User login
Login with your MaplePrimes or Maplesoft.com account
Poll
Collaborative Books
Syndicate
Announcements
Active Main Forum Topics
Active Student Forum Topics
Recent comments
- Thanks!
6 hours 20 min ago - The Rollercoaster?
8 hours 9 min ago - sorry; did some research and
10 hours 16 min ago - high dimension differentiability test
10 hours 57 min ago - Help to solve the
11 hours 15 min ago - I will have to update when i
11 hours 43 min ago - worked OK
11 hours 51 min ago - restart:
x:=(u,v)->cos(v);
y:
12 hours 5 min ago - right
12 hours 27 min ago - Derivative of Matrix
12 hours 38 min ago
Recent blog posts
- Does Maple 12 support Ternary diagrams?
- Table from procedure
- Maple Mentor Awards: The Big Kahuna
- The actual architecture
- new package adoption
- Conjectures ripe for Maple experimentation
- overloaded operators
- poll: change in Maple that you want most?
- The future of FourierTrigSeries package
- Maple 12.01 is now Available
Recent book pages
Comments
Upgrading is way too dangerous these days
Even for such solid software as Firefox and Thunderbird, I way until at least a X.Y.3 release before I upgrade, anything younger than that is simply too dangerous to use. The early release are just way too full of bugs because some artificial release date had to be met, and out the product goes, bugs and all. Same holds for other software I use all the time like vim, svn, tortoise, cygwin, adobe acrobat, ghostscript, gcc - I stay away from major releases, but upgrade to stable-enough minor releases.
I did upgrade right away to GHC 6.6, but in that case the Beta process was extremely transparent, and I could check on the status of all of the known bugs before deciding to do so. Even for Ocaml, which also has its bug tracking system freely available to all, I do not upgrade to X.Y.0 releases.
Vista comes with its own even bigger problems: it is an absolute resource pig. All my computers have the horsepower necessary for the work I do, but none have enough oomph for Vista. So Microsoft itself has written me off as a potential upgrader, even though I own 2 computers running XP, and effectively control 3 more (dual boot linux and XP).
Speaking of software with resource problems, Vista is not the only culprit. I have in the past downloaded Java Studio, the NetBeans IDE and Eclipse. Each took forever to start, and so after looking around for a couple of minutes (and further being annoyed at their slowness), I uninstalled each of them.
Why upgrade?
From what I have read, Vista is a resource hog and I don't want any OS to eat my hard earned resources. So it's no to Vista, I'll make do with XP for the next year or two. While I agree in principle with Jacques (which I also apply to new auto models), I wonder whether I should grant Maple 11 an exemption...
J. Tarr
Kicking the tires
I have been known to use pre-alpha versions of Maple. But of course, anything I see there is vapourware - one cannot count on anything staying as is, whether good or bad. It's still fun to test drive!
There is a big difference between what I'll test-drive (anything that looks like fun), what I will incorporate into my daily work (it has to be stable and efficient), and even what I will pay for (I have many students who use Maple as an integral part of their Master's work, and I have paid for versions of Maple for each of them, and upgraded their versions as well when that made sense; see previous post for when I do that).
Hilarious rant on upgrades and gadget mania
Read Gizmodo editor emeritus Joel Johnson's hilarious take on constant upgrading an bleeding edge gadget mania. Warning: contains some coarse language. But absolutely brilliant.
can we have a 5th button?
"why?"
I doubt you will get a sound base for a decision how fast Maple has to deliver a version for that
windows vista
i really dont see a reason to upgrad. granted i run a mac but i do have a desktop that runs xp. for what i have heard vista is going with the drm all the way on it. i know that doesn't really affect maple in any way. i think i will just stick with the mac. you know once you go mac you dont go back.
Yes to upgrade
I upgraded to Vista the day it came out and I am very happy with the OS. There are so many improvements to that of XP, especially in Windows Explorer. And if you claim the graphics are too much of a resource hog for you, then simply shut them off. Or better yet, buy Vista Basic. If you are pondering whether or not to upgrade, I say yes. XP is over 5 years old, its time for some improvements.
Yes, but
I'm sure Vista is good, but some of my software and hardware don't currently support Vista. I'll upgrade to Vista, when buying a new computer in a year or so, however.
Parts of U.S gov't not upgrading either
interesting story in Information Week about Dept of Transport in U.S. officially not being allowed to upgrade - not to Vista, IE 7 or Office 2007. It seems that automatic upgrades or upgrades not based on a solid business case may be becoming a thing of the past!
Wait 'till you see the whites of their eyes
If you don't have to upgrade to Vista, why do it? There are nasty stories going around about drivers not being available and, of course, why not wait until Maple is good and ready for it?
J. Tarr