Don't worry Javier you will fall in love with Mathcad. Wait you animate some of them. Going back in that forum, browsing all the postings you will find many nice ones. Just for sake of speaking: animation in Mathematica, she fills hundred of pages (not hundred !) but all the frames. I'm not sure you can save them as AVI ?
Very interesting thread. I have both Maple V and Mathcad loaded on my system. As a point of fact, Mathsoft uses the Maple core for symbolic computation but I much prefer Mathcad 2001 pro. I've used Mathcad since about 1992 and love it. Like jmG I only consult Maple in the way he consults Mathematica. For ease, power, and great presentation, one simply cannot beat Mathcad.
I have an old version of mathematica 2.2 and mathcad pro 2000. Mathematica is more powerful. I have taken a few math and science classes in college at the undergraduate level. In these classes mathematica with differential equations solvers out does mathcad. Differential equations is the heart of mathematics almost certainly. Differential Equations are what governs moving bodies such as an automobile. e.g. braking is a first order differential differential equations. Most differential equations can not be solved with a symbolic problem solver, but it sure helps when you're learning in school. Mathcad only has a subset of the Maple engine, and Maple is one of the serious competitors with Mathematica. I own mathcad, but for graduate research in the pure and applied sciences Mathematica has the power.
Linear Algebraists, Topologists, Statisticians, Complex Analysts, Logicians, and on and on and on... will be very sorry to hear that Differential Equations is the "Heart" of Mathematics, to ANY level of certainty.
Of course, a few may agree with you, just like every other discipline, believing his own field the most important. If you didn't believe that at some point, why would you be in the field?
Javier, If you answer in that forum, then you have Mathcad running in your PC. So you know how easy it is to use. Because you write the job like on paper. Mathematica has more in it. How much more ? Is it something that one could not twist in Mathcad ? I'm not expert enough. One thing for sure, you can not move objects in Mathematica. Very low compatibility with others. Not compatible with Excel. Graphing is simply pen in the neck. Although at the end it will produce graphs that Mathcad can not. Mathematica works by lines. Very awful for document presentation. If you are used to script an equation: this is the way Mathematica understand. I tortured both about hypergeometric functions. Both do nice and well, but Mathcad so easier. Mathcad quick plot is lot more powerful and simpler to use. I mean in terms of putting points, functions, several variables. They both have: splines (cubic,B B�zier), polyroots ...etc I became mad to kill with Mathematica about three things: 1_ Ln is not neperian logarithm but log(10) I spent over 50 hours trying an equation 2_ In Mathcad you can plot directly x^3 in the � range. Not in Mathematica. You must instruct her before. How to find the instruction !!! 3_ In my 4.0 version, there is a catastrophic bug in the numerical package for the Pad� approximation. I gave Wolfram all to correct it. About four months later nobody understood the bug. What kind of answer I received !!!! Definitely Mathematica is not organized as a working tool. Their tutorial is good. Not enough examples about the real life.
This morning, I posted for help about reducing a continued fraction into the form P(x)/Q(x), that I don't know how to do in Mathcad. May be Mathematica will do it [not tried yet].
It's important to note that there is an immense free libairy of superb Mathcad work sheets.
For the best looking graphs: then I use Origin. But it's not a math tool like Mathcad.
Now, I only consult Mathematica.
You see Javier, it depends also the intended use of a tool: look at it or use it ? I can live with Mathcad inconveniences but not with the Mathematica ones.