lol not impressing...
TI is still the best :D
(first post, I think)

I agree.

I don't. HP and TI calcs both have something over the other. Though TI has something HP doesn't - a big chunk of the high school market.

HP seems to focus more on college students and professionals, while TI goes for the younger ones. Except if someone gets a calc while they're younger, in junior high/high school, they won't need one in college because they already have one.

It has a funky look, by the way.

Why do small screens and wacky Polish-ness make HPs more "professional?"

I don't know why this is news... ticalc is just copying slashdot.

anyway, the 33s is a low end calculator. It is only relevent because th engineering exam board won't let you take any graphing calculators into the exam. The 33s is the most powerful you are allowed.

And before calling RPN 'wacky Polish-ness', at least have a quick look at it so you can understand it. Personally I think 'numeric' RPN is dificult because you can only see numbers. It is a different story on other calcs like the Hp49G+ though. There you can see all your working clearly.

With RPN you can do stuff 'step-by-step' rather in in one large chunk like algebraic (or resort to hacks like ANS(1) etc). A simple example is finding the derivitive of sin(x)+x all over the square root of x.

with an algebraic calculator, you'd type

DER ((sin(x)+x)/sqrt(x))

in one hit. Its possible to make a mistake with the brackets if you are not careful - and here the brackets are only a few levels deep! Think about a more complex problem.

With RPN, you'd type

X SIN --> SIN(X) is shown on the display
X + --> SIN(X)+X is shown
X SQRT --> SIN(X) + X is on level 2, sqrt(x) on level 1
/ --> (SIN(x)+x)/sqrt(x) is shown
DER--> The answer is shown

Of course, all these steps are shown in 'pretty-print' all along the way. You can ensure that you havn't made an entry mistake. Belive it or not, but I find the RPN much easier to think about because I can see what I type as I type it, if that makes any sense.

Basically, with RPN, if you press an operator (like add, subtract, integrate, etc) it gets preformed when you press it. Thats why you have to go 2 enter 2 +, not 2 + 2. Once you get your head around that its much easier.

Just because something was posted on slashdot doesnt make it irrelevant everywhere else. The launch of a new HP calculator simultaneous with the 84+ seems relevant to ticalc.org, though they arent in the same article.

Ugh, I certainly do not like RPN mode, but apparently, pretty much everybody else here does.
I don't see what's so hard about typing d((sin(x)+x)/sqrt(x),x). :)

I'm not a big fan of scienfitic calculators. I'm much more comfortable using TI graphing calculators.

And not everybody here reads slashdot (surprinsgly), so I think it's a good thing that ticalc also posts this stuff.

>I don't see what's so hard about typing d((sin(x)+x)/sqrt(x),x)

Especially with AutoClBr.

its not difficult, it's just easier in RPN - you don't have to think at all (to me anyway).

RPN has its advantages, but I find that it's extremely hard to input with just numbers...I have to remind myself to do "3, 5+" instead of "3+5". Visual RPN like on HP's graphing calcs (I don't own one, but I've used one before) are much easier. But I still prefer inputting my equations in via algebraic method. I guess I'm just used to it :P

3+5= or 3 ENTER 5 +. Simple enough, can't make mistakes, you're right.

(3+5)*(6+8), now. That's a different story. That's TWELVE keys (if there are no shifts, and I don't suppose there are. Let's see the RPN version.
3 ENTER 5 + 6 ENTER 8 + *. That's NINE keys (no shifts there either!) and you see intermediate results (I mean, if before entering the 6 you see 312.45, you may figure out that you pressed the wrong key).

Those are the advantages I find in RPN: no parentheses, and intermediate results all the way. I like RPN. But I must say that algebraic notation is easier when writing a complex equation in a program, so I like both, to each its own purpose.

Because that is what "professionals" use. And the 49g+ isn't exactly what you'd call a four-func calculator.

I use the word "professional" loosely, of course.

Wow, thats horrible, 31k of memory?!

Are we talking 31k of "RAM"? (I'm assuming its not flash) Becaise 31k > 24k that the TI 83(+) line has.

You're right...that is more than the horribly small amount of RAM which an 83+ has...although I'm guessing that you can't use the RAM to store files, etc., as you can with a graphing calc.

Yeah, the 83+ has a miniscule amount of RAM...but other models have more...89 has 188k...yay

It's not a graphing calc, no flash.

Think about the price of it, though. It's programmable, and it's a scientific calculator. What I want to see is the screen to see if it's worth programming... The cost ought to be fairly low during back-to-school sales...

Nothing beats TI! Besides until something better comes out, I will always like the graphing calculator more than a scientific.

Yeah, I agree with you on that... Scientific calculators have their puropses, but this calculator seems a little too expensive... And a little pointless.

I like the big screen; it's soooooooo much easier than typing in an equation without being able to proofread it. And besides, programming=fun. :^)

I bet a computer would...

I had a scientific calculator, once upon a time. A TI-30x IIs I think it was. Wonder where it got to...

I had one of those back in the day, used to play "games" on the amazing 2-line display. That was when I started stealing 83s from school.

No, but seriously, who are they marketing to? That's a real question, by the way. I don't know enough about it, even from the HP site.

It's for those engineers...because their tests forbid graphing calculators, and the 33 is the most powerful calculator allowed on the test (I think). But I wouldnt know; I go to TI for my graphing calculators and Casio for my scientific (a long time ago).

Scientific calculators like the TI30 and TI36 still have purpose, at least if you participate in Texas U.I.L. academic events. They don't allow programmable calcs, so this new hp calc wouldn't be allowed. It doesn't matter much though, U.I.L. is so screwed up, they don't even allow even 4-function calcs on the computer science test. I think the people who write the rules have yet to get out of the stone age.

Hmmm...sliderule..mechanical adding devices...calculator...scientific calculator...graphing calculator...i wonder what the next great step in the world of calculator technology will be? Well, besides ZShell...

... a fully functional graphing calculator that fits on your hand like a wristwatch - they have the 4-function calculator wristwatches, but what they need to do is make graphing calculators be small enough to be on a wristwatch (maybe use a magnifying glass to see the display, or project it on a desk...). That is the next giant leap for us-kind.

the next step up would be those handheld PCs with added graphing calculator software

Lol! That is horrible!

horrible?....
i can't imagine using that amount of memory without some sort of real aplication. Scientific calc are too simple to need so much memory (IMHO)