Re: HP48 vs TI-92
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: HP48 vs TI-92
On Mon, 26 Aug 1996, Lamari, Matthew wrote:
> To put it simply, the TI-92 is a computer trying to be a calculator, and
> the HP-48G is a calculator trying to be a computer. Look at the
> processor in the HP-48. It harkens back to the days of real slow speed
> and is optimized for use with stack objects and with BCD math. It has a
> 4 bit bus and instructions for goodness sake. However, the work it's
> typically doing saves it from extreme slowness. The TI-92, however,
> with a 68000, needs not mickey mouse around with cut down interface and
> doing anything slowly.
Theyre both calculators and they're both computers. The HP48
uses more traditional computer approaches while the TI92 uses
more calculator like approaches. I'd say it's a matter of taste
which is better.
As for speed, I've seen reports both ways. It sounds like they
each do something faster than the other. I guess you pick the
one that's fastest doing the things you do most.
> I have little doubt that in general purpose processing, doing graphical
> representation of formulas etc. the TI-92 utterly whips the HP48.
Some like a graphical interface and some like postix notation
and don't care about graphics for normal calculator usage. It's
what you prefer, I guess.
> Look at the ROM, the TI-92's meg vs the HP48G's 512K. While its
> instructions may do conventional computing slowly, the HP48 can make
> very VERY good use of its space. Just look at the instructions, common
> instructions to perform mathematical tasks take only a nibble. Its
> object system makes storing functionality in SYS-RPL extremely
> efficient. The TI-92 has its nice interface and windows type feel coded
> in 68000.
Keep in mind that only 16 of the cpu instructions can be 1
nibble long. In fact, if there were 16 1 nibble instructions
there couldnt be any more instructions. I think it's only a
couple that actually are 1 nibble long.
> Yes, feel. The TI-92 has shift-select and cut and paste and
> overtype/insert like a windows text area. As asking for a result
> usually results in more computation being done to update the display
> than "do the job", responses to any instruction are instantaneous due to
> its speed in conventional processing tasks. Yet in the HP48, even with
> the delay, you can hide the screen from view and still press a few
> buttons in sequence to do what you want to do, if you have them learned
> by heart.
>
> Okay, the TI-92 is big; but having keys accessible (even nice
> redundant/repeated ones!) is pretty cool when you're stationary using
> the thing.
Accessable is different things to different people. To some it's
having it in their pocket.
> Here's my big peeve with the Ti-92, though. And I know it's advertised
> as a calculator, so my complaint is unfounded. It's just that with its
> big screen and processing power, I wish it had more RAM, and documented
> interface to running Assembly. I mean, with a bit more storage, this
> thing is an Amiga minus the sprites. I realize that most people who buy
> these don't expand them; but goodness I would love to be able to plug
> some extra Ram in. There's room in that huge case. The HP-48GX is
> expandable beyond what anyone would want to, and with a RAM expansion
> facility the TI-92 could be made to EMULATE anything you'd want to do on
> a HP48GX if nothing else.
>
Actually, if there was more ram, a 48gx emulator might be possible.
I wonder if HP or TI would be more insulted by that? :)
It would be slow, though. Remember, the 68000 has been around a
long time. No question its a lot faster than the Saturn, but it's
still a fairly slow cpu by today's standards.
If you want to pick a calculator for use simply as a calculator,
I would suggest ignoring things like cpu type and speed. They
don't tell you about it's abilities. That's partly cpu and partly
rom and who cares which is which.
I would try to decide what you want to do with it and see which one
does that better. Ideally, learn both and then decide..
Barry
References: