HP50g vs. Voyage 200
JB
about the HP50g. If I get an HP 50g, after using the TI v200
extensively, will I likely be disappointed in the quality of the HP
item or it's performance? Will the HP be similiar to use compared to
the TI or will it be an all new learning curve. I find the
construction quality and performance of the TI to both be flawless.
Will the HP be the same? How about the infamous keyboard problems? Or
major OS bugs? I have never used RPN, so is it necessary? What would
be a simple RPN example? Do you think there is an advantage to having
both calculators?
Gene
JB wrote:
> Will the HP be the same? How about the infamous keyboard problems? Or
> major OS bugs? I have never used RPN, so is it necessary? What would
> be a simple RPN example? Do you think there is an advantage to having
> both calculators?
To see many examples, some in RPN and some in algebraic on the HP50g,
check out the learning modules on the HP50g website:
http://h20331.www2.hp.com/hpsub/cache/383688-0-0-225-121.html
The keyboard problems are fixed.
Some things are easier in RPN, but as the modules show, the calculator
works well enough in algebraic too.
Gene
JB wrote:
> Will the HP be the same? How about the infamous keyboard problems? Or
> major OS bugs? I have never used RPN, so is it necessary? What would
> be a simple RPN example? Do you think there is an advantage to having
> both calculators?
To see many examples, some in RPN and some in algebraic on the HP50g,
C J Southern
most cases both are probably capable of reaching the same conclusion, albeit
via different paths. If you've never used RPN then it's going to seem weird
for a little while - however once you've mastered it then the vast majority
seem to prefer it (myself included).
A quick example of the benefits of RPN may be when I'm doing my monthly
accounts ... I want to subtract my expenses from my income - but 1/2 way
through I realise that the expenses still have taxes added to them - with
the TI way of doing things you'd have to delete the expenses figure if you'd
already entered it to put in brackets - with RPN you can just subtract the
tax by going off on a mini-tangent then carry on. eg
1000 @ Income
ENTER @ Enter it
550 @ Expenses - bugger - still has tax on it
ENTER @ Enter it
1.1 @ divisor to remove the tax
/ @ Divides the 550 by 1.1 leaving 500
- @ Subtracts the 500 from the original 1000, leaving 500
Quality is very good - keyboard issue is totally resolved. I think it's true
to say that most people who get the likes of the 49g+ or 50g just don't
realise how powerful it is until they start getting right into it - then the
enormity of it starts to dawn on them. All major products have bugs, but
nothing major at this stage.
Cheers,
Colin
"JB" <wjb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156641823.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
bokubob
> I have a TI voyage 200 that I well satidfied with but I am curious
> about the HP50g. If I get an HP 50g, after using the TI v200
> extensively, will I likely be disappointed in the quality of the HP
> item or it's performance?
quality compared to the TI-89 that I had at the time (I sold the 89
soon after). I'm under the impression that the 50G is better yet.
As to performance there are two major differences that I've found from
my experience (with an 89, but I guess they're simmilar, right?)
1. The stack based system that the HP uses works much better for using
results from intermediate calculations than pressing the up button a
bunch of times to find results from previous calculations.
2. The TI can do some antiderivatives faster, but the HP usually gives
you more usable results (it usually doesn't introduce strange functions
where the TI would) and will be able to do antiderivatives that give
the TI some trouble.
3. Compared to the Voyage, you have more useful math functions
available in less keystrokes.
> Will the HP be similiar to use compared to
> the TI or will it be an all new learning curve.
You can use it similarly, by that I mean algebreic mode, but you won't
gain much by doing that. If you know what you're doing with the TI
(not just pressing the same buttons as the person next to you) then you
should have no problem with the HP. If your experience is like mine,
you'll be back to your TI level capabilities and efficientcy within a
day or two and keep getting better from there.
> I find the
> construction quality and performance of the TI to both be flawless.
> Will the HP be the same? How about the infamous keyboard problems?
No more keyboard problems on the 49g+, never any on the 50g.
> Or major OS bugs?
The firmware is very mature and is being improved constantly with
updates easily available.
> I have never used RPN, so is it necessary?
It isn't necessary, but why wouldn't you?
> What would
> be a simple RPN example?
Take the sine of 30 (asuming you're in degree mode):
type in 30 then press "sin" see that you're dispay now says 1/2
See, no extra keys (like closing parens) to press
> Do you think there is an advantage to having both calculators?
No. Sell the TI..... ok, realistically, you'll end up liking one
better than the other for some or all things. Eventually you'll
decide.
If this is your hobby, then you can't go wrong getting an HP. It's a
whole new world to explore.
If this is your work (or you're a student) the you owe it to yourself,
your hobbies and anything else competing for your time to try out any
solution that has a reasonable chance of saving you time and effort in
the long run. I'm glad I switched.
Good luck,
-Jonathan
Zeno
<wjb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The HP cals are much more accurate when compuitng Trig functions.
An example, is to computer the SIN of exactly 3.141592654 (NOT Pi, but
the just given rounding of it) radians....the HPs get the correct
answer to 12 significant digits, while all other brand do not even come
close in accuracy.
The correct answer is
-4.10206761537 E-10
which only HPs give.
Scotty
I switched to Voiyage 200 from my 48GX because I wanted a CAS (I
didn't know how to use the libs available for the 48GX--now I do).
There are some interesting programs available for the V200, and I'll
keep it around for that. For example, there's a great Calculus
package (Calculus Made Easy)--but it eats up every bit of RAM and I
can't have anything else on the calculator to run it--bummer.
The larger screen was my real motivation. Plus, the equation
writer--I didn't like the speed of the 48GX and the TI really shined
there. I didn't even realize that HP had other models (49G, 49G+,
etc.) until recently. I bought a 49G+ (late model with good keyboard)
and was blown away by the CAS and the speed. Most importantly, I got
my RPN back, plus a whole lot of functions that are sadly missing on
the TI.
As soon as the 50G came out with its serial port, I knew I finally had
a 48GX replacement and purchased one immediately. I've not been so
happy in a long time. I'm thrilled with this calc (50G). It's a
major powerhouse. 2,300+ functions, real variable names, real
directory structures, etc.
The V200 was a major PITA to type in equations. My fingers would have
to travel 2.32 light years to find the EE key. PI was cumbersome and
misplaced and I found myself going from the left side of the keyboard
to the right side continuously. After 10 hours of computing a day
(homework, etc.), it became quite tiresome as I had to reduce 5-6
linear equations by hand using the equation writer. After I got my
RPN back, my hands have never been happier.
I may be the only one at University with an HP calculator, but I'll
bet money that I'll be the one that achieves the solutions first <g>.
RIP Voyage 200. You've been replaced by something soooo much better!
Cheers,
Scott
JB
What sort of application would require such accuracy ?
friend
Amateur radio: Tracking satellites.
Paul Schlyter
> the just given rounding of it) radians....the HPs get the correct
> answer to 12 significant digits, while all other brand do not even come
> close in accuracy.
>
> The correct answer is
> -4.10206761537 E-10
> which only HPs give.
Sorry, but a nore accurate answer is:
sin(3.141592654) = -4.102067615373566167089241109832E-10
of which the 10 last digits probably is garbage - but this still
leaves some 21 correct digits.... more than twice as many as you gave...
<evil grin>
(all your 10 digits were correct though)
An even more accurate result is (which verifies that the 9 last digits
in my result above was garbage):
-4.1020676153735661670899289539699092355131390037100870630020323369904
4266235232737732532009660484494153109030260754980676826986152238002680
8079204929550632216066173293958178715111045998392111706987450342433754
6726887827437398795021837494716804314123159167276247145307383973725234
2896581262524175713904046508929945590534458569511685937555452897102991
7377652644614479223068651679203208041198293662669029938552560109529876
0339196221875353004429066235372878342644741168868018173643081804870269
3811840353422290028906288678353159125107621546338130626375694596695278
9256803775334066064410511903385627860369166919456512346889361067826029
9650575114113377827195958174444575593633518713535532588488490909616478
2441066901658434164295451820920497613655991674018556936373423496302401
1517547847463869267092166731848453811428413396445683758181918012449290
3280909800722690080042331448185691107541065921161687238709284552887425
0593464679371131237036128394129136726583461147911750423533868155286698
3295185707635357736341412166062770840020434757557510235478739521174215
299E-10
....I think that can be enough for today....
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
Paul Schlyter
Do you really have to compute sines accurate to 1E-21 in amateur radio?
Chuck Rushton
"friend" wrote
> "JB" wrote:
>>
>>What sort of application would require such accuracy ?
>
> Amateur radio: Tracking satellites.
>
As an end result perhaps the 12-digit SIN is of questionable value, but as
an intermediate result, sometimes even 12 digits are insufficient.
An example taken from an ECEF (earth-centered earth fixed) conversion
to/from XYZ coordinates and latitude/longitude/ellipsoid_ht
...
5GETLAM
%%COS
4GETLAM
%%CHS
%%SIN
%%*
...
Without the 15-digit capability of the 49g+/50g, these conversions are
unable to avoid the round-off error inherent even at 12 digits.
Other examples also associated with geodesy and GPS are ITRF<->NAD
conversions and Vincenty's Inverse and Forward calculations, to name a
couple.
Chuck Rushton
PLS-NC
friend
wrote:
Depends on things like how long you wish to track the sat. and various
orbital mechanics you might wish to include.
Now if the Patriot anti missile system could be just a little more
versatile ...
GWB
Zeno wrote:
> The HP cals are much more accurate when compuitng Trig functions.
>
> An example, is to computer the SIN of exactly 3.141592654 (NOT Pi, but
> the just given rounding of it) radians....the HPs get the correct
> answer to 12 significant digits, while all other brand do not even come
> close in accuracy.
>
> The correct answer is
> -4.10206761537 E-10
> which only HPs give.
