Re: HP48 vs TI-92
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: HP48 vs TI-92
On Thu, 29 Aug 1996, Mark P. Wilson wrote:
> JUSTIN SMITH wrote:
> >
> > Here are a lot of my reasons why I like my Ti-92.
> >
> > *3d graphing
> >
> > *Geometry Sketchpad
> >
> > *Built in database
> >
> > *Built in Text editor
> >
> > *MANY advanced math functions for algebra,trig, and for calculas.
> >
> > *Very easy to program, even after switching from RPN.
> >
> > *Animation...
> >
> > *Also the dragdown menus and the function keys are a nice touch, (after
> > using macs) :))
> >
> > Bottom line: For TOTAL useablilty, the Ti-92 easily creams the HP.If you
> > want a powerful calculator that you can use fast, and easily, buy a Ti-92,
> > well worth the 180$. :)
> >
> > -Justin
>
> Bailif! Immediately test that boy for drugs!
>
> Seriously, the Ti-92 does not "easily cream" the Hp-48. The ONLY things
> the Ti-92 can do that the Hp-48 can't are:
>
> 1) Really good symbolic calculus (to include limits as well as
> integration). Fortunately, I LEARNED calculus, so I don't miss this
> feature not being on the Hp-48.
>
> 2) Split screen graphs, which outside of academia have no purpose.
>
> 3) Cutesy radical simplification so your teacher thinks you came up
> with that "2 root 3" in the numerator all by yourself. Again, outside
> of school, (i.e. the real world) you will not be seing too many square
> root symbols in reports. You will see lots of decimal points, though,
> and the Hp-48s higher internal precision comes in handy.
>
> 4) Geometry sketchpad.
>
> Hmmm...those features (and maybe a few minor others that slipped my
> mind) constitute "TOTAL useability"?! The Ti-92 may be fast,in some
> cases, and easy to use (by design--targeting the pubescent crowd and
> their "make life easy for me" teachers), but calling it "powerful" is a
> stretch (if the Ti-92 had built in units like the years-old Hp-48, you
> could easily do the mountain to molehill conversion to see how much of a
> stretch it is;)
>
> The Ti-92 may suit your limited needs, but I define useability a bit
> differently. How easy is it to program in finite differentian methods
> on the Ti-92? How about a quick Runge-Kutta solution to a first order
> differential egquation? Oops, I'm sorry, I picked some of the literally
> 1900 plus functions the Hp-48 has that the Ti-92 doesn't. Basically,
> when you bought the Ti-92, you bought a portable version of DERIVE.
> Apperently, Ti didn't think anybody would need other functionality!
>
> My definition of useability doesn't include what it can do to get my
> homework or test done for me. What it does include is how much of my
> work that I need to get done I can do on a calculator. Saddled with an
> exceptionally poor programing language (Ti-BASIC), a lack of some
> essential mathematical functions, and not consistently faster than the
> Hp in common areas (i.e. where the Hp-48 and Ti-92 have the same
> functionality), and in some notable cases MUCH slower, the Ti-92 is not
> useable in my definition. It simply can't do everything I need.
>
> Also note: all the items you listed above are available on the Hp-48,
> either as a built-in function (*3d graphing, *Built in Text editor,
> *MANY advanced math functions for algebra,trig, and for calculas,
> *Animation...) or as enhancements to the built-in function (*Built in
> Text editor, *MANY advanced math functions for algebra,trig, and for
> calculas, *Animation...), or as new features that Hp didn't include
> (*Also the dragdown menus and the function keys, built in Database).
>
> From your above statement about switching from RPN, your are familiar
> with Hps (which kind?). Do you think that if the Ti-92 didn't have a
> feature that you really wanted, that you could program it in Ti-Basic to
> compensate? A great testimony to the power of the Hp-48 is that so many
> people have been able to tweak it or develop software for it. the Ti-92
> has been out for about a year now--look at the available software base
> it has on the net compared to the first year of the Hp-48S/SX. Its a
> pretty weak comparison--the Hp-48 software base developed in ANY year
> since its introduction "easily creams" the Ti-92 (or any Ti-8X series)
> software base. If you take games out of the Ti-XX software base, then I
> think their are aout two Ti-85 programs left on the net, and maybe seven
> or eight Ti-92 programs. On the Hp side, games conservatively comprise
> only about a tenth or less of the software base.
>
> Check out:
>
> http://hpcvbbs.external.hp.com:80/software_archives/calc/ftp/hp48g/
>
> and see just what Hp has--by no means the most complete resource (of
> many) on the net for Hp-48 programs.
>
> Again, those items (mainly the symbolic and numeric integration) the
> Ti-92 does well, it really does "easily cream" the Hp-48. But there is
> far more the Hp-48 does, and does exceptionally well, that the Ti-92
> can't at all. Better yet, there is much more the Hp-48 can be made to
> do (need to solve a system of NONLINEAR equations? How about the
> stiffness matrices of a composite material?) that the Ti-92 will never
> come close to. That is POWER and USEABILITY;)
>
> All in all, Ti had about five years after the Hp-48S/SX came out to beat
> it. The Ti-85 is a paper tiger in comparison to the Hp-48 (its much
> more like a graphics capable Hp-41). The Ti-92 has incredible,
> unfulfilled hardware promise, and overall, in my definition of
> useability, falls far short of the five year old Hp.
>
> Look at how far PCs evolved in five years--why couldn't Ti make the '92
> just an absolute monster calc? What's their excuse?
>
> --
> Mark Wilson
>
> "You see me now a veteran
> of a thousand psychic wars..."
>
So. Get off this list.
References: