davin@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) (03/21/90)
jon@ireland.uucp (Jon Doran) writes: >I had hoped that things would have changed. In my opinion Elek-Tek survives >because there are enough people who want to save $25 and don't mind waiting >for their calculators. If that describes you, by all means deal with them, >you'll get your 48sx eventually. Well, I must admit I had a similar experience when I ordered my 28S, it took two (or was it three) months to get to me, but they admitted then (2 years ago) that the thing was back-ordered and sent me 'back-ordered' forms religiously every month. However, this time I had much better luck. Due to advance information from this group (thanks guys), I found out about the existence of the beast three days before the announcement; after reading the first article about it I hurriedly called Elek-Tek and placed an order, I wasn't surprised that it was back-ordered even then and that they weren't expecting their first shipment for a week or two. I wanted to get on the queque as quick as possible, not having anything more than a notion as to what it was, just that it was HP's latest/greatest calculator. Last Wednesday I got the expected 'back-ordered' form (and news that I my scholarship to do a Ph.D. at Cambridge came through :-) but I was surprised by a phone call Thursday morning from UPS stating that they wanted money from me to pay for the customs for a package from 'El-Tech' :-). I got it on Friday. I've been playing with it since. My initial impressions are that this one is an order of magnitude more useful than the 28S. It seemed that with the 28, I'd always have to fight with it to get it to do what I wanted, with the 48, it's like HP read my mind (take a well earned bow)! Placing common math functions back on the keypad really helps, calculating sin(30), something one expects to be straightforward on a calculator, wasn't on the 28, this gave me the impression that the 28 was more a computer than what I (dare I say, "we in the physical sciences") envisage as a calculator. This isn't to say that the 28 wasn't (oops, isn't) a good machine, as the seminal hand-held object manipulator, HP did a fine job, so good that there is no competition. However, this image of the 28 as a computer, one with no 'I' from 'I/O', made me loath to invest much time in it. Consequently, I didn't, it sat idle, and I waited patiently (2 yrs!) for the next HP with I/O. At first, I thought that abandoning the bill-fold format was a mistake but I've found that being able to usably hold it with one hand makes up for the lack of the alphabet, especially since the common math functions are there. I'm only halfway through the first book, so I'll likely add more of my impressions later; since it's been established that HP listens to this group, babbling about the beast here seems worthwhile. As yet, I have to agree with most of the good things that have been posted about the 48, but I'd like to point out some subtle details that peave me: 1) A mole is not a unit of mass (unless you multiply it by some molecular weight, in which case it isn't a mole anymore) and should not be under the mass submenu of the units catalog. 2) Throughout the chapter on unit management in the manual, temperature (K) is refered to as "kelvins". This is incorrect, the proper term is, "Kelvin", singular and capitalized (named after Lord Kelvin). This small point detracts from HP's professionalism in the eyes of those in the physical sciences - or nit-pickers like me :) Well, I'll add more later. Great box, I wish they would have had some physical science types to preview it as well as the syseval junkies (meant in a kind way :-), hopefully I won't find anything truly irksome about it. Regards, Davin _______________________________________________________________________________ Leave nothing to | Davin Yap, Mechanical Engineering, U of Toronto the imagination of |davin@me.utoronto.ca davin@me.utoronto.bitnet those without.| ...{pyramid,uunet}!utai!utme!davin --
madler@tybalt.caltech.edu (Mark Adler) (03/21/90)
They know that moles aren't a mass unit---it gives inconsistent units of you try to do such a conversion. There are many units that don't match the heading, but are related. Like Hz under time, ga (acceleration of gravity) under speed, and there are a whole mishmosh of units under light, radiation, and viscosity. Mark Adler madler@hamlet.caltech.edu
billw@hpcvra.CV.HP.COM (William C Wickes) (03/22/90)
(1) Certainly a mole is not a unit of mass. But that doesn't mean we can't include it in the MASS menu--it doesn't quite rate a menu of its own. There are several other unit menus in which all entries do not have the same dimensionality. (2) From "The International System of Units" (National Bureau of Standards, 1981): "The unit of thermodynamic temperature is the 'kelvin'." It is not capitalized, and is pluralized when appropriate. Analogous to "newton," which was named after Newton. Old usage was "degrees Kelvin." There are many nits to pick, but this isn't one of them.