7 Jan
2014
7 Jan
'14
2:01 p.m.
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
7 Jan
7 Jan
3:02 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
8 Jan
8 Jan
1:32 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).
Often the strips that came with the ROM modules were not magnetic cards
atall, just labels
A program loadaed from magnetic card use the top row of keys (A-E) to
run it, and thus the magnetric card had spaces on it to write on the
describtions of each function. After running the card trhogu the reader,
you put it in a slot near the top of the machine so that the labels lined
up with the keys.
Pre-recorded cards had the labels printed on, of course.
Programs in the modules sued the top row of keys in much the smae way, so
they came with strips of labels. You didn't put those through the card
reader, of course. But after selecting a program from the module you put
the approprirate strip in the slot to label the keys.
Thus, the strips are pretty much useless without the module. It's
pssible to use the module without the physical strips if you can find out
what the keys were used for.
-tony
2:08 p.m.
hi, the strips that come with the Master Library are not magnetic strips. They are simply
plastic strips with labels to show what keystrokes do what for the particular
application.
magnetic strips can be written to/read from as needed without any sort of module.
I hope this helps
Randy Kindig
On Jan 7, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Sam O'nella wrote:
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
>
>
>
6:51 p.m.
I haven't seen or used A TI59 since the early 80's, but as far as I can remember
those were just plain labels not mag. strips.The module was inserted in a little slot on
the back of the calculator (ie. the Master library module 1) and then based on the
appropriate program that you wanted to run, you pulled out the label from the
'label' pouch, inserted it below the display and it would tell you what the
different keys on the top row did for different programs. Labels without modules are
uselss. Modules without labels can be figured out and appropriate labels made...
Interestingly enough, TI carried over this concept to the TI99/4 series of computers.
Cartridges often came with a label strip that you would place above the keyboard, and
based on the FUNC key + appropriate top row key you would get a specific function. Like
UNDO or REPEAT, or END.
Never owned a 41series. Always wanted one though. Had an HP15c and then later a 28s. Once
i went postfix, I never looked back...8-)
cheers
--
alex
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam O'nella" <barythrin at gmail.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at
classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2014 12:02:06 PM
Subject: Re: TI vs. HP
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!
7 Jan
7 Jan
3:14 p.m.
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
THe HP41 was a much mroe expandable ssytem than the TI59. Or at least,
IU've never seen an TI59 controlling a benchtop of HPIB instruments,
savign the readiungs to floppy disk or tape and then trasnmittign the
logged data over an RS232 link. I do that with my HP41 all the time.
I don;t think the TI ever had a realtime clock, did it?
And fo course the HP had an alphanumeric dispaly.
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
Actualyl, that is soemthing rather different.
If you take a decimaly approxiamtion of SCRT(2), rount it after, say, 13
digits, then square it and roudn the reult to 10 digits (or whatever),
you will get 2. But if you take any finite numbero dgiits of pi,
calculate the sin, the answer is not zeor. It's of the order of
10^-(numbero of digits). So even if you take 13 digits of pi, the SIN
should not display asn zero. I suppose you could argue that if you took
over 100 digits, the result would be zero (since a number of the order of
10^-100 will underflow to 0), but I doubt that the TI uses 100 digits
anywhere.
-tony
3854
days inactive
3855
days old
5 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
azd30＠telus.net -
barythrin＠gmail.com -
mtapley＠swri.edu -
randall.kindig＠gmail.com