7 Jan
2014
7 Jan
'14
8:02 p.m.
Since you and others here are familiar with the TI-59, quick question. I
see cartridges and magnetic strips for sale here and there for the 59. I
was hoping to get some just for the interesting/historic sake but I haven't
seen it clearly stated one way or another. Do you NEED the cartridge to
use those strips or are they all independent? (Ex. the Master Library
Module 1 seems to be packaged with a dozen or so programs but then lots of
folks have one or the other/incomplete sets).
Thanks!
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Tapley, Mark <mtapley at swri.edu> wrote:
All,
I?m siding with the peacemakers - if you find you think better in
stack, use a stack-based machine like an HP. If you find you think better
in parentheses, TI/Casio is clearly the way to go. I?m truly glad both
exist.
I have a couple of observations, though.
1) TI-59 and HP-41 were both powerful enough to program to emulate the
other style. I had a relatively easy job programming my TI-59 to run RPN,
using the A..E keys for the operations; my high-school friend with the
HP-41 had a tougher time programming his machine to do parentheses, using
function keys for ( and ).
I picked the TI because at the time (~1979), it had nearly the
same performance for a considerably lower price. However I now have awful
keybounce issues on my -59 and my Dad?s HP-41CV is still going strong. My
personal preference both for ease of use and (particularly) for programming
is that the RPN machine is easier, but I do concur it takes a while more to
get used to. However the difference was less important to me than the cost
difference at the time.
2) I quibble with Tony?s recommendation to reject a machine that says
Sin(Pi) = 0. I?m pretty sure the TI says that; the quicker but essentially
equivalent test I always used to taunt my HP-41-equipped friend was
(Sqrt(2))^2. The TI said 2, the HP said 1.99999? I claim both answers are
correct. The HP is correct because the rounding error did appear, and the
calculator correctly reflected its effect in the final result. However the
TI answer is *also* correct because the TI does arithmetic to 13 digits,
and displays only the high-order 10 digits. The rounding process from the
truncated result to the displayed digits results in the 2.00.. answer which
is displayed.
I?ll freely admit that the 13-digit-calculation to
10-digit-display rounding process is concealing the truncation problem from
me, and if I don?t know to look carefully for it (which can be done, by
calculating (Sqrt(2))^2 -2, resulting in 1E-12 or so) I could be bitten
badly by it when it finally *does* accumulate up into the displayable
digits, or when I do an X=Y test that ?looks? like it should succeed, etc.
But, I claim knowing this is part of being familiar with the tools you use,
and incumbent on the user.
Different tools, different characteristics; both powerful and
effective, in my opinion.
- Mark