NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/sys/hp48/6587

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-31 | 3.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!anthony
From: [e-mail] (Anthony J Stieber)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp48
Subject: Re: The "high price" of the HP48!
Date: 31 Dec 1992 09:17:13 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Rubin) writes:

>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.).

Depends on what you consider to be nontechnical.  I've found a pocket
computer very useful in psychology and anthropology.  Both of these
fields can involve a lot data collection and a lot of statistics.  I've
used a pocket computer to both collect numbers and to crunch them.
It's much easier to collect and organize data hundreds or even thousands
of data points in the field or in the lab with a computer then with paper
and pencil.

The humanities departments at UWM are the biggest users of the Convex
supercomputer.  This is in part because those departments don't own
many fast machines (mostly personal computers), however many hard
science departments (physics, chemistry, etc) use the supercomputer as
even their own unix systems aren't always fast enough.

As it happens, the calculator built in the HP-95LX is much better
suited to business calculations than scientific.  It's got most of the
capabilities of an HP-17B in it.  As a scientific calculator it's just
okay.

>powerful enough.  A 48 still seems to me like a solution looking
>for a problem.

Perhaps it isn't suited to your work style, it is well suited to the
many people who use them.

>that is less portable.  I haven't tried a 95 with Derive but would
>be interested to hear how it compares to the 48.

I've heard that in some ways it's better, in other ways it isn't.
Some people own both and say the machines complement each other.

>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.

A minimal "real computer" capable of running Mathmatica runs around
US$1000.  Mathmatica itself is US$150 for the slow student version, the
full version is several hundred dollars.  The 48 looks like a really
great buy considering it has most of the power of Mathmatica and costs
the nearly the same as or not much more than just the software.
Because of this even students who do have a computer that can run
Mathmatic might buy a 48 instead.  Plus, the 48 is a calculator that
students have to buy anyway.

Students not only may not have the money for a more expensive machine,
they may not have the space.  Typical students do not have their own
offices on campus, and they may not have any secure place to keep a
laptop.  A handheld computer can be used nearly anywhere a student can
study, kept it a pocket when not in use, and costs little to maintain.
The same can't be said for larger computers.
--
<-:(= Anthony Stieber    [e-mail]   uwm!uwmcsd4!anthony