Mathcad?
May 18th, 2009Let’s Have Your Opinions
I’m thinking of upgrading my math software, even though I almost never use it. A very long time ago, I bought Mathcad and Maple. I also got the academic version of Mathematica. Now Mathcad is offering a very cheap upgrade, and if I get it, it will preserve my eligibility for future upgrades.
I am considering getting this software because my old version of Mathcad was fairly intuitive and easy to use, and on the rare occasions when I feel like doing a calculation, it’s a nice thing to have.
I know I have some readers who are scientifically inclined. Do any of you know whether the current version of Mathcad is any good?
May 18th, 2009 at 11:33 AM
I personally owned an early windows version back in the 1990’s which was a little clunky, but I think it had more to do with Windows 3.5 and processor speed than MathCAD.
Last year I spent a good deal of time working with a company that had a half dozen licenses and I didn’t spend any time writing stuff but the things they had already written were beautiful and pretty intuitative to use.
You can dump things like Excell data into calculation routines to augment Excell’s capabilities and we imported output from Bentley Systems STAAD structural finite element software into reports for further analysis and output.
By the way, the output is infinitely formatable and produces beautiful reports.
Thing is it is EXPENSIVE to buy from scratch so if you have the luxury of getting a cheap upgrade and will use it I say go for it.
May 18th, 2009 at 11:46 AM
I can get it for a hundred bucks, which is ridiculous.
.
The impression I get from Googling is that the current version of Mathcad is great for engineering, but not quite as exciting for purely academic work. And the things I would use it for are probably much closer to engineering. For example, I like including my units.
May 18th, 2009 at 12:29 PM
cf Virgil …after all, you don’t have to actually use and install the upgrade, Steve. What you’re really doing is keeping your options open for a future upgrade that may include something you do think is usual (but due to versioning differences, isn’t as inexpensive if you’d purchased the previous upgrade). And for only a hundred bucks for MathCAD? Well, call it insurance.
.
…now: where’s my old version, so I can see if its upgradeable?
.
May 18th, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Aargh …”usual”??? – I meant “useful”. I’m not having a sterling morning. Lyme kicking in again.
.
I’m “managing” Lyme with dairy products (yeah, it blows me away – too – that drinking milk seems to work: and at that, after being on antibiotics for six months, it’s a lot friendlier treatment regimine LMTY), but sometimes it bites me.
.
May 18th, 2009 at 12:46 PM
It will solve a second order differential equation (and I think third order or possibly a fourth order also) so it’s great for things like calculating the natural frequency of a beam or designing springs and frames and so on.
There are lots of “modules” for sale with pre packaged calcs and also a bunch of free stuff on line suggesting solutions to different kinds of problems.
My copy burned up in a house fire and I don’t need it bad enough to pay the list price for a new copy but for $100 you should jump on the option if you’ll use it
May 18th, 2009 at 7:44 PM
Every version since v10 has had “robust” software protection built in. Transferring the software to a second computer if you upgrade will be a real pain.
That said, this is the best of the bunch IMHO. I taught a lab supplement class in grad school that used MathCad. (Physical Chemistry Using MathCad – Noogle) Most of the senior level chemists were able to pick it up rather quickly.
I used it for my own research as well and this is where I draw my only criticisms from.
1. Contour plots look like junk.
2. Curve fitting works best when you have well behaved data.
3. Needs a real time page refresh for when you are waiting for the answer to a problem. I use to have rules of thumb about how long to wait for an answer, “three minutes – OK, five minutes – it’s stuck. If the page were to refresh (every million iterations or so) you would know if your solution was converging or not.
May 18th, 2009 at 8:31 PM
For a hundred United States Dollars you should go on and buy it and install it and spend some time playing with it.
.
That math stuff is almost as much fun as messin’ around with diesel powered dirt moving machines and whats more you can do it on a rainy day.
May 18th, 2009 at 9:30 PM
I’m facing the same dilemma, with the added twist that I simply no longer know how to use MathCad. Controls and DSP guys lean towards Matlab, so I’ve learned much more about that. From what I understand, the two have both migrated in each other’s directions, so Matlab now looks better and can do symbolic work better than before (which is to say, it can do a little) and MathCad has increased the range of their tool to handle more calculations.
For $99, I’m having trouble thinking of reasons you (and I, frankly) shouldn’t keep that option alive.
May 18th, 2009 at 9:35 PM
Much less polished, but still quite powerful (and very nice price):
http://www.sagemath.org
http://www.scipy.org
May 18th, 2009 at 9:40 PM
I think I got my copy in ’92. I suppose one $99 upgrade every seventeen years is nothing to bitch about.
.
I didn’t really use my math software that much when I did physics. It’s strange, but I liked doing the calculations by hand. I think this is one reason I got burned out and had to quit. Smarter guys would look up answers to problems and write them down and go to bed, while I was rooting through Gradshteyn and Ryzhik all night. I kept forgetting that the job was to frame the problem and give the answer, not to do the actual math.
.
I probably should have been a mathematician instead. Then my approach would have been appropriate.
.
The software really shone when it came to anything with a pile of variables to keep track of.
.
I remember buying Mathematica simply to get me through one quantum mechanics homework problem. It involved a string of cross products as long as your arm. I thought I was a moron, because I couldn’t see how I was supposed to do it with a pencil. I programmed the software to do it, and I showed the result to my professor and asked if it was right, and he said “It could be.” Nobody, including him, knew the answer. And he never bothered finding out.
.
I always wondered why he assigned that problem. Typical physicist move.