Actually, I was trying to get a relevant debate going on the CALC listsevr. I was getting tired of 'Clinton this, Bush that...'. And for what its worth, I know how to use RPN, just never liked it. It's counter intuitive to mathematicians. Its just easier to program in, because its 'machine beautiful' (easy to accomplish w/ 'stacks'). Been working w/ RPN, computers, calcs since 1977. (I was 13.)
And just off the record, I will probably get an HP49G in the near future, not because its better than a 92+ (my favorite), but because its different. Sort of a gadget nut, I am. But for my money, the 92+ is by far the reigning champion.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Kremer [mailto:raykremer@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 2:29 AM
To: TMEEC@ci.salisbury.nc.us
Subject: Re: TI vs. HP
I don't want to go back and look up what this was in response to, but a
couple comments:
> Well, for those lucky enough to have downloaded it, HP used to offer
>a computer emulation program of the HP49G with manual. So, if you didn't
>own one, you could try the HP49G out. I have a HP-48G or S somewhere
>(collecting dust).
---------------------
I did download a copy when it was around, but I've never bothered to try it.
www.hpcalc.org kept a copy on their page for downloading.
----------------------
Don't use it much because its RPN. [If RPN is so hot, why
>is HP seeking the Algebraic market. Why isn't TI seeking the RPN market?
>I've programmed for years & frankly I hate RPN anything. The reason
>computers manage stacks for us (humans) is because we do not think that
>way.
>(Most of us.)]
-----------------------
The people who learned RPN when there was no other option (before calcs had
enough power for algebriac notation) swear by it. But they're the only ones
who do. I am told that once you get used to it it is very efficient. It's
getting used to it that's hard.
-------------------------
> As for the HP49G, after my first look, HP is trying to compete w/
>TI, but falls short. The 89 & 92+ are, in my humble opinion, currently the
>best calculators on the planet.
> It's a shame they both are based on processors that are so slow! Why
>not have a 300Mhz 680xx processor. The 3D graphs would come alive. Even a
>100Mhz would be economical for TI to put in. Now, these are just ideas & I
>haven't followed the 680xx family to know exact top speeds.
> Remember competition is a good thing. I hope TI & HP keep duking it
>out & improving their products.
> In the end, we win!
--------------
No arguement there.
-----------------
>7ony
---------------
Ray Kremer
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com