peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/18/89)
HP: tough as nails, and for a long time they were the best choice for
programmers, because the TI Programmer was a total waste of
plastic and Casio was just starting up. I bought an HP16C for
$160 6 years ago and have no regrets. Today I'd buy a Casio something
or other instead.
TI: Until they gave up on it, they were the leading edge for nerds, just
as HP was the leading edge for yuppies. The TI-59 was the fastest
programmable calculator available at the time, which was great for
iterative stuff. And, reall, the RPN affectation was just that: an
affectation. 4-place stacks suck.
Casio: This is where it's at today. Not as tough as HP, but who cares?
for the price of an HP you can get a suitcase full.
In the future: pocket computers. It's almost to the point where you'll
be able to get an IBM-PC clone that'll fit. Crummy as they might be,
Lotus 1-2-3 makes a great calculator.
--
`-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.
'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180.
"vi is bad because it didn't work after I put jelly in my keyboard."
-- Jeffrey W Percival (jwp@larry.sal.wisc.edu)campbelr@hpclove.HP.COM (Bob Campbell) (11/21/89)
*leaving the "Who is best" debate to sales figures* I see a big difference between calculators and computers. They are for different tasks. When I was in college, anything I couldn't do on my HP 15C was going to need time even more than power, and by time I mean *my* time and not compute time. If I need to work for any length of time, the interface is everything and what is small enough to carry is too big for real use. Now, give me one that I can talk to . . . -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Campbell Some times I wish that I could stop you from campbelr@hpda.hp.com talking, when I hear the silly things you say. Hewlett Packard - Elvis Costello
scott@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM (Scott Linn) (11/21/89)
/ hpcvca:comp.misc / peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) / 3:18 pm Nov 17, 1989 / > iterative stuff. And, reall, the RPN affectation was just that: an > affectation. 4-place stacks suck. Interesting. Have you ever used RPN? I used to have a TI SR-51 back in junior high, then got an HP-25. After a year I sold the 25 and got a TI SR52. While I liked the SR52, keeping track of those parentheses was a real pain, and the HP was *much* easier to program. I used the SR52 all through high school and college, and finally sold it 3 years after graduating. It held up well, but algebraic notation on a calculator was still a pain. And here I thought that you were a *real* programmer. :-) Scott Linn