Xref: utzoo misc.misc:9312 misc.consumers:17549 comp.misc:8328 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!shelby!portia!jln From: jln@portia.Stanford.EDU (Jared Nedzel) Newsgroups: misc.misc,misc.consumers,comp.misc Subject: Re: What's the best Calculator around? Keywords: calculator math request Message-ID: <9566@portia.Stanford.EDU> Date: 26 Feb 90 22:00:58 GMT References: <6816@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> Sender: Jared Nedzel Reply-To: jln@portia.Stanford.EDU (Jared Nedzel) Followup-To: misc.misc Distribution: na Organization: Stanford University Lines: 46 In article <6816@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> chad@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (darknight) writes: } } I am looking into buying a Hi-Tech, Super-Dooper, }Ultra-Cool-Neeto, Programmable/Graphing calculator... The three models }I'm currently looking at (in no particular order) are the Sharp EL-5200, }the Casio FX-8000G, and the Hewlett-Packard HP-28s. I want to know if }anyone has any opinions and/or recommendations for any of these. } The Hewlett-Packard (which I've seen) is the most expensive, but }it has the smallest (physically) display screen. The Sharp is the }cheapest. Another thing to consider is the basic notation of the calculator. Most calculators use an algebraic notation; that is, if you want to calculate 7 + 3, you type 7, then +, then 3, then =. Hewlett-Packard calculators use RPN (reverse polish notation), in which you type 7, enter, 3, +. The HP thus gives you a stack which you operate on. The notation is sort of a post-fix notation (i.e., the "opposite" of Lisp infix notation). A discussion of which notation is better often leads to religious wars (complete with excommunication). I'm an RPN believer, so an algebraic notation calculator quickly reduces me to a blithering idiot. Algebraic devotees often seem to find RPN incomprehensible. I suggest you make a choice and stick with it. Another important issue is the ergonomic design of the calculator. I've had three HPs: HP-65, HP-41c, HP-12c. I have found the '65 and '41 to have wonderful buttons: just the right combination of travel, click, resistance (the '12c wasn't quite as nice). You know when you've pressed a button on an HP. (I seem to recall that HP spent over $1M designing the buttons circa '78, when a million was really a million.) I'm not familiar with the other calculators in your list, but it has generally been my impression that no other company had matched HPs for feel. They also don't match HP for price :-(. But if you use your calculator a lot, it might be worth it for you. }INTERNET: chad@slugmail.ucsc.edu Chad 'The_Walrus' Netzer-}AmigaManiac++ -- Jared L. Nedzel --------------------------------------------------------------------- e-mail: nedzel@cive.stanford.edu jln@portia.stanford.edu