Re: LaPlace Transforms in TI89 and HP48 compared by Perez-Franco
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: LaPlace Transforms in TI89 and HP48 compared by Perez-Franco
In article <CALC-TI%1999012014360331@peach.ease.lsoft.com>,
Ray Kremer <raykremer@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>I agree, to a point. It is nice to know about the HP48 so that when first
>time calculator buyers want to know which one to buy we can tell them. Also,
>when the HP people say it's better than the TI, they seem to half a valid
>point about half of the time.
Actually, I feel that you have your statistics inverted.
About %25 of the time, the TI's are the better machine.
(Yes, I own both).
> I don't doubt that there are some very specific
>things the HP48 does better than the TI-89.
There are; just as there functions for which the TI-89 shines.
> (Though this doesn't stop the
>89 from being easier for students to use.)
<Strongly stated negative comments deleted.>
The TI-89 is a nightmare to use effectively. If it were not for
the previously mentioned functions for which the TI-89 shines,
I would have destroyed and thrown away the TI-89 I own.
A major of the TI-89's problems are the fault of its manual.
The manual is poorly indexed. Significant operational data
is in the margin notes. The manual is not a reference manual;
such a complex calculator _requires_ a good, well-indexed
reference manual.
The calculator fights the user whom wants to use the result stack
as a result stack or wants to redo the last computation with
minor changes. I have learned ``how to break its fingers'' with
respect to this design flaw.
The calculator converts arithmetic problems done in decimal
arithmetic to fractions when the results easily could have
been presented in decimal form. This can be very surprising.
It took a two hour reading session with the manual to discover
both the reason for the behavior and how to recover the expected
form of the answer.
The calculator has a heavy business school as against engineering
orientation. It strongly supports spreadsheets and certain
types of statistics e.g. curve fitting to a logistics equation)
much beloved by the business school courses. It does not have
determine best fit to all types of curves known to the machine
function. My needs are for an engineering class of machine.
The machine needs a much stronger and more reasonable programming
language than BASIC. The BASIC family of languages was designed
to be a first computer language for people whom do not know how
to program. It since has been determined that that is a very
poor idea because of the ``if one has a hammer, then everything
looks like a nail'' problem of teaching people to use other
computer languages which are designed for proper programming.
(That is not just my opinion. N. Wirth, the designer of Pascal,
which has a similar purpose, stated that about Pascal.) It
does not have to be RPN nor C/C++ like; but the goto construct
needs to be dropped from whatever language is used (it leads
to very poor programming practices). Something like awk
might be appropriate.
The machines needs to improve its notation. As an example,
the arctangent function is much less ambigious as atan than
as tan^-1. Yes, I know that that notation is much beloved
by lower level teachers (partially because it creates such
grand confusions on tests---did the teacher mean arctangent
or cotangent by tan^-1 (it could mean either!))?
The machine should have been designed for teaching students well;
not for easy learning to use by teachers.
>However, this is a TI list, and it is bothersome when we spend so much time
>dwelling on the HP48.
Then, stop the cross-postings in the HP news groups in the
same manner as you are unhappy about in the TI news groups.
(Yes, I read both.)
> Especially when someone asks "How do I do x on my TI?"
>and some smart-ass replies "Buy an HP48." That's no help, the asker already
>has the TI. Intelligent commentary on the differences between the two I can
>stand, but some of the HP people have some kind of holy war against TI, and
>that is very annoying (they also doth protest too much, as if they really
>were jealous of something).
Hmmm, to me, it seems that the shoe is on the other foot.
>>I thought that the whole idea of this list was about TI's, not HPs. As I
>>recall, i think that there was no mention of HPs at all in this list.
>>Frankly, (and i speak for probably more than myself), who gives a rat's ass
>>about HP and whether it is better or not. If I wanted an HP, I would have
>>bought one. Lets talk about the TI's.
Here, I am in agreement. But, I would permit questions of
the form: ``I can do .... easily on the HP48. How can I
do that on the TI-89?'' Then, maybe, the problems with the
Ti-89 manual might be addressed.
>>We signed up for intelligent commentary on the TI product line, not HP. So
>>if you "HP is way better blah blah" guys are jealous, you can probably start
>>your own list at listbot.com or something.
The HP48 comments are not ``blah, blah.''
I have yet to see an HP48 related comment that was
technically incorrect in this group. However, I have
seen postings here that ought to have been only in the
HP48 news group
I do feel that the recent postings comparing the performance
of the two machines, both wich problems they could solve on
what basis and the time needed to solve those problems are
appropriate in _both_ news groups.
In this news group, if the HP consistently out performed the
TI, then that would be good reason to pressure TI to upgrade
the TI family of machines. Just as some of the areas in which
the TI shines is being used to apply some pressure on HP.
Randolph J. Herber, herber@dcdrjh.fnal.gov, +1 630 840 2966, CD/CDFTF PK-149F,
Mail Stop 318, Fermilab, Kirk & Pine Rds., PO Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510-0500,
USA. (Speaking for myself and not for US, US DOE, FNAL nor URA.) (Product,
trade, or service marks herein belong to their respective owners.)
References: