Re: ti-86 vs. ti-89

To: CALC-TI@LISTS.PPP.TI.COM
Subject: Re: ti-86 vs. ti-89
From: Mike Hunt <MikeHuntTROUSERS@MAILROOM.COM>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 19:16:38 GMT
Organization: Posted via RemarQ Communities, Inc.
References: <37055256.4030915@news.mindspring.com> <7eqdd9$r7d$1@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Reply-To: Mike Hunt <MikeHuntTROUSERS@MAILROOM.COM>
Xref: paladin.american.edu bit.listserv.calc-ti:28598

On Sun, 11 Apr 1999 10:57:44 -0400, "Indifference" <indif69@usa.net>
wrote:

>I know i'll get flamed for this, but I'm debating wether to upgrade my
>ti86($110) to a ti89($145) or an HP-48G($90)
>A 48G is cheaper than a ti86, it has built in symbolic derivative
>and integrals.
Both of which are a royal pain in the neck to use.

>It also has about 30KB of formulas preprogrammed in.
Most of which, you'll never use.
>Besides, the
>HP 48-G processor is faster than the 89 processor
Wrong.  The 48's are *slow*, I've never had a calc other than the 48's
that you have to wait for a menu to open.  Further the numerical
solver on the 48's is way slower too.
Overall, a TI calc is faster to use.
Spend the extra dough, and get an 89, you won't be sorry.


-----------------------------
Remove trousers to reply.
-----------------------------

******************************************************************
* To UNSUBSCRIBE, send an email TO: listserv@lists.ppp.ti.com
* with a message (not the subject) that reads SIGNOFF CALC-TI
*
* Archives at http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/calc-ti.html
******************************************************************

Follow-Ups:

Re: ti-86 vs. ti-89

From: Indifference <indif69@USA.NET>

Re: ti-86 vs. ti-89

From: Jemfinch02 <jemfinch02@AOL.COM>

References:

From:

Re: ti-86 vs. ti-89

From: Indifference <indif69@USA.NET>

Prev: Re: ti-86 vs. ti-89
Next: Re: ti-86 vs. ti-89
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread