NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/sys/hp48/6584

Text File | 1992-12-31 | 3.6 KB | 75 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp48
Path: sparky!uunet!nntp.telebit.com!phr
From: [e-mail] (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: The "high price" of the HP48!
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 26 Dec 92 05:36:24 CST
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: napa
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
References: <1992Dec22.144437.11595@mixco
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 06:22:24 GMT
Lines: 58

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joel Kolstad) writes:

   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Rubin) writes:
   >    True, but you can't stop an idea whose time has come.  Before you know
   >    it, programmable calculators will be de rigueur in all curricula, ...

   >Real computers being de rigeur in all curricula, I could understand.
   >But why would, say, a literature student want an HP48?

   Paul,

       Have you ever used a HP-48?  They're far from a "gross kludge."
   Given a choice between a HP-95LX and a HP-48SX for doing math work, I would
   pick a HP-48 much of the time.  Consider that the software for the HP-48
   has been specifically designed for doing math/engineering/science work,
   whereas the program you run on your PC is running on the same machine that
   was designed to play Lemmings.  In this light, it looks more like the PCs
   are kludges...

1. Remember the original post said ALL CURRICULA.  This includes art,
music, history, literature, etc. as well as engineering.  Computers
are becoming important in all these fields--for text formatting
if nothing else--but machines like the HP-48 (and even 95LX) are
mostly useless in all nontechnical fields.  (Possible exceptions
are business, economics, etc.).

2. Yes I've used a 48 (though not much and I've never owned one).
I've owned a 35, a 25, and a 42S.  The 35 was a fantastic advance
over what it replaced---huge clunky desk calculators costing kilobucks
at one end, and slide rules at the other.  The 25 (and its forerunners
including the 65, 55, etc). were a neat idea, making programmed
calculations available to everyone at a time when computers cost
tens of K$.  I got the 42s more recently and feel it is overkill,
though I got a good deal on it, from someone here on the net.

       Of course, there are places for both in this world.  For research
   use, PCs running Mathematica are better.  For doing normal classwork (in
   class), HP-48's are better.  A HP-95 running, say, Derive fits into the
   above scheme somewhere, but I still wouldn't want to only be able to use a
   HP-95 and not a HP-48.

I've hardly ever wanted to use a calculator in class except maybe in
physics lab, which was not really "in class".  In the lab there were
instances where programmability at the level of being able to
repetitively compute a simple formula would have saved me a few
minutes over the cheap nonprogrammable Sharp calculator I used that
year, but even my long-departed HP25 would have been more than
powerful enough.  A 48 still seems to me like a solution looking
for a problem.

At home, from what I've seen of the 48, a PC running Mathematica
beats it in every way, though you do need more expensive hardware
that is less portable.  I haven't tried a 95 with Derive but would
be interested to hear how it compares to the 48.

A 48 seems like a fun toy and I'd buy one if someone offered me one
cheap enough, but I feel it is a disservice to most students to
suggest that a real computer is not a better investment.