Survey posted 2003-04-05 01:22 by Henrik.

Contribute ideas to surveys by sending a mail to survey@ticalc.org.

Hm... I wonder?

So who else owns a 49g?

I do. On one hand it has a lot of nice features and on the other hand it has a highly inconsistent behaviour.

Example: the 49g can handle symbolic expressions when doing cross products. Very good. But the command that will take the first 3 elements on the stack and condense them into a 3 element vector fails if any of them is symbolic.

Also hp braged that the 49g has twice the ram as the ti89. That is a close to being a lie lie. On the 49g ram is broken into two 256k banks. They are called port 0 and port 1.

Port 0 is for the user to store stuff and for the CAS to do it's work. Port 1 is just for user storage, like the flash ram. But the adds made it sound like the entire 512k was free for the CAS and programs to use.

Also the 49g has more bugs in it.

The documentation of the 49g is very poor.

The hp CAS is noticeably slower than the 89s for most stuff. It can occasionally do some stuff faster. The hp solve command is much less powerful.

But I only paid $100 for it. (After rebate) At $100 it is well worth it.

I've got a 49g. If you want a great comparison of the 49 and the 89, go to:

http://www.technoplaza.net /calculators/index.cgi? p=49vs89 (no spaces)

(click link)
Anyways, I agree with what you said about the 49 though...it IS a bit difficult to use, and the catalog takes FOREVER to open compared to the 89, too...

Oh cool, thanks :)

It needs to be updated... the clock (89) and the catalog (89) have been added/updated. It seems to me (after reading the site's information) that they're both good calculators, but the TI-89 is more widely-known, and there's more programs for it. Most of the advantages from either of the two could be added with a program. (Conic equations -> Y=, for example)

casio suck they are hard to use and i still a list of input and output commands to do programming with i just want to do basic proramming and i can't even do that:(
they really if you buy prepared to get screwed because they really suck

this site is for Ti calcs if i and/ or you don't ti calcs wouldn't/shouldn't be here!!!!

duh, TIcalc.org, why the hell would you have bought a TI calc if you thought it was inferior, and especially why would you go to a site texas instruments calculator oriented, unless you got it as a gift or your school required a certain calc down to the point of not letting you use anything else.

The only HP calc that even close to compares to TI calcs is the HP-49G to the TI-89, but the 89 still far outranks it, a better GUI, faster, more stable, processor, larger amount of memory (~800K really comes in handy), better AMS. The one advantage the HP has (that I can see) is better and faster 3D graphing; so I guess if you were a nuclear engineer that required greater speed and accuracy for 3D graphing, the HP ould be the way to go :)

Why would a nuclear engineer need 3D graphing?

To graph a 3D equation, duh! lol

LOL!!!!! (Those are factorials)

Since we haven't covered 3d graphing in school yet, I just do it for fun. :)

AMS...Anti Missile System?

Advance Mathematics {Software | System}

Advanced Mathematics {Software | System}

(forgot the d first time...)

I thought the HP-49G had 1.5MB of memory

That would be cool but.....no. It has 512k memory with this messed up thingy preventing use of all of it.

Maybe I misread something, oh well. Is it similar to the bug in the AMS 2.08 that prevents you from using 64K(?) of the memory?

To those of you who voted Casio:

Do you honestly LIKE them better, or were you just doing that to be annoying? Don't vote for Casio if you don't think it's the best calculator (duh).

[I want my 98-IT back]

I think TI-86 is one of the best calculators made by TI because it doesn't need any weird shell with a crappy interface to run assembly programs. I personaly find the TI-89 OS interface better than the interface that DoorsOS has.

The TI-89 doesn't need a shell to run nostub programs. I usually don't run shell-requiring programs because they were all written for AMS <2.05.