Re: HP48 vs TI-92


[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: HP48 vs TI-92



rschatz@ele.kth.se wrote:


>Now when I am on the thread I would like to give my own opinions
>about the TI-92. I have great use of it in my research work
>especially the powerful and easy-to-use symbolic math processor. I
>believe that a QWERTY layout and fairly large screen is necessary to
>make such calculations usable.


You are the first professional scientist or engineer I have seen singing the
praises of the Ti-92.  What exactly is your line of research?  Your job title
does not give a very specific impression of what you do.


>
>But still with these drawbacks I think that the TI-92 is an amazing
>calculator that fulfills a need in the days of laptop computers. The
>symbolic math program and user interface (including the screen and
>QWERTY keyboard) is superior compared with the HP 48 and makes it a
>useful tool in proffesional life.


I somewhat agree with you only in that if you require a fairly functional
symbolic integration or algebra device, yes, it is useful.  In my professional
life as an engineer, symbolics are nice but useless.  The vast majority of
problems I face are either simple algebraics, were the ability to solve an
equation for a specific variable is important, or unslovable symbolically, in
which case numeric approximations are used.  In this regard, the exceptionally
powerful programming environment of the Hp-48 clearly outclass the weak
programming options of the Ti-92.


>If you don't work full time with
>the HP-48 you need the handbook with you to remember all the
>functions. The HP-48 is therefore more suitable for people that want
>to have the calculator as a full time hobby with its many
>difficult-to-find functions and low-level programming.


You are confusing simplicity with functionality.  I would rather have the
option of checking in a handbook to remember the syntax of Runge-Kutta numeric
integration, then not have the ability at all.  Quite simply, the Hp-48 has
about ten times the number of commands that the Ti-92 does.  Not all of those
commands are math functions, but the general point is that the Hp-48 has a
broader range of functionality built in than the Ti-92.


>I have great
>use of the TI-92 matrix and complex math arithmetic (even if the
>matrix calculations are truly annoyingly slow). The handbook is well
>written and very well translated to swedish.


For its very specific and narrow focus, yes, the Ti-92 is well done.  And there
is no question it is better (in speed and functionality) than the Hp-48 at a
few things.  However, it cannot compete with the Hp-48 in a much larger way
than the Hp-48 cannot compete with it.


>
>Dr. Richard Schatz
>Laboratory of Photonics and Microwave Eng.
>Royal Institute of Technology
>Stockholm


References: