Re: ti-86 vs. ti-89

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: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 05:03:12 GMT
• Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - Discussions start here!
• References: <3712f430.1167266@news.northcoast.com> <19990412003935.14221.00001799@ng143.aol.com>
• Reply-To: Mike Hunt <MikeHuntTROUSERS@MAILROOM.COM>
• Xref: paladin.american.edu bit.listserv.calc-ti:28609

On 12 Apr 1999 04:39:35 GMT, jemfinch02@aol.com (Jemfinch02) wrote:

>>>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.
>
>Perhaps to someone used to going around his elbow to get to his thumb.  I much
>prefer entering formulas into the calculator just as I would write them on
>paper (and having the option of using the backwards TI method) than being
stuck
>into one specific way of doing things.
>
>Jeremy

I'm not sure what you mean by "I much prefer entering formulas into
the calculator just as I would write them on paper" can you explain
what you mean?

-----------------------------
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
******************************************************************

• Re: ti-86 vs. ti-89
• From: Jemfinch02 <jemfinch02@AOL.COM>

• Re: ti-86 vs. ti-89
• From: Mike Hunt <MikeHuntTROUSERS@MAILROOM.COM>
• Re: ti-86 vs. ti-89
• From: Jemfinch02 <jemfinch02@AOL.COM>

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