not to.

 

[excognito]

I'd recommend anybody using less than Mathcad 11.2 upgrade to that version - it's by far the best of the pre-12 versions in terms of speed and capability. I haven't found any significant that get in the way of my using M15 and it has small, but noticeable, performance improvement over M11.

 

[IRstuff]

While upgrading is definitely desirable, M11 isn't supported nor readily available


TTFN
faq731-376

 

[excognito]

While upgrading is definitely desirable, M11 isn't supported nor readily available

True, but if one can find a copy (eg, eBay) then I believe it is still better to go for M11 than stick with an earlier version (which would be equally unsupported). I still use it when I want to get round some of the static type checking problems or use some of the undocumented symbolic features (I don't have a full version of Prime 2 - just the Express version).

 

[ElSid1]

A new service release for 15 was recently issued. Prime 3.0 is going to BETA shortly. IF you pick up Prime 2.0 (latest version), it COMES with MC 15 as well! Until PTC feels that Prime is an equivalent in capabilities to MC15 ... they have said that they would bundle the two. As for the newer processors ... MC15 cannot take advantage of 64 bit nor multi-cores. I'm hoping that Prime 3 makes it more usuable for my work

 

[Stillc]

I would stay with MC15 if you have a Windows 7 machine or MC14 if you have XP. Prime 2.0 is a disaster; don't even think about using it.

 

[jhardy1]

"Mathcad Prime" is the "Apple Maps" of calculation software - lovely to look at, but missing so much of the core functionality that users have come to expect and rely upon.

They are both classic examples of software companies massively under-estimating the challenge of developing specialist applications where they have no real expert competence. ("How hard could it be?" Well, very hard, it turns out!) Marketing / strategy / profitability imperatives demand that the product is released to market well before it is "finished", in order to generate revenue - but customers aren't told that it is still really only a Beta "proof of concept" product.

(It looks like both will take just as long to turn them into a full-featured product, too!)

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

 

[IRstuff]

I'm not convinced that it's that simple a story. MP1 was, by design, limited in scope, precisely because PTC did not want to repeat the M12 debacle. I believe they thought that it was better to have a fully functioning subset than a buggy full complement. Of course, the exodus of some of the original brain power behind Mathcad probably made that an imperative.

TTFN
faq731-376

 

[ElSid1]

PTC is implementing features with each release of MC Prime. I agree that, for now, MathCAD 15 is the way to go. For those that are knocking 15 and swearing by 14 ...
Check your release. M035 is the last MC 14 but had a HUGE memory bug which I reported. MC 15 was their "bug fix" Kind of like MS "requiring" you to upgrade to Windows 7 from Vista.
From what I've read on MC Prime 3, it SHOULD be usable for most engineering environments and homework. Still missing "advanced" features from 15, but should be usable for most applications. My company is considering testing MC Prime 3 when it comes out ... I've been their MC lab rat for "basic" reports/calculation upadting.