My handheld RPN programmable calculator (made in 1985) is gradually 
coming to the end. Could you recommend a tabletop or big handheld 
calculator that would be programmable and convenient to use?

I don't need anything fancy; just a set of basic functions; so the 
interface wouldn't be overloaded with features. All I need is calculate 
numerically some expressions like as H(z) in manual or programmable 
mode, and load/store few intermediate numbers.


Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

On 7/13/2010 8:52 AM, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>
> My handheld RPN programmable calculator (made in 1985) is gradually
> coming to the end. Could you recommend a tabletop or big handheld
> calculator that would be programmable and convenient to use?
>
> I don't need anything fancy; just a set of basic functions; so the
> interface wouldn't be overloaded with features. All I need is calculate
> numerically some expressions like as H(z) in manual or programmable
> mode, and load/store few intermediate numbers.
>
>
> Vladimir Vassilevsky
> DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
> http://www.abvolt.com
>
>
>
>

If you're interested in sticking with RPN (god knows I can't work on an 
algebraic calculator anymore), check out the HP 35s.  It drives like 
you're used to it driving, and is nearly as good of a calculator as the 
ones they turned out 20 years ago.

Personally, these days I'm using an HP 10C emulator on my Blackberry, 
and an incomparably good Windows RPN calculator called Excalibur, just 
because I can't justify the desk space of a dedicated hardware 
calculator.  Plus it would make my slide rule jealous.

-- 
Rob Gaddi, Highland Technology
Email address is currently out of order

On Jul 13, 12:52=A0pm, Rob Gaddi <rga...@technologyhighland.com> wrote:
> On 7/13/2010 8:52 AM, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > My handheld RPN programmable calculator (made in 1985) is gradually
> > coming to the end. Could you recommend a tabletop or big handheld
> > calculator that would be programmable and convenient to use?
>
> > I don't need anything fancy; just a set of basic functions; so the
> > interface wouldn't be overloaded with features. All I need is calculate
> > numerically some expressions like as H(z) in manual or programmable
> > mode, and load/store few intermediate numbers.
>
> > Vladimir Vassilevsky
> > DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
> >http://www.abvolt.com
>
> If you're interested in sticking with RPN (god knows I can't work on an
> algebraic calculator anymore), check out the HP 35s. =A0It drives like
> you're used to it driving, and is nearly as good of a calculator as the
> ones they turned out 20 years ago.
>
> Personally, these days I'm using an HP 10C emulator on my Blackberry,
> and an incomparably good Windows RPN calculator called Excalibur, just
> because I can't justify the desk space of a dedicated hardware
> calculator. =A0Plus it would make my slide rule jealous.
>
> --
> Rob Gaddi, Highland Technology
> Email address is currently out of order- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Or check out ebay and buy another like you had for cheap.
Clay

On Jul 13, 9:52=A0am, Rob Gaddi <rga...@technologyhighland.com> wrote:
> On 7/13/2010 8:52 AM, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > My handheld RPN programmable calculator (made in 1985) is gradually
> > coming to the end. Could you recommend a tabletop or big handheld
> > calculator that would be programmable and convenient to use?
>
> > I don't need anything fancy; just a set of basic functions; so the
> > interface wouldn't be overloaded with features. All I need is calculate
> > numerically some expressions like as H(z) in manual or programmable
> > mode, and load/store few intermediate numbers.
>
> > Vladimir Vassilevsky
> > DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
> >http://www.abvolt.com
>
> If you're interested in sticking with RPN (god knows I can't work on an
> algebraic calculator anymore), check out the HP 35s. =A0It drives like
> you're used to it driving, and is nearly as good of a calculator as the
> ones they turned out 20 years ago.
>
> Personally, these days I'm using an HP 10C emulator on my Blackberry,
> and an incomparably good Windows RPN calculator called Excalibur, just
> because I can't justify the desk space of a dedicated hardware
> calculator. =A0Plus it would make my slide rule jealous.
>
> --
> Rob Gaddi, Highland Technology
> Email address is currently out of order

The HP 33s is a bit less expensive than the 55s and has all the RPN,
programmability, etc one would expect. I've had one for a few years
now and am quite happy with it. The silly V-shaped keypad took a bit
of getting used to, but I hardly notice it any longer. The 55s looks
nice though - very much in the old HP tradition.

Eric

On Jul 13, 11:57=A0am, Clay <c...@claysturner.com> wrote:
> On Jul 13, 12:52=A0pm, Rob Gaddi <rga...@technologyhighland.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 7/13/2010 8:52 AM, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>
> > > My handheld RPN programmable calculator (made in 1985) is gradually
> > > coming to the end. Could you recommend a tabletop or big handheld
> > > calculator that would be programmable and convenient to use?
>
> > > I don't need anything fancy; just a set of basic functions; so the
> > > interface wouldn't be overloaded with features. All I need is calcula=
te
> > > numerically some expressions like as H(z) in manual or programmable
> > > mode, and load/store few intermediate numbers.
>
> > > Vladimir Vassilevsky
> > > DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
> > >http://www.abvolt.com
>
> > If you're interested in sticking with RPN (god knows I can't work on an
> > algebraic calculator anymore), check out the HP 35s. =A0It drives like
> > you're used to it driving, and is nearly as good of a calculator as the
> > ones they turned out 20 years ago.
>
> > Personally, these days I'm using an HP 10C emulator on my Blackberry,
> > and an incomparably good Windows RPN calculator called Excalibur, just
> > because I can't justify the desk space of a dedicated hardware
> > calculator. =A0Plus it would make my slide rule jealous.
>
> > --
> > Rob Gaddi, Highland Technology
> > Email address is currently out of order- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Or check out ebay and buy another like you had for cheap.
> Clay

Heh - I did that when my old HP 32s died a few years back. The problem
is that old HPs are becoming collector's items and the prices reflect
that. I paid ~$50 for my HP 32s when it was brand new back in 1987.
When I looked for one on ebay in 2004 they were up over $250. At that
time HP wasn't making any new RPN calculators though - now that they
have a few low-end RPN calculators on the market again it appears that
the prices for some of the older ones have come down into the $50 -
$100 range.

Eric

On 7/13/2010 3:07 PM, emeb wrote:
> On Jul 13, 11:57 am, Clay<c...@claysturner.com>  wrote:
>> On Jul 13, 12:52 pm, Rob Gaddi<rga...@technologyhighland.com>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 7/13/2010 8:52 AM, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>>
>>>> My handheld RPN programmable calculator (made in 1985) is gradually
>>>> coming to the end. Could you recommend a tabletop or big handheld
>>>> calculator that would be programmable and convenient to use?
>>
>>>> I don't need anything fancy; just a set of basic functions; so the
>>>> interface wouldn't be overloaded with features. All I need is calculate
>>>> numerically some expressions like as H(z) in manual or programmable
>>>> mode, and load/store few intermediate numbers.
>>
>>>> Vladimir Vassilevsky
>>>> DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
>>>> http://www.abvolt.com
>>
>>> If you're interested in sticking with RPN (god knows I can't work on an
>>> algebraic calculator anymore), check out the HP 35s.  It drives like
>>> you're used to it driving, and is nearly as good of a calculator as the
>>> ones they turned out 20 years ago.
>>
>>> Personally, these days I'm using an HP 10C emulator on my Blackberry,
>>> and an incomparably good Windows RPN calculator called Excalibur, just
>>> because I can't justify the desk space of a dedicated hardware
>>> calculator.  Plus it would make my slide rule jealous.
>>
>>> --
>>> Rob Gaddi, Highland Technology
>>> Email address is currently out of order- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Or check out ebay and buy another like you had for cheap.
>> Clay
>
> Heh - I did that when my old HP 32s died a few years back. The problem
> is that old HPs are becoming collector's items and the prices reflect
> that. I paid ~$50 for my HP 32s when it was brand new back in 1987.
> When I looked for one on ebay in 2004 they were up over $250. At that
> time HP wasn't making any new RPN calculators though - now that they
> have a few low-end RPN calculators on the market again it appears that
> the prices for some of the older ones have come down into the $50 -
> $100 range.

http://tinyurl.com/2ckatur    http://tinyurl.com/22uu9l4

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

Clay wrote:
> On Jul 13, 12:52 pm, Rob Gaddi <rga...@technologyhighland.com> wrote:
> 
>>On 7/13/2010 8:52 AM, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:

>>>My handheld RPN programmable calculator (made in 1985) is gradually
>>>coming to the end. Could you recommend a tabletop or big handheld
>>>calculator that would be programmable and convenient to use?

>>If you're interested in sticking with RPN (god knows I can't work on an
>>algebraic calculator anymore), check out the HP 35s.  It drives like
>>you're used to it driving, and is nearly as good of a calculator as the
>>ones they turned out 20 years ago.
>>
> Or check out ebay and buy another like you had for cheap.

Oh, no, it is not about nostalgy :-) I would prefer a modern powerful 
workhorse. What would you recommend?

VLV

On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 14:48:23 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:

> Oh, no, it is not about nostalgy :-) I would prefer a modern powerful
> workhorse. What would you recommend?

Don't you find the inability to cut-and-paste a little limiting, on stand-
alone calculators?  I loved the key-pad layout and clicky buttons of my 
HP15c for years, but it's been sitting in a draw with dead batteries for 
many, many years now.  These days I almost always use the shell or awk 
for simple stuff, and Matlab when it gets more complicated (I never got 
comfortable with spreadsheets, but I know that some people use those 
instead).  Every so often I fire up Apple's Calculator.app, which is RPN 
with four TOS lines visible, and reasonably pleasant, although inability 
to cut-and-paste normally limits its usefulness.

Cheers,

-- 
Andrew

Andrew Reilly  <areilly---@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

>Don't you find the inability to cut-and-paste a little limiting, on stand-
>alone calculators?  I loved the key-pad layout and clicky buttons of my 
>HP15c for years, but it's been sitting in a draw with dead batteries for 
>many, many years now.  These days I almost always use the shell or awk 
>for simple stuff, and Matlab when it gets more complicated (I never got 
>comfortable with spreadsheets, but I know that some people use those 
>instead).  Every so often I fire up Apple's Calculator.app, which is RPN 
>with four TOS lines visible, and reasonably pleasant, although inability 
>to cut-and-paste normally limits its usefulness.

I like "dc".  Unfortunately it is missing a lot of functions
that are useful in calculators.  But it is RPN.

Matlab, not being RPN, is not as useful for columns of figures
but has all the math functions you could ever want.

My old HP-11C seems optimal.

Steve

Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
> 
> Clay wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 12:52 pm, Rob Gaddi <rga...@technologyhighland.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On 7/13/2010 8:52 AM, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
> 
> >>>My handheld RPN programmable calculator (made in 1985) is gradually
> >>>coming to the end. Could you recommend a tabletop or big handheld
> >>>calculator that would be programmable and convenient to use?
> 
> >>If you're interested in sticking with RPN (god knows I can't work on an
> >>algebraic calculator anymore), check out the HP 35s.  It drives like
> >>you're used to it driving, and is nearly as good of a calculator as the
> >>ones they turned out 20 years ago.
> >>
> > Or check out ebay and buy another like you had for cheap.
> 
> Oh, no, it is not about nostalgy :-) I would prefer a modern powerful
> workhorse. What would you recommend?
> 

I use one of three calculators daily all soft implementations.

The most common calculator I use is an excel spreadsheet page that is
almost always open somewhere on my cluttered desktop.

I have a much modified Javascript calculator program that keeps getting
whatever new features I need.

Lastly I have a very nice soft emulation of a HP15ce that was
implemented with a 180 significant digits.

http://www.precisionstrobe.com/jc/hp15ce/hp15ce.html


Regards,


Walter..
--
Walter Banks
Byte Craft Limited
http://www.bytecraft.com

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>
>
> Clay wrote:
>> On Jul 13, 12:52 pm, Rob Gaddi <rga...@technologyhighland.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/13/2010 8:52 AM, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>
>>>> My handheld RPN programmable calculator (made in 1985) is gradually
>>>> coming to the end. Could you recommend a tabletop or big handheld
>>>> calculator that would be programmable and convenient to use?
>
>>> If you're interested in sticking with RPN (god knows I can't work on an
>>> algebraic calculator anymore), check out the HP 35s. It drives like
>>> you're used to it driving, and is nearly as good of a calculator as the
>>> ones they turned out 20 years ago.
>>>
>> Or check out ebay and buy another like you had for cheap.
>
> Oh, no, it is not about nostalgy :-) I would prefer a modern powerful
> workhorse. What would you recommend?
>
> VLV
>
  Go *FORTH* YOUNG MAN
go forth

CAVEAT: I be older than suspected ;/

>
>My handheld RPN programmable calculator (made in 1985) is gradually 
>coming to the end. Could you recommend a tabletop or big handheld 
>calculator that would be programmable and convenient to use?
>
>I don't need anything fancy; just a set of basic functions; so the 
>interface wouldn't be overloaded with features. All I need is calculate 
>numerically some expressions like as H(z) in manual or programmable 
>mode, and load/store few intermediate numbers.
>
>
>Vladimir Vassilevsky
>DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
>http://www.abvolt.com
>
>
>
>
>

If you're hooked on RPN (like me), the HP 50g is a great calculator. The
buttons aren't as nice as the HP 48, but it's so much faster, has a larger
visual stack, and can do much more (which you may or may not want).

Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:
 
> My handheld RPN programmable calculator (made in 1985) is gradually 
> coming to the end. Could you recommend a tabletop or big handheld 
> calculator that would be programmable and convenient to use?

Find one on eBay like the one you have, but not so used.
Some are pretty fairly priced, others are amazingly expensive.

Otherwise, the TI calculators are now pretty popular, easy to
find and use, though not RPN.  You might look at the TI-92.

-- glen

"glen herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message 
news:i1u3v7$3do$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> My handheld RPN programmable calculator (made in 1985) is gradually
>> coming to the end. Could you recommend a tabletop or big handheld
>> calculator that would be programmable and convenient to use?
>
> Find one on eBay like the one you have, but not so used.
> Some are pretty fairly priced, others are amazingly expensive.
>
> Otherwise, the TI calculators are now pretty popular, easy to
> find and use, though not RPN.  You might look at the TI-92.
>
> -- glen

I have a TI-92.  It has a very nice symbolic math facility.  Unfortunately, 
it tends to eat batteries.

   Best wishes,
    --Phil Martel 

I'm looking for about the same thing as Vladimir, except algebraic instead of
RPN.  (No smart remarks about being postfix-phobic -- at one point in my career
I made my living as a Forth programmer.  So I've tried it both ways and I like
infix better.)  I'd like a few memories, at least several steps of keystroke
programmability, decimal/hexadecimal/binary conversions, and the PI, EE, sqrt,
and x� functions to be single keystrokes.  I don't care about solvers, graphing,
or statistical functions.

The closest I've ever come to this was the TI-60.  Nothing like it any more.

Suggestions?

Thanks,
Greg

On 7/18/2010 4:03 PM, Greg Berchin wrote:
> I'm looking for about the same thing as Vladimir, except algebraic instead of
> RPN.  (No smart remarks about being postfix-phobic -- at one point in my career
> I made my living as a Forth programmer.  So I've tried it both ways and I like
> infix better.)  I'd like a few memories, at least several steps of keystroke
> programmability, decimal/hexadecimal/binary conversions, and the PI, EE, sqrt,
> and x� functions to be single keystrokes.  I don't care about solvers, graphing,
> or statistical functions.
>
> The closest I've ever come to this was the TI-60.  Nothing like it any more.
>
> Suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
> Greg

I do not get it.  Why would any one these days even think of buying a 
calculator?

Buy a small laptop/netbook, install a CAS program on it. There are free 
CAS programs, and also free Matlab like program (octave etc...) if you 
need that.

Cost will end up about the same, may be little more, but you'l get so 
much more. Bigger screen, bigger keyboard, a real computer,  etc..

Many students at the class I go to now bring their small laptops to 
exams instead of calculators. I brought my laptop to the exam also (did 
not help me much, exam was too hard ;)

But really, calculators are pointless these days. At home, the pc is 
right there in front of me, with Mathematica 7, Maple 14, and Matlab 
2010a all all running now. Why do I need a calculator any more?

Even if you have an iphone or something like that, there are now 
calculator apps for a one dollar?  Isn't Wolfram alpha avaliable on the 
iphone as an app for a dollar or so? Droid-x have calculator apps as well.

I bought a new TI-89 Titanium 2 months ago for $156, used it for 1 hr, 
back to the box, never used it again, it is collecting dust.

--Nasser

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:32:37 -0700, "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> wrote:

>I do not get it.  Why would any one these days even think of buying a 
>calculator?

Because some of us like them.

>Buy a small laptop/netbook, install a CAS program on it. There are free 
>CAS programs, and also free Matlab like program (octave etc...) if you 
>need that.

I have a netbook.  I still want a calculator.  Think about that.

>But really, calculators are pointless these days. At home, the pc is 
>right there in front of me, with Mathematica 7, Maple 14, and Matlab 
>2010a all all running now. Why do I need a calculator any more?

Maybe you don't.  Maybe I do.  I'm not judging you.  Why are you judging me?

