Why the TI89 and Laplace89 are better than the HP49G
Peace Maker
give the TI89 a bad name. I just want to do the same STUPID THING the
other way round.
1. Laplace:
I bought the TI89 because of Lars Frederiksen's Laplace transform
program. The HP49 could not satisfy me because it could not solve the
following:
LAP(SQR(x)), LAP(1/SQRT(x)),LAP(EXP(-A*X}/SQRT(pi*X)),LAP((1-cos(x))/t),LAP((1+2*a*X)/(SQRT(pi*X)),LAP(2/x*(cos(b*X-cos(a*X)),
LAP(2/X*SINH(A*X)). All these any MANY more can't be done by the
HP49G, but can be done by Laplace89 on the TI89.
2. Integrate:
The Risch algorithm in the HP49G just makes it MARGINALLY better. The
Steb-by-Step for the INTVX command and other commands is useless
because it's too crpytic and shows little or no steps to be useful in
an examination. Can your HP49G integrate the following?:
INTEGRATE(LN(X+SQRT(1+x^2))), INTEGRATE(SQRT(X)/SQRT(A^3-X^3)),
INTEGRATE(SQRT(A-X)/SQRT(X)), INTEGRATE(COS(X)*SINH(X)),
INTEGRATE(X*EXP(1/2*ABS(LN(X^2)))),INTEGRATE((X^3-X^2)^(1/3)),
INTEGRATE(LN(1+X)/SQRT(X)), INTEGRATE(X^2/SQRT(X^6+25)). The TI89 can
do all these quickly. The HP49G is faster only 20% of the time for all
problems.
3. Summation:
The HP49 can't evaluate the following summation:
sum(1/n!,n,0,infinity)
4. Number of commands:
It appears the HP49G has more command than the TI89. It appears so
because many of the commands on the HP49G can be done by fewer
commands on the TI89.
a. Risch, Preval, Int, INTVX, INTV, IBP can all be done by INTEGRATE
on the TI89
b. ABCUV, EGCD, IABCUV, IEGCD can all be done by EXPAND (if used well)
on the 89
c. DIVPC, TAYLOR0 can all be done by TAYLOR on the TI89
d. LINSOLVE, SOLVEVX, SOLVE can all be done by one solve command on
the TI89
e. BAR, SCATTER, DIFFEG, FUNCTION , etc can all be done by the SETMODE
command
on the TI89
f. LNCOLLECT, LIN, TRIG, TEXPAND, TSIMP, TLIN TCOLLECT are all done
automatically be the TI89
g. Too many to mention
4. Built-in functions:
It's true that HP49G has more built in function than the TI89. But
it's a blessing that the TI89 lacks such built-in command, because the
3rd party programs on the TI89 that do those built-in command in the
HP49G are the best you can ever find on any calculator. Examples of
those wonder 3rd party programs are: Mathtools by B. Bhatt,
DIFFEQ/LAPLACE/FOURIER by L. Frederiksen, SIGNAL89 by...can't
remember, etc. What's worth doing is worth doing well. That's exactly
what these third party programs do for the TI89. For example, the
built-in EQW on the HP49G can't edit matrices, but the 3rd-party EQW
on the TI89 can.
5. Spreadsheet App:
The TI89's data editor is better than the HP49G's data editor.
6. Text editor:
It's true that the HP49G has a better text edior. But I can't imagine
somebody typing long texts on a calculor. Why go through such
drudgery?. So, I feel those better features on the HP49G's text editor
are unnecessary. Get A PC instead.
7. Directory Structure:
The HP49G has a better directory structure. AND SO WHAT? Completely
unnecessary to me. The TI89's directory structure still gets the job
done.
8. More fonts:
The HP49G has more fonts. AND SO WHAT? To me one font will suffice for
a calculator.
9. Alarm Clock:
I don't need this because it's not necessary, thank you! My alarm,
multi-chronograph Citizen wrist watchcan buy two HP49Gs. Besides, most
people own wristwatches with buzzers.
8. Connectivity Protocols:
True , the HP49G has Kermit, Xmodem, Zmodem, etc. The TI89's protocol
still gets the job done EQUALLY. The HP49G doesn't have something
similar to TI CONNECT.
9. Programmability:
The HP49G has no SDK. The C SDK for the TI89 gives the TI89 an edge
over the HP49G's numerous programming languages
10. Display:
The TI89 has a better display.-)
11. Keypad:
There is a high probability that the key inscriptions on the HP49G
will wear off quickly.
12. Processor:
The TI89 has a better processor. There is more information for
programming the MC68000 than there is for the Saturn.
13. Memory:
The TI89's memory is more than enough for me.
Conclusion: ANY product that fails to generate enough revenue for its
maker is aa BIG FAILURE!! The HP49G (with all its 762 commands) is a
PERFECT example of a failure!! No wonder they had to pull the plug on
it. It's a shame BP's works was not seen as profitable to some
CEOs--too bad!! ehehe!!
Peace Maker
f22r...@softhome.net (Peace Maker) wrote in message news:<752cb1bc.0202...@posting.google.com>...
R Lion
And excuse me if I tell you that I'm very happy with my HP 48GX.
Have a good day.
Raul
R Lion
Raul
"R Lion" <pit...@NOyahooSPAM.es> escribió en el mensaje
news:a4o3hr$95i$1...@titan.bt.es...
Peace Maker
integrals that the HP49G can't solve but the TI89 can solve:
1.INTVX(SQRT(1+cos(2x)))
2.INTVX(EXP(TAN(X))*(1/COS(X))^2)
3.INTVX((4X^2)/(SQRT(1-X^6)))
4.INTVX(COS(LOG(X))/X)
5.INTVX(SQRT(TAN(X))*(1/COS(X))^2)
6.INTVX((1/COS(X))*LOG(1/COS(X)+TAN(X)))
7.INTVX(((1/COS(X))*(1/SIN(X)))/LOG(TAN(X)))
Steen and others, in case you try to defend the HP49G, please don't
get me started with you "cowardly" EXPLN command--let the INTVX take
the bull by the horn.
I have decided not to post a speed comparison chart for these too
calculators. If I do that, the HP49G will look like an abacus. But, if
I am provoked, I will surely post a speed comparison chart.
There are many more problems the HP49G can't solve; i am just too
tired to list them.
OAA(TI DG name)
f22r...@softhome.net (Peace Maker) wrote in message news:<752cb1bc.0202...@posting.google.com>...
Lopez de la Fuente, Jose Manri
A good way to start a war "Peace Maker"...
Cheers,
J.Manrique
CdU de la ETSIG
#1077 HPCC Member
cybernesto
752cb1bc.0202...@posting.google.com...
> In addition to the integrals I posted earlier, these are more
> integrals that the HP49G can't solve but the TI89 can solve:
>
> 1.INTVX(SQRT(1+cos(2x)))
> 2.INTVX(EXP(TAN(X))*(1/COS(X))^2)
> 3.INTVX((4X^2)/(SQRT(1-X^6)))
> 4.INTVX(COS(LOG(X))/X)
> 5.INTVX(SQRT(TAN(X))*(1/COS(X))^2)
> 6.INTVX((1/COS(X))*LOG(1/COS(X)+TAN(X)))
> 7.INTVX(((1/COS(X))*(1/SIN(X)))/LOG(TAN(X)))
>
> Steen and others, in case you try to defend the HP49G, please don't
> get me started with you "cowardly" EXPLN command--let the INTVX take
> the bull by the horn.
>
> I have decided not to post a speed comparison chart for these too
> calculators. If I do that, the HP49G will look like an abacus. But, if
> I am provoked, I will surely post a speed comparison chart.
>
> There are many more problems the HP49G can't solve; i am just too
> tired to list them.
>
> OAA(TI DG name)
Give it to them OAA!!!!. ;-D
I only have to add that the TI89 has Symbulator, while in the best case the
49 has CSIM entirely unable to solve simbolic circuits. Maybe you should do
a doc with your posts. It gives an alternative to all of us who read Tim
Wessmans comparison (and almost puked!).
cheers
cybernesto (here and in TI DGs)
Lopez de la Fuente, Jose Manri
Ok, I would like to know if Ti89 solves all these integrals
without assuming anything for x.
I mean, most of the integrals that you mention have some
asintontic points for some x values (sqrt(x) is not valid for
x<0, 1/(1+x) is infinity for x=-1,..) so you need to assume that
things when you solve and integral with the hp49 to give the
correct answer.. Probably the ti89 assumes that, probably not, I
don't know, but giving an answer without taking care to this
could be a bad answer..
Probably this is not the expected behaviour for a calculator, I
mean, we are talking about machines that gives solutions to
problems, but symbolics need thinkig a bit what are you doing..
I don't like many things from hp49, but software is great for the
machine that it is.. Ok, I would like better processor, better
screen.. but the same software with better machine is
unbeatable..
Cheers,
J.Manrique
CdU de la ETSIG
PS: I hope some day any company will invest in handhelds
calculators R&S departments, or this world won't be the same. TI
is not a exception, its Voyager2000 machine is not more than a
Ti92 plusplusplus.. Ok, it's a great machine, but for me, it's
similar mistake than hp49.. just a hp48plusplusplus
In article <752cb1bc.0202...@posting.google.com>, f22r...@softhome.net (Peace Maker) writes:
Timité Hassan
> give the TI89 a bad name. I just want to do the same STUPID THING the
> other way round.
I used the TI92 since the first release.My first TI92 even has a beta
version of the first ROM(1.00).Thus i am much better placed to know
TI89 weaknesses than the fanboys which used TI68k calculators since
the TI89 release.
And i stated that the TI89 have a lot of weaknesses.
A lot of them have been lessered by the heroic work of some people
such as David Ellsworth and many others.
People that TI has pissed off and disapointed over the years and which
have for most of them completely given up support of TI calculators.
Without those people,fanboys like you wouldn't even dare to come here
and post such messages.
>
> 1. Laplace:
> I bought the TI89 because of Lars Frederiksen's Laplace transform
> program. The HP49 could not satisfy me because it could not solve the
> following:
> LAP(SQR(x)), LAP(1/SQRT(x)),LAP(EXP(-A*X}/SQRT(pi*X)),LAP((1-cos(x))/t),LAP((1+2*a*X)/(SQRT(pi*X)),LAP(2/x*(cos(b*X-cos(a*X)),
> LAP(2/X*SINH(A*X)). All these any MANY more can't be done by the
> HP49G, but can be done by Laplace89 on the TI89.
This function has been developped by a third party not by TI.
A third party which has been very disapointed by TI,btw.
> 2. Integrate:
> The Risch algorithm in the HP49G just makes it MARGINALLY better. The
> Steb-by-Step for the INTVX command and other commands is useless
> because it's too crpytic and shows little or no steps to be useful in
> an examination. Can your HP49G integrate the following?:
> INTEGRATE(LN(X+SQRT(1+x^2))), INTEGRATE(SQRT(X)/SQRT(A^3-X^3)),
> INTEGRATE(SQRT(A-X)/SQRT(X)), INTEGRATE(COS(X)*SINH(X)),
> INTEGRATE(X*EXP(1/2*ABS(LN(X^2)))),INTEGRATE((X^3-X^2)^(1/3)),
> INTEGRATE(LN(1+X)/SQRT(X)), INTEGRATE(X^2/SQRT(X^6+25)). The TI89 can
> do all these quickly. The HP49G is faster only 20% of the time for all
> problems.
Sure,but can your beloved TI89 finds the anti-derivative this function
that anyone with even the lowest level in antiderivative computation
can:
(2*x+1)*exp(x^2+x) ?
Each of this calculator fails on certain integrations.
> 3. Summation:
> The HP49 can't evaluate the following summation:
> sum(1/n!,n,0,infinity)
This is one of the rare case where the TI is better than the
HP.Symbolic summation,eqyations sovling and autosimplifaction.For the
other cases either the 2 calc are equals or the HP49 has the edge.
> 4. Number of commands:
> It appears the HP49G has more command than the TI89. It appears so
> because many of the commands on the HP49G can be done by fewer
> commands on the TI89.
And off course you think that it explain everything ?
Pfft,what a fanboy.
> a. Risch, Preval, Int, INTVX, INTV, IBP can all be done by INTEGRATE
> on the TI89
The TI doesn't have an equivalent for IBP function.
> b. ABCUV, EGCD, IABCUV, IEGCD can all be done by EXPAND (if used well)
> on the 89
Here we go again.
Again third party programs versus built-in function of the HP.
> c. DIVPC, TAYLOR0 can all be done by TAYLOR on the TI89
Really ?
You will need to explain to me how you can do DIVPC with the TI taylor
function.
I know how but i doubt that a kid like you know that.
Moreover as we are talking of taylor series,let me know how much time
your TI89 needs to compute that:
taylor(tanh(tan(x))-tan(tanh(x)),x,7).
And has your TI89 an equivalent to the series command of the HP49 ?
> d. LINSOLVE, SOLVEVX, SOLVE can all be done by one solve command on
> the TI89
Sure,you can use the solve command with only one argument ?
And can you use the solve command with matrix coefficients as
arguments ?
> e. BAR, SCATTER, DIFFEG, FUNCTION , etc can all be done by the SETMODE
> command
What a poor choice of example.
Do you know that there is also the equivalent of the setmode command
on the HP ?
And that this command can do much more than the setmode of the TI ?
> on the TI89
> f. LNCOLLECT, LIN, TRIG, TEXPAND, TSIMP, TLIN TCOLLECT are all done
> automatically be the TI89
Here i catch you.
You don't even know that the TI89 has a Texpand function,do you ?
And when it will be possible to control simplifications on the TI,let
me know.
> g. Too many to mention
Yeah,off course.<Sarcasm>
To be serious,there are tons of functions that the HP can do without
equivalent for the TI.
I haven't time to list them but you should compare the 2 calc for
polynomials functions,linar algebra,integer arithmetic and
trigonometry.
> 4. Built-in functions:
> It's true that HP49G has more built in function than the TI89. But
> it's a blessing that the TI89 lacks such built-in command, because the
> 3rd party programs on the TI89 that do those built-in command in the
> HP49G are the best you can ever find on any calculator. Examples of
> those wonder 3rd party programs are: Mathtools by B. Bhatt,
> DIFFEQ/LAPLACE/FOURIER by L. Frederiksen, SIGNAL89 by...can't
> remember, etc. What's worth doing is worth doing well. That's exactly
> what these third party programs do for the TI89. For example, the
> built-in EQW on the HP49G can't edit matrices, but the 3rd-party EQW
> on the TI89 can.
But this is the main problem with the TI89.
For doing anything advanced you need third parties programs.
Isn't that pathetic ?
Moreover with TI attitude toward those third party developpers i
wouldn't rely too much on them in the future.
Heard of the TI-Cas affair ?
I wonder why people like Bhuvanesh waste their time developping
software for TI.
> 5. Spreadsheet App:
> The TI89's data editor is better than the HP49G's data editor.
> 6. Text editor:
> It's true that the HP49G has a better text edior. But I can't imagine
> somebody typing long texts on a calculor. Why go through such
> drudgery?. So, I feel those better features on the HP49G's text editor
> are unnecessary. Get A PC instead.
You contradict yourself here.
If you won't need a calculator for doing word processing,why would you
need a spreadsheet on a calculator ?
> 7. Directory Structure:
> The HP49G has a better directory structure. AND SO WHAT? Completely
> unnecessary to me. The TI89's directory structure still gets the job
> done.
The difference of memory management between these 2 calculators is
much bigger than just the directory structure.
In fact the HP49 memory management is light years above the TI89's.
Could you enter names with more than 8 characters in the TI ?
Can your idea handle unlimited number of variables within availlable
memory ?
And if you say,yes then try this:
For k,1,3000
0->#("k"&string(k))
Endfor
That would show you how pathetic the memory management of the TI is as
this program just tries to create 3000 variables of a vey small size
on the TI.
And what about the TI89 24 KB limitations for ASM programs ?
And that stupid 64 KB size limitation for variables ?
Can you do backups of your RAM in the user Flash ?
Can your TI89 even try to recover RAM after a crash ?
> 8. More fonts:
> The HP49G has more fonts. AND SO WHAT? To me one font will suffice for
> a calculator.
This is called customability.
To choose the font size or even edit fonts.
To customize the usable part of the home screen.
To choose between RPN and Algebraic.
To choose between 4 built-in langages.
To choose between pulldown menus and softkeys.
To fully customize the keyboard,etc...
Something you TI89 fanboys can only dream off.
> 9. Alarm Clock:
> I don't need this because it's not necessary, thank you! My alarm,
> multi-chronograph Citizen wrist watchcan buy two HP49Gs. Besides, most
> people own wristwatches with buzzers.
Funny to see that when you don't need a HP49 feature,you find it
useless on the HP49.
Guess what ?
Apparently TI has finally found out that Time can be useful on a
calculator as the V200 will have one as well as the TI89/TI92+ HW2
with the A.M.S 2.06.
> 8. Connectivity Protocols:
> True , the HP49G has Kermit, Xmodem, Zmodem, etc. The TI89's protocol
> still gets the job done EQUALLY. The HP49G doesn't have something
> similar to TI CONNECT.
As well as the TI89 protocol get the job done,the HP49 software
program get the job done.
> 9. Programmability:
> The HP49G has no SDK. The C SDK for the TI89 gives the TI89 an edge
> over the HP49G's numerous programming languages
What a pity.
Do you know that the HP49 has a built-in SDK ?
And TI is famous for their negative attitude toward developpers.
If not what are all those stupid limitations in the software and in
the hardware ?
> 10. Display:
> The TI89 has a better display.-)
As you haven't used the first TI92,you don't know how poor their
screen was despite the high resolution.
> 11. Keypad:
> There is a high probability that the key inscriptions on the HP49G
> will wear off quickly.
Not the new keyboards.Moreover the HP49 keyboard has a much better
layout.
> 12. Processor:
> The TI89 has a better processor. There is more information for
> programming the MC68000 than there is for the Saturn.
This is certainly why there is much more software for the HP
calculators than for the TI calculators besides games.
And it is a shame that despite a 12 times faster C.P.U,the HP49 can
outperform the TI89 for many things.
> 13. Memory:
> The TI89's memory is more than enough for me.
The truth is that there is never enough memory.
Unless of course with pathetic memory management such as the TI one.
>
> Conclusion: ANY product that fails to generate enough revenue for its
> maker is aa BIG FAILURE!! The HP49G (with all its 762 commands) is a
> PERFECT example of a failure!! No wonder they had to pull the plug on
> it. It's a shame BP's works was not seen as profitable to some
> CEOs--too bad!! ehehe!!
For gosh sake,i have rarely seen such a fanboy.
You are happy with your TI89 ?
Good for you.
But don't come here insulting people with your nickname and your
fanboyism.
akula
>12. I forgot to say the HP49G can't find LU's of symbolic matrices.
>
>
>f22r...@softhome.net (Peace Maker) wrote in message news:<752cb1bc.0202...@posting.google.com>...
>> Most weaknesses of the TI89 that HP zealots point to are made up to
>> give the TI89 a bad name. I just want to do the same STUPID THING the
>> other way round.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Laplace:
>> I bought the TI89 because of Lars Frederiksen's Laplace transform
>> program. The HP49 could not satisfy me because it could not solve the
>> following:
>> LAP(SQR(x)), LAP(1/SQRT(x)),LAP(EXP(-A*X}/SQRT(pi*X)),LAP((1-cos(x))/t),LAP((1+2*a*X)/(SQRT(pi*X)),LAP(2/x*(cos(b*X-cos(a*X)),
>> LAP(2/X*SINH(A*X)). All these any MANY more can't be done by the
>> HP49G, but can be done by Laplace89 on the TI89.
Have you tried HP49 with neopolys?
>> 2. Integrate:
>> The Risch algorithm in the HP49G just makes it MARGINALLY better. The
>> Steb-by-Step for the INTVX command and other commands is useless
>> because it's too crpytic and shows little or no steps to be useful in
>> an examination. Can your HP49G integrate the following?:
>> INTEGRATE(LN(X+SQRT(1+x^2))), INTEGRATE(SQRT(X)/SQRT(A^3-X^3)),
>> INTEGRATE(SQRT(A-X)/SQRT(X)), INTEGRATE(COS(X)*SINH(X)),
>> INTEGRATE(X*EXP(1/2*ABS(LN(X^2)))),INTEGRATE((X^3-X^2)^(1/3)),
>> INTEGRATE(LN(1+X)/SQRT(X)), INTEGRATE(X^2/SQRT(X^6+25)). The TI89 can
>> do all these quickly. The HP49G is faster only 20% of the time for all
>> problems.
Marginally better doesn't mean better?
>> 4. Built-in functions:
>> It's true that HP49G has more built in function than the TI89. But
>> it's a blessing that the TI89 lacks such built-in command, because the
>> 3rd party programs on the TI89 that do those built-in command in the
>> HP49G are the best you can ever find on any calculator. Examples of
>> those wonder 3rd party programs are: Mathtools by B. Bhatt,
>> DIFFEQ/LAPLACE/FOURIER by L. Frederiksen, SIGNAL89 by...can't
>> remember, etc. What's worth doing is worth doing well. That's exactly
>> what these third party programs do for the TI89. For example, the
>> built-in EQW on the HP49G can't edit matrices, but the 3rd-party EQW
>> on the TI89 can.
If you don't want to use the bulit-in funcitions, don't use them, but
it's better if they are available. I use very good software, probably
the best available for my calc, but I love to program my own routines
and those functions are wonderful for me.
>> 6. Text editor:
>> It's true that the HP49G has a better text edior. But I can't imagine
>> somebody typing long texts on a calculor. Why go through such
>> drudgery?. So, I feel those better features on the HP49G's text editor
>> are unnecessary. Get A PC instead.
Haven`t you used the text editor of your calc? I use it often, and I
want the best text editor possible. If you only perform sums on your
calc, that's OK for you, you don't need any text editor. Better say
that a text editor is unnecessary. But sometimes
I do intensive use of it.
>> 7. Directory Structure:
>> The HP49G has a better directory structure. AND SO WHAT? Completely
>> unnecessary to me. The TI89's directory structure still gets the job
>> done.
Well, I think that you are conscient of the superiority of HP
directory structure over TI.. It doesn't matter that TI do the job
for you. Better is better.
>> 8. More fonts:
>> The HP49G has more fonts. AND SO WHAT? To me one font will suffice for
>> a calculator.
I don't use multiple fonts but better if I have it built-in. Maybe I
will need them one day. Who knows.
>> 9. Alarm Clock:
>> I don't need this because it's not necessary, thank you! My alarm,
>> multi-chronograph Citizen wrist watchcan buy two HP49Gs. Besides, most
>> people own wristwatches with buzzers.
In my HP48 GX the alarm clock is good for advise when my RAMCard is
having it's battery weak. I use an alarm for telling me when I have to
change the batteries. And one more thing: My wrist watch isn't able to
wake me up, but my HP's buzzer is able.
>> 9. Programmability:
>> The HP49G has no SDK. The C SDK for the TI89 gives the TI89 an edge
>> over the HP49G's numerous programming languages
Have you ever had a look to the huge program library for the HP's? You
have a lot of symbolic mathmatics programs, a lot of science,
chemistry, physics programs and thousands of utilities. Still do you
think that HP's are less programmable (or harder programmable) than
TI's?
>> 10. Display:
>> The TI89 has a better display.-)
I agree with you here, but I coult argument like you saying some
nonsenses like: I find my calc's display wonderful, so, why do I need
more? I think better display is unnecesary bla bla bla bla...
>> 12. Processor:
>> The TI89 has a better processor. There is more information for
>> programming the MC68000 than there is for the Saturn.
Faster doesn't mean better. And there is more info than you need to
program the Saturn CPU in various languages.
>> 13. Memory:
>> The TI89's memory is more than enough for me.
I know persons who fill completely 2 MB RAMcards in a HP48 GX
expanded. For me it's wonderful if you have more than enough with
TI89's memory
>> Conclusion: ANY product that fails to generate enough revenue for its
>> maker is aa BIG FAILURE!! The HP49G (with all its 762 commands) is a
>> PERFECT example of a failure!! No wonder they had to pull the plug on
>> it. It's a shame BP's works was not seen as profitable to some
>> CEOs--too bad!! ehehe!!
Nonsenses...
Akula
J.C. Randerson
The HP49 shames the TI89 in quickly writing programs from the keyboard
in UserRPL, which is extremely useful for me. The HP49's lack of
automatic simplification makes the use of formulas very easy. As just
one example, I have some 800 integral patterns that I solved with
Maple, and entered into a directory in my HP49. This gives me much
more control over how I want to integrate a function. I haved done the
same for physics, difeqs, etc... You can't do this on a TI89!
The HP49's file structure,with directories and subdirectories is
completely superior to that of the TI89. The HP49's file structure is
like a PC, well organized, usable, and an immense help to me. You
can't use the file structure of the TI89, it's an featureless joke!
The memory of the HP49 is more than double that of the TI89, and ALL
of it is accessable to the user. In addition, the memory of the HP49
is protected with the ARCHIVE command, and the RESTORE command easily
resets everything. If you crash your TI89, you're screwed until you
can reload from your PC. I was trying to learn SysRPL, and regularly
crashed my HP49. The ARCHIVE command saved my ass in the middle of a
physics exam. I was able to reset everything, and finish the test. You
can't do this on a TI89!
Last but not least, almost every available program for the HP49 is
free. Recently, TI had the nerve to advertize an Equation Writer
program for sale, something that's been in the HP49 since the very
first one came off the production line.
I'm glad you're happy with your TI89. However, crowing about it here
will gain you little.
J.C. Randerson
Pueblo, Colorado
f22r...@softhome.net (Peace Maker) wrote in message news:<752cb1bc.0202...@posting.google.com>...
Steen Schmidt
> give the TI89 a bad name. I just want to do the same STUPID THING the
> other way round.
Because two wrongs make a right? Are you becoming a troll now, OAA? Because
if you are, you will have to shut up on the TI DGs about HP zealots. Deal?
> 1. Laplace:
> I bought the TI89 because of Lars Frederiksen's Laplace transform
> program. The HP49 could not satisfy me because it could not solve the
> following:
> LAP(SQR(x)),
LAP(1/SQRT(x)),LAP(EXP(-A*X}/SQRT(pi*X)),LAP((1-cos(x))/t),LAP((1+2*a*X)/(SQ
RT(pi*X)),LAP(2/x*(cos(b*X-cos(a*X)),
> LAP(2/X*SINH(A*X)). All these any MANY more can't be done by the
> HP49G, but can be done by Laplace89 on the TI89.
Sure - LF is a good programmer, but it's nice to see that the TI89/92 needs
third party programs to even have LaPlace included. It's a good feature,
that it's not built-in, or do I misunderstand you? If I had the need for it,
I could code a LaPlace program for the TI89, that is faster than Lars', and
can do more transforms. It would probably even be faster on the '49. Don't
kid yourself. I went to EE school with Lars here in Denmark - do you think
he is God? How about inverse LaPlace? The TI89 isn't doing that well on
those, is it? Why has he stopped working on TI programs?
> Can your HP49G integrate the following?:
> INTEGRATE(LN(X+SQRT(1+x^2))), INTEGRATE(SQRT(X)/SQRT(A^3-X^3)),
> INTEGRATE(SQRT(A-X)/SQRT(X)), INTEGRATE(COS(X)*SINH(X)),
> INTEGRATE(X*EXP(1/2*ABS(LN(X^2)))),INTEGRATE((X^3-X^2)^(1/3)),
> INTEGRATE(LN(1+X)/SQRT(X)), INTEGRATE(X^2/SQRT(X^6+25)). The TI89 can
How about these?:
INTEGRATE((2*X^2+1)*EXP(X^2))
INTEGRATE((6*X^5-24*X^2)*EXP(X^6-8*X^3+16))
And so on?
> do all these quickly. The HP49G is faster only 20% of the time for all
> problems.
But the 68k processor is also roughly 15 times faster than the Saturn. It
has also got hardware multiplication and division - the Saturn has to do
with software emulation.
> 3. Summation:
> The HP49 can't evaluate the following summation:
> sum(1/n!,n,0,infinity)
Can the TI89 do SUM(X*X!,X,Y)? It's '(Y+1)*Y!-1' if you're wondering.
> 4. Number of commands:
> It appears the HP49G has more command than the TI89. It appears so
> because many of the commands on the HP49G can be done by fewer
> commands on the TI89.
Ok. What about EULER, IBERNOULLI, ICHINREM, PA2B2, NEXTPRIME, PREVPRIME,
> a. Risch, Preval, Int, INTVX, INTV, IBP can all be done by INTEGRATE
> on the TI89
No, the TI89 doesn't support the Risch algorithm for example. It can't do
integration by parts either. What is INTV on the '49?
> b. ABCUV, EGCD, IABCUV, IEGCD can all be done by EXPAND (if used well)
> on the 89
Right, but not that easily, huh? You can program many things too.
> c. DIVPC, TAYLOR0 can all be done by TAYLOR on the TI89
Ok, how about 'SQRT(X^2+X+1)' at infinity? Or 'X^X' at zero? Or 'ASIN(X)'
at -1?. Or even 'SIN(X)/(EXP(X)-1)' at zero?
> d. LINSOLVE, SOLVEVX, SOLVE can all be done by one solve command on
> the TI89
True - that was three.
> e. BAR, SCATTER, DIFFEG, FUNCTION , etc can all be done by the SETMODE
> command
> on the TI89
SETMODE is really equivalent to SF and CF. The flexibility of the modes
setting commands on the '49 is good in my opinion.
> f. LNCOLLECT, LIN, TRIG, TEXPAND, TSIMP, TLIN TCOLLECT are all done
> automatically be the TI89
Sure. An example: LIMIT((X^3-5*X^2-4*X+20)/(LN(X^3+6*X^2-27*X-140)-1),X,0)
on the TI89 yields
'20*(LN(140)-1)/(2*(LN(20)-1)*LN(7)+(LN(7))^2+(LN(5))^2+2*LN(5)*(2*LN(2)-1)+
4*(LN(2))^2-4*LN(2)+pi^2+1)-(20*pi/(2*(LN(20)-1)*LN(7)+(LN(7))^2+(LN(5))^2+2
*LN(5)*(2*LN(2)-1)+4*(LN(2))^2-4*LN(2)+pi^2+1))*i'. The same operation on
the HP49G yields '20/(LN(140)+(i*pi-1))'. Which do you find simpler? Hurray
for autosimplification. How do you get to the HP49G result on the TI89?
> 4. Built-in functions:
> It's true that HP49G has more built in function than the TI89. But
> it's a blessing that the TI89 lacks such built-in command, because the
> 3rd party programs on the TI89 that do those built-in command in the
> HP49G are the best you can ever find on any calculator.
If a function is built-in, does that mean that it can't be programmed?
> Examples of
> those wonder 3rd party programs are: Mathtools by B. Bhatt,
> DIFFEQ/LAPLACE/FOURIER by L. Frederiksen, SIGNAL89 by...can't
> remember, etc. What's worth doing is worth doing well. That's exactly
> what these third party programs do for the TI89. For example, the
> built-in EQW on the HP49G can't edit matrices, but the 3rd-party EQW
> on the TI89 can.
The Matrix Writer on the '49 can edit Matrix elements in pretty print. That
should be enough?
> 5. Spreadsheet App:
> The TI89's data editor is better than the HP49G's data editor.
Do you need a spreadsheet on a calculator...
> 6. Text editor:
> It's true that the HP49G has a better text edior. But I can't imagine
> somebody typing long texts on a calculor. Why go through such
> drudgery?. So, I feel those better features on the HP49G's text editor
> are unnecessary. Get A PC instead.
...more than a text editor?
> 7. Directory Structure:
> The HP49G has a better directory structure. AND SO WHAT? Completely
> unnecessary to me. The TI89's directory structure still gets the job
> done.
The TI89 doesn't have a directory structure in my opinion. You can't let
programs reach from one folder to another, hence it is a pain in the ass.
> 8. More fonts:
> The HP49G has more fonts. AND SO WHAT? To me one font will suffice for
> a calculator.
And so what for anything? Are things you do not use superfluos?
> 9. Alarm Clock:
> I don't need this because it's not necessary, thank you! My alarm,
> multi-chronograph Citizen wrist watchcan buy two HP49Gs. Besides, most
> people own wristwatches with buzzers.
I do not own a wristwatch. Just because YOU don't need it, doesn't mean that
other people won't. I still fail to see how you can complain about "too many
fatures"?
> 8. Connectivity Protocols:
> True , the HP49G has Kermit, Xmodem, Zmodem, etc. The TI89's protocol
> still gets the job done EQUALLY.
Not equally - The TI protocol is proprietary.
> The HP49G doesn't have something
> similar to TI CONNECT.
Shesh - what about HPComm? Many people complain that TI Connect doesn't
work on WinXP (it does with me though). HPComm works fine with XP.
> 9. Programmability:
> The HP49G has no SDK. The C SDK for the TI89 gives the TI89 an edge
> over the HP49G's numerous programming languages
On the programming side of things, nothing beats the HP49G! You have ML and
SysRPL built-in, and you have an SDK built-in. You can even download a
syntax-helper and use autocompletion on the '49.
> 10. Display:
> The TI89 has a better display.-)
It has higher resolution, but the dispay isn't better. You do not have
significantly more workspace anyway.
> 11. Keypad:
> There is a high probability that the key inscriptions on the HP49G
> will wear off quickly.
I seem to have escaped that "high probability". I have used my HP49G
intensively since it was released, and my keyprints are fine. The keys on my
TI89 got very loose after one week of use, and I wonder daily when one will
pop of the calc.
> 12. Processor:
> The TI89 has a better processor. There is more information for
> programming the MC68000 than there is for the Saturn.
And tat is supported by TI, right? You have zero support from TI, so you're
basicaly f*****, when not using TI-BASIC.
> 13. Memory:
> The TI89's memory is more than enough for me.
Again - for you. 640 kB was enough for Bill Gates once. I would probably
find 128 or 256 MB enough for now.
> Conclusion: ANY product that fails to generate enough revenue for its
> maker is aa BIG FAILURE!! The HP49G (with all its 762 commands) is a
> PERFECT example of a failure!! No wonder they had to pull the plug on
> it. It's a shame BP's works was not seen as profitable to some
> CEOs--too bad!! ehehe!!
And how old was it you were? I'd suggest you to crawl back to the TI DG you
came from, and then I'll bitchslap you there ;-)
Regards
Steen
Steen Schmidt
Mine lists 982 commands by the way.
Regards
Steen
Steen Schmidt
> get me started with you "cowardly" EXPLN command--let the INTVX take
> the bull by the horn.
The cowardly EXPLN command? Is that because you don't understand how it
works? If a carpenter doesn't know how to use a saw, is it the saws fault if
the carpenter saws askew?
> I have decided not to post a speed comparison chart for these too
> calculators. If I do that, the HP49G will look like an abacus.
But that's your intention, is it not?
> But, if
> I am provoked, I will surely post a speed comparison chart.
Why don't you post a speed comparison then? That'll show us all your
understanding of math. I'm preparing one too, so we can have a contest? My
comparison will be a bit bigger than usual, as I'm running quite a few tests
(and not only math ones either). The TI89 is fast, yes, very fast - but it's
pretty damn stupid if you ask me. We'll see.
> There are many more problems the HP49G can't solve; i am just too
> tired to list them.
You do remember that the CAS of the TI89 is based on Derive, and not
Mathematice?
Regards
Steen
J. Yuan
you elaborate on that a little bit? I'm in Calculus right now and any good
Calculus app is useful.
Thanks
"J.C. Randerson" <jcr...@pcisys.net> wrote in message
news:5ba17a08.02021...@posting.google.com...
R Lion
news:5ba17a08.02021...@posting.google.com...
> I have some 800 integral patterns that I solved with
> Maple, and entered into a directory in my HP49. This gives me much
> more control over how I want to integrate a function. I haved done the
> same for physics, difeqs, etc...
Timité Hassan and you, have wasted many words with the TI fanboy.... a pity.
Let's talk about interesting things: Can you explain of the above and
perhaps share it?
Thank you
Regards
Raul
Tom Johane
J.C. Randerson <jcr...@pcisys.net> skrev i en
nyhedsmeddelelse:5ba17a08.02021...@posting.google.com...
> I also have a TI89, and use it almost never. Here's why:
>
>
> free. Recently, TI had the nerve to advertize an Equation Writer
> program for sale, something that's been in the HP49 since the very
> first one came off the production line.
I assume that you must have got your HP49 for free since you state that you
haven't paid for its Equation Writer. Where can I get a HP49 for free, so I
can have its Equation Writer for free too?
What do think you were paying for when you bought your calculator? Do you
think it was only for HW?
Nick Karagiaouroglou
f22r...@softhome.net (Peace Maker) wrote in message news:<752cb1bc.0202...@posting.google.com>...
> Most weaknesses of the TI89 that HP zealots point to are made up to
> give the TI89 a bad name. I just want to do the same STUPID THING the
> other way round.
>
OK, let's go!
>
> 1. Laplace:
> I bought the TI89 because of Lars Frederiksen's Laplace transform
> program. The HP49 could not satisfy me because it could not solve the
> following:
> LAP(SQR(x)), LAP(1/SQRT(x)),LAP(EXP(-A*X}/SQRT(pi*X)),LAP((1-cos(x))/t),LAP((1+2*a*X)/(SQRT(pi*X)),LAP(2/x*(cos(b*X-cos(a*X)),
> LAP(2/X*SINH(A*X)). All these any MANY more can't be done by the
> HP49G, but can be done by Laplace89 on the TI89.
From the first look to your examples, I have to agree. But only from
the first look. I must first try to find out, if there are other ways
to do such things, by transforming, substitutung and the like. So, I
can't really say that such Laplace transforms are completely
impossible on the HP49G, but I can say that they can't be done on a
key press.
> 2. Integrate:
> The Risch algorithm in the HP49G just makes it MARGINALLY better. The
> Steb-by-Step for the INTVX command and other commands is useless
> because it's too crpytic and shows little or no steps to be useful in
> an examination. Can your HP49G integrate the following?:
> INTEGRATE(LN(X+SQRT(1+x^2))), INTEGRATE(SQRT(X)/SQRT(A^3-X^3)),
> INTEGRATE(SQRT(A-X)/SQRT(X)), INTEGRATE(COS(X)*SINH(X)),
> INTEGRATE(X*EXP(1/2*ABS(LN(X^2)))),INTEGRATE((X^3-X^2)^(1/3)),
> INTEGRATE(LN(1+X)/SQRT(X)), INTEGRATE(X^2/SQRT(X^6+25)). The TI89 can
> do all these quickly. The HP49G is faster only 20% of the time for all
> problems.
Integration is some sort of art. For me it is better to have tools on
hand that allow me to somehow perform such integrations, than to have
a command that perhaps integrate thisbut nor that. The offered
commands of the HP49G when used wisely in combination can do wonders.
(Well, not exactly but almost)
One of the examples that you gave: INTEGRATE(COS(X)*SINH(X)) . Use
EXPLN to turn trigonometric and hyperbolic funcions to exponentials
and then you can integrate this. (I am totally trigo-expo-hyper-high
these days ;-) )
> 3. Summation:
> The HP49 can't evaluate the following summation:
> sum(1/n!,n,0,infinity)
Unfortunately! :-(
Here I must disagree! A computer mathematics tool, must have a certain
complexity (and versatility) that allows the formulation of many
problems in many ways, and that allows the interested user to
influence the way that some computation follows. If you simply want a
black box, which gives you the answers that *it* wants and you just
stupidly write them down, then the HP49G is not your tool. But if you
are clever enough, you can use the many commands, to compose
formulations that lead to the results tha *you* wish. The language for
maths is a rich one. Don't forget this.
> 5. Spreadsheet App:
> The TI89's data editor is better than the HP49G's data editor.
A table is a couple of values that are violently ripped out of the
place ehere they belong: The function.
> 6. Text editor:
> It's true that the HP49G has a better text edior. But I can't imagine
> somebody typing long texts on a calculor. Why go through such
> drudgery?. So, I feel those better features on the HP49G's text editor
> are unnecessary. Get A PC instead.
A good text editor is needed for programming, for formulating the
problem and its solution.
> 7. Directory Structure:
> The HP49G has a better directory structure. AND SO WHAT? Completely
> unnecessary to me. The TI89's directory structure still gets the job
> done.
If you had made the effort to expore what the advantages (and
sometimes disadvabtages) are, then you would love it. But no, without
any imagination of what the directory structure allows, you simply say
that it is not needed.
> 8. More fonts:
> The HP49G has more fonts. AND SO WHAT? To me one font will suffice for
> a calculator.
Readability of programs in text form can be of vital value, when
editing. Believe me, TRISOL would turn me mad otherwise. ;-)
> 9. Alarm Clock:
> I don't need this because it's not necessary, thank you! My alarm,
> multi-chronograph Citizen wrist watchcan buy two HP49Gs. Besides, most
> people own wristwatches with buzzers.
Yes, of course your alarm watch can wake up at certain time intervals,
receive some dat from the pH-meter, Spectrometer or whatever-meter, do
some calculations, put the data in some matrix and sleep again.
> 8. Connectivity Protocols:
> True , the HP49G has Kermit, Xmodem, Zmodem, etc. The TI89's protocol
> still gets the job done EQUALLY. The HP49G doesn't have something
> similar to TI CONNECT.
When you use the calc as a stand alone data-collector, you will
appreciate all these protocols, and XSEND SRECV even more.
> 9. Programmability:
> The HP49G has no SDK. The C SDK for the TI89 gives the TI89 an edge
> over the HP49G's numerous programming languages
This is where the complex set of user commands does its job. Most of
the time you don't need any additional tools to program something on
the HP49G.
> 10. Display:
> The TI89 has a better display.-)
Absolutely. And the TI92 even better.
> 11. Keypad:
> There is a high probability that the key inscriptions on the HP49G
> will wear off quickly.
High propability? I would say certainty!
> 12. Processor:
> The TI89 has a better processor. There is more information for
> programming the MC68000 than there is for the Saturn.
The speedy MC68000 is better when comparing brute force.
> 13. Memory:
> The TI89's memory is more than enough for me.
>
But not for me!
> Conclusion: ANY product that fails to generate enough revenue for its
> maker is aa BIG FAILURE!!
So you say that the best products are those which sell better? Well,
Video 2000 was way better that VHS. High COM was much better than
Dolby S. And many many other examples. Revenue has to do with
marketing, not necessarily with quality.
> The HP49G (with all its 762 commands) is a
> PERFECT example of a failure!! No wonder they had to pull the plug on
> it. It's a shame BP's works was not seen as profitable to some
> CEOs--too bad!! ehehe!!
I hardly can say that the HP49G is a failure because of shortcomings
in software. If you give someone one fish to eat, he doesn't hunger
one day. If you give him 100 fishes (TI), he doesn't hunger 100 days.
But if you teach him how to fish (HP) he will never be hungry again.
Except of course when all fishes will be fished and eaten, which is a
very different problem that even the HP49G cannot solve.
Greetings,
Nick.
danny mathews
R Lion <pit...@NOyahooSPAM.es> wrote in message
news:a4oppf$m5a$1...@titan.bt.es...
I would be interested in this too.. Could it be taken to another post so it
will not get lost in this garbage?
danny
89 owner, 49 user
Tom Johane
Nick Karagiaouroglou <n...@imos-consulting.com> skrev i en
nyhedsmeddelelse:cd9ca36b.02021...@posting.google.com...
> Hi Peace Maker, here speaks smoking Colt! ;-)
>
> > I bought the TI89 because of Lars Frederiksen's Laplace transform
> > program. The HP49 could not satisfy me because it could not solve the
> > following:
> > LAP(SQR(x)),
LAP(1/SQRT(x)),LAP(EXP(-A*X}/SQRT(pi*X)),LAP((1-cos(x))/t),LAP((1+2*a*X)/(SQ
RT(pi*X)),LAP(2/x*(cos(b*X-cos(a*X)),
> > LAP(2/X*SINH(A*X)). All these any MANY more can't be done by the
> > HP49G, but can be done by Laplace89 on the TI89.
>
> From the first look to your examples, I have to agree. But only from
> the first look. I must first try to find out, if there are other ways
> to do such things, by transforming, substitutung and the like. So, I
> can't really say that such Laplace transforms are completely
> impossible on the HP49G, but I can say that they can't be done on a
> key press.
I hope for you that you always have a online connection to comp.sys.hp48
when you are taking a test else you could be in trouble if you had to solve
this type of job with your calculator. ;)
Steen Schmidt
> when you are taking a test else you could be in trouble if you had to
solve
> this type of job with your calculator. ;)
If you're in trouble because your calculator can't do a LaPlace transform,
then you should quit school. The idea is that you learn how to do it by
hand, and then you don't need the calculator other than for checking maybe.
Pretty sad when students rely so heavily on a calculator - I get the picture
that that's often the case in the States.
Regards
Steen
J. Yuan
teacher ENCOURAGES us to do definite integrals by calcultor, but I always do
it by hand.
"Steen Schmidt" <ssch...@nospam.dk> wrote in message
news:1cUb8.15016$5L3.6...@news010.worldonline.dk...
Steen Schmidt
> teacher ENCOURAGES us to do definite integrals by calcultor, but I always
do
> it by hand.
Does he incourage you to do it with the calculator? I'd like to smack him a
couple upside the head! Incompetence in color for you. In which country is
such practice followed? I'd never hire a guy who didn't know the reasons
behind his work.
Regards
Steen
J.C. Randerson
integrals, I made a comprehensive integral table with Maple, then
typed them all as string files on the HP49: for example: Directory:
Intable, File: ax+b, then
'INT(a,b,1/(A*X+B),X)=1/A*LN(A*X+B))',etc.... This way when I run into
a certain class of integral I can quickly go thru my table saved in
Port 2 and find something that will work. Of course, I may have to
manipulate the integral to fit exactly the problem at hand, but that's
no big deal. I made similar files for difeqs, physics, and chemistry.
They weren't hard to do, but were very timeconsuming. What's really
crazy is I'm not really using my HP49 now. I ran out of money to go to
school and now I'm driving a truck, crisscrossing the US. Indeed,
tomorrow I take off on another 2 week run. Crazy, huh?
hope this explains to you what I did -
J.C. Randerson
Pueblo, Colorado
"R Lion" <pit...@NOyahooSPAM.es> wrote in message news:<a4oppf$m5a$1...@titan.bt.es>...
J.C. Randerson
integrals, I made a comprehensive integral table with Maple, then
typed them all as string files on the HP49: for example: Directory:
Intable, File: ax+b, then
'INT(a,b,1/(A*X+B),X)=1/A*LN(A*X+B))',etc.... This way when I run into
a certain class of integral I can quickly go thru my table saved in
Port 2 and find something that will work. Of course, I may have to
manipulate the integral to fit exactly the problem at hand, but that's
no big deal. I made similar files for difeqs, physics, and chemistry.
They weren't hard to do, but were very timeconsuming. What's really
crazy is I'm not really using my HP49 now. I ran out of money to go to
school and now I'm driving a truck, crisscrossing the US. Indeed,
tomorrow I take off on another 2 week run. Crazy, huh?
hope this explains to you what I did -
J.C. Randerson
Pueblo, Colorado
"danny mathews" <spa...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<RTTb8.3521$S01.240501@sccrnsc02>...
J.C. Randerson
today. Mathematica is very close, but there are major problems with
Mathematica (that I could fill a book with) that I don't care for. As
you progress in Calculus you'll learn all about integration. Best of
luck in your studies.
- J.C. Randerson
Pueblo, Colorado
"J. Yuan" <jyu...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<U2Sb8.77975$Pz4.350103@rwcrnsc53>...
Peace Maker
ALL the integrals I have posted here quickly--without tricks.
1.INTVX(LOG(X+SQRT(A^2+X^2)))
2.INTVX(X^3*SQRT(X^8+16))
3.INTVX(LOG(X+SQRT(A^2+X^2)))
The HP49G LAP and ILAP commands do not deserve do be called Laplace
transformations commands. HP49G committed a fraud by claiming that the
HP49G has a built-in Laplace transforms command, The LAP\ILAP command
fails in soooo many problems.
I can't imagine how HP49G owners will feel if I decide to compare the
speed of these two calculators.
OAA(TI DG name)
Nick Karagiaouroglou
It is years since I was taking such tests, and I tell you we had
*nothing else* than our pens and paper sheets. We had not even a slide
rule and the exercises were real wierdos. But we succeeded not because
we had learned to press keys, but to think.
Greetings,
Nick.
George Tsiros
replies to write to this troll.
Steen Schmidt
> speed of these two calculators.
For real world problems, the TI89 is often very slow. I have in my new still
non-disclosed comparison numerous examples of the TI89 using more than 10
times the time the HP49G uses. The implemented algorithms on the TI89 are
also limited in some ways.
The TI89 is a fast school calculator, but lacks when the going gets tough
(out of the common Schaum tables that is).
I'm still surprised by your sudden complete lack of good manners, my dear
OAA. You're not any better than the common troll now, are you? Wonder what
Ray and the others would say about this. Hmm, Bhuvanesh reads this group too
;-)
Regards
Steen
Peace Maker
> > Most weaknesses of the TI89 that HP zealots point to are made up to
> > give the TI89 a bad name. I just want to do the same STUPID THING the
> > other way round.
>
> Because two wrongs make a right? Are you becoming a troll now, OAA? Because
> if you are, you will have to shut up on the TI DGs about HP zealots. Deal?
I can never become a troll. You and co have just been annoying with
the kind of attacks you make on TI.
> > 1. Laplace:
> > I bought the TI89 because of Lars Frederiksen's Laplace transform
> > program. The HP49 could not satisfy me because it could not solve the
> > following:
> > LAP(SQR(x)),
> LAP(1/SQRT(x)),LAP(EXP(-A*X}/SQRT(pi*X)),LAP((1-cos(x))/t),LAP((1+2*a*X)/(SQ
> RT(pi*X)),LAP(2/x*(cos(b*X-cos(a*X)),
> > LAP(2/X*SINH(A*X)). All these any MANY more can't be done by the
> > HP49G, but can be done by Laplace89 on the TI89.
>
> Sure - LF is a good programmer, but it's nice to see that the TI89/92 needs
> third party programs to even have LaPlace included. It's a good feature,
> that it's not built-in, or do I misunderstand you? If I had the need for it,
> I could code a LaPlace program for the TI89, that is faster than Lars', and
> can do more transforms. It would probably even be faster on the '49. Don't
> kid yourself. I went to EE school with Lars here in Denmark - do you think
> he is God? How about inverse LaPlace? The TI89 isn't doing that well on
> those, is it? Why has he stopped working on TI programs?
I know Lars is not a God, but he seems to understand Laplace
transformations better than all HP49G programmers combined! Oops
> > Can your HP49G integrate the following?:
> > INTEGRATE(LN(X+SQRT(1+x^2))), INTEGRATE(SQRT(X)/SQRT(A^3-X^3)),
> > INTEGRATE(SQRT(A-X)/SQRT(X)), INTEGRATE(COS(X)*SINH(X)),
> > INTEGRATE(X*EXP(1/2*ABS(LN(X^2)))),INTEGRATE((X^3-X^2)^(1/3)),
> > INTEGRATE(LN(1+X)/SQRT(X)), INTEGRATE(X^2/SQRT(X^6+25)). The TI89 can
>
> How about these?:
>
> INTEGRATE((2*X^2+1)*EXP(X^2))
> INTEGRATE((6*X^5-24*X^2)*EXP(X^6-8*X^3+16))
>
Your two examples are alike. Besides, you have been giving the same
examples over and over again--get "brand new" ones.
> > do all these quickly. The HP49G is faster only 20% of the time for all
> > problems.
>
> But the 68k processor is also roughly 15 times faster than the Saturn. It
> has also got hardware multiplication and division - the Saturn has to do
> with software emulation.
>
> > 3. Summation:
> > The HP49 can't evaluate the following summation:
> > sum(1/n!,n,0,infinity)
>
> Can the TI89 do SUM(X*X!,X,Y)? It's '(Y+1)*Y!-1' if you're wondering.
> > 4. Number of commands:
> > It appears the HP49G has more command than the TI89. It appears so
> > because many of the commands on the HP49G can be done by fewer
> > commands on the TI89.
>
> Ok. What about EULER, IBERNOULLI, ICHINREM, PA2B2, NEXTPRIME, PREVPRIME,
>
> > a. Risch, Preval, Int, INTVX, INTV, IBP can all be done by INTEGRATE
> > on the TI89
>
> No, the TI89 doesn't support the Risch algorithm for example. It can't do
> integration by parts either. What is INTV on the '49?
The TI89 does integration by parts automatically when necessary. I
know the TI89 doesn't support Risch algorithm. If the TI89 can
integrate wonderfully wihout the Risch algorithms, what's then the use
of the Risch algorithm?
> > b. ABCUV, EGCD, IABCUV, IEGCD can all be done by EXPAND (if used well)
> > on the 89
>
> Right, but not that easily, huh? You can program many things too.
Easy for me!!!
> > c. DIVPC, TAYLOR0 can all be done by TAYLOR on the TI89
>
> Ok, how about 'SQRT(X^2+X+1)' at infinity? Or 'X^X' at zero? Or 'ASIN(X)'
> at -1?. Or even 'SIN(X)/(EXP(X)-1)' at zero?
Same old problems you have posted a trillion times.
Do you need a clock on a calculator?
> > 6. Text editor:
> > It's true that the HP49G has a better text edior. But I can't imagine
> > somebody typing long texts on a calculor. Why go through such
> > drudgery?. So, I feel those better features on the HP49G's text editor
> > are unnecessary. Get A PC instead.
>
> ...more than a text editor?
>
> > 7. Directory Structure:
> > The HP49G has a better directory structure. AND SO WHAT? Completely
> > unnecessary to me. The TI89's directory structure still gets the job
> > done.
>
> The TI89 doesn't have a directory structure in my opinion. You can't let
> programs reach from one folder to another, hence it is a pain in the ass.
>
Still ok for me.
> > 8. More fonts:
> > The HP49G has more fonts. AND SO WHAT? To me one font will suffice for
> > a calculator.
>
> And so what for anything? Are things you do not use superfluos?
>
> > 9. Alarm Clock:
> > I don't need this because it's not necessary, thank you! My alarm,
> > multi-chronograph Citizen wrist watchcan buy two HP49Gs. Besides, most
> > people own wristwatches with buzzers.
>
> I do not own a wristwatch. Just because YOU don't need it, doesn't mean that
> other people won't. I still fail to see how you can complain about "too many
> fatures"?
Because of too many unnecessary features the programmers of the HP49G
almost encroached into the flash ROM space for user files
> > 8. Connectivity Protocols:
> > True , the HP49G has Kermit, Xmodem, Zmodem, etc. The TI89's protocol
> > still gets the job done EQUALLY.
>
> Not equally - The TI protocol is proprietary.
At least, it can still upload and download files the way HP49G's
standard protocols do.
>
> > The HP49G doesn't have something
> > similar to TI CONNECT.
>
> Shesh - what about HPComm? Many people complain that TI Connect doesn't
> work on WinXP (it does with me though). HPComm works fine with XP.
Can HPComm automatically search for program updates?
>
> > 9. Programmability:
> > The HP49G has no SDK. The C SDK for the TI89 gives the TI89 an edge
> > over the HP49G's numerous programming languages
>
> On the programming side of things, nothing beats the HP49G! You have ML and
> SysRPL built-in, and you have an SDK built-in. You can even download a
> syntax-helper and use autocompletion on the '49.
So you do enjoy programming on your calculator with those tiny keys? I
can't even imagine myself writing long programs on a calculator--I am
too young to die.
>
> > 10. Display:
> > The TI89 has a better display.-)
>
> It has higher resolution, but the dispay isn't better. You do not have
> significantly more workspace anyway.
>
> > 11. Keypad:
> > There is a high probability that the key inscriptions on the HP49G
> > will wear off quickly.
>
> I seem to have escaped that "high probability". I have used my HP49G
> intensively since it was released, and my keyprints are fine. The keys on my
> TI89 got very loose after one week of use, and I wonder daily when one will
> pop of the calc.
LOL
>
>
> > 12. Processor:
> > The TI89 has a better processor. There is more information for
> > programming the MC68000 than there is for the Saturn.
>
> And tat is supported by TI, right? You have zero support from TI, so you're
> basicaly f*****, when not using TI-BASIC.
I can always go to Motorola if I need support for programming the TI89
with assembly. Besides, TI support is getting better.
> > 13. Memory:
> > The TI89's memory is more than enough for me.
>
> Again - for you. 640 kB was enough for Bill Gates once. I would probably
> find 128 or 256 MB enough for now.
>
> > Conclusion: ANY product that fails to generate enough revenue for its
> > maker is aa BIG FAILURE!! The HP49G (with all its 762 commands) is a
> > PERFECT example of a failure!! No wonder they had to pull the plug on
> > it. It's a shame BP's works was not seen as profitable to some
> > CEOs--too bad!! ehehe!!
>
> And how old was it you were? I'd suggest you to crawl back to the TI DG you
> came from, and then I'll bitchslap you there ;-)>
Sorry, if I insulted anybody here. But, I said the truth, and that's
why it hurts.
I hope this "war" ends quickly. My eyes and fingers are beginning to
hurt me.
Regards,
OAA
J. Yuan
find some info on Maple? And can you share your integral database that you
entered? Export from your calc so we can all benefit?
Steen Schmidt
> the kind of attacks you make on TI.
A troll is someone who starts fights without reason. You did - you're a
troll.
> I know Lars is not a God, but he seems to understand Laplace
> transformations better than all HP49G programmers combined! Oops
Erhhhh? No? I thank I have asked BP to include LaPLace transforms a zillion
times before he did. At first the '49 didn't even support Delta and
Heaviside functions, but it does now, after people have asked for it. BP
didn't find LaPLace transforms that useful, and obviously the '49 users
didn't eithre, or else it would have been much better.
> Your two examples are alike. Besides, you have been giving the same
> examples over and over again--get "brand new" ones.
You want an example? How about this one:
INTEGRATE((X^3*EXP(X^2))/(X^2+1)^2,X)
And don't start with that RISCH crap - the above example is perfectly solved
with integration by parts. On the HP49G, the INTVX command can even do it
(you don't need IBP here).
But you'll see....
> > Ok, how about 'SQRT(X^2+X+1)' at infinity? Or 'X^X' at zero? Or
'ASIN(X)'
> > at -1?. Or even 'SIN(X)/(EXP(X)-1)' at zero?
>
> Same old problems you have posted a trillion times.
Does that make them moot? But again - wait till you see the comparison.
There are *many* more where they came from.
> > Do you need a spreadsheet on a calculator...
>
> Do you need a clock on a calculator?
Yes. I use the clock on the '49 alot. It's also good for data acquisition.
But then again - you don't expect the TI89 to handle that, do you?
> > The TI89 doesn't have a directory structure in my opinion. You can't let
> > programs reach from one folder to another, hence it is a pain in the
ass.
>
> Still ok for me.
So the TI89 is best for you - we have established that already. If I were ok
with a power cord instead of batteries, would that make a calculator using
batteries more crappy than a calculator with a power cord? I guess not.
We're not discussing opinions here, but hard facts. That's what you started,
that's what you gotta stick to.
> Because of too many unnecessary features the programmers of the HP49G
> almost encroached into the flash ROM space for user files
Right. Let's get rid of pretty-print then - it doesn't help solving math
problems, and uses up time for the programmers. How about the TI89 text
editor? Let's complain to TI that they used up precious time on that one.
> > Not equally - The TI protocol is proprietary.
>
> At least, it can still upload and download files the way HP49G's
> standard protocols do.
And that's what you use protocols for, right? Come on - what about data
transfers of other kinds? Have you ever thought of that? You can't fetch
data with the TI89 - it's a closed black box system.
> Can HPComm automatically search for program updates?
No, but it does everything else. Is it hard for you to keep up with one AMS
update every other year?
> So you do enjoy programming on your calculator with those tiny keys?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. Every bit of code I have ever written for
the '49 is written on the calc itself.
> I
> can't even imagine myself writing long programs on a calculator--I am
> too young to die.
There are also programming tools for the PC - did that escape your eyes?
> > I seem to have escaped that "high probability". I have used my HP49G
> > intensively since it was released, and my keyprints are fine. The keys
on my
> > TI89 got very loose after one week of use, and I wonder daily when one
will
> > pop of the calc.
>
> LOL
Is that funny? It may be because it's not a prority to you, that the keys
stay in pace, as long as the print does?
> I can always go to Motorola if I need support for programming the TI89
> with assembly.
And reinventing the wheel? Have you ever programmed assembly? I doubt it,
since you take so lightly on code-reuse.
> Besides, TI support is getting better.
Since when? Is that why they closed TI-CAS down (or Miclo at least)? Is that
why they don't seem to keep their promise regarding the contest EW won? Is
that why they are charging everyone for software that should have been
included in the TI89 in the first place? Is that why they are maintaining
the 24 kB ASM limit? Is that why *there is no programming support
whatsoever*, outside of TI_BASIC? Is that why none of the 300+ requests in
the wishlist have ever been fulfilled?
AMS v2.06 better be good for your statement to be true. But, oh no, it has a
clock, so it can't be good. Wonder what they didn't have time to include, by
coding a clock? a SERIES command maybe?
> Sorry, if I insulted anybody here. But, I said the truth, and that's
> why it hurts.
The truth? You told your opinion, and are trying to stuff that into our
throats. Excuse me, but that's trolling for ya. You haven't insulted anyone
personally, you're just making a fool out of yourself. I've certainly put
any weight to what you're saying at the TI DGs for the last time.
> I hope this "war" ends quickly. My eyes and fingers are beginning to
> hurt me.
Then think twice before startig one. You may have some valid points in
there, but you certainly make sure that they stay hidden by going on like
that.
Regards
Steen
Lopez de la Fuente, Jose Manri
Let me see..
You are saying that you are happy with your calc, aren't you? Ok,
then what is your problem with the hp49? You don't like it, do
you? The.. "live and let live" ;-)
If you would like a comparassion, here it is:
-I have a linux ipaq3130 with 206MHz StrongARM procesor
16MB ROM, 16MB RAM with Linux Familiar 0.5.1 distro
and an under-development computer algebra
system on it that beats my hp49 in many ways..and I bought it for
same money than a hp49... And I am still happy with my hp49,
because it is great for the machine that it is..
To know more about Giac-Xcas check Bernard Parisse's site:
http://www-fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr/~parisse/giacdoc.html
I don't understand the reason for this TI-HP war, it would be
nice if both could learn from the other's mistakes to develop
better machines, but I think this is not the case. TI has the
oportunity to make a great new machine (Voyage200), but they had
decided to make a "new" ti92.. same mistake than hp49..
One finally and funny think, why Voyage200? It's similar to
Voyager, where VGER come from.. (star trek) ;-)
Have fun,
J.Manrique
CdU de la ETSIG
Peace Maker
> f22r...@softhome.net (Peace Maker) wrote in message news:<752cb1bc.0202...@posting.google.com>...
> > Most weaknesses of the TI89 that HP zealots point to are made up to
> > give the TI89 a bad name. I just want to do the same STUPID THING the
> > other way round.
>
> version of the first ROM(1.00).Thus i am much better placed to know
> TI89 weaknesses than the fanboys which used TI68k calculators since
> the TI89 release.
> And i stated that the TI89 have a lot of weaknesses.
> A lot of them have been lessered by the heroic work of some people
> such as David Ellsworth and many others.
> People that TI has pissed off and disapointed over the years and which
> have for most of them completely given up support of TI calculators.
> Without those people,fanboys like you wouldn't even dare to come here
> and post such messages.
Whatever!
> >
> > 1. Laplace:
> > I bought the TI89 because of Lars Frederiksen's Laplace transform
> > program. The HP49 could not satisfy me because it could not solve the
> > following:
> > LAP(SQR(x)), LAP(1/SQRT(x)),LAP(EXP(-A*X}/SQRT(pi*X)),LAP((1-cos(x))/t),LAP((1+2*a*X)/(SQRT(pi*X)),LAP(2/x*(cos(b*X-cos(a*X)),
> > LAP(2/X*SINH(A*X)). All these any MANY more can't be done by the
> > HP49G, but can be done by Laplace89 on the TI89.
>
> This function has been developped by a third party not by TI.
> A third party which has been very disapointed by TI,btw.
At least it's the best Laplace transform program available for a
calculator. hehehe!
> > 2. Integrate:
> > The Risch algorithm in the HP49G just makes it MARGINALLY better. The
> > Steb-by-Step for the INTVX command and other commands is useless
> > because it's too crpytic and shows little or no steps to be useful in
> > an examination. Can your HP49G integrate the following?:
> > INTEGRATE(LN(X+SQRT(1+x^2))), INTEGRATE(SQRT(X)/SQRT(A^3-X^3)),
> > INTEGRATE(SQRT(A-X)/SQRT(X)), INTEGRATE(COS(X)*SINH(X)),
> > INTEGRATE(X*EXP(1/2*ABS(LN(X^2)))),INTEGRATE((X^3-X^2)^(1/3)),
> > INTEGRATE(LN(1+X)/SQRT(X)), INTEGRATE(X^2/SQRT(X^6+25)). The TI89 can
> > do all these quickly. The HP49G is faster only 20% of the time for all
> > problems.
>
> Sure,but can your beloved TI89 finds the anti-derivative this function
> that anyone with even the lowest level in antiderivative computation
> can:
> (2*x+1)*exp(x^2+x) ?
This same old problem has been posted 13, 872 times by HP fans just to
give the TI89 a bad name. Get new problems, PLEASE!!
> Each of this calculator fails on certain integrations.
I know.
>
> > 3. Summation:
> > The HP49 can't evaluate the following summation:
> > sum(1/n!,n,0,infinity)
>
> This is one of the rare case where the TI is better than the
> HP.Symbolic summation,eqyations sovling and autosimplifaction.For the
> other cases either the 2 calc are equals or the HP49 has the edge.
>
> > 4. Number of commands:
> > It appears the HP49G has more command than the TI89. It appears so
> > because many of the commands on the HP49G can be done by fewer
> > commands on the TI89.
>
> And off course you think that it explain everything ?
> Pfft,what a fanboy.
>
> > a. Risch, Preval, Int, INTVX, INTV, IBP can all be done by INTEGRATE
> > on the TI89
>
> The TI doesn't have an equivalent for IBP function.
The IBP function is integrated into the INTEGRATE of the TI89 command.
Check the algorithms used by the INTEGRATE command in the TI89 manual.
Besides, on the HP49G, you still end up using the INTVX command after
using the IBP command.
> > b. ABCUV, EGCD, IABCUV, IEGCD can all be done by EXPAND (if used well)
> > on the 89
>
> Here we go again.
> Again third party programs versus built-in function of the HP.
Anybody can do all these with EXPAND command ONLY!!
> > c. DIVPC, TAYLOR0 can all be done by TAYLOR on the TI89
>
> Really ?
Hell YES!!
> You will need to explain to me how you can do DIVPC with the TI taylor
> function.
> I know how but i doubt that a kid like you know that.
The DIVPC command is used to find the Taylor series of a quotient. The
TI TAYLOR command accepts quotient as well.
> Moreover as we are talking of taylor series,let me know how much time
> your TI89 needs to compute that:
> taylor(tanh(tan(x))-tan(tanh(x)),x,7).
> And has your TI89 an equivalent to the series command of the HP49 ?
At least there is still a high probability that the upcoming AMSs will
contain additional function. For the HP49G side, there are no more
chances for an updated ROM.
> > d. LINSOLVE, SOLVEVX, SOLVE can all be done by one solve command on
> > the TI89
>
> Sure,you can use the solve command with only one argument ?
> And can you use the solve command with matrix coefficients as
> arguments ?
>
> > e. BAR, SCATTER, DIFFEG, FUNCTION , etc can all be done by the SETMODE
> > command
>
> What a poor choice of example.
> Do you know that there is also the equivalent of the setmode command
> on the HP ?
I know! Damn it! I was just trying to say that the HP49G has fewer
distinct and unique functions than it appears to have. The commands
are repetitive!
> And that this command can do much more than the setmode of the TI ?
>
> > on the TI89
> > f. LNCOLLECT, LIN, TRIG, TEXPAND, TSIMP, TLIN TCOLLECT are all done
> > automatically be the TI89
>
> Here i catch you.
> You don't even know that the TI89 has a Texpand function,do you ?
I know the TI89 has a TEXPAND function. I made a typo there, ok!!!
> And when it will be possible to control simplifications on the TI,let
> me know.
>
> > g. Too many to mention
>
> Yeah,off course.<Sarcasm>
> To be serious,there are tons of functions that the HP can do without
> equivalent for the TI.
> I haven't time to list them but you should compare the 2 calc for
> polynomials functions,linar algebra,integer arithmetic and
> trigonometry.
>
> > 4. Built-in functions:
> > It's true that HP49G has more built in function than the TI89. But
> > it's a blessing that the TI89 lacks such built-in command, because the
> > 3rd party programs on the TI89 that do those built-in command in the
> > HP49G are the best you can ever find on any calculator. Examples of
> > those wonder 3rd party programs are: Mathtools by B. Bhatt,
> > DIFFEQ/LAPLACE/FOURIER by L. Frederiksen, SIGNAL89 by...can't
> > remember, etc. What's worth doing is worth doing well. That's exactly
> > what these third party programs do for the TI89. For example, the
> > built-in EQW on the HP49G can't edit matrices, but the 3rd-party EQW
> > on the TI89 can.
>
> But this is the main problem with the TI89.
> For doing anything advanced you need third parties programs.
> Isn't that pathetic ?
Well the 3rd party programs end-up being better than several HP49G
in-built commands!!
> Moreover with TI attitude toward those third party developpers i
> wouldn't rely too much on them in the future.
> Heard of the TI-Cas affair ?
> I wonder why people like Bhuvanesh waste their time developping
> software for TI.
The patient dog, my friend, eats the largest bone!!
>
> > 5. Spreadsheet App:
> > The TI89's data editor is better than the HP49G's data editor.
>
> > 6. Text editor:
> > It's true that the HP49G has a better text edior. But I can't imagine
> > somebody typing long texts on a calculor. Why go through such
> > drudgery?. So, I feel those better features on the HP49G's text editor
> > are unnecessary. Get A PC instead.
>
> You contradict yourself here.
> If you won't need a calculator for doing word processing,why would you
> need a spreadsheet on a calculator ?
It's easier to type numbers than text with any calculator
>
> > 7. Directory Structure:
> > The HP49G has a better directory structure. AND SO WHAT? Completely
> > unnecessary to me. The TI89's directory structure still gets the job
> > done.
>
> The difference of memory management between these 2 calculators is
> much bigger than just the directory structure.
The differnce in processor speed between these 2 calculators is much
bigger than any advantage the HP49G has over the TI89.
> Could you enter names with more than 8 characters in the TI ?
About 127^8 types of allowable names is okay for me.
> Can your idea handle unlimited number of variables within availlable
> memory ?
> And if you say,yes then try this:
> For k,1,3000
> 0->#("k"&string(k))
> Endfor
> That would show you how pathetic the memory management of the TI is as
> this program just tries to create 3000 variables of a vey small size
> on the TI.
> And what about the TI89 24 KB limitations for ASM programs ?
> And that stupid 64 KB size limitation for variables ?
> Can you do backups of your RAM in the user Flash ?
Yeah, yeah, yeah! Upon all these they still had to plug the on the
poor "overdeveloped" thing--too bad. Besides, the fact that TI
calculator R & D is still alive raises hope for equipping the TI89
with all these things you have mentioned
> Can your TI89 even try to recover RAM after a crash ?
The TI89 rarely crashes.
>
> > 8. More fonts:
> > The HP49G has more fonts. AND SO WHAT? To me one font will suffice for
> > a calculator.
>
> This is called customability.
> To choose the font size or even edit fonts.
> To customize the usable part of the home screen.
> To choose between RPN and Algebraic.
> To choose between 4 built-in langages.
> To choose between pulldown menus and softkeys.
> To fully customize the keyboard,etc...
> Something you TI89 fanboys can only dream off.
I never dream of that because they are not too important. All these
things you have mentioned still ride on one SLOW processor. The TI89
has built in languages has well.
It's really funny to know that all what the HP49G programmers got at
the end for adding all these to the HP49G was a lay-off letter.:)
>
> > 9. Alarm Clock:
> > I don't need this because it's not necessary, thank you! My alarm,
> > multi-chronograph Citizen wrist watchcan buy two HP49Gs. Besides, most
> > people own wristwatches with buzzers.
>
> Funny to see that when you don't need a HP49 feature,you find it
> useless on the HP49.
> Guess what ?
> Apparently TI has finally found out that Time can be useful on a
> calculator as the V200 will have one as well as the TI89/TI92+ HW2
> with the A.M.S 2.06.
I am aware of all that!
>
> > 9. Programmability:
> > The HP49G has no SDK. The C SDK for the TI89 gives the TI89 an edge
> > over the HP49G's numerous programming languages
>
> What a pity.
> Do you know that the HP49 has a built-in SDK ?
I know that the HP49G has a built-in SDK. Goodluck in straining your
fingers and your eyes with a calculator
> And TI is famous for their negative attitude toward developpers.
I know.
> If not what are all those stupid limitations in the software and in
> the hardware ?
The limitations are there to generate revenue for TI so that TI R&D
(for calculators) will not end up like HP's.
>
> > 10. Display:
> > The TI89 has a better display.-)
>
> As you haven't used the first TI92,you don't know how poor their
> screen was despite the high resolution.
>
>
> > 11. Keypad:
> > There is a high probability that the key inscriptions on the HP49G
> > will wear off quickly.
>
> Not the new keyboards.Moreover the HP49 keyboard has a much better
> layout.
I prefer the TI89 layout because I hate having to press a second
function key for a comma, '=','y','z','t',etc
> > 12. Processor:
> > The TI89 has a better processor. There is more information for
> > programming the MC68000 than there is for the Saturn.
>
> This is certainly why there is much more software for the HP
> calculators than for the TI calculators besides games.
The 3rd party software available for the TI89 are usually better than
their HP49G equivalent
> And it is a shame that despite a 12 times faster C.P.U,the HP49 can
> outperform the TI89 for many things.
Not many at all!!
>
>
> >
> > Conclusion: ANY product that fails to generate enough revenue for its
> > maker is aa BIG FAILURE!! The HP49G (with all its 762 commands) is a
> > PERFECT example of a failure!! No wonder they had to pull the plug on
> > it. It's a shame BP's works was not seen as profitable to some
> > CEOs--too bad!! ehehe!!
>
> For gosh sake,i have rarely seen such a fanboy.
> You are happy with your TI89 ?
> Good for you.
> But don't come here insulting people with your nickname and your
> fanboyism.
Sorry to anybody I insulted, Ok? But I said the truth, right?!!!!!
The truth hurt, right?
The nickname, Peace Maker, I used is the name of a USAF MIRV-ICBM.
It's the best ICBM the USA has for wagging a nuclear war. Just my 2
cents.
Regards,
OAA
Peace Maker
> > get me started with you "cowardly" EXPLN command--let the INTVX take
> > the bull by the horn.
>
> The cowardly EXPLN command? Is that because you don't understand how it
> works? If a carpenter doesn't know how to use a saw, is it the saws fault if
> the carpenter saws askew?
That's a hot one.
I know perfectly what the EXPLN does. I just did not want the HP49G
owners to use it as alternative or a way of solving those integrals I
listed. I didn't express myself properly there; so you misunderstood
me.
>
> > I have decided not to post a speed comparison chart for these too
> > calculators. If I do that, the HP49G will look like an abacus.
>
> But that's your intention, is it not?
Yes. And it has always been the intention of you, Tim Wissman and Co
to give the TI89 VERY little credit. You have never been fair. Did any
TI calculator ever cause you to loose something dear? What has TI done
to you?
>
> > But, if
> > I am provoked, I will surely post a speed comparison chart.
>
> Why don't you post a speed comparison then? That'll show us all your
> understanding of math. I'm preparing one too, so we can have a contest? My
> comparison will be a bit bigger than usual, as I'm running quite a few tests
> (and not only math ones either). The TI89 is fast, yes, very fast - but it's
> pretty damn stupid if you ask me. We'll see.
That's another hot one.-)
Your calling the TI89 a stupid thing clearly show your bias nature.
That just degrades the effort many smart people have put into it. I
will not post anymore messages again about comparisons. This thing is
getting out of hands. My aim was to compare the two calculators
jokingly and not to compare our math skills. How would like it if
someone calls your good efforts stupid?
>
> > There are many more problems the HP49G can't solve; i am just too
> > tired to list them.
>
> You do remember that the CAS of the TI89 is based on Derive, and not
> Mathematice?
The TI89 is partially based on the Derive engine.
> Regards
> Steen
This is the final message! Sorry to all those I have insulted.
Steen Schmidt
> calculator. hehehe!
Pretty childish attitude. Won't go far here.
> > Each of this calculator fails on certain integrations.
>
> I know.
Why do you even post examples then? Are your exmaples better than ours? Are
you trying to prove that there are *more* failures on the HP than the TI?
That can't be done, as there is an infinite number of integrals the two
calcs will fail to solve.
> The IBP function is integrated into the INTEGRATE of the TI89 command.
> Check the algorithms used by the INTEGRATE command in the TI89 manual.
> Besides, on the HP49G, you still end up using the INTVX command after
> using the IBP command.
Have you read my response about IBP to you? I guess not.
> > > b. ABCUV, EGCD, IABCUV, IEGCD can all be done by EXPAND (if used well)
> > > on the 89
> > Here we go again.
> > Again third party programs versus built-in function of the HP.
> Anybody can do all these with EXPAND command ONLY!!
Right. You can do anything with +, - & / - why even bother to make
additional functions?
> At least there is still a high probability that the upcoming AMSs will
> contain additional function.
Is there? History haven't actually proven that, right?
> For the HP49G side, there are no more
> chances for an updated ROM.
You wish. There will even be more than that, but you probably won't even
notice it seems.
> > What a poor choice of example.
> > Do you know that there is also the equivalent of the setmode command
> > on the HP ?
>
> I know! Damn it!
What's up with the language all of a sudden?
> Well the 3rd party programs end-up being better than several HP49G
> in-built commands!!
Several, out of 982? Nice percentege there....
> > I wonder why people like Bhuvanesh waste their time developping
> > software for TI.
>
> The patient dog, my friend, eats the largest bone!!
LOL - 5-8 years of patience?
> It's easier to type numbers than text with any calculator
It depends on the calculator. If the texteditor is good enough, it's not any
more difficult to use than a spreadsheet program.
> The differnce in processor speed between these 2 calculators is much
> bigger than any advantage the HP49G has over the TI89.
The processor speed has nothing to do with performance. I start wondering
how many times you will correct yourself in this thread?
Try this on your TI:
'factor(expand((x*y+2*x-z)*(x+y*z-3*y)*(6*x^3+x*y+x*z+1)))'
The HP49G uses 18.36 seconds in comparison. Some time next week, if you ever
get done, please post again.
Here are a couple more:
'factor(expand((x-y)^4*(8*x+y+21)^4))' (HP49G: 14.03 seconds)
'factor(expand((x+y+z)^7-x^7-y^7-z^7))' (HP49G: 45.43 seconds)
'factor(expand((x^3+5*x^2-4*x-12)*(x^4+5*x^2+4*x-12)))' (HP49G: 4.64
seconds)
'factor(expand((x^3+x+1)*(x^3-x+1)))' (HP49G: 2.15 seconds)
> > Could you enter names with more than 8 characters in the TI ?
> About 127^8 types of allowable names is okay for me.
Of course, since names like xisdhuye & wzwrtyxy are easy to remeber and use?
You have roughly 30000 times fewer names to use than 127^8, so you'll run
dry before you know it....
> Yeah, yeah, yeah! Upon all these they still had to plug the on the
> poor "overdeveloped" thing--too bad. Besides, the fact that TI
> calculator R & D is still alive raises hope for equipping the TI89
> with all these things you have mentioned
That's a fat chance.
> > Can your TI89 even try to recover RAM after a crash ?
>
> The TI89 rarely crashes.
Oh, no. But a flash upgrade whipes everything.... The TI92 is bad at
crashing, but the newer AMS' aren't (v2.05 for example). The new '49 ROMs
are very stable too.
> > > The HP49G has more fonts. AND SO WHAT? To me one font will suffice for
> > > a calculator.
> >
> > This is called customability.
> > To choose the font size or even edit fonts.
> > To customize the usable part of the home screen.
> > To choose between RPN and Algebraic.
> > To choose between 4 built-in langages.
> > To choose between pulldown menus and softkeys.
> > To fully customize the keyboard,etc...
> > Something you TI89 fanboys can only dream off.
>
> I never dream of that because they are not too important.
For you, that is. Won't you please stop making so many personal opinions
global? They are your opinions, get it?
> All these
> things you have mentioned still ride on one SLOW processor. The TI89
> has built in languages has well.
Like what? English and Spanish?
> It's really funny to know that all what the HP49G programmers got at
> the end for adding all these to the HP49G was a lay-off letter.:)
I get the feeling you just stepped over the line bozo. *PLOINK*
> I am aware of all that!
Obviously not.
> I know that the HP49G has a built-in SDK. Goodluck in straining your
> fingers and your eyes with a calculator
But you again missed the fact that you can use a PC instead. You must be
daft.
> > And TI is famous for their negative attitude toward developpers.
>
> I know.
I think not. How could you?
> > If not what are all those stupid limitations in the software and in
> > the hardware ?
>
> The limitations are there to generate revenue for TI so that TI R&D
> (for calculators) will not end up like HP's.
The goal is important, so all means can be taken into play? Stupid excuse -
"Well, we won't have a decent product the next 20 years, but at least we're
certain that the product will live 15 instead of 5 years....".
> > Not the new keyboards.Moreover the HP49 keyboard has a much better
> > layout.
>
> I prefer the TI89 layout because I hate having to press a second
> function key for a comma, '=','y','z','t',etc
You do not have to press a second key for that. In alpha-lock mode, you have
direct access to all letters, all numbers, the four arrows and three of the
four common algebraic commands. we do not have the need for '=', since all
expressions are seen as equal to zero by the HP49G. That's a thing the TI
programmers really couldn't grasp, even though it's a very common
mathematical idea.
> The 3rd party software available for the TI89 are usually better than
> their HP49G equivalent
The only thing I can think of is Symbulator, and that is totally impossible
to use (and too slow for practical purposes). It needs a decent front end
really bad. Roberto didn't want to code Symbulator for the '49 2 years back,
since he didn't know how to use the solving capabilities of it. I have shown
him numerous times how to do it (although he kept persisting that it
couldn't), and when he finally admitted that it was just him that was pissed
of at BP, it was too late for him to start development.
If you take a peek at www.hpcalc.org, you'll see top quality programs in
abundance. That was a false remark from you again.
> > And it is a shame that despite a 12 times faster C.P.U,the HP49 can
> > outperform the TI89 for many things.
> Not many at all!!
Yes, that many. You can scream and shout all you want, because you're in my
killfilter anyway. Haven't got the time to run in circles with you.
> Sorry to anybody I insulted, Ok? But I said the truth, right?!!!!!
> The truth hurt, right?
Get lost with your excuses - you don't know good manners if it hit you in
the face.
> The nickname, Peace Maker, I used is the name of a USAF MIRV-ICBM.
> It's the best ICBM the USA has for wagging a nuclear war. Just my 2
> cents.
The "best" ICBM? You must be American - and a militant one at that. That's
great.......an A-bomb.....you and Bush go hand in hand just fine I guess....
--
Steen
J. Yuan
assignments (that's understandable in college, but this is high school).news:nqUb8.15021$5L3.6...@news010.worldonline.dk...
Nick Karagiaouroglou
> Personaly, i am amazed that you sit down and think of elaborate
> replies to write to this troll.
Well, someone(s) must tell him that a calc is not a substitute for a brain.
Greetings,
Nick.
R Lion
Regards
Raul
Nick Karagiaouroglou
f22r...@softhome.net (Peace Maker) wrote in message news:<752cb1bc.0202...@posting.google.com>...
> Most weaknesses of the TI89 that HP zealots point to are made up to
> give the TI89 a bad name. I just want to do the same STUPID THING the
> other way round.
If you have to do the STUPID THING, then at least do it right. Many of
the examples that you gave as, can be done with the HP49G. Because I
don't want to call you a lier, I call you an ignorant.
> 1. Laplace:
> I bought the TI89 because of Lars Frederiksen's Laplace transform
> program. The HP49 could not satisfy me because it could not solve the
> following:
> LAP(SQR(x)),
If SQR is square, then this can be done on the HP49G without any
further work.
>LAP((1-cos(x))/t)
And also this.
> 2. Integrate:
> The Risch algorithm in the HP49G just makes it MARGINALLY better. The
> Steb-by-Step for the INTVX command and other commands is useless
> because it's too crpytic and shows little or no steps to be useful in
> an examination. Can your HP49G integrate the following?:
> INTEGRATE(LN(X+SQRT(1+x^2)))
Yes it can! Substitute X=SINH(Y), use EXPLN to turn hyperbolic
functions to exponentials and EXPAND the integrant.
> INTEGRATE(SQRT(A-X)/SQRT(X))
Yes, without any additional work.
> INTEGRATE(COS(X)*SINH(X))
Yes! Turn the integral to complex exponentials with EXPLN.
> INTEGRATE(X*EXP(1/2*ABS(LN(X^2))))
Yes! In real mode EXPAND the integrand.
Wait for my next attack F22raptor. And be afraid! Be very afraid, that
your rockets against the HP49G will prove to be soap bubbles!
Mwahahahahaaaaargh!
Fired Greetings,
Nick.
Nick Karagiaouroglou
> 1.INTVX(SQRT(1+cos(2x)))
TEXPAND the integrand.
> 2.INTVX(EXP(TAN(X))*(1/COS(X))^2)
The HP49G can do this without any further work. Your example is not
true.
> 4.INTVX(COS(LOG(X))/X)
The HP49G can do this without any further work. Your example is not
true.
> 5.INTVX(SQRT(TAN(X))*(1/COS(X))^2)
The HP49G can do this without any further work. Your example is not
true.
> 6.INTVX((1/COS(X))*LOG(1/COS(X)+TAN(X)))
EXPLN the trigonometric functions of the integrant.
> Steen and others, in case you try to defend the HP49G, please don't
> get me started with you "cowardly" EXPLN command--let the INTVX take
> the bull by the horn.
The one that is a coward here is you. Only cowards need lies to
convince other people. If you choose lies as your "weapons" against
the 49, then you must let us choose our "weapons", which include
EXPLN.
> I have decided not to post a speed comparison chart for these too
> calculators. If I do that, the HP49G will look like an abacus. But, if
> I am provoked, I will surely post a speed comparison chart.
Oh dear, don't provoke him, he will post a speed chart. Do that,
please, give half a reason to reveal 10% of the power of the 49. This
is enough for you!
> There are many more problems the HP49G can't solve; i am just too
> tired to list them.
I'll wait till you recover, f22! You won't post anything here without
an answer from me.
Greetings, and demon smiles.
Nick.
Nick Karagiaouroglou
> > It's the best ICBM the USA has for wagging a nuclear war. Just my 2
> > cents.
>
> The "best" ICBM? You must be American - and a militant one at that. That's
> great.......an A-bomb.....you and Bush go hand in hand just fine I guess....
That's why I "fired" at him from my Su42. ;-)
Greetings,
Nick.
Nick Karagiaouroglou
> More integrals the HP49G INTVX command cannot solve. The TI89 solves
> ALL the integrals I have posted here quickly--without tricks.
The "tricks" you talk about are mathematical methods that obviously go
beyond your skills. When someone masters this "tricks", he/she won't
have the problem "Momi, my calc doesn't do this integral, I need a new
one". What are you going to do when the TI doesn't integrate
something?
> 1.INTVX(LOG(X+SQRT(A^2+X^2)))
Despite your low understanding about "tricks" (or perhaps because of
this) here you are: Substitution X=SINH(X)*a, EXPLN the integrand.
> 3.INTVX(LOG(X+SQRT(A^2+X^2)))
Did you notice that your third example is the same with the first?
> The HP49G LAP and ILAP commands do not deserve do be called Laplace
> transformations commands. HP49G committed a fraud by claiming that the
> HP49G has a built-in Laplace transforms command, The LAP\ILAP command
> fails in soooo many problems.
Yes, sooo many problems of which you posted proved to be completely
easily solveble with the HP49G. (See also my first answer)
> I can't imagine how HP49G owners will feel if I decide to compare the
> speed of these two calculators.
I can't imagine how you are going to do this, when your math knowledge
is below zero.
But anyway, go on, post your comparison, and then wait for mine. >:-D
Greetings,
Nick.
Diego Terzano
contribution? Your point is well taken but all the users here already own
or owned at some point an HP calculator. I don't see your comments helping
anyone. Or... maybe I'm wrong and users will create the programs to
counteract the "weaknesses" you mention about the 49G using one of "HP49G's
numerous programming languages". In any case, it depends on the use you
intend to give your calculator. You can't compare the wealth of advanced
software already developed for the HP's. Civil and structural engineers
will tend to agree that the HP's are unmatched by any other calc. As for
the difference in the # of commands, when you learn how to use them you
discover that the flexibility they provide is more than welcome compared to
the more "inclusive" Ti commands.
Arguing about calculator is really stupid. Use whatever feels best for your
needs and go post constructive posts on the appropriate ng.
Diego Terzano
R Lion
"Nick Karagiaouroglou" <n...@imos-consulting.com> escribió en el mensaje >
> Well, someone(s) must tell him that a calc is not a substitute for a
brain.
>
> Greetings,
> Nick.
JAJAJAJA.
I'm agree.
Regards
Raul
R Lion
"Steen Schmidt" <ssch...@nospam.dk> escribió en el mensaje
news:GtZb8.15087$5L3.6...@news010.worldonline.dk...
>Try this on your TI:
>'factor(expand((x*y+2*x-z)*(x+y*z-3*y)*(6*x^3+x*y+x*z+1)))'
>The HP49G uses 18.36 seconds in comparison. Some time next week, if you
ever
>get done, please post again.
...and 31,36s in my "poor" 48GX with Erable 3.2
I'm VERY interesting in your TI 89, f22raptor... :-P
R Lion
"R Lion" <pit...@NOyahooSPAM.es> escribió en el mensaje
news:a4rm42$k56$1...@titan.bt.es...
Like hp calcs, I have my weaknesses ;-)
Peace Maker
> f22r...@softhome.net (Peace Maker) wrote in message news:<752cb1bc.02021...@posting.google.com>...
> > More integrals the HP49G INTVX command cannot solve. The TI89 solves
> > ALL the integrals I have posted here quickly--without tricks.
>
> The "tricks" you talk about are mathematical methods that obviously go
> beyond your skills. When someone masters this "tricks", he/she won't
> have the problem "Momi, my calc doesn't do this integral, I need a new
> one". What are you going to do when the TI doesn't integrate
> something?
>
> > 1.INTVX(LOG(X+SQRT(A^2+X^2)))
>
> Despite your low understanding about "tricks" (or perhaps because of
> this) here you are: Substitution X=SINH(X)*a, EXPLN the integrand.
>
> > 3.INTVX(LOG(X+SQRT(A^2+X^2)))
I know the HP49G has a higher success rate of integrating exponential
expressions than trigonmetric ones. I apply tricks too in solving
math. I posted those questions just compare the INTVX command with the
INTEGRATE command--simple.
> Did you notice that your third example is the same with the first?
> > The HP49G LAP and ILAP commands do not deserve do be called Laplace
> > transformations commands. HP49G committed a fraud by claiming that the
> > HP49G has a built-in Laplace transforms command, The LAP\ILAP command
> > fails in soooo many problems.
>
> Yes, sooo many problems of which you posted proved to be completely
> easily solveble with the HP49G. (See also my first answer)
> > I can't imagine how HP49G owners will feel if I decide to compare the
> > speed of these two calculators.
>
> I can't imagine how you are going to do this, when your math knowledge
> is below zero.
> But anyway, go on, post your comparison, and then wait for mine. >:-D
You can prove and say whatever you want. I don't have time for trivial
and unnecessary things like doing a time comparison and posting more
messages to this thread. There are more important things to do with
my time.
Besides, I don't use calculators that much. I do most of my math by
hand.
R Lion
"Peace Maker" <f22r...@softhome.net> escribió en el mensaje
> I don't have time for trivial and unnecessary things like doing a time
comparison and >posting more
> messages to this thread. There are more important things to do with
> my time.
>
Oooooh! Please don´t give up. This is very funny (and my 48GX and I, are
very interested in time comparison ;-)
Volker Neurath
>I already know some about integration. U subsitution, etc. Where can I
>find some info on Maple?
Try this: http://www.maplesoft.com
[Fullquote(s) deleted]
Volker
Peace Maker
The correction to LAP(1-COS(X))/t) is LAP(1-COS(X))/X) also add
LAP(1-COS(X))/X^2)
INTVX(COS(LOG(X))/X) was not meant to be there, sorry!
I repeated a question twice. Replace the repeated one with
INTVX(X^3/(SQRT(X^8+1)))
As for the rest that you claim to be untrue, I am baffled too. If they
are really untrue, I sincerely apologize.
n...@imos-consulting.com (Nick Karagiaouroglou) wrote in message news:<cd9ca36b.0202...@posting.google.com>...
Dennis Straley
(puts Peace Maker in killfile)
Dennis
Máximo Castañeda
>
> Right. You can do anything with +, - & / - why even bother to make
> additional functions?
>
Now, what do you want so many commands for?
Just use EVAL ;)
3
5
\<< + \>>
EVAL
You see, you can do it with just one command.
Now, if War Starter counts \<< + \>> as being another command, we should
get another ROM with only the EVAL command, that should get a number
from the stack which would represent what we now call commands. For
example, if EVAL gets a 1, it should get two integers from the stack and
add them, thus 3 5 1 EVAL would yield 8. We should really have that ROM
available, just for pleasure.
Hey, wait. We have SYSEVAL.
[...]
[About customability, specifically being able to change the keyboard
layout]
> >
> > I never dream of that because they are not too important.
[...]
> >
> > I prefer the TI89 layout because I hate having to press a second
> > function key for a comma, '=','y','z','t',etc
>
Well, nothing to add, I guess.
Timité Hassan
> calculator. hehehe!
It is,i agree but it is a third party software when such a function
should be built-in in the TI89.
But you certainly don't know that the main target of TI is high
school.
> > Sure,but can your beloved TI89 finds the anti-derivative this function
> > that anyone with even the lowest level in antiderivative computation
> > can:
> > (2*x+1)*exp(x^2+x) ?
> This same old problem has been posted 13, 872 times by HP fans just to
> give the TI89 a bad name. Get new problems, PLEASE!!
In fact the TI89 fails to find the antiderivatives of any functions of
this kind:
-(f'(x)+g'(x))*exp(f(x)+g(x))
-(f'(x)+g'(x))*cosh(f(x)+g(x))
-(f'(x)+g'(x))*sinh(f(x)+g(x))
-(f'(x)+g'(x))*tanh(f(x)+g(x))
And it also fails on antiderivatives of functions such as:
-(f'(x)+g'(x))/sqrt(1+(f(x)+g(x))^2)
-(f'(x)+g'(x))/sqrt(1-(f(x)+g(x))^2)
And many others.
Those antiderivatives that even a high school student should be able
to find.
> > Each of this calculator fails on certain integrations.
>
> I know.
Then why you come here with some selected few examples that the TI89
can do and where the HP49 fails ?
You should know that both these tools are very limited in this domain
in comparaison of software such as Mathematica,Maple,etc...
The TI89 is even more limited because it doesn't have Risch type
algorithm and has the 64 KB limitation despite 188 KB of user RAM.
>
> The IBP function is integrated into the INTEGRATE of the TI89 command.
> Check the algorithms used by the INTEGRATE command in the TI89 manual.
> Besides, on the HP49G, you still end up using the INTVX command after
> using the IBP command.
Sure the TI has an interactive Integration by parts
function.</sarcasm>
>
> > > c. DIVPC, TAYLOR0 can all be done by TAYLOR on the TI89
> >
> > Really ?
>
> Hell YES!!
> > You will need to explain to me how you can do DIVPC with the TI taylor
> > function.
> > I know how but i doubt that a kid like you know that.
>
> The DIVPC command is used to find the Taylor series of a quotient. The
> TI TAYLOR command accepts quotient as well.
Congratulations !
> > Moreover as we are talking of taylor series,let me know how much time
> > your TI89 needs to compute that:
> > taylor(tanh(tan(x))-tan(tanh(x)),x,7).
> > And has your TI89 an equivalent to the series command of the HP49 ?
>
> At least there is still a high probability that the upcoming AMSs will
> contain additional function. For the HP49G side, there are no more
> chances for an updated ROM.
Sure.Have you seen any real improvement of the ROM since the TI89
release,3 years ago ?
New math commands or significant improvements of a built-in
function,besides solve command ?
And do you know why i give you this example ?
I give it because the it show 2 recureent weakness of the TI89:
-the use of inapropriate algorithms
-The 64 KB limitation
This problem could be solved with any of this weakness removed.
I just wonder why TI hasn't removed at least the algoritm problem.
Do you know that there was a program which enable to solve this
problem on TI-Cas.org ?
The author has even given for free the right algorithm to TI but they
have refused to implement it.
Just to show you how reluctent to improvements they are.
> > > e. BAR, SCATTER, DIFFEG, FUNCTION , etc can all be done by the SETMODE
> > > command
> >
> > What a poor choice of example.
> > Do you know that there is also the equivalent of the setmode command
> > on the HP ?
>
> I know! Damn it! I was just trying to say that the HP49G has fewer
> distinct and unique functions than it appears to have. The commands
> are repetitive!
Hey,calm down.
Well despite repetitive command the HP49 has still much more function
than the TI.
The TU has less than 500 user availlable commands even with the
possible combinaisons used.
Which is far from the over 800 user availlable commands of the HP49.
> > Moreover with TI attitude toward those third party developpers i
> > wouldn't rely too much on them in the future.
> > Heard of the TI-Cas affair ?
> > I wonder why people like Bhuvanesh waste their time developping
> > software for TI.
>
> The patient dog, my friend, eats the largest bone!!
After 6 years of patience i have decided that TI doesn't really care
about the category of users i belong to and that they kiss my a**.
> >
> > > 5. Spreadsheet App:
> > > The TI89's data editor is better than the HP49G's data editor.
>
> > > 6. Text editor:
> > > It's true that the HP49G has a better text edior. But I can't imagine
> > > somebody typing long texts on a calculor. Why go through such
> > > drudgery?. So, I feel those better features on the HP49G's text editor
> > > are unnecessary. Get A PC instead.
> >
> > You contradict yourself here.
> > If you won't need a calculator for doing word processing,why would you
> > need a spreadsheet on a calculator ?
>
> It's easier to type numbers than text with any calculator
Sure,when the keyboard layout and the Text editor are as poorly
designed as the TI89's one,it is.
But when you have a great keyboard layout it is as easy to type
numbers as letters and off course programs.
> > > 7. Directory Structure:
> > > The HP49G has a better directory structure. AND SO WHAT? Completely
> > > unnecessary to me. The TI89's directory structure still gets the job
> > > done.
> >
> > The difference of memory management between these 2 calculators is
> > much bigger than just the directory structure.
>
> The differnce in processor speed between these 2 calculators is much
> bigger than any advantage the HP49G has over the TI89.
It would be the case if the TI89 really takes advantages of its
C.P.U.And if it was the case everything on the TI would be much faster
especially numeric computations,TI-basic,symbolic computations,GUI,3D
plotting,etc...
Btw how much time needs your TI to solve a 25*25 numeric linear system
?
This is the first question my math professor asked me when he saw for
the first time my TI92.
We have been both very dispaointed by the result.
We are still disapointed by the result with the TI92+ HW2 and A.M.S
205.
>
> > Could you enter names with more than 8 characters in the TI ?
>
> About 127^8 types of allowable names is okay for me.
Sure if you like to use short awful name it is your problem.
But actually,we are in the computer age and most pepople used to long
names and could at least expect it on almost every computer related
tool.
And this included so called advanced calculator.
> > Can your idea handle unlimited number of variables within availlable
> > memory ?
> > And if you say,yes then try this:
> > For k,1,3000
> > 0->#("k"&string(k))
> > Endfor
> > That would show you how pathetic the memory management of the TI is as
> > this program just tries to create 3000 variables of a vey small size
> > on the TI.
> > And what about the TI89 24 KB limitations for ASM programs ?
> > And that stupid 64 KB size limitation for variables ?
> > Can you do backups of your RAM in the user Flash ?
>
> Yeah, yeah, yeah! Upon all these they still had to plug the on the
> poor "overdeveloped" thing--too bad. Besides, the fact that TI
> calculator R & D is still alive raises hope for equipping the TI89
> with all these things you have mentioned
I think that if we were able to rely on TI R&D team to improve the
TI89 software,they would have already done major improvements on the
software.
And after a discussion with a TI engineer,i have come to the
conclusion that they aren't interested in improving the built-in
software at all.
And why don't you try the example program i have given ?
Are you affraid to be disappointed by the TI89 ?
> > Can your TI89 even try to recover RAM after a crash ?
>
> The TI89 rarely crashes.
With newer ROM perhaps but it wasn't always the case.
I do remember a time where ROM where very unstable and where you can't
even rely on Flash ROM to recover your datas.
Btw the HP49 is incredibly stable with the later O.S too.
And you haven't answered to my question.
> >
> > > 8. More fonts:
> > > The HP49G has more fonts. AND SO WHAT? To me one font will suffice for
> > > a calculator.
> >
> > This is called customability.
> > To choose the font size or even edit fonts.
> > To customize the usable part of the home screen.
> > To choose between RPN and Algebraic.
> > To choose between 4 built-in langages.
> > To choose between pulldown menus and softkeys.
> > To fully customize the keyboard,etc...
> > Something you TI89 fanboys can only dream off.
>
>
> I never dream of that because they are not too important. All these
> things you have mentioned still ride on one SLOW processor. The TI89
> has built in languages has well.
> It's really funny to know that all what the HP49G programmers got at
> the end for adding all these to the HP49G was a lay-off letter.:)
This exactly what third party developpers are getting for all the work
they have done for TI calculators.
> > Funny to see that when you don't need a HP49 feature,you find it
> > useless on the HP49.
> > Guess what ?
> > Apparently TI has finally found out that Time can be useful on a
> > calculator as the V200 will have one as well as the TI89/TI92+ HW2
> > with the A.M.S 2.06.
>
> I am aware of all that!
Then why do you raise the subject,then ?
>
> The limitations are there to generate revenue for TI so that TI R&D
> (for calculators) will not end up like HP's.
Generate revenue for TI in what way ?
Expecting people to pay poorly designed Flash apps when they can use
third party free programs which are much better than Flash apps
despite all TI limitations ?
Pisssing off developpers which have done incredible job to bring
exceptionnal software to the TI calculator,thus allowing like you to
have such attitude ?
Then i expect that TI relies on other revenues sources.
> > > 11. Keypad:
> > > There is a high probability that the key inscriptions on the HP49G
> > > will wear off quickly.
> >
> > Not the new keyboards.Moreover the HP49 keyboard has a much better
> > layout.
>
> I prefer the TI89 layout because I hate having to press a second
> function key for a comma, '=','y','z','t',etc
On a programmable calculator the alpha mode is very important.
And it simply sucks on the TI89.
> > > 12. Processor:
> > > The TI89 has a better processor. There is more information for
> > > programming the MC68000 than there is for the Saturn.
> >
> > This is certainly why there is much more software for the HP
> > calculators than for the TI calculators besides games.
>
> The 3rd party software available for the TI89 are usually better than
> their HP49G equivalent
>
> > And it is a shame that despite a 12 times faster C.P.U,the HP49 can
> > outperform the TI89 for many things.
> Not many at all!!
Sure can your TI beat the HP49 for numeric computations,3D
plotting/rotation and zoom,user language speed,taylor series,etc... ?
>
> Sorry to anybody I insulted, Ok? But I said the truth, right?!!!!!
> The truth hurt, right?
Partial truth is not the truth.
According to the vorlons(B5) the truth is a three edges swords.
Your side,their side and the truth.
What you have express their is only your side.
Neither me nor anyone esle can claim to have the truth but what we can
do is to be as objective as possible.
And your post was extremely biased.
My point is that both calculators have strengths and weaknesses.
It just happens that software wise,the HP49 is a far superior
calculator because of many factors.
One is that it has been developped over a tool which was designed for
professionnal users while the TI89 was designed with high school
students in mind.
Off course the third party programs significantly improve the TI89 but
they are some points where they can't or where is no third party
programs to od something.
And this where you show your bias because when the TI89 can't
compensate a HP49 feature you find that it is minor and not important.
But as soon as a third party give it to the TI89,this features becomes
important.
This was the case for both EQW and RPN.
I am sure that you were one of those who were minimizing the
importance of HP49 EQW and who have completely changed their mind with
the E.W EQW release.
I am sure that if you knew that there was a third party program which
enables the TI89 to have virtual tree directory structure you wouldn't
have found this feature minor.
> The nickname, Peace Maker, I used is the name of a USAF MIRV-ICBM.
> It's the best ICBM the USA has for wagging a nuclear war. Just my 2
> cents.
Your nickname is an insult because your attitude is completely at the
opposite of what it means.
> Regards,
> OAA
Volker Neurath
>Btw how much time needs your TI to solve a 25*25 numeric linear system?
>This is the first question my math professor asked me when he saw for
>the first time my TI92.
>We have been both very dispaointed by the result.
>We are still disapointed by the result with the TI92+ HW2 and A.M.S
>205.
Just for my interest: how long did it take? And did you ever check
out, how long it takes on your HP49?
Volker (HP48GX-User)
cybernesto
Volker Neurath <nean...@gmx.de> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
a4u5ed$386hm$1...@ID-29596.news.dfncis.de...
TI 89 With a random matrix created through randMat(25,25)->a and a vector
with randMat(25,1)->b and solving with simult(a,b) in aproximate mode it
takes 203.84sec!!!
HP48 with 25 1 RANM and 25 25 RANM / takes 45.42sec!!
cybernesto (TI 89 and HP48G user)
R Lion
"cybernesto" <cyber...@excite.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:a4u846$s3q$1...@news.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de...
>
> TI 89 With a random matrix created through randMat(25,25)->a and a vector
> with randMat(25,1)->b and solving with simult(a,b) in aproximate mode it
> takes 203.84sec!!!
> HP48 with 25 1 RANM and 25 25 RANM / takes 45.42sec!!
>
> cybernesto (TI 89 and HP48G user)
>
>
>
20s in my 48GX... I guess it depends on the random matrices...
Now I'm MORE interested in the TI... ;-D
Regards
Raul
Scott Spillman
"cybernesto" <cyber...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:a4u846$s3q$1...@news.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de...
> TI 89 With a random matrix created through randMat(25,25)->a and a vector
> with randMat(25,1)->b and solving with simult(a,b) in aproximate mode it
> takes 203.84sec!!!
> HP48 with 25 1 RANM and 25 25 RANM / takes 45.42sec!!
My 49g in Approx mode took 65.69s to divide the 2 matrices.
My 89 in approx mode took 285.26s to do simult(a,b). Almost 5 minutes!!
I would have calculated more to try to get an average, but I don't have that
kind of time! ;-)
-Scott
Steen Schmidt
> TI 89 With a random matrix created through randMat(25,25)->a and a vector
> with randMat(25,1)->b and solving with simult(a,b) in aproximate mode it
> takes 203.84sec!!!
On the TI89 HW2, I get:
simult(a,b): 211-213 seconds
a^-1*b: 399-401 seconds
> HP48 with 25 1 RANM and 25 25 RANM / takes 45.42sec!!
On the HP48GX, I get:
b/a: 19-19½ seconds
a^-1*b: 53-53½ seconds
On the HP49G, I get:
b/a: 19-22 or 68-71 seconds
a^-1*b: 55-57 seconds
On the HP48GX, the timing differences are almost non-existent. On the TI89,
the situation is the same - very stable execution times. The HP49G is a
somewhat different story. The timing is pretty low and consistent, but in
some cases, the '49 suddenly spends three times the normal execution time.
The reason for this is simple: The HP49G has two types of matrices -
symbolic (Type 29) or numeric (Type 3 or 4, depending on real or complex
contents). The symbolic matrix type can hold symbolic as well as numeric
elements, so it may not be possible to detect any visible differences
between the two on the stack. RANM on the '49 creates Type 29 matrices in
both exact and approx modes, so to make certain that a matrix containing
strictly numeric values only, is Type 3 or 4, apply the ->NUM command on it.
After this, the execution times are comparable to those on the HP48GX.
The solve() commands on the HP49G and the TI89 can also solve these types of
problems, but at these system dimensions they take ages to execute.
Regards
Steen
cybernesto
> > HP48 with 25 1 RANM and 25 25 RANM / takes 45.42sec!!
>
> On the HP48GX, I get:
>
> b/a: 19-19½ seconds
> a^-1*b: 53-53½ seconds
>
only had 12kB available. BTW I measured the time with teval... could that
interfere?.
Raul Lion
> You must be right there. Maybe my test was slower because of free ram?. I
> only had 12kB available. BTW I measured the time with teval... could that
> interfere?.
As you can see in my previous post, I've got same time (20s) in my GX
with 32K of free memory. I've measured with TEVAL too. (Erable 3.2)
Regards
Raul
Steen Schmidt
> only had 12kB available. BTW I measured the time with teval... could that
> interfere?.
TEVAL is pretty good - I don't know what you have done extra? Even if I add
the generation of the matrices with RANM, I still only get 28 seconds. I
have 77 KB RAM free in my HP48GX.
Regards
Steen
cybernesto
Raul Lion <pit...@yahoo.es> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
b1f5ba59.02022...@posting.google.com...
don't remember where. Now tell me that the speed improvement is because of
Erable. Otherwise I've got the slowest 48 in this Newgroup >-(.
R Lion
for this test, but I'm not sure if your 12Kb of free memory are the
guilty...
Sorry if this doen't help
Raul
"cybernesto" <cyber...@excite.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:a50ons$17m$1...@news.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de...
Brian Chamberlain
this thread. There's nothing wrong with favoring one calculator over
the other but now that you started the discussion why not stick with it?
"Peace Maker" <f22r...@softhome.net> wrote in message >
Bhuvanesh
> Why don't you post a speed comparison then? That'll show us all your
> understanding of math. I'm preparing one too, so we can have a contest?
Excellent, Steen! Maybe I should have provoked you a long time back!
;-)
> You do remember that the CAS of the TI89 is based on Derive, and not
> Mathematice?
Mathematica would need much more memory than Derive, so it wouldn't be
a good idea to use it on a TI-89 (the same way as the Maple-powered
Cassiopeia was a bad idea).
--
Bhuvanesh
Bhuvanesh
--
Bhuvanesh
n...@imos-consulting.com (Nick Karagiaouroglou) wrote in message news:<cd9ca36b.0202...@posting.google.com>...
> Some more greetings ;-)
>
> > 1.INTVX(SQRT(1+cos(2x)))
>
> TEXPAND the integrand.
>
> > 2.INTVX(EXP(TAN(X))*(1/COS(X))^2)
>
> The HP49G can do this without any further work. Your example is not
> true.
>
> > 4.INTVX(COS(LOG(X))/X)
>
> The HP49G can do this without any further work. Your example is not
> true.
>
> > 5.INTVX(SQRT(TAN(X))*(1/COS(X))^2)
>
> The HP49G can do this without any further work. Your example is not
> true.
>
> > 6.INTVX((1/COS(X))*LOG(1/COS(X)+TAN(X)))
>
> EXPLN the trigonometric functions of the integrant.
>
> > Steen and others, in case you try to defend the HP49G, please don't
> > get me started with you "cowardly" EXPLN command--let the INTVX take
> > the bull by the horn.
>
> The one that is a coward here is you. Only cowards need lies to
> convince other people. If you choose lies as your "weapons" against
> the 49, then you must let us choose our "weapons", which include
> EXPLN.
>
> > I have decided not to post a speed comparison chart for these too
> > calculators. If I do that, the HP49G will look like an abacus. But, if
> > I am provoked, I will surely post a speed comparison chart.
>
> Oh dear, don't provoke him, he will post a speed chart. Do that,
> please, give half a reason to reveal 10% of the power of the 49. This
> is enough for you!
>
> > There are many more problems the HP49G can't solve; i am just too
> > tired to list them.
>
> I'll wait till you recover, f22! You won't post anything here without
> an answer from me.
>
> Greetings, and demon smiles.
> Nick.
Bhuvanesh
> I wonder why people like Bhuvanesh waste their time developping
> software for TI.
Because it is interesting and challenging! It is relatively easy, for
example, to port GMP (the GNU multiple-precision library) to the
TI-89/92+/V200. There is even an MC68000-optimized version of GMP. A
static linkable GMP library for TIGCC would be nice.
And look at the progress, even with not much support from TI (besides
the SDK and the programming contests): every built-in HP49G command
(or almost every command -- I don't remember) has been programmed for
the TI-89, as well as several that the HP49G doesn't have.
A note: my intention here (or anywhere else) is never to provoke wars
-- I dislike both flame wars and real, physical wars.
--
Bhuvanesh
Bhuvanesh
timi...@yahoo.fr (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Timit=E9_Hassan?=) wrote:
> And has your TI89 an equivalent to the series command of the HP49 ?
Kind of, except it's numeric. My NSeries program does this. For the
tanh(tan(x))-tan(tanh(x)) example to order 7 about zero, I get,
approximately:
4.337*10^-7/x^5 - 6.475*10^-8/x - 9.406*10^-9*x^3 - 0.0444*x^7
The first three terms are pretty small, and the dominant term is
-0.0444*x^7.
--
Bhuvanesh
Bhuvanesh
> we do not have the need for '=', since all expressions are seen as equal to
> zero by the HP49G. That's a thing the TI programmers really couldn't grasp,
> even though it's a very common mathematical idea.
I haven't seen it used anywhere except on the HP49G...
> > The nickname, Peace Maker, I used is the name of a USAF MIRV-ICBM.
> > It's the best ICBM the USA has for wagging a nuclear war. Just my 2
> > cents.
>
> The "best" ICBM? You must be American - and a militant one at that. That's
> great.......an A-bomb.....you and Bush go hand in hand just fine I guess....
He isn't American. I think he was being sarcastic.
--
Bhuvanesh
Bhuvanesh
> After 6 years of patience i have decided that TI doesn't really care
> about the category of users i belong to and that they kiss my a**.
That's why we develop our own stuff without relying on TI.
> Btw how much time needs your TI to solve a 25*25 numeric linear system?
This could be considered a numeric matrix inversion problem. There's a
fast program for numeric matrix inversion at
http://www.perez-franco.com/symbulator/download/am.html
> Sure if you like to use short awful name it is your problem.
> But actually,we are in the computer age and most pepople used to long
> names and could at least expect it on almost every computer related
> tool.
> And this included so called advanced calculator.
I agree.
> Off course the third party programs significantly improve the TI89 but
> they are some points where they can't or where is no third party
> programs to od something.
Like what? (Not arguing, just curious... and I mean math stuff.)
> I am sure that if you knew that there was a third party program which
> enables the TI89 to have virtual tree directory structure you wouldn't
> have found this feature minor.
Well, IMHO it's minor relative to the CAS, but it would be nice to
have.
--
Bhuvanesh
Bhuvanesh
> Recently, TI had the nerve to advertize an Equation Writer program for sale...
It was the author of the program, *not* TI, who decided to release a
Flash app version for purchase. TI cannot sell something they do not
own.
--
Bhuvanesh
Bhuvanesh
> J Yuan: Maple is perhaps the best computer algebra system existing
> today. Mathematica is very close, but there are major problems with
> Mathematica (that I could fill a book with) that I don't care for.
... and even more problems with Maple! :-)
--
Bhuvanesh
Bhuvanesh
> Can the TI89 do SUM(X*X!,X,Y)? It's '(Y+1)*Y!-1' if you're wondering.
Gosper algorithm?
> > c. DIVPC, TAYLOR0 can all be done by TAYLOR on the TI89
>
> Ok, how about 'SQRT(X^2+X+1)' at infinity? Or 'X^X' at zero? Or 'ASIN(X)'
> at -1?. Or even 'SIN(X)/(EXP(X)-1)' at zero?
My NSeries program can do all of these.
> The TI89 doesn't have a directory structure in my opinion. You can't let
> programs reach from one folder to another, hence it is a pain in the ass.
Let programs reach from one folder to another? Use an absolute
reference like myfolder\myprog(). That's what you meant, right?
> You can even download a syntax-helper and use autocompletion on the '49.
You probably know this, but... Samuel Stearley has written an
autocompletion program for the TI-89.
--
Bhuvanesh
R Lion
You are a little late
"Bhuvanesh" <lalu_...@yahoo.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:662e00ed.02022...@posting.google.com...
Nick Karagiaouroglou
Hmm, now that you say it, I realize that "my buffer had an overflow".
>flash buffer
...done
>install bufferwatcher
...Buffer watcher installed. Buffer will be emptied every 30 seconds.
Greetings,
Nick.
P.S. Too allergic against F22-Raptors and other human made instruments
for death and destruction. ;-)
P.P.S But the aerodynamics of it....!!!!!
lalu_...@yahoo.com (Bhuvanesh) wrote in message news:<662e00ed.02022...@posting.google.com>...
Timité Hassan
>
> > After 6 years of patience i have decided that TI doesn't really care
> > about the category of users i belong to and that they kiss my a**.
>
> That's why we develop our own stuff without relying on TI.
Well there are better things to do than developping software for and
making a company such as TI,earning more money.
Especially when this company has such an awful attitude toward those
developpers and people such as O.Miclo doing better work for its
calculators(for free) them some of these unemployees.
> > Btw how much time needs your TI to solve a 25*25 numeric linear system?
>
> This could be considered a numeric matrix inversion problem. There's a
> fast program for numeric matrix inversion at
> http://www.perez-franco.com/symbulator/download/am.html
And why this algoritm is not built-in and used for numeric matrix
computations ?
> > Off course the third party programs significantly improve the TI89 but
> > they are some points where they can't or where is no third party
> > programs to od something.
>
> Like what? (Not arguing, just curious... and I mean math stuff.)
There is a pretty obvious one,the memory management.
The limitations input the calculator to solve problems it would have
easily solved without them.
And they certainly severely slow down the calculator for some complex
problems.
There is another one given by you.
The unability to used nested list.
and what about the autosimplification which input you to control the
simplification of a result ?
Now there are a lot not related to math.
> > I am sure that if you knew that there was a third party program which
> > enables the TI89 to have virtual tree directory structure you wouldn't
> > have found this feature minor.
>
> Well, IMHO it's minor relative to the CAS, but it would be nice to
> have.
In fact PCtools98 enables to manage your datas via a tree directory
structure.Unfortunately this directory structure is useable only via
the PCtools 98 files manager.
Samuel Stearley
> autocompletion program for the TI-89.
Here is my site:
http://www.geocities.com/sstear70
My auto completion tsr also suppoorts variables, folders, system
variables, and has a replacement for the unit menu that is faster and
more efecient.
-Samuel
Timité Hassan
> timi...@yahoo.fr (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Timit=E9_Hassan?=) wrote:
>
> > I wonder why people like Bhuvanesh waste their time developping
> > software for TI.
>
> Because it is interesting and challenging! It is relatively easy, for
> example, to port GMP (the GNU multiple-precision library) to the
> TI-89/92+/V200. There is even an MC68000-optimized version of GMP. A
> static linkable GMP library for TIGCC would be nice.
Well i find more interesting to develop softwares for my PC.Especially
when you have to develop TI68k software on the PC despite the QWERTY
keyboard of the TI92+/Voyage 200.
Now tell me,if there is already a M68K optimised version of GMP then
it should be easy to port it to the TI68k ?
Or have you a lot of troubles with TI68k software limitations ?
> And look at the progress, even with not much support from TI (besides
> the SDK and the programming contests): every built-in HP49G command
> (or almost every command -- I don't remember) has been programmed for
> the TI-89, as well as several that the HP49G doesn't have.
There are a lot of functionnalities of the HP49G that the TI89 doesn't
have even with third party software.
What about:
I/O protocols ?
Built-in SDK ?
Advanced memory management ?
Fast user language with debug mode and access to a lot of low level
functionnalities ?
2 user languages ?
Extreme customability ?
And believe me the TI89 is very far to have as much functionnalities
as the HP48GX if we take in account third party software.
Timité Hassan
Well i was talking of functions returning exact results.And i was not
talking of such a simple example that should be easily solvable by the
TI89 if it has the right algorithm and/or no stupid limitations such
as the 64 KB one.
Bhuvanesh
> > > I am sure that if you knew that there was a third party program which
> > > enables the TI89 to have virtual tree directory structure you wouldn't
> > > have found this feature minor.
> >
> > Well, IMHO it's minor relative to the CAS, but it would be nice to
> > have.
>
> In fact PCtools98 enables to manage your datas via a tree directory
> structure.Unfortunately this directory structure is useable only via
> the PCtools 98 files manager.
Hmm, I wonder whether it's possible to write a TSR that maps between a
user-input path (e.g. this\is\a\path\filename) and the PCTools98
representation. I'm not familiar with PCTools98, though, and this
might only work for keyboard input.
--
Bhuvanesh
Samuel Stearley
> user-input path (e.g. this\is\a\path\filename) and the PCTools98
> representation. I'm not familiar with PCTools98, though, and this
> might only work for keyboard input.
Sigh. Kevin and I (especially me) over did it with the tsrs. This
would be quite hard. A better option would be if Lar's rpn program
was modified to support multiple folder heirarchies: it prints one
folder name in the status line while another is active. This is quite
possible because the folder text in the status is not automatically
changed when the current folder is changed. Anyways I think that
developement of the rpn program has finished and it is not open
source. If it was open source I would already have tried to build
options to store stack data to the home history. Or load history
pairs into the stack.
-Samuel
Julio Cesar Ramos
> then you should quit school. The idea is that you learn how to do it by
> hand, and then you don't need the calculator other than for checking maybe.
If I would have any trouble because my HP49G/48X does not solve a
problem, I would not be an Engineer. Even in the school, I learned to
do anything by hand, but *UNDERSTANDING* what I am doing. Calculators
with CAS were only allowed for checking and saving time on trivial
calculations.
> Pretty sad when students rely so heavily on a calculator - I get the picture
> that that's often the case in the States.
In my school, on my math and physics classes, the teachers used to
apply the tests in a manner which any calculator, even the 49g or TI89
were completely useless. We had no other choice than put the calc in
the bag and THINK to solve the problem, many of them were easily
solved with a few steps, once you found the correct way (of course,
this is the hard part).
I can surely say that pressign a button on a calc NEVER solved
anything. If you really want to use the calc, you first need to be
sure of what you are doing.
However, the HP48/49 is an Engineer愀 great tool, but it is only for
make the job EASIER and TO SAVE TIME (the time is money), but never to
replace the brain. It愀 only an extension of your brain.
When I am carrying the Hp48/49 I feel good, but when I don愒, I feel
as a good Engineer as I am always, even when don愒 have any calculator
nor computer near.
I am the master, not the Hp49 or the computer.
> Regards
> Steen
only my personal opinion.
Regards.
Julio Cesar Ramos.
William
graphic calculators as a requirement, which I'm glad she has done. However,
I'm in calculus and people aren't sure how to simplify quantities with
exponents....something fishy here in the states ! Please students... just
don't forget what you learned in algebra, cause I want more time spent in
class on the current subject and topic ! I like to use the HP49 with my
assignments because I get to learn how to use the calculator efficiently,
check my work, and see what limitations the calculator has, if any, with
current problems. By the way... this discussion has become pretty comical
at times. I think if we just ignored the very first comment (although hard
to do) they would have felt very dumb !
"Steen Schmidt" <ssch...@nospam.dk> wrote in message
news:1cUb8.15016$5L3.6...@news010.worldonline.dk...
> I hope for you that you always have a online connection to comp.sys.hp48
> when you are taking a test else you could be in trouble if you had to
solve
> this type of job with your calculator. ;)
If you're in trouble because your calculator can't do a LaPlace transform,
then you should quit school. The idea is that you learn how to do it by
hand, and then you don't need the calculator other than for checking maybe.
Pretty sad when students rely so heavily on a calculator - I get the picture
that that's often the case in the States.
Regards
Steen
HPhreacker 2002(娉)
"Peace Maker" <f22r...@softhome.net> escreveu na mensagem
news:752cb1bc.0202...@posting.google.com...
> > 1. Laplace:
> I bought the TI89 because of Lars Frederiksen's Laplace transform
> program. The HP49 could not satisfy me because it could not solve the
> following:
> LAP(SQR(x)),
LAP(1/SQRT(x)),LAP(EXP(-A*X}/SQRT(pi*X)),LAP((1-cos(x))/t),LAP((1+2*a*X)/(SQ
RT(pi*X)),LAP(2/x*(cos(b*X-cos(a*X)),
> LAP(2/X*SINH(A*X)). All these any MANY more can't be done by the
> HP49G, but can be done by Laplace89 on the TI89.
I don't buy calculators because of a program. It's just like buying Windows
because of Freecell.
> 2. Integrate:
> The Risch algorithm in the HP49G just makes it MARGINALLY better. The
> Steb-by-Step for the INTVX command and other commands is useless
> because it's too crpytic and shows little or no steps to be useful in
> an examination. Can your HP49G integrate the following?:
> INTEGRATE(LN(X+SQRT(1+x^2))), INTEGRATE(SQRT(X)/SQRT(A^3-X^3)),
> INTEGRATE(SQRT(A-X)/SQRT(X)), INTEGRATE(COS(X)*SINH(X)),
> INTEGRATE(X*EXP(1/2*ABS(LN(X^2)))),INTEGRATE((X^3-X^2)^(1/3)),
> INTEGRATE(LN(1+X)/SQRT(X)), INTEGRATE(X^2/SQRT(X^6+25)). The TI89 can
> do all these quickly. The HP49G is faster only 20% of the time for all
> problems.
>
> 4. Number of commands:
> It appears the HP49G has more command than the TI89. It appears so
> because many of the commands on the HP49G can be done by fewer
> commands on the TI89.
>
> a. Risch, Preval, Int, INTVX, INTV, IBP can all be done by INTEGRATE
> on the TI89
> b. ABCUV, EGCD, IABCUV, IEGCD can all be done by EXPAND (if used well)
> on the 89
> c. DIVPC, TAYLOR0 can all be done by TAYLOR on the TI89
> d. LINSOLVE, SOLVEVX, SOLVE can all be done by one solve command on
> the TI89
> e. BAR, SCATTER, DIFFEG, FUNCTION , etc can all be done by the SETMODE
> command
> on the TI89
> f. LNCOLLECT, LIN, TRIG, TEXPAND, TSIMP, TLIN TCOLLECT are all done
> automatically be the TI89
> g. Too many to mention
It's better to have more commands and have more control.
> 4. Built-in functions:
> It's true that HP49G has more built in function than the TI89. But
> it's a blessing that the TI89 lacks such built-in command, because the
> 3rd party programs on the TI89 that do those built-in command in the
> HP49G are the best you can ever find on any calculator. Examples of
> those wonder 3rd party programs are: Mathtools by B. Bhatt,
> DIFFEQ/LAPLACE/FOURIER by L. Frederiksen, SIGNAL89 by...can't
Stat48Pro, AutoSimp49, OT49, Emacs, just to say a few.
> remember, etc. What's worth doing is worth doing well. That's exactly
> what these third party programs do for the TI89. For example, the
> built-in EQW on the HP49G can't edit matrices, but the 3rd-party EQW
> on the TI89 can.
What I want with editing matrices on EQW? Calculate cos(det(x))?
> 5. Spreadsheet App:
> The TI89's data editor is better than the HP49G's data editor.
No.
> 6. Text editor:
> It's true that the HP49G has a better text edior. But I can't imagine
> somebody typing long texts on a calculor. Why go through such
> drudgery?. So, I feel those better features on the HP49G's text editor
> are unnecessary. Get A PC instead.
> 7. Directory Structure:
> The HP49G has a better directory structure. AND SO WHAT? Completely
> unnecessary to me. The TI89's directory structure still gets the job
> done.
Just assume that you have an big directory structure like:
|-HOME
|
|
|
|- GAMES
| MINEHUNT
| TETRIS
| TEST
|- MATH
| GEOMETRY
|- CALCULUS
| ANALYZE
|- UTILS
|- HACKER
on 49 it has subdirectory.
I have an TI-89, an TI-92+ and an 86(very messed).
> 8. Connectivity Protocols:
> True , the HP49G has Kermit, Xmodem, Zmodem, etc. The TI89's protocol
> still gets the job done EQUALLY. The HP49G doesn't have something
> similar to TI CONNECT.
That is, you don't know how to use it.
> 9. Programmability:
> The HP49G has no SDK. The C SDK for the TI89 gives the TI89 an edge
> over the HP49G's numerous programming languages
Debug2, from hpcalc.org.
> 10. Display:
> The TI89 has a better display.-)
Yes but the PC-like menuing is shitty :-PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
>
> 12. Processor:
> The TI89 has a better processor. There is more information for
> programming the MC68000 than there is for the Saturn.
And there's no SYSEVAL or LIBEVAL.
Sys-RPL rulez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 13. Memory:
> The TI89's memory is more than enough for me.
And on it, can you store files into Flash ROM?
No compressor for it.
And...
Can you evaluate gamma(x) on TI?
Can you evaluate 0,5! on TI?
Can you graph a conic on it?
Can you get roots of 'a*x^4+b*x^3+c*x^2+d*x+e' on it?
I can: [a b c d e] PROOT.
Can you make libraries direct from it?
Can you connect it to any serial port?
Can you use it connected to an 286 - MS-DOS 3.3 computer?
and...
HPhreacker 2002(娉)
"akula" <ak...@ya.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:3c6fd8e7...@news.ya.com...
>
> >12. I forgot to say the HP49G can't find LU's of symbolic matrices.
> >
> >
> >f22r...@softhome.net (Peace Maker) wrote in message
news:<752cb1bc.0202...@posting.google.com>...
> >> Most weaknesses of the TI89 that HP zealots point to are made up to
> >> give the TI89 a bad name. I just want to do the same STUPID THING the
> >> other way round.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 1. Laplace:
> >> I bought the TI89 because of Lars Frederiksen's Laplace transform
> >> program. The HP49 could not satisfy me because it could not solve the
> >> following:
> >> LAP(SQR(x)),
LAP(1/SQRT(x)),LAP(EXP(-A*X}/SQRT(pi*X)),LAP((1-cos(x))/t),LAP((1+2*a*X)/(SQ
RT(pi*X)),LAP(2/x*(cos(b*X-cos(a*X)),
> >> LAP(2/X*SINH(A*X)). All these any MANY more can't be done by the
> >> HP49G, but can be done by Laplace89 on the TI89.
>
Or HP48 with Erable+Int48Pro+Alg48?
> >> 2. Integrate:
> >> The Risch algorithm in the HP49G just makes it MARGINALLY better. The
> >> Steb-by-Step for the INTVX command and other commands is useless
> >> because it's too crpytic and shows little or no steps to be useful in
> >> an examination. Can your HP49G integrate the following?:
> >> INTEGRATE(LN(X+SQRT(1+x^2))), INTEGRATE(SQRT(X)/SQRT(A^3-X^3)),
> >> INTEGRATE(SQRT(A-X)/SQRT(X)), INTEGRATE(COS(X)*SINH(X)),
> >> INTEGRATE(X*EXP(1/2*ABS(LN(X^2)))),INTEGRATE((X^3-X^2)^(1/3)),
> >> INTEGRATE(LN(1+X)/SQRT(X)), INTEGRATE(X^2/SQRT(X^6+25)). The TI89 can
> >> do all these quickly. The HP49G is faster only 20% of the time for all
> >> problems.
>
> Marginally better doesn't mean better?
>
> >> 4. Built-in functions:
> >> It's true that HP49G has more built in function than the TI89. But
> >> it's a blessing that the TI89 lacks such built-in command, because the
> >> 3rd party programs on the TI89 that do those built-in command in the
> >> HP49G are the best you can ever find on any calculator. Examples of
> >> those wonder 3rd party programs are: Mathtools by B. Bhatt,
> >> DIFFEQ/LAPLACE/FOURIER by L. Frederiksen, SIGNAL89 by...can't
> >> remember, etc. What's worth doing is worth doing well. That's exactly
> >> what these third party programs do for the TI89. For example, the
> >> built-in EQW on the HP49G can't edit matrices, but the 3rd-party EQW
> >> on the TI89 can.
>
> If you don't want to use the bulit-in funcitions, don't use them, but
> it's better if they are available. I use very good software, probably
> the best available for my calc, but I love to program my own routines
> and those functions are wonderful for me.
>
> >> 6. Text editor:
> >> It's true that the HP49G has a better text edior. But I can't imagine
> >> somebody typing long texts on a calculor. Why go through such
> >> drudgery?. So, I feel those better features on the HP49G's text editor
> >> are unnecessary. Get A PC instead.
>
> Haven`t you used the text editor of your calc? I use it often, and I
> want the best text editor possible. If you only perform sums on your
> calc, that's OK for you, you don't need any text editor. Better say
> that a text editor is unnecessary. But sometimes
> I do intensive use of it.
>
> >> 7. Directory Structure:
> >> The HP49G has a better directory structure. AND SO WHAT? Completely
> >> unnecessary to me. The TI89's directory structure still gets the job
> >> done.
>
> Well, I think that you are conscient of the superiority of HP
> directory structure over TI.. It doesn't matter that TI do the job
> for you. Better is better.
>
> >> 8. More fonts:
> >> The HP49G has more fonts. AND SO WHAT? To me one font will suffice for
> >> a calculator.
>
> I don't use multiple fonts but better if I have it built-in. Maybe I
> will need them one day. Who knows.
>
> >> 9. Alarm Clock:
> >> I don't need this because it's not necessary, thank you! My alarm,
> >> multi-chronograph Citizen wrist watchcan buy two HP49Gs. Besides, most
> >> people own wristwatches with buzzers.
>
> In my HP48 GX the alarm clock is good for advise when my RAMCard is
> having it's battery weak. I use an alarm for telling me when I have to
> change the batteries. And one more thing: My wrist watch isn't able to
> wake me up, but my HP's buzzer is able.
>
> >> 9. Programmability:
> >> The HP49G has no SDK. The C SDK for the TI89 gives the TI89 an edge
> >> over the HP49G's numerous programming languages
>
> Have you ever had a look to the huge program library for the HP's? You
> have a lot of symbolic mathmatics programs, a lot of science,
> chemistry, physics programs and thousands of utilities. Still do you
> think that HP's are less programmable (or harder programmable) than
> TI's?
>
> >> 10. Display:
> >> The TI89 has a better display.-)
>
> I agree with you here, but I coult argument like you saying some
> nonsenses like: I find my calc's display wonderful, so, why do I need
> more? I think better display is unnecesary bla bla bla bla...
>
>
> >> 12. Processor:
> >> The TI89 has a better processor. There is more information for
> >> programming the MC68000 than there is for the Saturn.
>
> Faster doesn't mean better. And there is more info than you need to
> program the Saturn CPU in various languages.
>
> >> 13. Memory:
> >> The TI89's memory is more than enough for me.
>
> I know persons who fill completely 2 MB RAMcards in a HP48 GX
> expanded. For me it's wonderful if you have more than enough with
> TI89's memory
Like me? I have 188 libraries.
> >> Conclusion: ANY product that fails to generate enough revenue for its
> >> maker is aa BIG FAILURE!! The HP49G (with all its 762 commands) is a
> >> PERFECT example of a failure!! No wonder they had to pull the plug on
> >> it. It's a shame BP's works was not seen as profitable to some
> >> CEOs--too bad!! ehehe!!
>
>
> Nonsenses...
>
> Akula
HPhreacker 2002(娉)
> > > Steen and others, in case you try to defend the HP49G, please don't
> > > get me started with you "cowardly" EXPLN command--let the INTVX take
> > > the bull by the horn.
> >
> > works? If a carpenter doesn't know how to use a saw, is it the saws
fault if
> > the carpenter saws askew?
>
> That's a hot one.
> I know perfectly what the EXPLN does. I just did not want the HP49G
> owners to use it as alternative or a way of solving those integrals I
> listed. I didn't express myself properly there; so you misunderstood
> me.
> >
> > > I have decided not to post a speed comparison chart for these too
> > > calculators. If I do that, the HP49G will look like an abacus.
> >
> Yes. And it has always been the intention of you, Tim Wissman and Co
> to give the TI89 VERY little credit. You have never been fair. Did any
> TI calculator ever cause you to loose something dear? What has TI done
> to you?
>
> >
> > > But, if
> > > I am provoked, I will surely post a speed comparison chart.
> >
> > understanding of math. I'm preparing one too, so we can have a contest?
> > comparison will be a bit bigger than usual, as I'm running quite a few
tests
> > (and not only math ones either). The TI89 is fast, yes, very fast - but
it's
> > pretty damn stupid if you ask me. We'll see.
>
> That's another hot one.-)
> Your calling the TI89 a stupid thing clearly show your bias nature.
> That just degrades the effort many smart people have put into it. I
> will not post anymore messages again about comparisons. This thing is
> getting out of hands. My aim was to compare the two calculators
> jokingly and not to compare our math skills. How would like it if
> someone calls your good efforts stupid?
>
> >
> > > There are many more problems the HP49G can't solve; i am just too
> > > tired to list them.
> >
> > Mathematice?
Even MuPAD is better than Derive.
> > Regards
> > Steen
>
> This is the final message! Sorry to all those I have insulted.
HPhreacker 2002(娉)
"Peace Maker" <f22r...@softhome.net> escreveu na mensagem
news:752cb1bc.02021...@posting.google.com...
> Besides, I don't use calculators that much. I do most of my math by
> hand.
So, why buy an TI89?
Buy an HP25 and shut up.
HPhreacker 2002(娉)
"HPhreacker 2002(®)" <hphre...@email.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:aahujk$atihv$8...@ID-88878.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Peace Maker" <f22r...@softhome.net> escreveu na mensagem
> news:752cb1bc.0202...@posting.google.com...
> > > 1. Laplace:
> > I bought the TI89 because of Lars Frederiksen's Laplace transform
> > program. The HP49 could not satisfy me because it could not solve the
> > following:
> > LAP(SQR(x)), >
LAP(1/SQRT(x)),LAP(EXP(-A*X}/SQRT(pi*X)),LAP((1-cos(x))/t),LAP((1+2*a*X)/(SQ
> RT(pi*X)),LAP(2/x*(cos(b*X-cos(a*X)),
> > LAP(2/X*SINH(A*X)). All these any MANY more can't be done by the
> > HP49G, but can be done by Laplace89 on the TI89.
> I don't buy calculators because of a program. It's just like buying
Windows
> because of Freecell.
Because(PeaceMaker), you're a 14-year-old kid that can't memorize commands.
I am 15 and memorized 120 commands of HP49 in 3 weeks.
> > 4. Built-in functions:
> > It's true that HP49G has more built in function than the TI89. But
> > it's a blessing that the TI89 lacks such built-in command, because the
> > 3rd party programs on the TI89 that do those built-in command in the
> > HP49G are the best you can ever find on any calculator. Examples of
> > those wonder 3rd party programs are: Mathtools by B. Bhatt,
> > DIFFEQ/LAPLACE/FOURIER by L. Frederiksen, SIGNAL89 by...can't
> Stat48Pro, AutoSimp49, OT49, Emacs, just to say a few.
> > remember, etc. What's worth doing is worth doing well. That's exactly
> > what these third party programs do for the TI89. For example, the
> > built-in EQW on the HP49G can't edit matrices, but the 3rd-party EQW
> > on the TI89 can.
> What I want with editing matrices on EQW? Calculate cos(det(x))?
OOPS! Stat49Pro.
For HP48, Erable, MK, RainEQ, ASTK, Matrix, Java, ShellOS, Jazz, ADS, ...
too many to remember now.
[and an TI-83+ & TI-92(the model with 72Kb)] (so I have how to prove my
affirmations).
>
> > 8. Connectivity Protocols:
> > True , the HP49G has Kermit, Xmodem, Zmodem, etc. The TI89's protocol
> > still gets the job done EQUALLY. The HP49G doesn't have something
> > similar to TI CONNECT.
> That is, you don't know how to use it.
> > 9. Programmability:
> > The HP49G has no SDK. The C SDK for the TI89 gives the TI89 an edge
> > over the HP49G's numerous programming languages
> Debug2, from hpcalc.org.
And for HP48, GNU Tools and HPIDE.
> > 10. Display:
> > The TI89 has a better display.-)
> Yes but the PC-like menuing is shitty :-PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
>
> >
> > 12. Processor:
> > The TI89 has a better processor. There is more information for
> > programming the MC68000 than there is for the Saturn.
> And there's no SYSEVAL or LIBEVAL.
> Sys-RPL rulez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > 13. Memory:
> > The TI89's memory is more than enough for me.
>
> And on it, can you store files into Flash ROM?
> No compressor for it.
> And...
> Can you evaluate gamma(x) on TI?
> Can you evaluate 0,5! on TI?
> Can you graph a conic on it?
> Can you get roots of 'a*x^4+b*x^3+c*x^2+d*x+e' on it?
> I can: [a b c d e] PROOT.
> Can you make libraries direct from it?
> Can you connect it to any serial port?
> Can you use it connected to an 286 - MS-DOS 3.3 computer?
>
> and...
Can you have Library Data on it?
I've got my 49 because of the solver:
for sin(x)=cos(x):
{ 'X=2.*n1*pi+2.*ATAN(-2.41421356237)' 'X=2.*n2*pi+2.*ATAN(.414213562373)' }
and not the shitty "Warning! More solutions may exist".
And the VTI(unique TI-89 emulator) can't load even FlashApps, needs TiLP!
What a shame!
Is like having an HP-48 emulator that don't emulate memory!
HPhreacker 2002(娉)
"Timité Hassan" <timi...@yahoo.fr> escreveu na mensagem
news:80e7cd6f.0202...@posting.google.com...
> > At least it's the best Laplace transform program available for a
> > calculator. hehehe!
>
> It is,i agree but it is a third party software when such a function
> should be built-in in the TI89.
> But you certainly don't know that the main target of TI is high
> school.
>
> > > Sure,but can your beloved TI89 finds the anti-derivative this function
> > > that anyone with even the lowest level in antiderivative computation
> > > can:
> > > (2*x+1)*exp(x^2+x) ?
> > This same old problem has been posted 13, 872 times by HP fans just to
> > give the TI89 a bad name. Get new problems, PLEASE!!
>
> In fact the TI89 fails to find the antiderivatives of any functions of
> this kind:
> -(f'(x)+g'(x))*exp(f(x)+g(x))
> -(f'(x)+g'(x))*cosh(f(x)+g(x))
> -(f'(x)+g'(x))*sinh(f(x)+g(x))
> -(f'(x)+g'(x))*tanh(f(x)+g(x))
> And it also fails on antiderivatives of functions such as:
> -(f'(x)+g'(x))/sqrt(1+(f(x)+g(x))^2)
> -(f'(x)+g'(x))/sqrt(1-(f(x)+g(x))^2)
> And many others.
> Those antiderivatives that even a high school student should be able
> to find.
>
> > > Each of this calculator fails on certain integrations.
> >
> > I know.
>
> Then why you come here with some selected few examples that the TI89
> can do and where the HP49 fails ?
> You should know that both these tools are very limited in this domain
> in comparaison of software such as Mathematica,Maple,etc...
> The TI89 is even more limited because it doesn't have Risch type
> algorithm and has the 64 KB limitation despite 188 KB of user RAM.
>
> >
> > The IBP function is integrated into the INTEGRATE of the TI89 command.
> > Check the algorithms used by the INTEGRATE command in the TI89 manual.
> > Besides, on the HP49G, you still end up using the INTVX command after
> > using the IBP command.
>
> Sure the TI has an interactive Integration by parts
> function.</sarcasm>
>
> >
> > > > c. DIVPC, TAYLOR0 can all be done by TAYLOR on the TI89
> > >
> >
> > Hell YES!!
> > > You will need to explain to me how you can do DIVPC with the TI taylor
> > > function.
> > > I know how but i doubt that a kid like you know that.
> >
> > The DIVPC command is used to find the Taylor series of a quotient. The
> > TI TAYLOR command accepts quotient as well.
>
> Congratulations !
>
> > > Moreover as we are talking of taylor series,let me know how much time
> > > your TI89 needs to compute that:
> > > taylor(tanh(tan(x))-tan(tanh(x)),x,7).
> > > And has your TI89 an equivalent to the series command of the HP49 ?
> >
> > contain additional function. For the HP49G side, there are no more
> > chances for an updated ROM.
>
> Sure.Have you seen any real improvement of the ROM since the TI89
> release,3 years ago ?
> New math commands or significant improvements of a built-in
> function,besides solve command ?
> And do you know why i give you this example ?
> I give it because the it show 2 recureent weakness of the TI89:
> -the use of inapropriate algorithms
> -The 64 KB limitation
> This problem could be solved with any of this weakness removed.
> I just wonder why TI hasn't removed at least the algoritm problem.
> Do you know that there was a program which enable to solve this
> problem on TI-Cas.org ?
> The author has even given for free the right algorithm to TI but they
> have refused to implement it.
> Just to show you how reluctent to improvements they are.
>
>
> > > > e. BAR, SCATTER, DIFFEG, FUNCTION , etc can all be done by the
SETMODE
> > > > command
> > >
> > > Do you know that there is also the equivalent of the setmode command
> > > on the HP ?
> >
> > I know! Damn it! I was just trying to say that the HP49G has fewer
> > distinct and unique functions than it appears to have. The commands
> > are repetitive!
>
> Hey,calm down.
> Well despite repetitive command the HP49 has still much more function
> than the TI.
> The TU has less than 500 user availlable commands even with the
> possible combinaisons used.
> Which is far from the over 800 user availlable commands of the HP49.
>
> > > Moreover with TI attitude toward those third party developpers i
> > > wouldn't rely too much on them in the future.
> > > Heard of the TI-Cas affair ?
> > > I wonder why people like Bhuvanesh waste their time developping
> > > software for TI.
> >
>
> After 6 years of patience i have decided that TI doesn't really care
> about the category of users i belong to and that they kiss my a**.
>
> > >
> > > > The TI89's data editor is better than the HP49G's data editor.
> >
> > > > It's true that the HP49G has a better text edior. But I can't
imagine
> > > > somebody typing long texts on a calculor. Why go through such
> > > > drudgery?. So, I feel those better features on the HP49G's text
editor
> > > > are unnecessary. Get A PC instead.
> > >
> > > If you won't need a calculator for doing word processing,why would you
> > > need a spreadsheet on a calculator ?
> >
> > It's easier to type numbers than text with any calculator
>
> Sure,when the keyboard layout and the Text editor are as poorly
> designed as the TI89's one,it is.
> But when you have a great keyboard layout it is as easy to type
> numbers as letters and off course programs.
>
> > > > 7. Directory Structure:
> > > > The HP49G has a better directory structure. AND SO WHAT? Completely
> > > > unnecessary to me. The TI89's directory structure still gets the job
> > > > done.
> > >
> > > much bigger than just the directory structure.
> >
> > The differnce in processor speed between these 2 calculators is much
> > bigger than any advantage the HP49G has over the TI89.
>
> It would be the case if the TI89 really takes advantages of its
> C.P.U.And if it was the case everything on the TI would be much faster
> especially numeric computations,TI-basic,symbolic computations,GUI,3D
> plotting,etc...
> Btw how much time needs your TI to solve a 25*25 numeric linear system
> ?
> the first time my TI92.
> We have been both very dispaointed by the result.
> We are still disapointed by the result with the TI92+ HW2 and A.M.S
> 205.
>
> >
> > > Could you enter names with more than 8 characters in the TI ?
> >
> > About 127^8 types of allowable names is okay for me.
>
> Sure if you like to use short awful name it is your problem.
> But actually,we are in the computer age and most pepople used to long
> names and could at least expect it on almost every computer related
> tool.
> And this included so called advanced calculator.
handleit directory:
holdit program
release1 program
freethat GDB
> > > Can your idea handle unlimited number of variables within availlable
> > > memory ?
> > > And if you say,yes then try this:
> > > For k,1,3000
> > > 0->#("k"&string(k))
> > > Endfor
> > > That would show you how pathetic the memory management of the TI is as
> > > this program just tries to create 3000 variables of a vey small size
> > > on the TI.
> > > And what about the TI89 24 KB limitations for ASM programs ?
> > > And that stupid 64 KB size limitation for variables ?
> > > Can you do backups of your RAM in the user Flash ?
> >
> > Yeah, yeah, yeah! Upon all these they still had to plug the on the
> > poor "overdeveloped" thing--too bad. Besides, the fact that TI
> > calculator R & D is still alive raises hope for equipping the TI89
> > with all these things you have mentioned
>
> I think that if we were able to rely on TI R&D team to improve the
> TI89 software,they would have already done major improvements on the
> software.
> And after a discussion with a TI engineer,i have come to the
> conclusion that they aren't interested in improving the built-in
> software at all.
> And why don't you try the example program i have given ?
> Are you affraid to be disappointed by the TI89 ?
>
> > > Can your TI89 even try to recover RAM after a crash ?
> >
> > The TI89 rarely crashes.
>
> With newer ROM perhaps but it wasn't always the case.
> I do remember a time where ROM where very unstable and where you can't
> even rely on Flash ROM to recover your datas.
> Btw the HP49 is incredibly stable with the later O.S too.
> And you haven't answered to my question.
> > >
> > > > 8. More fonts:
> > > > The HP49G has more fonts. AND SO WHAT? To me one font will suffice
for
> > > > a calculator.
> > >
> > > This is called customability.
> > > To choose the font size or even edit fonts.
> > > To customize the usable part of the home screen.
> > > To choose between RPN and Algebraic.
> > > To choose between 4 built-in langages.
> > > To choose between pulldown menus and softkeys.
> > > To fully customize the keyboard,etc...
> > > Something you TI89 fanboys can only dream off.
> >
> >
> > I never dream of that because they are not too important. All these
> > things you have mentioned still ride on one SLOW processor. The TI89
> > has built in languages has well.
> > It's really funny to know that all what the HP49G programmers got at
> > the end for adding all these to the HP49G was a lay-off letter.:)
>
> This exactly what third party developpers are getting for all the work
> they have done for TI calculators.
>
> > > Funny to see that when you don't need a HP49 feature,you find it
> > > useless on the HP49.
> > > Guess what ?
> > > Apparently TI has finally found out that Time can be useful on a
> > > calculator as the V200 will have one as well as the TI89/TI92+ HW2
> > > with the A.M.S 2.06.
> >
> > I am aware of all that!
>
> Then why do you raise the subject,then ?
>
> >
> > The limitations are there to generate revenue for TI so that TI R&D
> > (for calculators) will not end up like HP's.
>
> Generate revenue for TI in what way ?
> Expecting people to pay poorly designed Flash apps when they can use
> third party free programs which are much better than Flash apps
> despite all TI limitations ?
> Pisssing off developpers which have done incredible job to bring
> exceptionnal software to the TI calculator,thus allowing like you to
> have such attitude ?
> Then i expect that TI relies on other revenues sources.
>
> > > > 11. Keypad:
> > > > There is a high probability that the key inscriptions on the HP49G
> > > > will wear off quickly.
> > >
> > > Not the new keyboards.Moreover the HP49 keyboard has a much better
> > > layout.
> >
> > I prefer the TI89 layout because I hate having to press a second
> > function key for a comma, '=','y','z','t',etc
>
> On a programmable calculator the alpha mode is very important.
> And it simply sucks on the TI89.
It's better for me to have an "linear" keyboard than having a-s,u-v.
I don't learn on the school:
x,t,y,z,a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,u,v.
> > > > 12. Processor:
> > > > The TI89 has a better processor. There is more information for
> > > > programming the MC68000 than there is for the Saturn.
> > >
> > > This is certainly why there is much more software for the HP
> > > calculators than for the TI calculators besides games.
> >
> > The 3rd party software available for the TI89 are usually better than
> > their HP49G equivalent
> >
> > > And it is a shame that despite a 12 times faster C.P.U,the HP49 can
> > > outperform the TI89 for many things.
> > Not many at all!!
>
> Sure can your TI beat the HP49 for numeric computations,3D
> plotting/rotation and zoom,user language speed,taylor series,etc... ?
>
> >
> > Sorry to anybody I insulted, Ok? But I said the truth, right?!!!!!
> > The truth hurt, right?
>
> Partial truth is not the truth.
> According to the vorlons(B5) the truth is a three edges swords.
> Your side,their side and the truth.
> What you have express their is only your side.
> Neither me nor anyone esle can claim to have the truth but what we can
> do is to be as objective as possible.
> And your post was extremely biased.
> My point is that both calculators have strengths and weaknesses.
> It just happens that software wise,the HP49 is a far superior
> calculator because of many factors.
> One is that it has been developped over a tool which was designed for
> professionnal users while the TI89 was designed with high school
> students in mind.
> Off course the third party programs significantly improve the TI89 but
> they are some points where they can't or where is no third party
> programs to od something.
> And this where you show your bias because when the TI89 can't
> compensate a HP49 feature you find that it is minor and not important.
> But as soon as a third party give it to the TI89,this features becomes
> important.
> This was the case for both EQW and RPN.
> I am sure that you were one of those who were minimizing the
> importance of HP49 EQW and who have completely changed their mind with
> the E.W EQW release.
> I am sure that if you knew that there was a third party program which
> enables the TI89 to have virtual tree directory structure you wouldn't
> have found this feature minor.
>
> > The nickname, Peace Maker, I used is the name of a USAF MIRV-ICBM.
> > It's the best ICBM the USA has for wagging a nuclear war. Just my 2
> > cents.
>
> Your nickname is an insult because your attitude is completely at the
> opposite of what it means.
>
> > Regards,
> > OAA
HPhreacker 2002(娉)
"Steen Schmidt" <ssch...@nospam.dk> escreveu na mensagem
news:EgOc8.926$Rz2....@news010.worldonline.dk...
| > You must be right there. Maybe my test was slower because of free ram?.
I
| > only had 12kB available. BTW I measured the time with teval... could
that
| > interfere?.
|
| TEVAL is pretty good - I don't know what you have done extra? Even if I
add
| the generation of the matrices with RANM, I still only get 28 seconds. I
| have 77 KB RAM free in my HP48GX.
|
| Regards
| Steen
I've tested on my 48GX with 48 KB free: 24 seconds.
And on one(merged P1) with 220 KB: 18 seconds.
Used TEVAL from Erable3.2!
HPhreacker 2002(娉)
"J. Yuan" <jyu...@attbi.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:U2Sb8.77975$Pz4.350103@rwcrnsc53...
| What is "Maple"? What do you mean by entering integration patterns? Could
| you elaborate on that a little bit? I'm in Calculus right now and any
good
| Calculus app is useful.
|
Maple is an very good computer math application.
See with your eyes: www.maplesoft.com (but it's veryslow to download, if
you're using GetRight look at FileMirrors.com for "maple".
Or just press here:
ftp://ftp.adeptscience.co.uk/pub/Maplesoft/MapleTrialInstaller7.exe
After you will need to download an licensing component:
http://register.maplesoft.com .
The demo version can't save nor print documents and has some advanced
options turned off.
If somebody has an cheat for it please post a link!
HPhreacker 2002(娉)
| > I can never become a troll. You and co have just been annoying with
| > the kind of attacks you make on TI.
|
| A troll is someone who starts fights without reason. You did - you're a
| troll.
Yes, he(Peace Maker) is.
| > I know Lars is not a God, but he seems to understand Laplace
| > transformations better than all HP49G programmers combined! Oops
|
| Erhhhh? No? I thank I have asked BP to include LaPLace transforms a
zillion
| times before he did. At first the '49 didn't even support Delta and
| Heaviside functions, but it does now, after people have asked for it. BP
| didn't find LaPLace transforms that useful, and obviously the '49 users
| didn't eithre, or else it would have been much better.
| > Your two examples are alike. Besides, you have been giving the same
| > examples over and over again--get "brand new" ones.
|
| You want an example? How about this one:
|
| INTEGRATE((X^3*EXP(X^2))/(X^2+1)^2,X)
|
| And don't start with that RISCH crap - the above example is perfectly
solved
| with integration by parts. On the HP49G, the INTVX command can even do it
| (you don't need IBP here).
|
| But you'll see....
|
| > > Ok, how about 'SQRT(X^2+X+1)' at infinity? Or 'X^X' at zero? Or
| 'ASIN(X)'
| > > at -1?. Or even 'SIN(X)/(EXP(X)-1)' at zero?
| >
| > Same old problems you have posted a trillion times.
|
| Does that make them moot? But again - wait till you see the comparison.
| There are *many* more where they came from.
|
| > > Do you need a spreadsheet on a calculator...
| >
| > Do you need a clock on a calculator?
|
| Yes. I use the clock on the '49 alot. It's also good for data
acquisition.
| But then again - you don't expect the TI89 to handle that, do you?
Just a bit about the 89: it DON'T has enough structure to implement an
clock.
I've download an stopwatch from ticalc. It's worser than the HP-45 hidden
timer.
| > > The TI89 doesn't have a directory structure in my opinion. You can't
let
| > > programs reach from one folder to another, hence it is a pain in the
| ass.
| >
| > Still ok for me.
|
| So the TI89 is best for you - we have established that already. If I were
ok
| with a power cord instead of batteries, would that make a calculator
using
| batteries more crappy than a calculator with a power cord? I guess not.
| We're not discussing opinions here, but hard facts. That's what you
started,
| that's what you gotta stick to.
|
| > Because of too many unnecessary features the programmers of the HP49G
| > almost encroached into the flash ROM space for user files
|
| Right. Let's get rid of pretty-print then - it doesn't help solving math
| problems, and uses up time for the programmers. How about the TI89 text
| editor? Let's complain to TI that they used up precious time on that one.
|
| > > Not equally - The TI protocol is proprietary.
| >
| > At least, it can still upload and download files the way HP49G's
| > standard protocols do.
|
| And that's what you use protocols for, right? Come on - what about data
| transfers of other kinds? Have you ever thought of that? You can't fetch
| data with the TI89 - it's a closed black box system.
Assume: Can I download from my TI89 with an Unix PC?
HP4x is OPEN XMODEM and Kermit!
| > Can HPComm automatically search for program updates?
|
| No, but it does everything else. Is it hard for you to keep up with one
AMS
| update every other year?
| > So you do enjoy programming on your calculator with those tiny keys?
|
| Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. Every bit of code I have ever written for
| the '49 is written on the calc itself.
It's better to code on the calc(you can test in real time)
| > I
| > can't even imagine myself writing long programs on a calculator--I am
| > too young to die.
|
| There are also programming tools for the PC - did that escape your eyes?
|
| > > I seem to have escaped that "high probability". I have used my HP49G
| > > intensively since it was released, and my keyprints are fine. The
keys
| on my
| > > TI89 got very loose after one week of use, and I wonder daily when
one
| will
| > > pop of the calc.
| >
| > LOL
|
| Is that funny? It may be because it's not a prority to you, that the keys
| stay in pace, as long as the print does?
|
|
| > I can always go to Motorola if I need support for programming the TI89
| > with assembly.
|
| And reinventing the wheel? Have you ever programmed assembly? I doubt it,
| since you take so lightly on code-reuse.
|
| > Besides, TI support is getting better.
|
| Since when? Is that why they closed TI-CAS down (or Miclo at least)? Is
that
| why they don't seem to keep their promise regarding the contest EW won?
Is
| that why they are charging everyone for software that should have been
| included in the TI89 in the first place? Is that why they are maintaining
| the 24 kB ASM limit? Is that why *there is no programming support
| whatsoever*, outside of TI_BASIC? Is that why none of the 300+ requests
in
| the wishlist have ever been fulfilled?
Even the TI manuals are crappy.
| AMS v2.06 better be good for your statement to be true. But, oh no, it
has a
| clock, so it can't be good. Wonder what they didn't have time to include,
by
| coding a clock? a SERIES command maybe?
|
| > Sorry, if I insulted anybody here. But, I said the truth, and that's
| > why it hurts.
|
| The truth? You told your opinion, and are trying to stuff that into our
| throats. Excuse me, but that's trolling for ya. You haven't insulted
anyone
| personally, you're just making a fool out of yourself. I've certainly put
| any weight to what you're saying at the TI DGs for the last time.
|
| > I hope this "war" ends quickly. My eyes and fingers are beginning to
| > hurt me.
|
| Then think twice before startig one. You may have some valid points in
| there, but you certainly make sure that they stay hidden by going on like
| that.
|
| Regards.
| Steen.
Try to look at bit.listserv.calc-ti.
No flaming like that.
HPhreacker.
HPhreacker 2002(娉)
| > The HP49G (with all its 762 commands)
|
Mine 1258.
| Regards
| Steen
|
HPhreacker 2002(娉)
"Nick Karagiaouroglou" <n...@imos-consulting.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:cd9ca36b.02021...@posting.google.com...
| gts...@yahoo.com (George Tsiros) wrote in message
news:<df4089c6.0202...@posting.google.com>...
| > Personaly, i am amazed that you sit down and think of elaborate
| > replies to write to this troll.
|
| Well, someone(s) must tell him that a calc is not a substitute for a
brain.
|
| Greetings,
| Nick.
The TI-BOTS used an TI-92+ as an Brain.
"Bill Gates used an TI-59 to plan MS-DOS!"
"Zeppelin used an TI-83 to control status!"
"The Microsoft Calculator:
1. Will add an activation code to avoid fake systems and trying to install
*nix."
Bhuvanesh
> It's better to have more commands and have more control.
Yes, it's a difference in philosophy.
> What I want with editing matrices on EQW? Calculate cos(det(x))?
What's wrong with editing matrices in the EQW?
> > 5. Spreadsheet App:
> > The TI89's data editor is better than the HP49G's data editor.
> No.
Of course he meant the Data/Matrix Editor...
> > 12. Processor:
> > The TI89 has a better processor. There is more information for
> > programming the MC68000 than there is for the Saturn.
> And there's no SYSEVAL or LIBEVAL.
> Sys-RPL rulez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not sure I want to respond to that...
> > The TI89's memory is more than enough for me.
>
> And on it, can you store files into Flash ROM?
Of course. It wouldn't be very useful to have user Flash ROM that you
couldn't use.
> No compressor for it.
There are some third-party compressing programs, such as the ExePack
support that is now built into TIGCC.
> And...
> Can you evaluate gamma(x) on TI?
Of course... with MathTools. Also several other special functions,
such as the polygamma, Hurwitz zeta, Bessel, and incomplete gamma
functions.
I'm not sure what we're trying to prove here...
> Can you evaluate 0,5! on TI?
0.5! ? Isn't that the gamma function again?
> Can you graph a conic on it?
Yes.
> Can you get roots of 'a*x^4+b*x^3+c*x^2+d*x+e' on it?
> I can: [a b c d e] PROOT.
Yes.
cZeros(a*x^4+b*x^3+c*x^2+d*x+e,x)
> Can you make libraries direct from it?
The TIGCC developers are considering support for no-stub libraries.
Kernels have had library support for a long time.
> Can you connect it to any serial port?
> Can you use it connected to an 286 - MS-DOS 3.3 computer?
I've never tried that. Why would I want to use a 286?
--
Bhuvanesh
Bhuvanesh
> I've got my 49 because of the solver:
> for sin(x)=cos(x):
> { 'X=2.*n1*pi+2.*ATAN(-2.41421356237)' 'X=2.*n2*pi+2.*ATAN(.414213562373)' }
> and not the shitty "Warning! More solutions may exist".
How did you get that warning? I get:
x = (4*@n1 - 3)*pi/4
You're saying the HP49G's solver is better than the TI-89's? You must
be the only one who does.
> And the VTI(unique TI-89 emulator) can't load even FlashApps, needs TiLP!
You can load freeware apps.
--
Bhuvanesh
Steen Schmidt
> Just a bit about the 89: it DON'T has enough structure to implement an
> clock.
TI implies that the HW2 versions of TI92+ and TI89 do have a hardware clock
built-in. You can also load AMS v2.06, that'll be out for the V200, on your
HW2 TI92+/89, and that'll include clock functionality. So, what do you know?
Please stop spamming this group!
Regards
Steen