Because radio buttons allow but one choice maybe the question should be changed to "In What area would you like to new Maple development." I'd prefer to be able to select more than one area.

My vote is for math algorithms.

The priority for documentation, I think, is improvement of the available help pages.

Interface - Improved GUI: it depends on your interpretation. For me it means restart the development of the Classic GUI. Eg, make it available for 64-bit platforms.

1. For me a CAS is for doing or applying Math, where a correct and
usable, up-to-date documentation is 'Le must' for even handling it.
A simple interface for I/O and moderate plots is enough. A better
one is good, but not at the costs of essentials due to economics
(which is to square the circle).

2. I do not have any needs for publishing or niceties (spelling?),
it just should be readable for non-Mapleianians (as pdf print).
Find a partner, may be even some academic institution, based on
reduced functionality - open for post-processing. Techniques may
change, especially in a commercial market.

3. How ever thinks that Students should learn or cheat through a
CAS - this person never seriously worked as teacher. But to *use*
it for learning: yes! So it is a difficult task, but a priori off
any sophisticated implementation.

4. Hopefully the result would be attractive enough, that like for
Matlab real contributions are available - and not only some nice
but non-essentail snippets as concurrently (no personal offence
intended, just provocating) at the application center.


Dispite that I always agree with commercial needs and accept some
discount for a compromise (which currently seems to be taken at
77.3% by Maple ...)


PS: Alec's sarcastic comment caused a big, dirty grin - enjoyed it. 

I would much much rather see all the broken stuff fixed, the half-implemented stuff finished, the old designs modernized, all of it properly documented, than any new feature.  A few obviously missing features might be added (PDF printing for example), but that's more like fixing a bug than a new feature!

I won't hold my breath though.  It's much easier to peddle new features (whether they are useful or not) than to try to sell a new version where 'quality' was the main concern, or so I am told. 

If Maplesoft proves me wrong, ie by putting out a new release which is all about 'quality' and has essentially no new features, I'll start using Standard.

I think the most important thing for Maple to improve is its appaling GUI, and the absurd amount of CPU and memory it uses. I have used Maple for years for many kinds of applications, so know the program quite well. I can't move to Maple 12 because they have cut off support for the old interface in Windows.

I currently use Maple 11 on a MacBook Pro, but the interface is so useless I have to use the windows classic interface on a windows emulator - and I still get better performance than using their Java interface natively. If I am writing a Maple worksheet for any length of time the memory and CPU of the interface can sometimes take over the whole system, and this is on a fairly decent computer. I have tried to use it for classroom teaching, but have found it very slow [not to mention full of niggling bugs] that I have stopped. I would like to use Maple TA extensively but fear the same problems would occur, and I don't want 500 students complaining about having to use something so slow.

I can no longer consider any upgrades until the classic worksheet is reinstigated or the GUI radically improved. Why is it written in java anyway?

hi

i'd like to see better graphing -printing out multiple graphs is always messy

better online documentation (or a decent txtbook), current online documentation can be v heavy going and there is no book with much information about programming etc