Greg

"Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> wrote in message 
news:i202um$3ck$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> Why would any one these days even think of buying a calculator?
>
> Buy a small laptop/netbook, install a CAS program on it. There are free 
> CAS programs, and also free Matlab like program (octave etc...) if you 
> need that.
>
> Cost will end up about the same, may be little more, but you'l get so much 
> more. Bigger screen, bigger keyboard, a real computer,  etc..

> But really, calculators are pointless these days. At home, the pc is right 
> there in front of me, with Mathematica 7, Maple 14, and Matlab 2010a all 
> all running now. Why do I need a calculator any more?

I'm reading this at my desk, with two 24" monitors, a fast computer,
the same versions of Mathamatica and Matlab that you have, and
my HP 32S II on the desk in front of me.

Why? I don't really know. For some calcualtions it just feels right.

Pete 

On 7/18/2010 5:03 PM, Greg Berchin wrote:

>
> Maybe you don't.  Maybe I do.  I'm not judging you.  Why are you judging me?

I am not judging you. Where did you get that from?

I was just giving a general opinion on the need of calculators in 
general these days with so many cheap computers around.

Do whatever you like, it is a free world (I hope) that we live in .

--Nasser

Pete Fraser <pfraser@covad.net> wrote:

>"Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> wrote in message 

>> But really, calculators are pointless these days. At home, the pc is right 
>> there in front of me, with Mathematica 7, Maple 14, and Matlab 2010a all 
>> all running now. Why do I need a calculator any more?

>I'm reading this at my desk, with two 24" monitors, a fast computer,
>the same versions of Mathamatica and Matlab that you have, and
>my HP 32S II on the desk in front of me.
>
>Why? I don't really know. For some calcualtions it just feels right.

I like to pull out my HP 11-C for certain categories
of calculations.  I think the brain works in an associative
fashion and functions better when it sees the context it expects
for a given task.  Just as I am accustomed to typing a Unix
command into a shell, or a phone number on a phone keypad,
I am accustomed to using the HP calculator.  This is not to
say I couldn't re-condition myself, but it's nice to have a
few important tasks that don't work by keyboard/mouse entry.
I think it ultimately helps me to focus a little better so
there's very little reason to change it.

Steve

Phil Martel <pomartel@comcast.net> wrote:
(snip, I wrote)
>> You might look at the TI-92.
 
> I have a TI-92.  It has a very nice symbolic math facility.  
> Unfortunately, it tends to eat batteries.

I haven't replaced the batteries in mine since the first ones
I put in, but I haven't used it all that much.  Like most, some
current is used to keep the CMOS RAM even when it is off, but 
not much.   Also, the 92 uses AA, instead of AAA for many
other TI models.

The 92 is a little less popular on the used market, as it isn't
allowed for the SAT or ACT.   I also like the symbolic math, 
a little more than the HP-28S, mostly because of the improvements
over the years.

-- glen

On 7/18/2010 9:06 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
> Pete Fraser<pfraser@covad.net>  wrote:
>
>> "Nasser M. Abbasi"<nma@12000.org>  wrote in message
>
>>> But really, calculators are pointless these days. At home, the pc is right
>>> there in front of me, with Mathematica 7, Maple 14, and Matlab 2010a all
>>> all running now. Why do I need a calculator any more?
>
>> I'm reading this at my desk, with two 24" monitors, a fast computer,
>> the same versions of Mathamatica and Matlab that you have, and
>> my HP 32S II on the desk in front of me.
>>
>> Why? I don't really know. For some calcualtions it just feels right.
>
> I like to pull out my HP 11-C for certain categories
> of calculations.  I think the brain works in an associative
> fashion and functions better when it sees the context it expects
> for a given task.  Just as I am accustomed to typing a Unix
> command into a shell, or a phone number on a phone keypad,
> I am accustomed to using the HP calculator.  This is not to
> say I couldn't re-condition myself, but it's nice to have a
> few important tasks that don't work by keyboard/mouse entry.
> I think it ultimately helps me to focus a little better so
> there's very little reason to change it.

I have a fancier one, but the HP-11 suits me just fine. I like the way 
it programs -- keystroke macros for the most part -- and it fits a shirt 
pocket. Right now, it's on my dresser. The 10" slide rule is in front of me.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 19:03:38 -0400, Greg Berchin
<gberchin@comicast.net.invalid> wrote:

>I'm looking for about the same thing as Vladimir, except algebraic instead of
>RPN.  (No smart remarks about being postfix-phobic -- at one point in my career
>I made my living as a Forth programmer.  So I've tried it both ways and I like
>infix better.)  I'd like a few memories, at least several steps of keystroke
>programmability, decimal/hexadecimal/binary conversions, and the PI, EE, sqrt,
>and x� functions to be single keystrokes.  I don't care about solvers, graphing,
>or statistical functions.
>
>The closest I've ever come to this was the TI-60.  Nothing like it any more.
>
>Suggestions?

I like the inexpensive Sharps, e.g., EL-W535 and similar. Does all that
I need to bang out a few numbers. Not programmable but nowadays anything
that's more than a few clicks gets moved to a "real" programming
environment.

While you're in "search mode" and if you do need hex/oct/dec/bin
conversions, be wary of many of the Casio calculators that do a "mode
switch" to get to base-n. The mode switch resets the working register,
so explicit store-recall steps may be needed to convert the results of a
calculation. PITA sometimes.

-- 
Rich Webb     Norfolk, VA

On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 08:29:00 -0400, Rich Webb <bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten>
wrote:

>I like the inexpensive Sharps, e.g., EL-W535 and similar. Does all that
>I need to bang out a few numbers. Not programmable but nowadays anything
>that's more than a few clicks gets moved to a "real" programming
>environment.

Thanks.  I'll take a look at them.

>While you're in "search mode" and if you do need hex/oct/dec/bin
>conversions, be wary of many of the Casio calculators that do a "mode
>switch" to get to base-n. The mode switch resets the working register,
>so explicit store-recall steps may be needed to convert the results of a
>calculation. PITA sometimes.

I know what you mean.  For example, I bought an HP9g, thinking that it would do
everything that I need.  But even simple operations are so non-intuitive and
keystroke-intensive that I have to pull out the manual every time I try to use
it.  Add to that a non-standard keypad layout (I keep hitting "+" when I intend
to hit "="), and it didn't take long before it was gathering dust in the corner.

Greg

On 7/18/2010 7:05 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> Phil Martel<pomartel@comcast.net>  wrote:
> (snip, I wrote)
>>> You might look at the TI-92.
>
>> I have a TI-92.  It has a very nice symbolic math facility.
>> Unfortunately, it tends to eat batteries.
>
> I haven't replaced the batteries in mine since the first ones
> I put in, but I haven't used it all that much.  Like most, some
> current is used to keep the CMOS RAM even when it is off, but
> not much.   Also, the 92 uses AA, instead of AAA for many
> other TI models.
>
> The 92 is a little less popular on the used market, as it isn't
> allowed for the SAT or ACT.   I also like the symbolic math,
> a little more than the HP-28S, mostly because of the improvements
> over the years.
>
> -- glen

A well timed discussion for today's XKCD.  http://xkcd.com/768/

-- 
Rob Gaddi, Highland Technology
Email address is currently out of order

On Jul 13, 8:52=A0am, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> My handheld RPN programmable calculator (made in 1985) is gradually
> coming to the end. Could you recommend a tabletop or big handheld
> calculator that would be programmable and convenient to use?
>
> I don't need anything fancy; just a set of basic functions; so the
> interface wouldn't be overloaded with features. All I need is calculate
> numerically some expressions like as H(z) in manual or programmable
> mode, and load/store few intermediate numbers.
>
> Vladimir Vassilevsky
> DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultanthttp://www.abvolt.com

One of the reasons I got into developing PalmOS and now iPhone
apps was so that I could create my own calculators, and stick just
the buttons I wanted, where I wanted them, the size I wanted them.

On an iPad the buttons are so huge that I can hit them even with
my glasses off.

Or I can be lazy and have a choice of a bunch of other developer's
RPN calculators, graphical viewers, equation solvers, etc.

Plus, when not calculating, the devices make nice pocketable DSP
platforms which I can carry around (I field test some of my audio
algorithms in random piano and music stores when out and about.)

Haven't picked up any of my 4 HP calculators in years (batteries
are probably shot, for that matter.)

IMHO. YMMV.
--
rhn A.T nicholson d.0.t C-o-M
 HotPaw Productions

On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:52:14 -0700, Rob Gaddi wrote:

> A well timed discussion for today's XKCD.  http://xkcd.com/768/

When I saw it, I wondered whether that meant that Randall Munroe reads 
comp.dsp, or has TI just released a new calculator?

Cheers,

-- 
Andrew