Re: HP48 vs TI-92
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
You have to understand that I've been considering them as portable
computers too. For calculating purposes, I actually use the HP48 of
late (The software base is a bonus.)
I know the TI92 is for kiddies, and way under-utilized as a portable
computer.
As far as the built in math capability, with my programming abilities
either could be configured to what I would want if I dedicated to it.
But yes, the HP48 is an engineering tool
I'm comparing these apples and oranges just to vent my own comments, as
more than one person has gone on saying one sux and one rules. They are
very different. (Maybe the TI-92 more different :) I consider them
comparably portable, as I would be terrified of damaging either
expensive beast. I would love a calculator and computer in one, and
would pay $400 for one machine that was both (lotta ram, lotta CPU,
lotta goodies on the rom and lotta software on the net.)
Oh, well.
Matthew.
At 11:27 PM 8/27/96 -0700, you wrote:
>Lamari, Matthew wrote:
>
>>
>> Here's my opinions. I know it would take 10 times as much text to fully
>> compare them; but here's the points I find noteworthy.
>
>SNIP!!
>
>>
>> I have little doubt that in general purpose processing, doing graphical
>> representation of formulas etc. the TI-92 utterly whips the HP48.
>
>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
>ouygraphs it. Similarly, the little graphing I've done on the Ti-92
>did not impress me as a speedster. But honestly, how many kids sit
>there in the middle of a test shaking their calc and screaming "Graph
>damn you! The other kids were done a second ago!!""?
>
>> However, for mathematical and engineering purposes the HP48 gets a lot
>> of this back. Its ROM wastes little space on niceities that the TI-92
>> has; but contains a wide set of equations and diagrams, and a couple of
>> darned fine functions. And despite the response on the interface being
>> slower, if you've graduated the learning curve on anything you're doing,
>> or are doing something repetitive, you can do anything with a couple of
>> keystrokes rather than type function names.
>
>A note on ROM: the Hp-48 has over 2,000 functions and commands, the
>Ti-92 has about 350 if memory serves (ten of which are programming end
>statements--EndIf, EndWhile, etc while the Hp-48 manages to get by with
>one "end"). Having said that, the large chunk of Ti-92 ROM dedicated to
>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.
>
>
>> Look at the ROM, the TI-92's meg vs the HP48G's 512K. While its
>> instructions may do conventional computing slowly,
>
>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.
>
>>Just look at the instructions, common
>> instructions to perform mathematical tasks take only a nibble. Its
>> object system makes storing functionality in SYS-RPL extremely
>> efficient. The TI-92 has its nice interface and windows type feel coded
>> in 68000.
>>
>> Yes, feel. The TI-92 has shift-select and cut and paste and
>> overtype/insert like a windows text area.
>
>Remember, the first keel of an Hp-48 was laid back when Bill Gates and
>company were first hashing out vaporware (i.e. pre Windows 3.X). It is
>not surprising that Ti has built in a darn fine GUI into a calc with a
>processor that is capable of handling it.
>
>
>> Here's my big peeve with the Ti-92, though. And I know it's advertised
>> as a calculator, so my complaint is unfounded. It's just that with its
>> big screen and processing power, I wish it had more RAM, and documented
>> interface to running Assembly. I mean, with a bit more storage, this
>> thing is an Amiga minus the sprites.
>
>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.
>
>> Yet, even now with both, I look at both and wonder which I would want to
>> learn fully and completely, devote the time to fill with mathematical
>> programs off the net I wish to run,
>
>Considering the deplorable lack of math (or any other programs besides
>games) programs for ANY Ti calculator on the 'net, the tens of Megs of
>Hp-48 software of all kinds out in netland would take considerably
>longer to explore.
>
>>to fill with neat front ends to
>> geometrical operations I wish to do one a calculator, to take with me
>> from a sinking ship with only one free spot in the life-raft. . . .
>
>Solution: stand on the raft sized Ti-92, use the Hp-48 for a paddle;)
>
>> I still wonder HP48 vs TI-92 and I still can't decide.
>>
>> Matthew C. Lamari
>
>It is refreshing to see an opinion expressed that isn't 1) vehemently
>pro or anti postfix notation, and 2) rapidly opinionated either way.
>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.
>--
>Mark Wilson
>
>"You see me now a veteran
>of a thousand psychic wars..."
>
>
References: