Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Graphing Calculators for Geeks? 87

Posted by Cliff from the plot->sin(2*Y/Pi)*cos(3*X/Pi) dept.
Winged Plum asks: "It's time for me to get a graphing calculator for my high school classes, as they're mandatory for next year's courses. After looking at some from TI and others from HP, I've got one question: Which is the best for a geek? The TI is pretty much the education standard, but HP claims to have some great calculator programming stuff. (They call it the Most Programmable Calc out there.) So should I go with the flow and get a TI, or should I get an HP and have a little fun with it? Any suggestions?" Are TI and HP the only ones out there doing graphing calulators? If not, who else in the market makes some decent products?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Graphing Calculators for Geeks? More

Graphing Calculators for Geeks?

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Old Man Rant - Right and Wrong... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I own a TI-92. I use it. I love it. So, if this seems a bit biased, it probably is.

    First of all, I was taught, just as you were, how to create a mental picture of such graphs (e^(-3t)cos(t) was child's play). I am *very* capable of finding derivatives, partials, and integrals. I have taken Differential Equations, and even if my older TI-92 *did* have the "dsolve" function (available if I get a $50 upgrade), I wouldn't use it. I prefer to find such solutions myself.

    But, Rev. Null, what happens when I want to graph, say, z = (x^(2/3))/(y^x) ? I can formulate, I suppose, a picture in my mind-- find places where it might be undefined. But a visual representation would be *very* helpful.

    We may have bigger calculators, but we're doing more. Sort of like computers-- we have desktop machines that beat out the big iron of the 1960's, but we use them for tasks as complex as 3-D rendering, Video Conferencing, and (in the cycles *left over*) cracking 64-bit encryption.

    Rev. Null, I appreciate your point-- we shouldn't allow students to become dependent upon their calculators, losing sight of the real mathematics and truths offered by understanding the intricacies of limits, derivatives, and integrals. We need to teach them basic principles of algebra.

    But don't assume that my calculator makes me impotent as a mathematician. All it means is that I'm doing more than ever before. Just like bigger computers means programmers, properly trained, can *do* more.

    Damn old codgers...
  • I need a simple hex calculator, preferably one that's in hex mode by default (no mode key prerequisite). Not programmable. Any suggestions?
  • It's a simple ratio of proportions:

    HP compares to TI
    as
    Linux compares to DOS

    I don't know about the current generation of TI's, but with the earlier models, you could only have one variable named "foo" on the whole calculator. With the HP, each directory may contain one.

    I also don't know if the TI even supports a directory structure (if they do, they probably call them "folders").

    In short, TI's are fine, HP's are better.
  • I own a TI-85 because my high school used TIs in their math curriculum.

    However, I graduated from an engineering university (read: geek mecca) where HP was the standard. TI owners were teased. (I would have switched, but I was too lazy to learn RPN at that point. :)

    So, at least in my experience, geeks prefer HPs.

  • TI:HP::Sextant & compass:GPS

    Sure, you can solve the same problems on the HP, but only after you waste half the exam hour trying to figure out how to translate a definite integral into RPN.

    Furthermore, your criticism of the TI are both unfounded. The 89, 92, and 92+ support directories, and you can have a variable (or function) in every one of them called "foo".

    It's really nothing but a religious issue, like vi/emacs gnome/KDE or linux/BSD. I bow before TI, for it hath delivered me from failing. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of F, I shall fear no integral, for my TI-89 is with me...
  • I got an early TI-92 (won it actually) and it has served me well over the past 4 years, but it has some major faults in its symbolic manipulation. Indefinite integrals of gaussians don't work at all. Gaussians are of the form: exp( -x^2 ). Although it is relatively easy to figure out the answer myself or look it up in a table it gets annoying when I have to do about 100 of these babies for my quantum problem set. So, can the 89 handle it?
  • I've always used TI's since 7th grade (I'm a senior now). My first one was an 81, with its sweet 3k of mem. Then, I got an 82, because of its sweet link port. Freshman year of HS, I got an 86 (better games). Thag got stolen (bastards!) so I got another. A few weeks ago, The screen shattered (internally, there is no external damge), and TI refuses to fix it. Said it would cost be $60 for a new screen. So what do I do, but get an 89 off eBay. Though, I think I'll stay with the 89 untill they come out with a cell fone/palm vii/ti 92 combo.

    -mark

  • Sharp (Score:1)

    by Finni ( 23475 )
    I had a Sharp 93000C (I think) that I bought on the cheap from Damark (I hate that catalog.) It was more powerful than any TI when I was in school (93-96), with an excellent equation solver (graphical, Newtonian, and one other method), and it would evaluate definite integrals too! It was also easier to use (for me) than any HP I saw. Too bad it died a couple of years ago
  • Why do you need a TI-89 in pre-calc? I mean, come on, if the calc does symbolic manipulation, then you aren't doing the problem. Even "putting problems into the equation and interpreting the results" is crud. You need to learn how it works to understand the mathematical concepts at play. Part of formal logic is the philisophical aspect: it is a given set of rules applying to an imaginary, logical environment.

    Come on, if you are in pre-calc, you can't be more than 17 years old. Does anyone else find the idea of a young kid not learning basic math because of one of these things scary?
  • Maybe this bad idea, but why buy a calculator? Why not get a Palm IIIe with some software? You can get on-the-fly programming languages, and spreadsheets already. I somehow doubt that a TI or even the newer HP's hardware is faster, and if speed was really an issue, a low end WinCE device ought to easily run circles around any multi-buttoned device.

    Of course, the real question is software. Is there the software necessary to solve your problems? It is probably worth a quick trip through a couple of search engines to see if the kind of software you need exists for either Palm (http://www.palmgear.com [palmgear.com], search for graphing calculator or scientific calculator) or WinCE. Why lock yourself into a one-function device when you can get something really flexable?

    Personally, I'm a big fan of the HP48. But the sad reality is that I haven't used it in well over three years, but my Palm III is on my belt right now...

    - Mike

  • Well, I ran my Casio over with a bicycle a few times (by freak road accidents) and I never broke any buttons. However, the cover is made of rather brittle plastic, I broke mine after only two years of abuse. I have four graphing calculators now, three TI-82s and one Casio fx-7700. The Casio is the oldest of them.
  • Well, I ran my Casio over with a bicycle a few times (by freak road accidents) and I never broke any buttons. However, the cover is made of rather brittle plastic, I broke mine after only two years of abuse. I have four graphing calculators now, three TI-82s and one Casio fx-7700. The Casio is the oldest of the ones I own, and most reliable.
  • Casio makes a $30 graphing calculator for the geek on the cheap. They're fairly reliable, but they start becoming significantly inaccurate when the batteries start getting low. They're a little bit of a pain to program, but I've seen Doom run on them, so they can't be that bad.

    For the price of a TI-82 you can get a 16 color LCD panel, which could be handy.

  • ...and the Casio buttons have been known to fail earlier than TI or HP. Do you think working buttons are important?
  • Can you clarify? Assembly is possible on the TI's and HP's, and it's much faster, _allowing_ you to do much more...

    I know assembly can be done on both brands, but I haven't tried it, so I don't know if one offers more functionality, but you have to admit it does help. (I can barely get one line to draw per second on a TI-83, but with an assembly program, tetris will run--and fairly well.)
  • I'm surprised no one brought these up yet.
  • I agree with you, but I also disagree.

    The 89 is so pimped out that it does EVERYTHING for you. I struggled around with an 85 for quite a while in pre-calc and part of calc 1. That is learning how to interface. I know how to get the 85 to spit out the answers to shit that some of my friends can't do with a 92+ or 89. I started on an 85 and learned that thing in and out - the only stuff i didn't use on it was polar coordinates... i recommend AGAINST starting with an 89, simply because it's TOO easy. Now that i've slogged through some calc, etc, i feel justified using my 89 to make it easier. NOW it is a tool, when i'm doing multiple derivitives/integrals and discrete math.

    In short, i scoff at you for "cheating" with the 89 on pre-calc, but i commend you for being of the correct mindset for the (to use the idiotic incorrect cliché) "new millennium." I actually agree with that method of learning, after you have learned the basic fundamentals. I just think that people shouldn't COMPLETELY slack on it and skip out on it by calculator-ing.

    But that's just my $0.02


  • I, too, was faced with this question. That's why I wrote GtkGraph. Check it out at http://gtkgraph.linuxbox.com. I like it better than my TI-85.
  • HP calculators
    Pros:
    - RPN is extremely efficient once you get used to it
    - less multiple level menus... (ie, if you have to use a menu, you don't have to use other menu to get that one)
    - more widely used professionally
    - expandedable.... expansion cards offer highly speciallized and useful software for engineers, surveyors, physicist, chemists, etc....
    - non RPM mode available (on the 49G)

    Cons:
    - it take a week to get the hang of RPN
    - no "pretty-print"

    TI calculators
    Pros:
    - widely used in schools, so there are more of them around on campuses
    - usually considered easier to learn to use (I disupute this)
    - "pretty-print" makes it easier to understand.
    Cons:
    - somewhat inefficient to use (especially the 89 and 92) - mostly caused by the having very few commands directly available from the keyboard without going through multiple menus
    - symbolic manipulations don't teach how to do it and make people reliant on the calculator
    - less widely used in science/engineering related professions
    ----------
    Personal experience with the HP 48GX and the TI-89.

    Just a background note on me, I am an Electrical Engineering student and have work the past two summer for a Civil Engineering Firm.

    I love the HP 48GX. I can't find a better calculator anywhere. THe most useful functions are right on the keyboard. I have found the HP to be far, far more efficient than any non-RPN calculator. Yes, it did take me a week or two to really get the hang of it, but it was well worth it. While I do homework with my friends (who all own TI-89's) they are constantly asking "where is this function" or "how do I do this." The answer usually involves many menus. Much cursing generally follows because they can't find where they misplaced the parenthesis.

    As for in the business side of it, I think my boss summed it up best, "If you're gonna buy a calculator, buy an HP." I never saw anyone use a TI there.

    As for the Symbolic manipulation, I think this a almost a bad feature for math classes. The people in pre-calc (and maybe even calc I) and below, shouldn't even need to use a graphing calculator. Yes it makes the class easy, but when you move to the higher levels, you need the understanding of what was going on. I even look a basic arthemetic, for proof of this. Ask people today to multiplyor add two number together and unless both are single digits, everyone reaches for a calculator. When doing symbolic manipulations, the HP-49G steps through the process, so the student can learn how to do it. It still does it for the person, but it is a little better. And that's why I don't think the symbolic features are that wonderful

    My recommendation of what to buy:
    engineering/science related majors: HP48GX

    people who feel they need symbolic manipulation and don't like RPN: HP49G

    professionals: I woudl say the HP48GX, but I'm only in college, so ask your boss. :-)

    ------
    provolt
  • TI is like Windows, it's the basic standard that everybody uses.

    might but true, but does that make the TI a good device???

    HP is like Macintosh, it's the longtime runner-up

    this is BS. the HP is more like a trusty UNIX box. it has been around much longer than the TI. HPs may look a little awkward at first, but they can do EVERYTHING the TIs can do, only more efficient. that's because they are STREAMLINED FOR EFFICIENCY, NOT FOR FLASHY GRAPHICS!!! this is because decades (YES!) of experience is contained in the HPs, proven concepts and experience, combined with all the modern features you can expect today.


    PROFESSIONALS AND GEEKS USE HP! TI IS FOR SISSIES AND COLLEGE KIDS!!!!!!!

  • I teach calculus, trig, etc. My own feelings are that students should be able to use these calculators as tools, but yet still know how to do the basics. I never advocate that school children should forgo multiplication because the calculator can do it for them, any more than Calculus students should forgo the basics of learning to graph. Anonymous Coward is correct. They allow you to see visually what you may not have the talent to draw yourself.
  • The nicest thing about Viao is that it runs LINUX!
    Try that on your HP or TI! ;-) I understand that many of you pre-college dudes care not allowed to use Computers on class assignments and tests. But for those who have any serious work that needs done, 'bc -l', 'octave', and 'gnuplot', etc. And you can even use your favorate C/C++/Java what ever to program. :-)
  • I will state up front that I have no personal experience with any of the TI graphing calculators. Part of that may be that whenever I would try to do something with one at a store I got nowhere. But I guess that speaks to simply having to get to know whatever calculator you get.

    That aside, the HP has a few things in favor for it:

    Durability - generally, HP's are built to last. More than a few of my professors were still using their HP12's that they had purchased years before. And the HP48 has a similar durable construction.

    Cross-platform - from a quick perusal of TI's website, I gather that you need a Mac or Windows box to connect the TI to a computer. With the HP48, any computer that has a serial port and a working version of either kermit or zmodem and you can upload and download programs/data to the calculator. I.e., it will work with your favorite free-nix.

    Availability of programs - contrary to a previous poster's comment, there are plenty of programs available for the hp48. You have to remember that the hp48 has been around for almost a decade (with the hp28 as its predecessor), and there have been a lot of geeks writing and refining code for it all this time. Check out Yahoo!: http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Hardwa re/Calculators/Hewlett_Packard/HP_48. I'm not saying there are more programs than the TI, because I don't know that. I'm just saying that there are programs available.

    Originality - while high school is a time where many try to fit in, it is always nice to set yourself apart. Use something that the rest of the class doesn't have. Plus, it will be less likely to be stolen (no one else will know how to use it) or even borrowed. And if you do move on into a technical field in college, you would have a leg up on knowing how to use an hp48 before all your new friends. Then you move from being the only one to the first.

    Extended use - I got my hp48sx 6 years ago when I was in my first year of graduate school. I quickly discovered that I wished I had it through my 4 years in college, when I was doing so many derivatives and integrals and linear algebra. However, I discovered that it was extremely helpful in grading a stack of lab reports (I could enter the basic equation and run through many minor changes to variables' values quickly). I found it useful when I could program it to do repetitive operations on data (some preliminary, some not) when I couldn't get back to a "real" computer, and could plot trends, as well. And I am finding it useful now for calculating amortizations as I have been looking for a home, determining monthly payments under different time periods, interest rates and price ranges.

    As to the price, sure, $160+ for a calculator is pretty steep. (Reflects first on-line price found for a HP-48GX. Could not find one quickly for a TI-??.) But, a quick check of eBay found 48SX's for $30-80 and 48gx's less than $150. (No idea what the final price may be.) But if you average this over a 5-year less-than-average life, you are looking at less than $40/year. Considering one of the previous posters seemed to be replacing a TI every year or so, this has to be a real savings.

    But, in the end, to each their own.
  • I agree with the Previous post. This is almost a Religious issue (Kind of like Which Distribution of Linux/BSD do you like).
    That said I own a TI-85 AND a HP 48G. The TI was bought in High School a few years ago. I loved that thing. It was programmable (Some type of Hybrid language). Then I was loaned a HP for My Calculus class (required in my district). I bought one for College and use it to this day. The 48G is wonderful although the GX had an expansion slot. It has a sort of Directory structure to it so it's easy to organize personal equations and even Phone numbers and Addresses.
    Anyway, Which ever you go with It'll do what you need, but if your going into engineering or Science go with the HP.
  • The TI programmers are smarter? Laughable.

    Does your TI calculator use the Risch algorithm to do indefinite integrals? No. Does Maple, Mathematica, Mupad, or Derive use Risch? No. Does the hp48/49? Yes.

    Does your TI calculator do Groebner bases? No. Does the hp48/49? Yes.

    Can you do arbitrary precision calculation on TI calculators? No -- even with the TI89/92, you're capped at 10^612. :-) With the hp48/49, there is no artificial limit.

    You say the majority of the world uses TI calculators. The majority of the world also uses windows. What's your point? Prevalence does not determine quality.

    Jeremy
  • Palmtops are not legal on standardized tests, nor are they legal for math tests in most schools.

    Have you ever looked into the multitude of PIMs and databases available for the HP48? :-)

    Jeremy
  • And that dictionary will help you on the math section how? I assume you don't know that the verbal section does not allow a calculator.

    The SAT is simple. You don't need complex math nor a dictionary to score highly on it.

    Jeremy
  • The link for hpcalc.org is down. Use this instead:

    http://www.hp48.bismarck.k12.nd.us

    This link has enough adovcacy to make a decision about a calculator.

    Jeremy
  • if you've lived with a TI calculator all your life.

    First, let me start off by referring you to the premiere hp calculator website out there (whose domain is currently fscked up) www.hpcalc.org, currently known as www.hp48.bismarck.k12.nd.us .

    Also, the hp49 is available but unlikely to be found in any stores; you'd have to buy it online, but its symbolic capabilities have been pumped up to the level (and some would say beyond) of a ti89. Having been created in 1986, the hp48 series' symbolic capabilities *out of box* are not quite up to the level of the ti89. There are numerous (free, gpl'ed) third party programs to help, though. Since I've no experience with the hp49, (my hp48 has served me well all the way through calc IV) I can't vouch for it's quality, but I know the programmers who wrote the software in the hp49 are the same programmers whose free software you'll be using if you get an hp48--you can pretty much consider the hp48 software a beta for the the hp49 software.

    Anyway, on to your real question. The hp48 is incredibly programable. Basically, there are 3 languages: userRPL, sysRPL, and saturn ASM. RPL here stands for "Reverse Polish Lisp". I've never used lisp before, so I can't say how "lisp-like" it is, but that's what it's called. userRPL is the language you'll read about in the manual that you get with the calculator. It's where most user's programming begins and ends. Even so, despite the fact that it's the highest level (and slowest) of the three languages, it's still a very powerful tool for automation and various other tasks you might program for. This language would be the equivalent of TiBasic, but it (from all accounts I've heard--I've never used TiBasic myself) is more powerful.

    If you're willing (and have the memory) to download Mika Heiskanen's excellent Jazz library, you can program in sysRPL, a lower level language than userRPL. sysRPL is the language created by the original hp48 architects (some of which still post to comp.sys.hp48) to create the operating system, mathematical functions, and utilities of the calculator. It's basically a set of memory addresses of assembly language routines that accomplish certain things; what Jazz does for you is give you mnemonics for those addresses, and compile your code into a machine readable format. sysRPL is what you'll be using most of the time when you decide to code anything of complexity. Anything you can do in userRPL, you can do in sysRPL, except in sysRPL it will probably be about 10 times faster. SysRPL also give you access to the low level graphics routines necessary for doing graphical programming on the hp48.

    And, of course, beyond sysRPL is the saturn assembly. The saturn processor, which the hp48/9 series is based on, is a unique processor, and therefore has a unique assembly language. The saturn processer processes 4 bits per cycle (it's about a 3.76mhz processor), has 4 64bit working registers, 5 64bit saving registers, 2 20bit memory pointers and an 8 level return stack. This all adds up to a very unique assembly language

    Beyond all that programming on the software side, the hardware side of the hp48 is also very well known and accessible. For the hp48G, there are numerous tutorials on the internet as to how to upgrade the ram from the original 32kb to up to 4mb. If you're on a budget and don't mind some soldering, this is what I suggest you do. The hp48GX, which can accept up to two expansion cards, had had sound cards, radio transmitters, and various other cards created for it--not to mention the ability to make your own memory cards rather than having to buy one (i have a homebuilt ram card in my 48 right now, in fact). You can find various schematics on the internet for the hp48, making it one of the most customizable calculators out there.

    In all, your "geek experience" will be much greater with the hp48. You'll learn more about computer and electronics from it. And you'll enjoy it.

    Jeremy

    P.S. I didn't go into the "holy war" topic between TI users and HP users (RPN) for two reasons: the answer is self evident (RPN is superior) and because the hp49, which I would suggest you get if you get an hp calculator, supports both RPN and algebraic notation. And it adds HPBasic, yet another programming language to write in.
  • More available to TI users? Whatever!

    If you want games, stick with a TI, it has many more of them and does them better. But if you want mathematical programs, written by geniuses in both mathematics and computer programming, then you'll get an HP calculator.

    Check out the archive at http://www.hp48.bismarck.k12.nd.us and compare it to any TI archive. What you'll see is that there are many more useful programs (as opposed to games) on the hp48 site.

    The only calculator that even compares to an hp calculator is the TI89, and even that has been equalled/surpassed by the hp49.

    The hp offers a rich programming environment, and an even richer selection of already programmed tools. The TI calculators can't even compare.

    Jeremy
  • I think (from your perspective) that you screwed up that proportion. As you wrote it, it is perfectly correct, though.

    If you walk into an exam not knowing how to do a definite integral on your calculator, you're up a creek no matter what calculator you're using. Knowing the arbitrary ordering of variables in the definite integral function in a TI is *no different* than knowing an arbitrary stack ordering of those same variables in the definite integral command in an HP.

    But you do neglect and incredibly important part about the HP: it has an equation editor. On my hp, I don't have to remember the order of the variables on the stack (though I do, regardless). All I have to do is open the equation editor and edit like I would if I was using a commcercial CAS like Maple.

    Also worth pointing out is that the hp offers the exact same functional notation for its commands as the TI. Which means that if you can't figure out how to input a definite integral on the hp, you wouldn't be able to figure it out on a TI. In which case, you shouldn't be in a class that requires knowledge of definite integrals

    Contrary to your statement, the original poster's first assertion is true. You can do more on the hp48 than you can on a TI calculator. It gives you more options than a simplified "Ti Basic" and an ASM command. No one ever claimed it was easy to learn linux, and yet people do, and they are far more happy with linux that they ever were with DOS. An hp48 may have a steeper learning curve, but it's certainly more rewarding when you reach a much higher summit than you could've on a TI calculator.

    And as far as the original analogy goes, an hp calculator *does* use a standard communication interface (kermit or xmodem through an rs232 connector) unlike the TI, which uses both proprietary link hardware and protocols.

    Jeremy
  • As a note, since the release of the hp49, the hp48 has been available online for as low as $129. I don't have a link, but you can check around.

    Jeremy
  • I have an HP48GX, and I am in Calc IV. It works nicely for that. I used to use a TI-82, but it definately had limitations. I used it as a tool for basically two things: graphing functions and doing petty arithmetic. My upgrade to the 48 has given me a tool with significantly more capabilities, such as (especially) symbolic manipulation. Now I can let the calc do the dirty work while I concentrate on (a) putting the problem into an equation and (b) interpreting the results. Note that in this situation, I am actually doing most of the work. However, this work is what my mind can handle well. By adding the calculator to the picture, I have removed the necessity of doing all of the work in my head, but (here is the important part for this discussion) I have added the need to interface my brain with the calculator. On one level, I concentrate on what I can do, and on the other level, I concentrate on what the calc can do. There are thus two important requirements that I make of my calculator:

    1.that what it can do and what I can do complement nicely, and
    2.that how it works with things and how I work with things complement nicely.

    With an TI and Algebraic Notation, I have to go through much more mental rigor to put what I'm thinking into something that it can understand. My brain does not work in a string; it works in a stack. My brain is postfix, the TI is infix. To have to constantly change around the two would require too much work for me to use it as a tool in the completion of a problem. I would only use it for arithmetic.

    Ok, enough mimicry. The point here is that it's all a matter of environment. RPN was strange to me for the first week I used my calculator; after that, it became second nature, and in fact, became the way *I* think. Now, when I'm required to use my TI30X for tests that don't allow graphing calculators, I have problems doing even simple math because I think in RPN.

    Think about what you have to do when you see a complicated equation in your math book and you want to put it into your calculator. You have to parse through the entire equation, looking for the places where the parentheses need to be in your calculator, and then input it. Most likely, in a truly complex equation, you'll miss a parenthese somewhere, press enter, and have your calculator tell you you've got mismatched parentheses. Then you have to parse through what you put in your calculator and debug your parenthese placement. Even in the best case, where you make no mistakes, there is quite a bit of thought and keystroking that goes into putting that equation in your calculator.

    Contrast this with the way I input that equation into my HP48. I first look at the equation and zero in on the innermost expression. I then start building my equation subexpression by subexpression from the inside out. I never have to worry about parentheses, because my hp48 puts them in when necessary. I simply punch in variables and operators, steadily increasing the complexity of the equation as I go along, never having to think any more at one point than I would on another.

    In computer terms, entering an equation printed in a book into an algebraic calculator would likely be an O(n) operation, since the complexitiy of entering the equation increases with the complexity of the equation. On the other hand, entering that same equation into an RPN calculator is likely an O(1) operation, since the complexity of entering the equation wouldn't change with the increasing complexity of the equation.

    The point is, once you step away from your environmental training, RPN is no more complex, and is in fact easier than Algebraic notation. It just takes that first step.

    As a side note, notice that this conversation followed a slightly LIFO-like structure. When I converse, I interrupt myself a lot. The unique thing that my friends have noted that I almost *always* return to previous topics of conversation in a LIFO manner; a stack. :-)

    Algebraic is no more "natural" a way to do math than RPN; it's simply the method we grow up with. In computers, stack based math rules, as it should; it requires far less computational complexity. It's the same with humans--once someone steps away from their training, he finds that stack based math (and hence, RPN) is far superior.

    Jeremy
  • The HP48 uses open hardware to communicate with an open protocol. The TI calculators use closed hardware to communicate with a closed protocol.

    Linux won't be ported to the TI calculator series because there's not enough memory and TI won't release enough specs for someone with enough interest to develop the standard C libraries on the calculator. So scratch that idea.

    As far as durability is concerned, when an HP user speaks of HP durability, he's not talking about a year and half. Heck, he's probably not talking about 5 years. He's talking about professors still using their HP12s that they bought in the seventies. They're talking about people using their original HP48SX (bought in 1986) throughout high school and college and graduate studies. That's durability. An anti-slip pad coming loose after only 1.5 years of use is not durability.

    Jeremy
  • The answer to any operation you do on an HP calculator is put on the first level of the stack. So basically, this is how it goes: Push as many operands until you get an operator. Then pop however many the operator needs, then push the answer back on the stack.

    Whereas on a TI calculator, you type "( x + 1 ) / ( x + 2 )" for a total of 11 keystrokes, on an HP calculator, you would simply type "x 1 + x 2 + /" for a total of 7 keystrokes. And yes, i do find the second method more natural; as I said before, it's a case of environment.

    As I mentioned before, the HP48 has had "pretty print" for years. Therefore what I see on my calculator does look exactly like what I see in my books.

    This, however, is not how I see and think of equations in my head. I don't think "1+1" I think "1 1 +" because that's the way I am trained. I still maintain that this "interface from brain to calculator" is not inborn, but a learned behavior. I interface in RPN. In your words, my internal representation of a mathematical function is in RPN.

    There's no arguing it, RPN is more efficient, keystroke-wise. Under some circumstances, RPN has fewer keystrokes than algebraic notation, however under no circumstances is the opposite true. Learn RPN and you'll be more efficient, it's that simple. Your brain will learn.

    Jeremy
  • I've owned both a TI-85 and a HP-48GX. I bought the HP because the surveying profession practically requires it. I've found the HP to have a much more professional look and feel than any TI I've ever seen or used. Not to mention, the HP is a much more efficient calculator to use, and it only takes about a week to become proficient with it.

  • RPN (Score:1)

    by kcarnold ( 99900 )

    If you like RPN and are stuck with a TI (89, I could port it to the 83 if you want), check out my RPN program at ticalc.org (I just submitted it so it's probably not there yet). There is also a French RPN program that has a lot of nice features but requires the French language pack, which requires AMS 2.03, which is a royal pain if you are even thinking of ASM or complex Basic.

    Kenneth

  • Okay, I don't own an HP, and have only seen them a few times. My question is: how does the HP48GX or whatever similar calc display what it has figured out? And is this compatible with the way your mind works? Though I do find it difficult sometimes to enter the equation/expression I want into the calculator, with the Pretty Print capability I am able to see what I entered as it should look. Another nice thing that you mention about the RPN calcs also applies to my TI-89 -- if I find a complex equation/expression, I will look for the main part/operation(/connective), and enter this into the calculator. I will then find the next operation and enter ans(1) (op) whatever. The TI-89 automatically simplifies this so that it kind of looks like on the screen what I see in the book/board/whatever, and it's easy for me to tell what I missed. With this method, I rarely bother about parentheses except in situations such as (x+1)/(x+2), and I can't conceive how you could enter this without using something at least similar to parentheses.

    The TI-82 definately has limitations, so I am not suprised that you noticed a substantial improvement when moving up to a real calculator. The TI-82 is basically a hand-held calculator with the ability to make a few simple decisions. Suprisingly it is Turing-complete, but it offers not that much more over that. The TI-89 (and the HP) extend the calculator's functions to much more closely relate to the human brain. When you get to be that complex (brain == the absolute most complex computing device ever constructed), personal preferences have a big impact on how easy it is for the brain to parse and do good things with what it is given, I sometimes have a fine line between what I "get" and what flies over my head. (to continue the metaphor, I guess I just "duck" more or less each time) Thus, if what the calculator throws at me is a bit too complex, often I will just gawk at it and do it on my own. Back to my initial question: how does the HP48 display what it figures out?

    Again, the critical question is of the interface between your brain and the calculator. Your brain has built a set of routines for converting its internal representation of a mathematical form into RPN notation (redundant), and conversely finding a brain-internal representation for what the calc throws at you. My set of interface routines work with infix-like stuff, and it works nicely for me because on the input side, I only have to maintain one set of routines to convert both what my calc shows me and what the book shows me (and what is written on the board) into "internal representation". Also, what I throw at the calculator is often similar to wat I throw at other humans. It just works that way for me.

    Enough,

    Ken

  • Linux won't be ported to the TI calculator series because there's not enough memory and TI won't release enough specs for someone with enough interest to develop the standard C libraries on the calculator. So scratch that idea.

    First thought: dan! Then: (1) there are devices available to expand the calculator's memory, and some work quite nicely (we're talking up to 4 MB in some cases, and I don't see a reason why (at least for the 68k calcs) that they can't go higher), and (2) many libraries have already been developed for the 89/92(+) shells that do similar things. You wouldn't be able to do much, but it would be kind of neat. And what are you talking about, "specs". Just about everything anyone needs to know about these calculators has been figured out in a short time by the assembly programmers.

    The TI calculators use hardware which used to be closed. But again, now that the ASM programmers attacked it, the hardware is open. And for most of the TI calcs, the processor is the Z80, which is thoroughly documented, as is its accompanying linkport hardware. And although the TI GraphLink grey cable is a mysterious grey box at the end of a cord, again people have hacked it (it has been hacked for quite some time now). I have reason to believe that the protocol for the grey link cable is no more than a pass-through, possibly with some ioctl-like commands. I may (if I am not lazy) look at the GtkTiLink code to verify this. There are also other link cables available, both serial and parallel. Of couse since users made them, users know how they work. As for the protocol, that was somewhat documented by TI and has been expanded to an almost full knowledge by GtkTiLink. So linkport is No Problem (tm).

    The TIs can be very durable, depending on what you call durable. However, it is quite likely that the HPs have gained a better track record due to increased care. Example: where do you store your calculator when you carry it around? I shove it in the back of my backpack, push it around, occasionally drop it on the floor (by accident), spill things on it (LCD display), etc., and that only the anti-slip pad came loose was a marvel to me. I could get a new one if it mattered, but it doesn't. I don't need it.Or I could just take off the other one also and then at least it would lay flat (though it doesn't really matter to me). The only problem that I really do have with the TIs' durability is that the covers that usually click shut and hold the calculator gradually get to the point where they won't latch on to the calculator anymore. This is a stupid flaw in the TI case design, and if I had made it it wouldn't do that (yeah right). If you are talking about maintainence costs to keep it near-new, I could replace my cover, solving both problems, for not that much (don't remember off-hand).

    Anyway, I have my calculator and I'm not spending any more money to get another one until I have to. My TI-89 contains enough mathematical features to last me through my graduate studies (I a freshman in high school).

    Kenneth

  • It will usually take more time to develop a program to automate the solution, then you would learning do it by yourself.

    Aha! I get to respond to this rant! You see, in order to write a program to do something you must have an intimate knowledge of it yourself. The fact is that computers are inherently stupid, and to teach a computer to do something is like teaching a child to do something; thus it is like the job of a teacher. Although a teacher can teach a class something without knowing it him/herself, the students gain a much better understanding of it if the teacher knows the material very well. When I write programs, I am really just teaching the calculator how to do something. Unless it's a guess-and-check kind of program, I must be fluent in whatever I want the program to do. On the 89 you can kind of "cheat" by using its internal symbolic manipulation capabilities, but I find it more fun to do it myself. I write programs to help myself, not so much as to have an aid on the calculator (although this does help), but to check how much I really know whatever it is I am working with. If I find that, while writing a program, something doesn't work out right and I fix it, or some algorithm is cumbersome and I improve it, I have learned something about the topic in question on my own. That really helps me.

  • We have learned these days to use the graphing calculator as a tool. I myself am fully capable of solving equations, graphing, finding zeros, etc., but those things are secondary to an understanding of how a problem works. The key thing in my discussion is that I use the calculator as a tool to aid me in solving the nitty-gritty details of a problem while I concentrate on the big picture. What is this problem trying to say? What can I learn from it? I never put anything into the calculator that I couldn't do myself in enough time. The calculator allows me to concentrate on what I really need to do instead of what takes up all of the time in problem-solving. I sometimes enter a complex equation into the calculator, and then tell it to do a certain set of steps to solve it (divide by a, then add b*c/2, etc.), and use the symbolic manipulation to check my work. I will also use the symbolic manipulation when the calculation is trivial and I have done it myself ad nauseum.

    My age has nothing to do with my skill level. I think that if every student was introduced to mathematics in the same way as I was and had the same attitude towards it as I did, that every student would be taking precalc in middle school. I didn't get the calculator until Geometry/AlgII, and I didn't use it much, if at all, in Geometry. For Algebra II, the curriculum was carefully designed around using the calculator as a tool. And don't you mean, "you can't be less than 17 years old."?

    Kenneth

  • TI-89:

    (integral) (e^(-x^2),x) (ENTER)

    (integral) (e^(-x^2),x)

    So your answer is no. You can, however, write a program to do this by using the part() function.

    Ken

  • Cross-platform: Check out GtkTiLink [ticalc.org]. And just think: the 89, 92, and 92+ are all based on the Motorola 68000 processor, and we have a version of Linux for that processor, don't we?

    Durability: My TI-83 still works just fine after a year and a half; the only problem I have had is one of the anti-slip pads coming loose, but I used that thing a heck of a lot. If I hadn't have gotten a Ti-89 for Christmas, I would still be using that 83 for years to come.

    Availability of programs: Here's the link [yahoo.com]

    For ease of use, see my top-level post [slashdot.org].

  • I once wrote a post-fix interpreter in Scheme. My problem, though, was that it was kind of difficult to understand for a while. I suppose that I could eventually get used to it.

    That is the problem with RPN. It is more compliccated to the beginner, who is used to seeing equations written in infix form. A novice user who sees x^2+2x+2=0 in a book will naturally want to enter it that way, instead of x 2 ^ 2 x * + 2 + (then however you enter the =0). Admittedly, there are some really nice things about post-fix, namely the exclusion of nasty parentheses, some of which I have found out through this thread and others in this discussion. That is not to say that there isn't a lot to like about in-fix, too. In the end, it is one's personal preferrence, either way. Your original reply should have been moderated Redundant if it were not for the ensuing thread because I had said in my original post that it is a matter of personal preferrence. If someone likes infix, fine. If you like postfix, fine. However, whomever keeps a closed mind to the other type is missing out on something.

    I think that this is enough for the in/post-fix debate. I'll probably get an HP for my next calc (when I get the $ and can give up a CPU upgrade) and try out post-fix. In the mean time I might write a postfix parser for my TI-89. Might be fun :-). But for beginners and many intermediate students, the obvious choice is the TI. There is the issue of "what everybody else has got", which includes what the teacher has (and thus what the teacher can help you with), games (the best games are those that everybody else has :-), and, of course, in-fix.

    cya, Kenneth

  • A program is an algorithmic construct. By putting your mental processes into algorithmic form, you gain a better understanding of how they work. Your friend is (no bragging here) a bad programmer. Programs can be pieces of art, or pieces of "crap". I try to write art. I try to write an elegant program that gets the job done in the "nicest" way. That is what is very educational for me.

    It doesn't matter what platform it's for. I so happen to carry around a TI-89, and when I'm bored I take it out and start making a program. If I was by my computer I might use that, but for computer programming I think that one concentrates too much on the interface, etc. details. With the graphing calc, you just write the program. All the math, string, list, etc. stuff is there and you use it often normally.

    If you are not a good programmer, yeah a lot of your programs are going to come from friends. I prefer to write my own, though, because I usually can do in my head what they write programs to help themselves with. They write bad programs anyway.

    Take CTY's Theoretical Foundations of Computer Science (and understand it) and I think you'll figure it out.

    Kenneth

  • What did you get the 85 to do?

    I'm not spending the $100 or whatever it is for a calc just so I can feel justified when I get a superior model for not that many bucks more. Don't worry, dude. I struggled with a TI-83. I'm glad to get rid of that, and it sure was a blow to my intellegence to find out how little more symbolic manipulation, hi-res screen, fast processor, and lots more was. I was doing all sorts of stuff with trying to get lower-case characters in my programs, simplifying radicals, doing the quadratic formula, etc. The 89 was like a sigh of relief to me, a loosening of my shackles, a breath of fresh air. Okay, I'll shut up. Anyway, I did my fair share of struggling. I got the 83 right before Geometry and AlgII (same year), so I went through Algebra I with a handheld calculator. I got my 89 this recent Christmas. So I'm not cheating, friend. But unfourtunately this applies specifically to me. There are kids I know of who totally depend on the calc for everything, even simple things like 25^.5 . Calc in moderation is good.

    nuf said. Ken

  • TI (Score:1)

    by Ravagin ( 100668 )
    I've got me a fine TI-83 (old model), even while everyone around me has new mdoel TI-83s and 83+s. Maybe I'm just non-conformist that way.
    Anyway, I'd definitely go with a TI. The TI-83 is an excellent piece of machinery, except for the memory limitations. An 83+, 85, or 89 is probably your best bet, especially for school, because they get paranoid about QWERTY keyboards.
    I understand the 89 has a very good programming interface, which is an advantage over the 83[+], which does it all in little pasted tags. If you can spare the cash, go with the 89. Otherwise, an 83+ and its flash memory is a good choice, too.
    ===
    -Ravagin
  • Might I suggest that you find a HP 32Sii for those tests that prevent you from using a graphing calculator? I carry my 48gx at all times, and keep the 32Sii as a backup because it is also RPN, and programmable, and similar enough in structure to the 48gx that I can actually use it.
  • Personally I'm waiting for a port of linux (is there one?) to my r4400-based WinCE handheld, and I will convince Wolfram (who happens to be in my town) to compile Mathematica for linux to it for me, and I will have the Most Powerful Graphing Calculator In The World(tm) thank you very much. Am I totally dreaming?
  • As a gadget-loving, Palm-carrying, multiple-calculator-owning science-geek, I astonish myself at my total lack of desire for a fancy graphing calculator. To me it's just not a useful/useable tool.

    If I want to graph something, I use a real graphing environment like Origin, Axum or Kaleidagraph. In a pinch I might do a quick plot with the (marginal at best) graphing capability of Excel.

    Graphing calculators strike me as cute toys with little real use. The displays are tiny and horrible to look at. The graphing capabilities are primative at best. The keys are awkwardly small for extended data manipulation.

    Calculators work great for arithmetic. For simple one-off arithmetic calculations, they're fast, easy to use and infinitely portable. When you bolt on more and more functions, your great focused tool becomes a mediocre toy.

    I dread the day when my (programmable-but-who-cares) HP-15C dies. The new models are cluttered with functions I don't need in a hand-held device, and have crappy displays where to get single pixel addressing the engineers gave up contrast and viewing angle.

    Buy the simplest HP you can find, spend 10 minutes learning RPN, then run circles around your classmates in doing fast calculations. Get some data plotting software and spend 30 minutes learning it, and run circles around them again when you need graphs.

    Or get a TI graphing toy and fiddle around.

  • It's a matter of personal choice. Personally, I use a TI-83 because my HS gave it to me and right now I don't have enough money to get something better (trying to save money to get a 21 in flatscreen and/or a car)

    A useful feature of any graphing calculator is it's ability to store games. If it weren't for ZRace/Blackjack/Bowling, I would've fallen asleep many times in my Stats class.

    -
  • The TI 89 is better than the HP48 by a long shot, and it is even better than the HP49 by just a tad. They are both equally durible. My friend bought a 48G at the same time as I bought a 85 over four years ago. The HP's foot came off within a year, and my TI has not had any damage to it. (But a foot falling off doesn't matter!) The RPM is just as easy (and saves you keystrokes) as the TI, but you have to learn to think in stacks instead of how you would normally. The HP48GX has room (because of the slot) for more memory than the 89, but has less than the 89 without any expansion cards. There are many good programs for both calculators, but there seem to be more games for the TI calcs. I would not suggest buying anything bellow a TI 89 because of their limitations. The HPs outperform any of the pre-89 TIs by a long shot. However, the 89 outperforms the HP with a faster processor and better resolution. Do make sure that you can use a 89 in college and high school. I was able to use mine in high school, but none my cal classes in college will let me use it. They will however let you use HPs (mainly because they don't know what they can do). Especially in high school, you will find that the TI has more support and the lessons that the teacher uses (if she uses calcs) can be easlier translated. My friend was _not_ able to do some of the programs we made without going _way_ out of his way and it wasn't worth it. So basiclly it depends on what school you are using it in and what you want to do with it.
  • I am a high school senior who took Calc last year. I began with a TI-85, I soon abandoned it for a TI-32 (Scientific). The majority of Calc and above does not focus on how well you can apply a certain formula; but how well you can tell which formula to apply and how to do it. The only thing a calculator is good for is calculating trig, log, and strange exponential functions (x^7/3 etc.).

    If you are taking Algebra or Al. II. I have found that all the programmable functions are useful for is playing games. The majority of the games I have found are for the TI series so that is what I would recommend.

    Are you really going to spend that much time writing your own programs? It will usually take more time to develop a program to automate the solution, then you would learning do it by yourself. Thus spend the $30 on a TI-30 and spend the rest on a memory upgrade, a Linux book, or some other tool to better yourself in the long run, not some way to cheat and save ten seconds.

    Nate Custer
  • But how much of a help is it. For example I once saw a person who wrote a program to calculate the Pythagorean theorem instead of learning the 30,60, 90 rule all. In the end he learns how to write input lines and solve an equation. However on a multiple choice test when the answer is 3^(1/2) they will not see their answer on the test. How much has the programming helped them then?

    I am not decrying programming as a whole, however anything you need to program in a high school class, would best be served writing it at home on a real computer with a real programming language.

    Yes, you should spend as much time as you can finding shortcuts and exploring. However, developing the algorithm is just as much a necessity with a TI-30, as it is with a TI-85.

    You are explaining why to work on the problem, not why developing a program is important. What value is added by creating the program that cannot be added without it?

    Nate Custer

    P.S. Sorry to rant again however, this is a very personal issue to me. As a note the majority of the programs one gets are from friends.

  • So I can dump a dictionary into it (assuming you are using a calculator with a search option for text files, TI-89) and use it on the SAT.

    Even more sell it later to someone who haven't yet taken the SAT for the Original Price + Inflation + Profit + Tax + more.

  • All I have to do is open the equation editor and edit like I would if I was using a commcercial CAS like Maple [maplesoft.com]. (yerricde added this link)

    Same on the TI-89; you can set up a subroutine (with local variables) that returns a value. At my school, we jokingly refer to the 89 as "pocket Maple," referring to the copy of Waterloo Maple V that is included with our college [rose-hulman.edu]'s distribution of Windows 98, which comes preinstalled on the laptop we all get. (I'm going off on a big tan() .)

    the hp48 ... gives you more options than a simplified "Ti Basic" and an ASM command.

    If you have a "run arbitrary binary" command and you have a computer and link cable, you have C. There are free (beer and speech) C compilers for m68k, and m68000 is inside the 89 uses.

    it's certainly more rewarding when you reach a much higher summit than you could've on a TI calculator.

    On the 89, there are customized OSes that overlay onto the TI environment; one example is DoorsOS. Heck, if the d*rn thing had more RAM (it has 512K), you could make Linux for it.

    unlike the TI, which uses both proprietary link hardware and protocols

    That have been cracked long ago. The TI-83 was 0wn3d before I even learned about it 2 1/2 years ago. The LPT connector schematics for the TI-8x have been published several places on the web. Look at TIcalc.org [ticalc.org] for more info.

  • No, tetris will not run because Blue Planet Software and The Tetris Company [tetris.com] haven't ported it yet (ergo no Tetris®), but there are lots of free falling tetromino games (read: Tetris clones [rose-hulman.edu]) floating around. I even made one, in TI-83 B*S*C (it's not really BASIC; TI calls the 89's language Keystroke) nonetheless. And then I made a C version [gte.net]. Have fun!

    Insane aka SameGame, now that was fun. Pick it up (as Insane on 83/86 and SameGame on 89) at ticalc.org

  • Some of us take calculators as seriously as Slashdotters take Linux, so there are a few sites out there... HP/TI debate: http://tifaq.calc.org/ti92vshp.htm TI programs: http://www.ticalc.org http://www.calc.org http://www.ti-files.org TI Discussion Group (at TI's site): http://www-s.ti.com/cgi-bin/discuss/sdbmessage.cgi ?databasetoopen=calculators&topicarea=TI -89/92+Plus&do_2=1 TI-FAQ, unofficial (read: accurate): http://www.tifaq.calc.org HP programs: http://www.hpcalc.org
  • When I was in high school we didn't have any stinking graphing calculators. We were taught to become graphing calculators. We had a list of things to look at for a given function, and we'd be able to crank out a pretty decent picture by analyzing those things. You kids today have it too easy. What's going to happen when civilization collapses to a point where we can't maintain your calculator, and you have to come up with a graph of e^{-3t} cos(t)? You'll be shit out of luck because you've grown dependent on some thrice-damned hunk of plastic and silicon! Damn whippersnappers.
  • First, don't get a calculator whos potential you will never come close to using. Example: if you are a freshmen in high school, don't get a TI-89 or HP-49, unless you are Einstien. Second, when you get one, learn it well. Read the manual. There are some excellent FAQs and discussion boards out there. Learning to program for it will help immensly. My experience with the TI-85 and TI-89 have been wonderful. I've used several HPs, and they have all appeared to be good. There are differences in the way the calcs function, so each will have its advantages and disadvantages. Its a tradeoff: figure out what you need, and look for it. Alas, the supremacy between the TI-89 and HP-49 will never be decided. As for one being better with certain higher calculus function, I'd be using a computer for that stuff anyway, and I don't know if I'd completely trust a calculator anyway.

    WARNING: WHATEVER YOU GET: DON'T LET THE CALC DO STUFF YOU COULDN'T DO BY HAND IF YOU HAD TO. You will be cheating yourself if you do.

