Re: HP48 vs TI-92
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
On Tue, 27 Aug 1996 23:27:16 -0700, "Mark P. Wilson"
<mwilson@afit.af.mil> wrote:
>You might want to actually check that, if you have both. If you lower
>the resolution of the Hp-48's screen to that of the Ti-85, it handily
The HP48 graphs a heck faster than the TI-82 too! The cursor routine
for the 82 isn't very good. The Hp48's cursor routine can cover twice
as many pixels as the 82 cursor can! (The cursor in graphing, not the
cursor when typing)
>DERIVE is fantasticly well done. There are few things the Ti-92 outdoes
>the Hp-48 at, but the few it does, it REALLY does. Overall, though, you
>can simply do a broader range of stuff with a '48 out of the box.
Isn't there a way to do DERIVE faster than the 48 does it? Maybe
someone could re-write that routine. It doesn't matter how big the
program is, but speed speed speed is very important!!
>Not entirely true. Try inverting a 30x30 matrix on an Hp then on the
>Ti-92. The Hp will be done in about 26 seconds, the Ti-92 in about 1300
>seconds!! Again, the Hp-48 is really optimized for certain maths, and
>it simply is unbeatable in linear algebra.
That, I find pretty amusing. Since the 68k chip can move longer words
at a time, I can't see why the 68k would be slower. The 68k chip
should be able to move 16-bit registers, but the saturn chip only
4-bit registers. Shouldn't the 68k be 4 times as fast as the HP?
>Ah, but it is only a calculator isn't it? I think Ti really dropped the
>ball on the Ti-92. With that big screen, proven and speedy processor,
>is this the best they could do?! The hardware on the Ti-92 is way
>underutilized.
Apple plans to stick a PowerPC chip into that Newton PDA. Wouldn't
you say that the PowerPC chip is underutilized when the Newton doesn't
allow much expansion? The main point here is that the 68k offers
speed speed and speed. It offers expansion, but you won't need it
unless you plan to do word processing on it. The saturn chip seems
pretty much fully-utilized, but it lacks the speed of the 68k. Or at
least the HP team didn't do a good job making the Differentiate
routine.... I hope someone can beat that routine....
>Both calcs are capable, but they really aren't comparable; they were
>designed in different eras, with different design goals. A comparison
>of the two rapidly becomes apples and oranges.
It could be comparing apples with apples if there were faster routines
for the HP. Maybe HP can do something about that 4-bit bottleneck...
and speed up that 4mhz processor too.... Maybe they can stick that
super-low powered PowerPC chip in it someday......
___ __ __
| "You can pick your friends, and | ( \ ( \/ ) mao@wuchem.wustl.edu |
| you can pick your nose; but you | ) ) ) ) ( |
| can't pick your friend's nose." | (___/ (_/\/\_) (Dean Mao) |
'--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
References: