Re: Challenge Mathematica vs Excel Addins
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg19981] Re: [mg19961] Challenge Mathematica vs Excel Addins
- From: "Richard Palmer" <rhpcvn at tiac.net>
- Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 23:26:26 -0400
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
I use both the Decisioneering package (Crystal Ball) and Mathematica. If
all you have to do are the kinds of Simulations Crystal Ball is built for,
it is much faster and easier than Mathematica to solve problems and debug
your work. However, clearly Mathematica can perform the same processes and
do much more. If you need this kind of backup (e.g. statistics Crystal Ball
doesn't provide, longer simulation runs than Excel supports, or functions of
your random variables that Excel doesn't provide) then Mathematica is
From: Geoff McInnes <gmcinnes at attcanada.net>
To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
Subject: [mg19981] [mg19961] Challenge Mathematica vs Excel Addins
>If you bounce to sites such as www.decisioneering.com
>you will see many addins that proclaim to do, as Excel addins,
>sophisticated Monte Carlo Simulations, Time Series etc.
>For those of us trying to justify using Mathematica 4.x along with
>the ExcelLink addin as an alternative, could someone point to some
>objective sources of counterarguments.
>I have William Shaw's Derivatives Modelling book and would appreciate
>arguments similar in vein to his Chapter 1.
>Thanks very much and apologies if this seems not in keeping with
>the spirit of the list, but, to me, these types of apps are what I bought
>Mathematica for, and, if I can't justify their use corporately, then
>all of its potential is, in essence, wasted.
>gmcinnes at attcanada.net
>gmcinnes at businessanalytics.net
Prev by Date:
those lazy CounterBoxes...
Next by Date:
Previous by thread:
Challenge Mathematica vs Excel Addins
Next by thread:
1999 Mathematica Developer Conference Update