    Now my plug: index of sites with math/science programs for TI-89/92+ at www.rit.edu/~smb3297/ti/. [rit.edu]

  • actually, the 85 was the first to be hacked.
  • Don't get a Casio calculator. Since they don't support assembly language programs they're worthless. Get a TI-89 or an HP-49G.
  • Who cares abou the Groebner bases and indefinite integrals... Where are you going to do that? MIT? I'm not going there, so it doesn't bother me... So what if the majority of the world uses windows, it's not like a TI calc... Windows has back doors, security flaws, unsupport to 3rd party programs, and corruption of data, no wait, never mind, that is like the whole problem with 89/92+ and the HW1/HW2 issue, never mind... In a comment somewhere above my first, someone said Linux:DOS::HP:TI... this is somewhat true, i think that Linux:HP::Macintosh:TI... everybody sez that Macs are so easy to use, and easy to learn, and, they are :) (just like the TI's) if ya goin for ease of use, get a TI, if you are going for BRUTE FORCE AGAINST INDEFINETE INTEGRALS, which, in high school algebra, will most definetly NOT happen, get a nice cheap TI :) well, no, the casio's are a lot cheaper, but they are no good... maybe for basic basic basic getting something-that-graphs-quicker-than-my-left-foot but, you decide.
  • Sorry, my mistake... I have never owned or used an 85/82 extensively... I only know what i have picked up installing shells and games on other people's calcs (they all seem to come to me, because i am the only person with a graph link willing to put crap on thier calcs :)... oddly enough, i still know more about their calcs, and i don't use them... hell, i don't even use my 89 since i got my 92+.
  • Let's look at the TI's for a moment... When the 82 first came out, there were no ASM available... then some smart bastard found out to modify the CSTM pointers in a backup file to point to Ash shell. Then when the 85 came out, they could do the same thing... Then along came Mr. TI-92. Mr. TI-92 didn't like having his CSTM pointers modified. He would not accept it. Then some smarter dude found out, to make the backup file larger, with the excess data spilling over to modify the CSTM pointers anyways, so Mr. TI-92 didn't know of this new way to modify them, so he liked it. :) Then, some smart guy figured out how to make a 512Kb RAM card to plug in like a probe, into the calculator, acting just like the Flash Archive memory in the new calcs... (89/92+, oh yeah, the pansy 83+ too) Now, it is said that there are expansion slots for sound cards, modems, and so on and so forth for an HP, correct? now, if it has expansion slots, that, in my mind, directly qualifies an HP as being more of a computer than the 92/92+... so, to heck with the HP's... GO FOR THE REAL THING BABY! you can get by with a TI-86, but i really really looooove my 89, and today, i just got my 92+ in the mail :) Besides, all the cool games are for the TI's anyways... If the majority of the world is using a TI, then the majority of the programs that are ever created that are decent, will more likely be created for the TI... Besides, who can live without SuperCar II and Street Fighter? :)
  • If you want a graphing calculator HP and TI are the only real choices. Whether HPs or TIs are the best are a hard question to answer, but let me try.

    Let me start off with a bit of information on which graphing calculators I have used. I started off with a HP28, then switch to a TI85, and then a TI92. I am currently using a TI82 or a TI92 depending on the task. Besides this I have also used a TI81, and a HP48 for shorter periods of time.

    MATH:
    One of the main differences between TIs and HPs is the way the equations are entered. Most HP users claim that the HP way is fastest, while TI users find that the TI way is easier to use. In my experience both methods are equally fast, and easy to use for most calculations. In case of typos in an equation I find that the method used in the TI9x+TI89 calculators is a bit faster, but all in all the diffenrence is so small that I would not let it affect which I could I would buy.

    The math functions are pretty much the same in all calcs with few exceptions.
    - TIs lacks the erfc function which is used quite a bit in enginering, but it can be calculated in TI89/92 (but this is slower than the HP48)

    -In my exoerience graphing on the HPs are (using std settings) a bit slower than the TIs, and the same goes for functions like the matrix editor.

    I concider all of this to be minor stuff, and shouldn't really affect which calc to buy either. The real diffenrences are in the symbolic functions.

    TI8x (except the 89) has no symbolic function
    HP48 can do a bit
    TI89+92(+) and HP49 has lots of symbolic functions

    From what I have seen of the HP48s symbolic functions they aren't really useful, and all the HP users I have discussed this with seem to agree. Some HP users claim that the HP49 is better at symbolic manipulations than the TIs, but TI users has given a lot of examples where the HP is a lot slower and even gives results which are wrong. I have not tried the HP49, so it is hard for me to know who is right, but the truth is probably that they are just different.

    So based purely on the math functions it is hard to decide between either of these calcs, there are differences but they are small.

    PROGRAMMING:
    Its common for HP users to believe that the HP is a lot better for programming than TIs, but most of them have not tried programming a TI.

    Personally I find that TI/BASIC is simpler to use than the HPs build in language, but this is mainly a matter of getting used to RPL. I have not seen any big diffenrences in what the build in languages can do, and have not seen anyone who was able to document this.

    Both HP and TI calculators can be programmed in ASM which ofcourse gives you full control of the calc. The TIs has the advantage that they use a Z80/MC68k which means that there is lots of information on how to program in assembly. I have never programmed a HP in assembly, but from the information on several HP sites it is my impression that there is plenty of information out there.

    Some HP users has mentioned systemRPL which they see as a great advantage, but on the new TIs this kind of functions are documented too. On older TIs it is possible to access some of the system functions, and with the information available for other TI calcs the rest can be found when needed.

    All in all I think that once you get used to the calc you end up buying you will have all the opportunities you need for programming.

    PROGRAMS/HARDWARE:
    If you search the internet you will see that there are loads of programs avalable for all calculators. The difference here is probably that there are more very advanced math programs avalable for the HP48 than other calcs, but who knows whether you will ever need one of those (and they might even be included in the HP49/TI89/TI92).

    Several plans for additional hardware for all calcs can be foudn on the net, but it is my impression that there is more for the TIs. The HPs uses a normal serial port, which some might see as an advantage, the TI link port is easy to interface too, well documented and the link cable is just as cheap to make.

    OVERALL:
    So which calc is the best? You can find HPs and TIs which are very similar both concerning Math programming, and avalable programs/hardware. The choice is therefore hard to make.

    Generally I find that the TIs are easier to figure out how to use, but once you have gotten used to your calc this is much of a difference.

    If you want symbolic functions the chioce is either HP49 or the TI92(+)/TI89.
    -Personally I would choose the TI92+. The way the stack works combined with the use of lists and other ""advanced"" functions makes a lot of calculations faster to do than the HP49. I also like having the QWERTY keyboard for entering equations.

    If symbolic manipulation is not needed, I think that the best choice is one of the following: TI86/TI83(+)/HP48
    -Here my choice would be the TI83+, again because of the speed of using listsm and correcting typos in equations.

    For highschool I would chose a calc, without symbolic manipulations, while I wouldn't want to start university without a TI89/TI92/HP49.

    I am sure that there are people out there who might chose the HP48/9, but what ever calc you buy I am sure you will have all the functions you need.

    Dines

  • HPs: - If you know how to use your calc, RPN is not faster (or slower - Less multilevel menus ??? not in my expirience, but it depends on the calc. - Flash applications let you do some of the same thing as the HP expansions would. I have however never seen anyone actually use them, the ones I have seen were not useful for most engineers. - The HP can do pretty print TIs: - Inefficient ???? Just as fast as RPN if you know fow to use them. For some tasks I find that the TI92/TI89 is a lot faster than the HP. - In my expirience there are plenty of HPs around university campuses - Symbolic manimulation can improve your results on exames, but you have to use it right. Your expirince: YOur example shows that you friends does not know how to use their calc, but has nothing to do with which calc to buy. As the only TI(92) user among HP48 users I have had the exact opposit exirience. (After they saw how powerful the TI92 they have all switch to TI92s :-)) What calculators people use in busnisses is that relevant here. Most people I have talked who use calc in their profession use HPs, but they have no idea what TI calculators can do. A long time ago HP was the only choice, so that was what they bought, and they have not really followed the advanced in calcs since then. So they believe that HPs are the best, but they normally do not know what the choices are. Once you are out of university you normally wont need the big calc any more, and a TI68 would be enough for most people. I discussed calculators with a working enginner not long ago, who after learning what the TIs where capable of felt "sorry" that HP had not kept up their leed :-) If symbolic manipulation is used right i can be helpful, but of course it can be used in a bad way. This is however the base for a lot of the functions which graphing calculators have (I did learn linear algebra and have a calc with rref function with out suffering too much :-)) All in all, you post indicate that you really have used Tis all that much. If you sit down and read the manual for your calc, and spend some time learning to use it, HPs and TIs will be app. equally fast. Dines
  • I think it's really sick that every single one of us is posting a reply to this topic on a machine that is at least TWICE as powerful as one of those two calculators. (I'm REALLY bad with numerical comparisons... and capitalisation... and spelling). Really, buy the cheaper one. If you really gotta see a good graph use the calculator you typed your question/topic to slashdot on. I've taken as much math as the next guy and he'll tell you right off that the name 'o the calc' don't make it any easier. At least pick the one that LOOKS cooler. Matching apparel is a must. Now that I think about it, you must buy both. Yes, both. Tomorrow, kaki... HP. Then jeans... TI. I would definitely have to go with both. Trust me my man... Image is everything.

  • Just like my own particular branch of Christinanity is the one true way. In other words, this is partially a religious issue, though I doupt anyone will condem you to hellfire if you make the wrong choice.

    Seriously though, in high school the TI is the most common and popular, in college and the real word the balance changes. Those who have the TI probaly stick with it, but the HP is more programable. RPM takes come getting used to, but it is a true geeks way to do things, and with little practice is easier.

    As for programing, the HP wins, its programing language is beatiful in the way the onlt LISP can be beautiful. Of course not all geeks appreciate beauty, but most admit the LISP is nicer even if they can't stand it. (and there are many good arguments against LISP)

  • Things really haven't collapsed much...

    Graphing calculators have just given the ability to calculate to a larger group of people... the people who'd figure out how to graph e^(-3t) cos(t) can still do it... it's just that the calculators let more students work with such functions, who otherwise couldn't.
  • After years of experience in graphing-based math courses (from basic algebra through second-year calculus), I'd tell you to stick with a Texas Instruments TI-85 or 86. The main reason for my suggestion is compatibility, most calculators in the wild are TI's, so that's where all the games (useful programs, too!) are. Assembly is known for both calculators, as well, although they do not have compatible instruction sets.

    Don't get anything below an 85, the graphics suck, there's not enough memory, and the calculators lack both a useful interface and things like a built-in POLY program (calculates roots for polynomials), which in my opinion are pretty basic and quite important.

    Anything above the 86 is illegal for testing, mainly because of the QWERTY keyboards, so when you take your SATs or AP tests or whatever you won't be allowed to use them. The 89 is included in this list because it can do everything the other calculators can, it just lacks a QWERTY keyboard.

    The main differences IMO between the 85 and 86 are memory, slightly improved graphics and processor, and a table function for values, which all models but the 85 have for some strange reason. If you don't mind the extra money or the slightly smaller selection of games, the 86 is probably the way to go, but there's much broader support for the pretty-much standard 85.

    Hope this helps.

    ---sig---
  • Try looking at sometime. There's so much there for the HP, you'll hardly believe it. (Can the TI run [orghpcalc.org]civilization [hpcalc.org]? Thought not.)

    It's a jihad out there -- watch out.
  • Try looking at hpcalc.org [hpcalc.org] sometime. There's so much there for the HP, you'll hardly believe it. (Can the TI run civilization [hpcalc.org]? Thought not.)

    It's a jihad out there -- watch out.

  • What is your job? Why do you need your tool? Will you ever figure out how to use it?

    I have a TI-89, and I am in pre-calc. It works nicely for that. I used to use a TI-83, but it definately had limitations. I used it as a tool for basically two things: graphing functions and doing petty arithmetic (besides the obvious: gaming). My upgrade to the 89 has given me a tool with significantly more capabilities, such as (especially) symbolic manipulation. Now I can let the calc do the dirty work while I concentrate on (a) putting the problem into an equation and (b) interpreting the results. Note that in this situation, I am actually doing most of the work. However, this work is what my mind can handle well. By adding the calculator to the picture, I have removed the necessity of doing all of the work in my head, but (here is the important part for this discussion) I have added the need to interface my brain with the calculator. On one level, I concentrate on what I can do, and on the other level, I concentrate on what the calc can do. There are thus two important requirements that I make of my calculator:

    1. that what it can do and what I can do complement nicely, and
    2. that how it works with things and how I work with things complement nicely.

    For me, the TI-89 works well with me. I can do symbolic manipulation, but I don't like to, so I make it do it. It can't interpret what it manipulates outside of its limited context, but I can. On the subject of TI vs HP, the 89 works in the same way as I do. It expresses an expression as a series of subexpressions, and works with things in units. Moreover, my units look like its units. What I am thinking about needs little translation to become what it "thinks" about. Similarly, with its Pretty Print (tm) capability, what it comes up with looks like what I come up with. So while I am solving a problem and need the facilities of my calculator, I can easily transfer the appropriate parts of the problem from my brain to the calculator. In fact, my brain and the calculator are so compatible that I often use the calculator to temporarily store results that I get in my brain, and then recall them later either back into the brain or use them again in the calculator.

    With an HP and RPN, I have to go through much more mental rigor to put what I'm thinking into something that it can understand. My brain does not work in a stack; it works in a string. My brain is in-fix, the HP is post-fix. To have to constantly change around the two would require too much work for me to use it as a tool in the completion of a problem. I would only use it for arithmetic.

    Most of the specifics of the above apply to me. However, if you think about how your brain works, you should be able to apply those same concepts to determine which tool is best for you. I can conceive how someone might work best with a stack, but I am not one of them. I guess the whole point of this post is that the calculator is a tool for you; it must "fit in your hand". There can be no one method for everyone. There are some things that I don't like about the TI-89. But overall, I think that it is really the best tool for me; I feel comfortable using it.

    In the above, I have almost totally ignored the subject of games. If gaming is your thing, and calculating is something secondary, a TI is the way to go. There are far more games available for any TI calculator than for an HP calculator. You will find almost anything, from simple guess-the-number-deluxe games to Quake clones. ASM programming has allowed blindingly-fast, powerful games to come around, and there is even a C compiler available for the 68k calcs (89, 92, 92+) (it's called TI-GCC if you are looking).

    There are Casio graphing calculators available, some in color, but they are Casio. Don't expect that much. (This is based on other people's comments to me.) The choice really is between TI and HP.

    Kenneth

    PS - TI-89 important note: don't get AMS 2.03. I won't even start to try to describe what I have gone through with that Flash ROM "upgrade". You're curious? I had to give it the equivalent of "format c:" (DOS) or "mke2fs /dev/hda1" (Unix).

    PPS - Speaking of Unix, since the TI-89 is an m68k-based computer, is there a version of Linux that will run on it? I am tired of it crashing.

  • HP's are more programmable. However, unless you intend to do the bulk of it yourself, the extra capacity goes to waste. Ever since a group of nerds discovered how to hack the TI-85 to run assembly code, there has simply been more available to TI users.

    Similarly, all of your classmates will have TIs. TI-83s, actually. Most college courses only 'officially' support (i.e. the instuctions are written for) the TI-82 and 83, though some are also beginning to use the 85 and 86 as well. HPs are completely neglected.

    There has also been considerably more effort put into learning how to more fully use TIs. If you go to the TI Calculator Project [ticalc.org], you will find OSes, math and science tools, games, calendars, even plans for overclocking! The TI community has nearly bridged the gap between the Motorola 68000-based TI-89 and PDAs.

    In conclusion, yes, I'm biased, but I think it's with good reason.

Slashdot Top Deals

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." -- Isaac Asimov

Close