enduring market for high end calculators-

[db (martinez, ca.)]

-even if it is aimed straight at the classroom, even though it does look a bit goofy, and in spite of it's second rate logic/entry system.

New Casio

[Don Shepherd]

Yeah, I've had one of those for about a month now, evaluating it as a teacher (one of the few benefits of being a teacher and a calculator nut). I have to return it next week, and I don't think I'll buy one now. It's essentially like the Casio 9860gii I think it is, except this one has a great color screen and the ability to create functions from points you identify on pictures of objects.

I don't think the Prizm will replace the TI-84's and NSpires that most high schools use now. But I have to admit, that screen is easy on the eyes!

I wouldn't be surprized if the next update to the TI NSpire includes a color screen like this one.

[Martin Pinckney]

This calculator was covered in a lengthy thread a few months ago - started by Tim Wessman, of all people - but due to either this site's antiquated search engine, or my own density, I can't find it.

[Don Shepherd]

Here 'tis.

And here is Namir's thread.

Edited: 7 Jan 2011, 4:36 p.m. after one or more responses were posted

[Namir]

I also started another thread to give my initial impression of the calculator.

[db (martinez, ca.)]

Sorry for rehashing the already-hashed. I saw this in an overview of the consumer electronics show in Las Vegas and didn't realize that it was not a N E W model.

[Don Shepherd]

Well, it is pretty new. When Casio announced it they said it would be available in January, but they apparently beat that estimate by a month or so. If HP would use this display for a new scientific grapher, that would be of GREAT interest to this group, I'm sure.

[Walter B]

Quote:

---

If HP would use this display for a new scientific grapher, that would be of GREAT interest to this group, I'm sure.

---

Well, depends IMHO. Personally, I won't show up in any meeting with such an oversized calc - and in my office I have a laptop at hand.

Ceterum censeo: HP, launch a 43S (with a reasonable LCD as discussed here ad nauseam)

HTH, Walter

[designnut]

I would like you to comment on whether this type of calculator is just for 'prestige' only. I cannot program in RPL, there is a very steep learning curve. I have seen occasions where calculators are carried for prestige only and not used beyond simple calculations. Comment please. Sam

[Walter B]

Sam,

such a graphic calculator may be most useful at university, if you study engineering, physics, chemistry or mathematics. Perhaps, if you're very well trained on it, you may continue benefitting from it working in R&D. That's it IMHO. I cannot tell if such a graphic calc is really necessary at any of these locations, however, personally I doubt it. A reliable, compact, rugged pocket calc did and does the job in my studies and professional life - programmability is nice to have now for some repeated calculations, but I did use this feature a lot more some 30 years ago (though far inferior than the applications other forumers create here).

My personal 20m€ only, FWIW

Walter

Edited: 9 Jan 2011, 1:19 p.m.

[Eric Smith]

A very steep learning curve is a good thing! If the curve was shallow, it would take a very long time to learn to use it!

[designnut]

O.K., truth time, how many can really program their RPL calculators. It starts with introducing a lot of new jargon and there is an immense amount to commit to memory. I give up. sam

[Karl Schneider]

Quote:

---

O.K., truth time, how many can really program their RPL calculators. It starts with introducing a lot of new jargon and there is an immense amount to commit to memory.

---

Indeed, the real problem with RPL programming is the height of the required learning curve, not its slope, which depends upon the time taken for learning.

Speaking of which, a steep learning curve achieved without excessive effort is desirable, while a steep required learning curve can be daunting.

Here's my 'great' accomplishment in RPL programming, which worked on my first effort:

"<< IF A B < THEN A 360 + 'A' STO END >>"  

-- Karl

[robert rozee]

... one reason why there is a lot to be said for 'that' language - BASIC (please excuse the profanity). through school i used extensively a sharp pc-1211 basic pocket computer, while at university switched back to a more humble casio fx-82 style calculator.

rob :-)

[Palmer O. Hanson, Jr.]

Quote:

---

O.K., truth time, how many can really program their RPL calculators. It starts with introducing a lot of new jargon and there is an immense amount to commit to memory. I give up. sam

---

I have an 28S and a 48S. I have made several attempts to do something original in RPL but have always given up in frustration. I have successfully modified two RPL programs written by others.

My first modification was to the iterative refinement program on page 69 of the HP-28S Reference Manual to provide two iteratioins rather than one. Not exactly a big whoop for that!

My second modification was to an analysis program by Rodger Rosenbaum to strip out a quadratic solver as a stand alone program. Has anyone heard from Rodger lately?

[Martin Pinckney]

For once, I agree with you, Sam. I have not even attempted RPL. For me, learning the built-in (already programmed, if you will) functionality of the 48 series is daunting enough.

[David Hayden]

I agree that programming in RPL is very difficult. RPN and post-fix operations (e.g. 1 'X' STO instead of 1 STO 'X') are great when evaluating expressions on the keyboard, but they are not easy to *read* in a program. We grow up reading in-fix operations so the switch is very hard.

Note that I'm talking about the usability and learning curve of RPL, not the functionality. RPL is extremely flexible and compact. That's great for programming gurus who are writing applications, but for the average user, a simple-to-understand, simple-to-read language would be better.

BTW, this is one reason why I often recommend the 48gii. For most people who need a high-end calculator, this will do the trick and it's much cheaper than the 50g.

Dave

[Martin Pinckney]

Quote:

---

RPN and post-fix operations (e.g. 1 'X' STO instead of 1 STO 'X') are great when evaluating expressions on the keyboard...

---

I suppose it is what one is used to? Somehow the mixed infix/postfix of both traditional RPN and traditional ALG machines just seems more natural.

For example, RPN machines usually had infix STO and RCL, as you point out. Similarly, ALG machines used to have postfix unary operations, such as 30 SIN and 40 1/X. This all flows naturally for me.

But the "pure" postfix or infix of the newer machines I don't like so much. 1 'X' STO and INV(40) just seem awkward. Really awkward are infix conversions like MILE(45).

[Walter B]

IMHO it depends on what you are acustomed to. While most people are taught parameters following function names like in f(x) or f(x,y,...), far less think reverse and even less write reverse. So SDEV(x,y,z,...) looks natural, while anything like x,y,z ... SDEV looks awkward to the vast majority.

RPN requires us handling only one parameter per step the reverse way, e.g. 3 ENTER 17 / or 123 STO 7, which seems being achievable at least for the many enthusiastic users of this logic - and even becoming natural after some training (else we won't find as many missionaries of RPN).

RPL further proceeds in this "awkward" direction, and apparently goes beyond what most people are willing to accept.

These are no statements about the qualities of the methods mentioned, only observations.

Edited: 10 Jan 2011, 4:50 p.m.

[Daniel Oliva]

I can program in RPL (in a basic/intermediate level) and do not understand RPN programming as in classic HP calculators (I'm not saying it's hard, I never tried to learn).
But I admire people solving complicated problems in the old classics, it shows the real power of these machines. Many people (including myself) couldn't solve those problems even with the most modern computers available.

[Martin Pinckney]

Quote:

---

I ... do not understand RPN programming as in classic HP calculators (I'm not saying it's hard, I never tried to learn).

---

Well, at it's most fundamental level, RPN programming is nothing more than just recording the keystrokes you would use while solving the problem from the keyboard. Not much to learn there. Of course it can get more complicated, with conditional branching and indirect addressing, etc. When you get to the 41 series, there's much more to learn.

Edited: 10 Jan 2011, 4:14 p.m.