Ti-85 is the Bomb!!!
Pros Chum
I first bought the Ti-85, but then after hearing so much hype about the
HP48 I bought one of those too. There is no comparison between the two,
the Ti-85 kills the HP48 and buries it in a pile of dust. The Ti-85
smokes in its processing speed and power. It runs six to seven times
faster than the HP48 and responds much more quickly to my keystrokes.
Graphs and complicated data also takes a much shorter time to draw. Not
only is the calculator faster, but it doesn't hurt to mention that the
cpu is the Z80 which was also the main cpu for the Commodore 64. Now
with those kinds of facts, one can hardly qualm over which is better.
The Ti-85 rules, baby!!!!
WndaLouise
but is it as pretty...!!! (?)
huh huh huh...!
Stefan Ehlen
In article <34E13C...@prism.gatech.edu>,
Pros Chum <gt7...@prism.gatech.edu> writes:
> I first bought the Ti-85, but then after hearing so much hype about the
> HP48 I bought one of those too. There is no comparison between the two,
> the Ti-85 kills the HP48 and buries it in a pile of dust. The Ti-85
> smokes in its processing speed and power.
A HP48 with some additional software can do many things a TI85 can't.
For example, look at the introduction pages of the erable-manual.
[...]
> Not
> only is the calculator faster, but it doesn't hurt to mention that the
> cpu is the Z80 which was also the main cpu for the Commodore 64.
Your're wrong here. The C64 had a 6501. The Z80 was found in many other
home computers like Schneider CPC, but not in any Commodore.
CU
Stefan
ncsu.edu
In article <6brq04$i69$1...@nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE>, Stefan...@post.rwth-aachen.de wrote:
>In article <34E13C...@prism.gatech.edu>,
> Pros Chum <gt7...@prism.gatech.edu> writes:
>> I first bought the Ti-85, but then after hearing so much hype about the
>> HP48 I bought one of those too. There is no comparison between the two,
>> the Ti-85 kills the HP48 and buries it in a pile of dust. The Ti-85
>> smokes in its processing speed and power.
>Speed is right, but power?
>A HP48 with some additional software can do many things a TI85 can't.
>For example, look at the introduction pages of the erable-manual.
I heartily agree...! The expansion capabilities of the 48 more than make up
for any built-in shortcomings you may *perceive*. It's also important to
remember that the cause of a shortcoming to you could be a strength to
another.
>> Not
>> only is the calculator faster, but it doesn't hurt to mention that the
>> cpu is the Z80 which was also the main cpu for the Commodore 64.
>Your're wrong here. The C64 had a 6501. The Z80 was found in many other
>home computers like Schneider CPC, but not in any Commodore.
>
Ummm. I think I seem to remember that my 128 had a Z80 that was only used
when in CP/M mode. But, you're dead on with the 6501...
>CU
>Stefan
Later,
Robert
Mike Morrow
I really wonder about these reports of TI-85 speed. I like to use a
simple benchmark that was popular 15 years ago for measuring the
accuracy and speed of mathematical calculations performed on various
machines. It is called the Savage Benchmark, and consists of a
2499-loop iteration of the following calculation:
Initialize:
A = 1
Radian Mode
Loop 2499 times:
A = TAN ( ATAN ( EXP ( LN ( SQRT ( A ) ^ 2 ) ) ) ) + 1
End loop
Display A
Ideally, the final value of A should be 2500 exactly.
For various calculators, run-time and results of this benchmark were:
Model Run-Time (seconds) Result
TI-85 368 2499.9999923
HP-48GX 112 2499.99948647
HP-48SX 199 same
HP-42S 602 same
HP-32SII 451 same
HP-28S 255 same
HP-20S 369 same
Older models (HP-41CX, HP-15C) took about 45 minutes, and produced a lot
less accuracy due to round-off.
It looks to me that the TI-85 speed demon in about equivalent to the
low-end algebraic HP-20S as far as this type of calculation.
I also ran several polynomial root-finding examples of 10th and 20th
order, same data on each machine, and found without exception that the
HP48GX produced answers almost exactly the same as the TI-85, in about
one-third the time that the TI-85 took.
So what calcs are people doing that show the TI-85 is a fast
machine...graphics only???
A point in favor of the TI-85 for the Savage benchmark is the greater
accuracy in the final answer.
