home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!buccb
- From: buccb@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (butler carlos dion)
- Subject: Re: Mathematica vs MathCAD
- Message-ID: <BtAK3H.Kxp@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
- Keywords: MAthematica MAthCAD
- Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
- References: <ceZJPB1w165w@student.business.uwo.ca> <1992Aug20.130737.22769@ncsu.edu>
- Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:49:51 GMT
- Lines: 25
-
- As far as number crunching and programming are concerned,
- Mathematica wins over MathCad hands down, but Mathematica 2.0 for
- Windows is buggy as hell. 2.1 was compiled last week and should
- be out any moment now. Many bugs were fixed and the interface
- works a lot better. The ability for Mathematica to port it's
- results over to W4W is questionable, at best.
- Providing, you are not seeking a very extensive symbolic
- math system, a very good argument can be made for MathCad. The
- interface is a lot easier to get along with. It seems a lot less
- buggy. I would be highly surprised if you couldn't integrate it's
- results with W4W (or any other package for that matter). It seems
- to have been designed for Windows as opposed to a crude port/hack
- of a Mac interface (like Mathematica).
- Another thing to be considered is hardware. I don't recall
- what system you said you were using, but if it runs Windows, it will
- run MathCad. This is not true for Mathematica. Mathematica is a no-
- go without and math co-processor and I wouldn't dare start it up
- with anything less than 8mb RAM and a phat virtual memory disk.
- MathCad didn't even seem half as hogish.
-
- --
- Carlos Dragonslayer Butler
- buccb@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu buccb@after.math.uiuc.edu buccb@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
- University of Illinois (217) 373-4781 Pager
- "People often condescend what they fail to comprehend...
-