Re: HP's and TI's calculator output rate

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

Re: HP's and TI's calculator output rate

Aaron Wallace wrote:
>
> That was probably because you never bothered to learn how to use it properly.

Yeah, I never really got into learning how to use it well maybe because
personally
I believe that (for me at least) the calculator should work the way I
want it to,
not the other way around..  And the 48 just didn't work the way I wanted
it to..
The way that it expected you to give it parameters, the programming
language,
everything seemed fubared.

> I would have to agree about the GUI being slow, but veteran users know
short-cuts
> and find ways to circumvent the GUI.  The GUI serves virtually no purpose
other
> than making some of the functions that require more arguments more user
friendly.
> All of these functions are, in some way, accessible directly from the stack.
And
> if it can't be done easily, then someone will re-write it in assembly and the
> problem is solved.  Your complaint is invalid because you have not bothered
to
> look for a better solution; you simply accepted it as is.

I'm not even talking about the GUI being slow..  Just try and add a
string of
numbers.  I haven't used one in a while, but I remember the data entry
being
excruciatingly slow..  Say you wanted to do 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9
(hypothetical
example)..  As fast as you can, hit 1<enter>2<plus>3<plus>4<plus>etc...
The damn
thing would bog down, fill up the keyboard buffer, etc, and you'd be
waiting
a couple of seconds for the fricking result.  To me that is
unacceptable.  With
the 85 you just punch the string in, hit the enter key, and bam there
you go.

> > (IMHO because of the BS object-oriented design
> > philosophy),
>
> This statement is entirely invalid.  The HP48 does not use any such "object
> oriented" design.  You are confusing HP "objects" with something like C++
> "objects".  HP "objects" are simply a means of separating data types (like
stings,
> reals, binaries, etc.).

HP seems to think they do..  I bought the 48 programming manual, and
started
reading it.  On one of the first pages it said something like "at HP we
encourage
an object-oriented approach to programming, so blahblahblah..."  At that
point I
think I closed the book and didn't open it again.

> > and was much less convenient than the TI85.  For example, common tasks
> > such as
> > unit conversion or polynomial factoring were MUCH slower and more
> > difficult
> > than on the 85...
>
> This depends on how well the "environment" was set up on the HP.  The calc
is,
> what I would call, "highly customizable".  If set up properly, the user can
access
> just about any function directly from the stack.  TIs seem to be a bit more
"user
> friendly" and that is why people settle for what takes the least effort to
learn.

Similarly, X win is more configurable than windows, but personally (hey
I know this
sucks, I hate MS just as much as anyone else) I think that windows has a
better
interface than X, and I dont even think you can even configure X to be
as good as
win..  Sure win crashes all the time, but thats another story..  I guess
I'm the
kind of person who doesn't really want to fuck around with learning how
to set
everything up when I can get a calc that works right out of the box.

> There is plenty of nice freeware for the HP48.  I will agree that
"out-of-box" the
> HP48 does lack in many symbolic areas, but for anyone who bothers to look,
there
> is freeware available that will blow away any TI8x and is very comparable to
the
> 92 in symbolic manipulation.  If there was anything that I would remove from
the
> ROM of the HP, it would be the equation library.  It's use is limited and
there
> are many other things that would be better in it's place.

Yeah, I hacked a link cable and threw a few games on the 48 when I had
it.. That
was all fucked up too.  All these bullshit libraries to deal with, and
you had
to go through all these screwy commands to get anything to run, and I
was never
really sure how to delete things or find out what existed and was taking
up
memory..  AFU.. Totally AFU.  I learned how to do these tasks, but then
I'd forget
again because they were so strange.  Personally I like the 92 with the
Fargo shell.
Easy to run programs, easy to check memory usage and delete.  Piece of
cake.

>
> > As an engineer, I would definitely say that the 85 is by far the best
> > calc
> > for day-to-day operations.  It's simple, fast, and has the functionality
> > that
> > is necessary.
> >
>
> For "day-to-day" operations, I would get a (RPN) scientific calculator.  If
all
> you use your TI for is unit conversion, then perhaps you have the right
calc...
> The HP48 is geared toward engineers unlike TI's which are geared toward
students,
> so it seems odd that you would choose a TI over the HP, especially since you
don't
> mind the RPN.  I had a TI85 once upon a time and I hated the keys.  They are
made
> of cheap plastic and feel rough and unrefined on the fingers.  My grievances
> against the TI85 end here because I could not stand the keys.  This is
something
> that could not be remedied by software, so I switched to HP48.

Yeah, you're right, the 48 does have much nicer solid-feeling keys than
the TIs..
That was never really that important to me.  To each his own.

> Don't get me wrong... I am not trying to tell you that you are stupid for not
> using an HP48.  I think your opinion of the HP48 is based on very limited
> experience with the calc.  When I first got my HP, I did not like it because
of
> some of the very reasons you have suggested, but over time I have found that
it is
> by far the best environment for any sort of mathematical application.  It is
> better than any TI8x because of the increased functionality and it is better
than
> the TI92 because of portability and it's use is permitted on standardized
tests
> (for the student).  The TI89 is coming out soon and looks to be a nice
> calculator... maybe then the HP48 will have a worthy "opponent".
>
> --
> Aaron.

I don't know that I had very limited experience - I owned one for over a
year.
I liked the cloth carrying case - that was nice, as well as the feel of
the calc
(casing, buttons, etc)  HP did a nice job with those regards.  I never
found anything
that the 48 did that the 85 couldn't, and to me the fact that the 85
felt so much
faster (computing, entering data, etc) was the most important thing.. I
can deal
with the cheap case and buttons. Hopefully I wont be taking any
standardized tests
anymore (not planning on grad skool right now).  You're right about the
92 being
too big; that kinda sucks, although having a big keyboard and display is
nice.

I guess it all comes down to what you like, what you can accept, and
what you
can't accept.. Everyone has their preferences.

Richard
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Goedeken                          Dept gy2a  IBM  Rochester,
Minnesota
"The essential conditions of everything you do must be choice, love,
passion."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow-Ups: References: