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
>
>
>