Maplesoft has released Maple 9.03 for download. Maple 9.03 is a maintenance update to Maple 9 for all platforms. Changes include:
* Reduced startup time (most noticeable on the Windows platform) * Improvements to standard math input and formatting * Improvements to the copy and paste mechanisms * Improvements to Sendmail * Improvements to Animation * Improvements to Autosave * Improvements to worksheet editing and formatting * Improvements to Spreadsheets * Improvements to Page Breaks * Improvements to performance
9.03 also contains all updates found in 9.02 and 9.01. Existing users (9.00, 9.01, 9.02) can access the update from the Technical Support section of the Maplesoft Web site. An installation of 9.00, 9.01, or 9.02 is required for the update to function properly.
> Maplesoft has released Maple 9.03 for download. Maple 9.03 is a > maintenance update to Maple 9 for all platforms.
There are still some problems in Chinese font display in Maple v9.03. In fact, we "see" nothing but only a "-". I told the manager Ko since v9.00. Now you have v9.03, but the problems are still there. Is there someone can tell us why the Chinese fonts can be displayed correctly in "The Classic Worksheet Maple 9"(.mws) but not in "Standard Maple 9"(.mw)?
In Taiwan, we still use .mws (The Classic Worksheet Maple 9), .mw was useless in our Windows Chinese platform for now. If Waterloo MapleSoft can not promise the users a better and more steadier new version. Please don't upgrade Maple so often just for some commercial considerations.
I and my students are all Maple fun users, please spoil that.
> Maplesoft has released Maple 9.03 for download. [...] > 9.03 also contains all updates found in 9.02 and 9.01. Existing users > (9.00, 9.01, 9.02) can access the update from the Technical Support > section of the Maplesoft Web site. An installation of 9.00, 9.01, or > 9.02 is required for the update to function properly.
What about calling 9.00 Beta-1, 9.01 Beta-2, 9.02 ReleaseCandidate-1, 9.03 ReleaseCandidate-2?
Do you know how much time for installation, re-installation, re-re-installation etc. you are thieving from your customers?
And: we are still waiting for the 'true' 9. release.
> > Maplesoft has released Maple 9.03 for download. [...] > > 9.03 also contains all updates found in 9.02 and 9.01. Existing users > > (9.00, 9.01, 9.02) can access the update from the Technical Support > > section of the Maplesoft Web site. An installation of 9.00, 9.01, or > > 9.02 is required for the update to function properly.
> What about calling 9.00 Beta-1, 9.01 Beta-2, > 9.02 ReleaseCandidate-1, 9.03 ReleaseCandidate-2?
> Do you know how much time for installation, > re-installation, re-re-installation etc. you are > thieving from your customers?
> And: we are still waiting for the 'true' 9. release.
> Regards Peter
Hm. Indeed it sounds not inviting at all and more like M$.
I was planing to upgrade and to download the neccessary releases at work (no transfer problems due to any size) to burn it on 1 CD before. But: no - i would have to enter an ID, grrr. So i will wait until i hear "no problem any more" from _users_.
What i do not understand: Maple seems to have made a bad error. Sad, but ok. What i want is: 1 original + 1 fix to be sent if i buy it. Or a statement like "fixed until ...". But not a list what i have to do. And certainly no notification that not even clearly states: "install a,b, c .. and if you not have done already simply start with 9.04 and ignore the rest". Or so.
Really, i do not understand that, it is irritating.
In article <bqtg3n$26n4a...@ID-64349.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Peter Luschny <peter.lusc...@gmx.net> wrote: >"Maplesoft":
>> Maplesoft has released Maple 9.03 for download. [...] >> 9.03 also contains all updates found in 9.02 and 9.01. Existing users >> (9.00, 9.01, 9.02) can access the update from the Technical Support >> section of the Maplesoft Web site. An installation of 9.00, 9.01, or >> 9.02 is required for the update to function properly.
Maple is not freeware, as you know. How do you expect them to stay in business if they attempt to sell a product called Maple Release xx.beta-1? Would you pay for it?
They do their best to come up with a reasonably good product and try to sell it in order to pay their rent and their car loans and shoes for their kids. A new release does not mean that the development has reached the acme of perfection. If it did, there wouldn't have been much reason to go beyond Maple Release 1.0.
I think you should be thankful for their continued effort to provide the free upgrades and bug-fixes that they do. You would have had a reason to complain if they didn't.
>And: we are still waiting for the 'true' 9. release.
The problem is, you can never tell if a particular release has reached the status of `true' 9. A complex software is rarely perfect.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying Maple is perfect. I have quite a few gripes and pet peeves about it -- some of which I have aired in this forum -- but the intermittent release of patches and bug fixes is not one of them.
> In article <bqtg3n$26n4a...@ID-64349.news.uni-berlin.de>, > Peter Luschny <peter.lusc...@gmx.net> wrote: > >"Maplesoft":
RR> They do their best
Really? WHY exactly do you think so? How much time have you wasted in your attempts to contact them and help them to fix all these bugs?
I started my attempts in 1993.
I have talked with Keith Geddes and Laurent Bernardin and Mike Seymour and my impression is that you are flattering to Maplesoft ;)
RR> a reasonably good product
Yep, it has only up to several thousands distinct bugs and no more (hopefully).
For details you may wish to visit www.cybertester.com - but remember that now it is just the tip of the iceberg and reflects a tiny fraction of Maple bugs. In the near future we are going to upload the next major upgrade.
RR> I think you should be thankful for their continued effort to provide RR> the free upgrades and bug-fixes that they do. You would have had a RR> reason to complain if they didn't.
"be thankful"?
You gotta be kidding!
Maplesoft MUST make these upgrades because without them it would go bankrupt quickly. I remember vividly how I was excited to see Maple V Release 2; Maple 6 was still fairly good but then something went wrong.
RR> I think you should be thankful for their continued effort to RR> provide the free upgrades and bug-fixes that they do. You would RR> have had a reason to complain if they didn't.
Gee! You are a Cicero ;)
But... where I have heard these smooth words?... look here, at this guy... he has so nice look... could he be a criminal?... well, it depends on our definitions... yes, I admit that my client have stolen you money and because of this you are not able to do what you were going to do but let's think WHY he did it? It's because of the most noble reason: he had a couple of kinds and a sickly wife to support.
Do you really want to get him behind the bars? Has he killed you? No, you are still alive though without money and you have wasted you time trying to fix this. So what?
> > Maplesoft has released Maple 9.03 for download. [...] > What about calling 9.00 Beta-1, 9.01 Beta-2, > 9.02 ReleaseCandidate-1, 9.03 ReleaseCandidate-2?
:)
PL> Do you know how much time for installation, PL> re-installation, re-re-installation etc. you are PL> thieving from your customers?
Maple 9.03 is unique in this respect, even 9.02 was better.
I am not ready to tell straight off what other application would have made me running scared so much ;)
For the first 2 minutes I thought that I got a virus... Windows got uncotrollable... HDD indicator was blinking... nothing was happening...
PL> And: we are still waiting for the 'true' 9. release.
What about doing your morning exercise daily? The doctors claim this would give you a chance to live to a ripe old age.
Also, if you are a smoker, please quit (I have done, I am also waiting for the 'true' 9. release)
Do you have any insight which is more 'buggy', mathematica 5.0 or maple 9.0* ?
I have been looking at mathematica as well, and the only thing that prevents me from concentrating on mma are 2 things:
1. can't rotate 3D images in mma using the mouse as I can do with maple. 2. mma has ugly synatx and its programming style is not build for prodcedural style programming which I am more used to.
Other than that, I like mma interface more than maple.
> "Rouben Rostamian" schrieb > > Peter Luschny wrote: > >> Maplesoft has released Maple 9.03 for download. [...] > >> 9.03 also contains all updates found in 9.02 and 9.01. Existing users > >> (9.00, 9.01, 9.02) can access the update from the Technical Support > >> section of the Maplesoft Web site. An installation of 9.00, 9.01, or > >> 9.02 is required for the update to function properly. > >What about calling 9.00 Beta-1, 9.01 Beta-2, > >9.02 ReleaseCandidate-1, 9.03 ReleaseCandidate-2? > Maple is not freeware, as you know. How do you expect them > to stay in business if they attempt to sell a product called > Maple Release xx.beta-1? Would you pay for it?
Are you kidding? Of course they should not sell software which is at that level of maturity. These are quite common terms to describe /internal/ stages of development.
> They do their best to come up with a reasonably good product and try > to sell it in order to pay their rent and their car loans and shoes > for their kids.
Their work is hard and they do deserve to be paid well for their rent, kids, cars and whatsoever other amusements - if they do their work in a satisfactorily manner.
The soap opera they are showing right now with the releases of 9.00, 9.01, 9.02, 9.03 within a couple of month does /not/ indicate this.
> A new release does not mean that the development has > reached the acme of perfection. If it did, there wouldn't have been > much reason to go beyond Maple Release 1.0. [...] > The problem is, you can never tell if a particular release has > reached the status of `true' 9. A complex software is rarely > perfect.
I do know that. I do not complain about minor inconveniences. I have learned to live with this. I just don't want to buy big, substantial bugs which hinder the use of basic features. You did read Ken's posting in this thread, did you?
| "Is there someone can tell us why the Chinese fonts | can be displayed correctly in "The Classic Worksheet | Maple 9"(.mws) but not in "Standard Maple 9"(.mw)? | In Taiwan, we still use .mws (The Classic Worksheet Maple 9), | .mw was useless in our Windows Chinese platform for now."
Did you read what was said about the Java-interface in this group? Or about the usefulness of Release 9 for the Mac?
> I think you should be thankful for their continued effort to provide > the free upgrades and bug-fixes that they do.
These are not the rules of the game: To pay for bugs and then be thankful for bug-fixes.
Did you watch Maplesoft over the years? The price went up, their hype went up, their arrogance went up - and the quality went down.
And you missed another point:
> How do you expect them > to stay in business if they attempt to sell a product called > Maple Release xx.beta-1? Would you pay for it?
How do you expect them to stay in business if they sell a product which *is* Maple Release xx.beta-1?
I do not. And let me firmly add - I would be very sad to see this happen.
> Do you have any insight which is more 'buggy', mathematica 5.0 > or maple 9.0* ?
I am afraid, it's not easy to compare Maple and Mathematica; for example, there are some 4,500 functions in Mathematica 5 vs some 3,500 functions in Maple 9. Secondly, now I am too engaged in the Maple testing and thus practically do not use Mathematica 5 much. However, if you are speaking about subjective "feelings" of the user (how often one runs across a bug etc), personally, I felt, Mathematica 4 is buggier than Maple 8.
However, I have nothing to tell you about Maple 9 / Mathematica 5 in this respect; in MMA 5 there are many changes; hundreds of old bugs are fixed; hundreds of new ones appeared.
Right away I have no insight about this comparison; well, possible, I *have* an insight but I'd eschew to speak my thoughts aloud because it would be a mere assertion (well... or my trade secret :)
> I have been looking at mathematica as well, and the only thing > that prevents me from concentrating on mma are 2 things:
> 1. can't rotate 3D images in mma using the mouse as I can do > with maple.
Two eternal (really eternal?) rivals, these days, Maple & Mathematica are NO longer just software environments but, in a sense, two MYTHS. There is a Maple mythology and there is a Mathematica mythology.
One of the MMA myths is that there is no possibility to rotate 3D images in MMA. Actually, since 1999, since Mathematica 4.0 there is such an opportunity.
> 2. mma has ugly syntax and its programming style
A kindred soul! ;) My initial feelings were the same...
Actually, I forgot how much time precisely I needed to get accustomed to the MMA language and started writing my own useful programs; I believe it required a month or so; but very simple functions you could program in 2-3 days.
Also, there is a cordon bleu, exciting in clarity, set of 62 simple examples sized with 626 to 10660 bytes at
written by Roman Maeder, one of the principal MMA makers.
Even at the risk that Stephen Wolfram will file a copyright infringement action against me I cannot vanquish temptation to send you this set if you are willing to have a look at this gem; please feel comfortable to just drop me a line if you are interested.
> is not build > for procedural style programming which I am more used to.
Yet another Mathematica myth ;) Actually, I have written many thousands lines using the procedural style until I gradually have found that often there are other ways to put it faster.
The MMA language is unique and powerful and every soul can find the style he or she prefer.
"For most of the more sophisticated problems that you want to solve with Mathematica, you will have to create Mathematica programs. Mathematica supports several types of programming, and you have to choose which one to use in each case. It turns out that no single type of programming suits all cases well. As a result, it is very important that you learn several different types of programming."
"If you already know a traditional programming language such as BASIC, C, Fortran, Perl or Java, you will probably find it easiest to learn procedural programming in Mathematica, using Do, For and so on. But while almost any Mathematica program can, in principle, be written in a procedural way, this is rarely the best approach. In a symbolic system like Mathematica, functional and rule-based programming typically yields programs that are more efficient, and easier to understand."
"If you find yourself using procedural programming a lot, you should make an active effort to convert at least some of your programs to other types. At first, you may find functional and rule-based programs difficult to understand. But after a while, you will find that their global structure is usually much easier to grasp than procedural programs. And as your experience with Mathematica grows over a period of months or years, you will probably find that you write more and more of your programs in non-procedural ways."
> Other than that, I like mma interface more than maple.
Me, too ;) Once I was a Maple wild fan, though... Panta rhei :)
As you have observed, there are many Maple reviews, Maple 8, Mapl 7, Maple 6 etc, but nobody have written a review of Maple 9, guess why ?) (well, it's a trivial puzzle for you)
For a long time, I keep thinking over the Maple mythology and maybe I even should publish my rumination, at least, you have given me yet another incentive to do it, thanks!
> Do you have any insight which is more 'buggy', mathematica 5.0 > or maple 9.0* ?
I am afraid, it's not easy to compare Maple and Mathematica; for example, there are some 4,500 functions in Mathematica 5 vs some 3,500 functions in Maple 9. Secondly, now I am too engaged in the Maple testing and thus practically do not use Mathematica 5 much. However, if you are speaking about subjective "feelings" of the user (how often one runs across a bug etc), personally, I felt, Mathematica 4 is buggier than Maple 8.
However, I have nothing to tell you about Maple 9 / Mathematica 5 in this respect; in MMA 5 there are many changes; hundreds of old bugs are fixed; hundreds of new ones appeared.
Right away I have no insight about this comparison; well, possible, I *have* an insight but I'd eschew to speak my thoughts aloud because it would be a mere assertion (well... or my trade secret :)
> I have been looking at mathematica as well, and the only thing > that prevents me from concentrating on mma are 2 things:
> 1. can't rotate 3D images in mma using the mouse as I can do > with maple.
Two eternal (really eternal?) rivals, these days, Maple & Mathematica are NO longer just software environments but, in a sense, two MYTHS. There is a Maple mythology and there is a Mathematica mythology.
One of the MMA myths is that there is no possibility to rotate 3D images in MMA. Actually, since 1999, since Mathematica 4.0 there is such an opportunity.
> 2. mma has ugly syntax and its programming style
A kindred soul! ;) My initial feelings were the same...
Actually, I forgot how much time precisely I needed to get accustomed to the MMA language and started writing my own useful programs; I believe it required a month or so; but very simple functions you could program in 2-3 days.
Also, there is a cordon bleu, exciting in clarity, set of 62 simple examples sized with 626 to 10660 bytes at
written by Roman Maeder, one of the principal MMA makers.
Even at the risk that Stephen Wolfram will file a copyright infringement action against me I cannot vanquish temptation to send you this set if you are willing to have a look at this gem; please feel comfortable to just drop me a line if you are interested.
> is not build > for procedural style programming which I am more used to.
Yet another Mathematica myth ;) Actually, I have written many thousands lines using the procedural style until I gradually have found that often there are other ways to put it faster.
The MMA language is unique and powerful and every soul can find the style he or she prefer.
"For most of the more sophisticated problems that you want to solve with Mathematica, you will have to create Mathematica programs. Mathematica supports several types of programming, and you have to choose which one to use in each case. It turns out that no single type of programming suits all cases well. As a result, it is very important that you learn several different types of programming."
"If you already know a traditional programming language such as BASIC, C, Fortran, Perl or Java, you will probably find it easiest to learn procedural programming in Mathematica, using Do, For and so on. But while almost any Mathematica program can, in principle, be written in a procedural way, this is rarely the best approach. In a symbolic system like Mathematica, functional and rule-based programming typically yields programs that are more efficient, and easier to understand."
"If you find yourself using procedural programming a lot, you should make an active effort to convert at least some of your programs to other types. At first, you may find functional and rule-based programs difficult to understand. But after a while, you will find that their global structure is usually much easier to grasp than procedural programs. And as your experience with Mathematica grows over a period of months or years, you will probably find that you write more and more of your programs in non-procedural ways."
> Other than that, I like mma interface more than maple.
Me, too ;) Once I was a Maple wild fan, though... Panta rhei :)
As you have observed, there are many Maple reviews, Maple 8, Mapl 7, Maple 6 etc, but nobody have written a review of Maple 9, guess why ?) (well, it's a trivial puzzle for you)
For a long time, I keep thinking over the Maple mythology and maybe I even should publish my rumination, at least, you have given me yet another incentive to do it, thanks!
Still there are a few differences between Maple and Mathematica that you didn't mention even if I'm sure that you are aware of. I want to mention just 2 of them.
First, postings in this group are unmoderated, so you can post whatever you want about Maple. Mathematica group is moderated, so all of your postings there wouldn't be accepted by moderator.
Second, Maple is (almost) free software - everything (except their built-in functions) is available for revision and replacement. Mathematica is not.
> rou...@pc18.math.umbc.edu (Rouben Rostamian) wrote in message news: > <bqtnu5$nk...@pc18.math.umbc.edu>...
> I have talked with Keith Geddes and Laurent Bernardin and Mike Seymour > and my impression is that you are flattering to Maplesoft ;)
As far as I can tell, Keith Geddes, Laurent Bernardin, and Mike Seymour are great mathematicians and great computer programmers. All of my contacts with them were extremely satisfactory. Have you ever thought that your problems with contacting them may be caused by yours (not so nice looking at your late postings in this newsgroup) and not their personalities?
> Second, Maple is (almost) free software - everything (except their built-in > functions) is available for revision and replacement. Mathematica is not.
Presumably you are in an institution where Maple is purchased for you. But someone is paying.
Look in the two companies on-line stores and you will see that, for an academic in North America, Maple is $100 MORE then Mathematica.
In article <a7670cc3.0312090151.30523...@posting.google.com>, Ralf wrote: >> Second, Maple is (almost) free software - everything (except their built-in >> functions) is available for revision and replacement. Mathematica is not.
> Presumably you are in an institution where Maple is purchased for you. > But someone is paying.
You are misinterpreting "free"; it is being used in the sense of free as in freedom. Maple isn't open source, however, it is possible to inspect and modify much of the code.
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Alec Mihailovs wrote: > Second, Maple is (almost) free software - everything (except their built-in > functions) is available for revision and replacement. Mathematica is not.
Yes, one can run showstat(...) or set interface(verboseproc=2) and evaluate library procedures. One can even unprotect assigned names and create customized versions of built-in library procedures. This is highly useful.
However, one cannot escape the fact that Maple is proprietary commercial software. For an individual, even for a student, it is costly, but that in itself does not make it non-free: I could burn the latest Debian Linux distribution and demand a thousand dollars for it, and would be operating within the bounds of the GNU public licence.
What makes Maple "non-free" is the fact that after buying it one cannot legally distribute it, its library code, or any derivatives of these.
> What makes Maple "non-free" is the fact that after buying it one cannot > legally distribute it, its library code, or any derivatives of these.
It isn't clear, at least to me, how much of the library code one is allowed to modify and redistribute. I, along with other contributors to this newsgroup, have at one time or another published corrections and improvements to particular procedures in the libraries. This may technically violate the license agreement, however, it seems close to fair use [though fair use may not apply in a license agreement]. Regardless, I've never heard any objections to this from WMI/Maplesoft.
Vladimir Bondarenko <v...@cybertester.com> wrote: > For the first 2 minutes I thought that I got a virus... > Windows got uncotrollable... HDD indicator was blinking... > nothing was happening...
(gasp) -any macintosh user's reaction around here?
Herve
-- Frédérique & Hervé Sainct, h.sai...@laposte.net Frédérique's initial is missing in front of the above address l'initiale de Frédérique manque devant l'adresse email ci-dessus
| Second, Maple is (almost) free software - everything (except their built-in | functions) is available for revision and replacement. Mathematica is not.
You must have a very singular definition of free software.
| In article <a7670cc3.0312090151.30523...@posting.google.com>, Ralf wrote: | >> Second, Maple is (almost) free software - everything (except their built-in | >> functions) is available for revision and replacement. Mathematica is not. | > | > Presumably you are in an institution where Maple is purchased for you. | > But someone is paying. | | You are misinterpreting "free"; it is being used in the sense of free | as in freedom. Maple isn't open source, however, it is possible to | inspect and modify much of the code.
That is not the definiton of free software, neither.
Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: > Joe Riel <j...@k-online.com> writes:
> | In article <a7670cc3.0312090151.30523...@posting.google.com>, Ralf wrote: > | >> Second, Maple is (almost) free software - everything (except their > | >> built-in > | >> functions) is available for revision and replacement. Mathematica is not. > | > > | > Presumably you are in an institution where Maple is purchased for you. > | > But someone is paying. > | > | You are misinterpreting "free"; it is being used in the sense of free > | as in freedom. Maple isn't open source, however, it is possible to > | inspect and modify much of the code.
> That is not the definiton of free software, neither.
See <http://www.gnu.org/>. And then stop spouting off about what you know nothing of.
| In article <m3zndhskyy....@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>, Gabriel | Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: | | > Joe Riel <j...@k-online.com> writes: | > | > | In article <a7670cc3.0312090151.30523...@posting.google.com>, Ralf wrote: | > | >> Second, Maple is (almost) free software - everything (except their | > | >> built-in | > | >> functions) is available for revision and replacement. Mathematica is not. | > | > | > | > Presumably you are in an institution where Maple is purchased for you. | > | > But someone is paying. | > | | > | You are misinterpreting "free"; it is being used in the sense of free | > | as in freedom. Maple isn't open source, however, it is possible to | > | inspect and modify much of the code. | > | > That is not the definiton of free software, neither. | | See <http://www.gnu.org/>.
> | Second, Maple is (almost) free software - everything (except their built-in > | functions) is available for revision and replacement. Mathematica is not.
> You must have a very singular definition of free software.
Yes indeed -- does that mean I can get my $2,000 back :-)
Michael K Murray <mmur...@maths.adelaide.edu.au> writes:
| In article <m365g5tzm4....@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>, | Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: | | > "Alec Mihailovs" <a...@mihailovs.com> writes: | > | > | Second, Maple is (almost) free software - everything (except their built-in | > | functions) is available for revision and replacement. Mathematica is not. | > | > You must have a very singular definition of free software. | | Yes indeed -- does that mean I can get my $2,000 back :-)
:-) I'm afraid no.
Free software implies at least unrestricted access to the source and you should have freedom to redistribute copies.
|