Points against the TI-85 are the absence of audible alarm functions and
timing functions. The mechanical construction is not inspiring, either,
nor the lack of expandibility or IR I/O capability. Documentation with
the TI is lacking, compared to the HP48G manuals, especially the AUR.
In this respect, though, the TI does beat out the unfortunate HP38G.
Given the choice between the TI-85 and the comparably priced HP48G, I
see little contest. Gold medal to the HP48G!
IMHO, of course.
Mike M.
Ken Alverson
Stefan Ehlen wrote in message <6brq04$i69$1...@nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE>...
>In article <34E13C...@prism.gatech.edu>,
> Pros Chum <gt7...@prism.gatech.edu> writes:
>> I first bought the Ti-85, but then after hearing so much hype about the
>> HP48 I bought one of those too. There is no comparison between the two,
>> the Ti-85 kills the HP48 and buries it in a pile of dust. The Ti-85
>> smokes in its processing speed and power.
>Speed is right, but power?
>A HP48 with some additional software can do many things a TI85 can't.
>For example, look at the introduction pages of the erable-manual.
Feature for features, the HP 48G can beat out a Ti of comperable price, no
expansions needed. Plus there's all the other reasons for an HP. Expanded,
a 48GX will easily stomp a Ti 92.
Ken
Gerhard Schwanz
On 11 Feb 1998 09:11:32 GMT, de...@ankhmorork.saw.rwth-aachen.de
(Stefan Ehlen) wrote:
>In article <34E13C...@prism.gatech.edu>,
> Pros Chum <gt7...@prism.gatech.edu> writes:
>> I first bought the Ti-85, but then after hearing so much hype about the
>> HP48 I bought one of those too. There is no comparison between the two,
>> the Ti-85 kills the HP48 and buries it in a pile of dust. The Ti-85
>> smokes in its processing speed and power.
>Speed is right, but power?
>A HP48 with some additional software can do many things a TI85 can't.
>For example, look at the introduction pages of the erable-manual.
>
>[...]
>
>> Not
>> only is the calculator faster, but it doesn't hurt to mention that the
>> cpu is the Z80 which was also the main cpu for the Commodore 64.
>Your're wrong here. The C64 had a 6501. The Z80 was found in many other
>home computers like Schneider CPC, but not in any Commodore.
you both are wrong. the commodore vc20 had a 6501. the c64 had a 6510!
>
>CU
>Stefan
JEEjohn
In article <34E20C...@companet.net>, Mike Morrow <mmo...@companet.net>
writes:
(snip)
>Loop 2499 times:
>
> A = TAN ( ATAN ( EXP ( LN ( SQRT ( A ) ^ 2 ) ) ) ) +
>1
>
>End loop
How did you program this on the TI-85? There no way to use
"recursive" storage to a variable without the ***Ans*** variable.
(It was kind of strange to me)
The HP48 allows you to do this on the stack easily.
Also - The savage benchmark can run in 70-77 secs
on the HP48 in ML
And lastly, The HP48G's are about twice as fast for matrix
calculations. (and for some strange reason the TI-92 is
extremely slow with matrix calculations - 1297 secs to
invert a 30x30 matrix whereas the HP48 does it in 81 secs)
John Edry
JEE...@aol.com
>>>Yes that's right I'm another AOL user. I prefer AOL so
I don't have to spend several months setting up all the
internet softwares that would be needed with an internet
provider. More time to program on the HP48.
Bryan White
Ok it looks good but, why not buy a laptop. The thing is about the size of
2 hp48gx and still the good ol' hp is better all the way around. Its got
two things that are standard on it that are better: drop menus and a bigger
screen. That's it!
*************************************************
Bryan White
www.ipeg.com/~bryanw/
"A wise man learns more from a fool than a fool learns from a wise man"
*************************************************
Jeeves
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 00:52:24 -0500, Pros Chum <gt7...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>I first bought the Ti-85, but then after hearing so much hype about the
>HP48 I bought one of those too. There is no comparison between the two,
>the Ti-85 kills the HP48 and buries it in a pile of dust.
Is this a troll, or are you just stupid. The HP plots faster, runs programs
faster, lets you make the programs faster, solves equations faster, allows you
to have arbitrarily long lists (I generated a list of *500* random integers
(using a program I made) in 8 seconds on an HP-48G!), the list goes on and on.
>The Ti-85
>smokes in its processing speed and power. It runs six to seven times
>faster than the HP48 and responds much more quickly to my keystrokes.
Not really. Granted, it responds very readily to keystrokes, but the HP will do
things more quickly and efficiently overall. You're probably using the input
forms to plot, differentiate, etc instead of the quicker and more easily
accessible stack-based commands. Force yourself to use the HP for two weeks or
so and you'll never go back -- unless you can't handle the RPN and prefer the
TI's slow, stupid, archaic BASIC clone.
>Graphs and complicated data also takes a much shorter time to draw.
See above. I can't imagine where you're getting this 'TI graphs faster'
rubbish. I migrated from TI-85 to HP48 (I have the G -- only 32K :( ) at the
beginning of January and you couldn't pry it away from me if my life depended
on it. HP:TI-XX::Linux:Winblows. Once you learn how to use it, you're faster,
more efficient, and therefore more productive.
>Not only is the calculator faster, but it doesn't hurt to mention that the
>cpu is the Z80 which was also the main cpu for the Commodore 64. Now
>with those kinds of facts, one can hardly qualm over which is better.
The TI does *not* have builtin assembly support, and even if it did, I doubt
you know how to use it (ZShell, anyone?). And we all know what a wonderful and
powerful machine the C-64 was. ZShell is a memory-hogging hack through the
pointer system used in the CUSTOM menu to trick the calculator into running
arbitrary code. With HP, we have User-RPL, which amazes me in ease of
programming (although the programs are incomprehensible a few days later ;),
and SysRPL and ML for more complicated or more CPU-intensive tasks. Does it
tell you something that the HP-48GX is usually compared (favorably, for the
most part) with the TI-92, not the 85?! The 92 I consider to be the Macintosh
of graphing calculators. Besides, what good is a calculator that's banned from
all major exams? Most of the teachers I know don't allow them on their tests
and discourage their use elsewhere.
For your remedial algebra class, the TI is probably just what you need. A maxed
out HP-48GX is true tool for every math, physics, or engineering class, not to
mention being infinitely more fun to mess with.
>The Ti-85 rules, baby!!!!
Compared to the 82.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
J | Copyright (c) 1997 Jeeves Industries Limited.
J | All rights reserved. Void where prohibited.
J | Some restrictions may apply. Limit 1 per customer.
J J | Offer not valid in conjunction with any other offer.
JJJ | Some sold separately. Not intended for children under 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From .cshrc:
alias rm 'rm -rf \!*'
alias hose kill -9 '`ps -augxww | grep \!* | awk \'{print $2}\'`'
alias kill 'kill -9 \!* ; kill -9 \!* ; kill -9 \!*'
alias renice 'echo Renice\? You must mean kill -9.; kill -9 \!*'
=====================================================================
WndaLouise
Jeeves writes:
which amazes me in ease of
programming (although the programs are incomprehensible a few days later ;),
and SysRPL and ML for more complicated or more CPU-intensive tasks.
what i tell people, ( when they rarely ask my opinion ) is that you can program
the 48 to do anythng you want, so long as you have a clear idea of what it is
that you want it to do...
if you can use the calculator to figure something out, that -THAT- is your
program, all you have to do is write down the proceedure on paper as you work
it out, then key that back into the calc with programming delimiters around
it...!!!
as for ML routines...
i have a FILL program ( written by Paul Oelund ) that can fill the 131 by 64
display in black ( or any oddly shaped area with bubbles and what not within it
) in less than a second, and to do that, the program has to evalutate each
pixel within that area and ask if it's bounded or not by other pixels...! (!!!)
( plus all the amazing games that have been written for the 48 )
WndaLouise
Bryan writes:
Its got
two things that are standard on it that are better: drop menus and a bigger
screen. That's it!
-------
as a point of note, i have drop ( pop up menus ) on my 48...
( they're built in ( sort of ) on the gx, but i had them on my old sx as
well... )
Jerry Petrey
Pros Chum wrote:
>
> I first bought the Ti-85, but then after hearing so much hype about the
> HP48 I bought one of those too. There is no comparison between the two,
> smokes in its processing speed and power. It runs six to seven times
> faster than the HP48 and responds much more quickly to my keystrokes.
> only is the calculator faster, but it doesn't hurt to mention that the
> cpu is the Z80 which was also the main cpu for the Commodore 64. Now
> with those kinds of facts, one can hardly qualm over which is better.
You obviously don't know what you are talking about - the Z80 was
never in the Commodore 64. The Z80 was a nice chip but orginally
designed in the late 70's - it's hardly state-of-the-art. If the
TI-85 (built in the 90's) use the Z80, it would not be much of a selling
point; however you don't a super processor in a calculator - it is
more in how it is used that counts and HP has done a fine job in that
regard over the years.
--
=====================================================================
= Jerry Petrey - Consultant Software Engineer - Member Team Ada =
= GP Software Consultants Member Team Forth =
= email: gpe...@gate.net =
=====================================================================
William M. Wiese Jr.
Sorry guy (PROS CHUM), at least *one* of your facts is wrong (won't get
into the TI/HP flame war...some of us want HP to bring back the old-style
calcs like the 42S. "Real HPs" have 4 level stacks! :-)
The Commodore (except Amiga) computers all utilized 6502 derivatives as
their core CPUs. (The C128 also included a secondary Z80 for CP/M operation
but it was largely ignored).
As an aside, I *do* admit that the Z80-based TI units would make wonderful
low cost embedded controllers. I myself think it's time for HP to use an
industry-standard CPU. There's little to gain - and much to lose - with a
custom CPU design; the majority of the HP48 cost is in the design
staffing, documentation, packaging and marketing and distribution areas.
Prob. the most expensive item on a 48 is the LCD display and the RAM/ROM.
(If you told me the PC card connectors for mem. expansion were as expensive
as a ROM chip, I might well believe you. Good connectors do cost some
money.)
One of these days, though, TI is going to have to put better keyboards and
higher-quality cases on their units. But perhaps they can let HP keep
lowering their quality until they're both equal; the "sealed forever" HP
calcs of today aren't nearly as robust as the old warhorse LED calcs - with
WONDERFUL keyboards - of the late 70s/early 80s.
Later,
Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
William M. Wiese Jr.
Sr. Engineer
Cignal Global Communications
2041 Pioneer Ct., Suite #17
San Mateo, CA 94403
650-341-4761 voice
650-341-4768 fax
b w i e s e @ c i g n a l . c o m
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Pros Chum <gt7...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote in article
<34E13C...@prism.gatech.edu>...
Stephan Kämper
Oooops, did I send this twice?! In that case: Sorry 'bout that.
I'n going to cite some lines, and then insert my answers...
> I first bought the Ti-85, but then after hearing so much hype about the
> HP48 I bought one of those too.
...would have been kind of less expensive if you had tested them first
for a time and them make a decision what to buy. IMHO it's always QUITE
a pity if money is lost in such a way - although I am not always immune
against it ;-)
> There is no comparison between the two,
Indeed, but - again IMHO - NOT in the way you think about it!
> the Ti-85 kills the HP48 and buries it in a pile of dust.
I just can't figure out how thins can be?! Has the TI a built in gun and
arms and legs. Just can't believe it.
Therefore: Please be more careful in the choice of aour words.
> cpu is the Z80 which was also the main cpu for the Commodore 64. Now
> with those kinds of facts, one can hardly qualm over which is better.
Are you sure you know what you're talking about?! The C64 NEVER had a
Z80! It was kind of a 650x, what x was I don't remember at the moment.
Anyway several other computers had Z80s in them. Especially all of those
CP\M
machines were based on them - for the younger folks out there: This
happeded to be state of the art before the DOS nad (IMB) PC era.
BTW, one of the computers i liked most (and actually owed!) that had a
Z80 processor were the ZX81 and ZX SPECTRUM manufactured by Sinclair.
But I don't think that anyone is REALLY interested in this. ;-)
Anyway the best to all of you, out there sepending time on this great
calculator.
...thinking 'bout a HP of course :-D
Stephan
@vicksburg.com David Gent
But can you use it on exams?
Example: FE (Fundamentals of Engineering)
Pros Chum wrote in message <34E13C...@prism.gatech.edu>...
>I first bought the Ti-85, but then after hearing so much hype about the
>HP48 I bought one of those too. There is no comparison between the two,
>the Ti-85 kills the HP48 and buries it in a pile of dust. The Ti-85
>smokes in its processing speed and power. It runs six to seven times
>faster than the HP48 and responds much more quickly to my keystrokes.
>Graphs and complicated data also takes a much shorter time to draw. Not
>only is the calculator faster, but it doesn't hurt to mention that the
>cpu is the Z80 which was also the main cpu for the Commodore 64. Now
>with those kinds of facts, one can hardly qualm over which is better.
>The Ti-85 rules, baby!!!!
barrym
Pros Chum (gt7...@prism.gatech.edu) wrote:
: Graphs and complicated data also takes a much shorter time to draw. Not
: only is the calculator faster, but it doesn't hurt to mention that the
: cpu is the Z80 which was also the main cpu for the Commodore 64. Now
The Commodore 64 used a 6510 cpu, not a Z80. The 6510 was a modified 6502,
the same cpu the Apple II used.
CP/M computers and Radio Shack computers used the Z80.
Barry
barrym
rjmc...@eos.ncsu.edu wrote:
:
: Ummm. I think I seem to remember that my 128 had a Z80 that was only used
Actually it was a 6510. The Z80 was added as an alternate cpu to give it
CP/M compatibility, just as it had been years earlier on the Apples with
the CP/M card installed on so many of them.
Barry
CASASSOVICI Alexander
Try the Meta Kernel and you'll experience real speed!!!
--
alex...@magic.fr
"Sacré Français"
Stefan Ehlen a écrit dans le message
<6brq04$i69$1...@nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE>...
>In article <34E13C...@prism.gatech.edu>,
> Pros Chum <gt7...@prism.gatech.edu> writes:
>> I first bought the Ti-85, but then after hearing so much hype about the
>> HP48 I bought one of those too. There is no comparison between the two,
>> the Ti-85 kills the HP48 and buries it in a pile of dust. The Ti-85
>> smokes in its processing speed and power.
>Speed is right, but power?
>A HP48 with some additional software can do many things a TI85 can't.
>For example, look at the introduction pages of the erable-manual.
>
>[...]
>
>> Not
>> only is the calculator faster, but it doesn't hurt to mention that the
>> cpu is the Z80 which was also the main cpu for the Commodore 64.
>Your're wrong here. The C64 had a 6501. The Z80 was found in many other
>home computers like Schneider CPC, but not in any Commodore.
>
>CU
>Stefan
Matt071082
>I first bought the Ti-85, but then after hearing so much hype about the
>HP48 I bought one of those too. There is no comparison between the two,
>the Ti-85 kills the HP48 and buries it in a pile of dust.
processor speed (which is about the only thing the stupid TI's DO BETTER!) The
HP-48 is more than the TI's match power, features, and expandablity. And HP
can chew up and spit out any TI programs (and I should know, I have TI lovers
like you waving them in my face every single day of the week!).
> The Ti-85 smokes in its processing speed and power.
Are you insane? The HP has HUNDREDS more features. It has more types of
graphs, more built-in functions, an equation library, statistics features, and
it doesn't need some studpid little program called ZShell to run assembler.
> It runs six to seven times faster than the HP48 and responds much more
shorter time to draw. Not
> only is the calculator faster, but it doesn't hurt to mention that the
>cpu is the Z80 which was also the main cpu for the Commodore 64.
again. The TI is faster because IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING. In general, the TI
doesn't have HALF the stuff an HP does (heck, it doesn't even have tables).
And who cares about the speed issue that much? I have never had a problem with
failing a test because my calculator was too slow. In fact, the HP has been an
incredible time saver to me because I can do stuff on it that TI-85 users
CAN'T. Besides that (as other people on this newsgroup noted), the Commodore
64 didn't run on a Z80! Even if it did, what was the point? As much as I
dearly loved my Commodore, it took about five minutes to load stuff. So much
for speed.
> Now with those kinds of facts, one can hardly qualm over which is better.
TI-85. You want to keep gabbering to yourself about how wonderful your stupid
little TI is, why don't you go to some TI newsgroup? Or are you just thrashing
at the HP 48 because you couldn't figure out RPN?
>The Ti-85 rules, baby!!!!
Whatever you got to tell yourself.
[ the author would like to apolgize to anyone who is offened by this posting,
he has had a really bad day, and has had a bunch of people just like the
original poster of this message who have been yaking at him all day about how
wonderful TIs are. If he wants to go on deluding himself about his TI-85,
that's fine with me, but I sincerely hope he can save it for some TI newsgroup]
|\ /|
If life was a test, everyone would fail. | \/ |
|
|ATT0...@aol.com
Matt071082
Amen
Z6...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Any TI calculator is a piece of garbage to me, from a professional point of vie
w. TI is good only only for low-end education, such as high school primitive a
lgeabra. HP48GX is the machine of choice foe us Electrical/Computer Engineers,
and general scientific calculations. Those who can't switch from human direct
algebara to RPL are morons.