Surely they are, but I fear the correct answer is
-4,10206857034707E-10 (according to my own RPN calc written in Delphi)
or
-4,10206857035E-10 to 12 significant places
Anyway, the HP-48/49/50 is not bad. It appears TI gives -4.102E-10
Regards,
Gerson.
Jean-Yves Avenard
> Without the 15-digit capability of the 49g+/50g, these conversions are
> unable to avoid the round-off error inherent even at 12 digits.
So I don't think the sin(pi rounded to 12 digits) will be a problem as
earlier mentioned...
JY
GWB
Oops, I was wrong! Even Delphi extended type slips on this.
Recalculating sin(3.141592654) as 3 sin(3.141592654/3) -
4(sin(3.141592654/3))^3 I obtained -4.10206535406132E-10 (in Delphi).
This should be a more accurate result since the sine function would
have no problem in the pi/3 boundary. But I am not sure about this
result either because of rounding errors and other issues I am not
aware of. Could someone compute both sin(3.141592654) and the
trigonometric identity above in Maple to 30 places so we can see how
many digits match?
Thanks,
Gerson.
Zeno
<gerson.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, but both your Delphi answer are wrong
What i stated before is correct
Jesús Carrete Montaña
> Oops, I was wrong! Even Delphi extended type slips on this.
>
> Recalculating sin(3.141592654) as 3 sin(3.141592654/3) -
> 4(sin(3.141592654/3))^3 I obtained -4.10206535406132E-10 (in Delphi).
> This should be a more accurate result since the sine function would
> have no problem in the pi/3 boundary. But I am not sure about this
> result either because of rounding errors and other issues I am not
> aware of. Could someone compute both sin(3.141592654) and the
> trigonometric identity above in Maple to 30 places so we can see how
> many digits match?
With apcalc:
config("epsilon",1e-100); # To be on the safe side.
display(30)
config("mode","exp")
sin(3.141592654) # Gives -4.102067615373566167089928953970e-10.
3*sin(3.141592654/3)-4*sin(3.141592654/3)**3 # Also
#gives -4.102067615373566167089928953970e-10.
So the result obtained using the hp is correct to its precission.
Just for fun, some more digits:
config("epsilon",1e-1000)
display(500)
sin(3.141592654)
#Gives -4.10206761537356616708992895396990923551313900371008706300203233699044266235232737732532009660484494153109030260754980676826986152238002680807920492955063221606617329395817871511104599839211170698745034243375467268878274373987950218374947168043141231591672762471453073839737252342896581262524175713904046508929945590534458569511685937555452897102991737765264461447922306865167920320804119829366266902993855256010952987603391962218753530044290662353728783426447411688680181736430818048702693811840353422e-10
Veli-Pekka Nousiainen
Jesús!
That's a lot of digits
HP-49 series has also DIGITS & LongFloat library
What functions are available is a different story
but I like to use it mostly for matrices
--
Veli-Pekka
GWB
> Sorry, but both your Delphi answer are wrong
>
> What i stated before is correct
I AM sorry. You're pretty right. HP answer is correct as we can see by
Paul Schlyter's and Jesús Montaña's results.
Looks like I cannot use my Delphi Calculator to track satellite's
orbits anymore :-)
(will rely on my good old 42S, 48GX or 49G for that task )
Regards,
Gerson.
GWB
Muchas gracias, Jesús!
Gerson
Fv
Since the slope of sin is 1 where it crosses the x axis,
sin (Pi + tiny number) = tiny number
In this case the "tiny number" is simply = 3.141592654 - Pi =
4.1020676153735661672049711580283060062489417902505540769218359371379100137....*10^-10
So, of course the TI answer is correct too, since it corresponds to 14 sig.
dig.. To justify the accuracy given by HP, both Pi and 3.141592654 would
have to be given to about 22 digits (that would be something like
3.141592654000000000000 and 3.141592653589793238463). Of course HP does
not in general compute to this accuracy. HP algorithm gives an accurate
answer that is not justified by the number of digits it can handle in
general, and this is OK in a calculator. It would be perfect if HP could
give arbitrary accuracy numbers or machine accuracy results depending on a
setting.
"GWB" <gerson.w...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156779438.6...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
John H Meyers
> All TI calculators have a 14 digits accuracy...
They may retain a 14-digit mantissa,
but that doesn't mean as many digits are accurate,
because for sines of angles near 180 degrees
(pi radians), it's usually more like saying
"many calcs are accurate to plus/minus 1E-14,"
but since the true answer is near zero,
the *relative* inaccuracy becomes much greater.
Joe Horn and others have noted that HP calcs need to know pi
to about 25 places to get the right answers
(all *significant* digits correct) to similar problems:
24 digits of PI [1997/07/29]
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.hp48/browse_frm/thread/e248532041c3cc8f
pi to 24 significant digits;
TI sin(x) bug HP doesn't have [2003/10/27]
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.hp48/browse_frm/thread/c0995dd6ebca743c
Also of interest:
Question on Rads [1997/03/08]
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.hp48/browse_frm/thread/1516861443b2fbdf
PDQ Unleashed: No More Limitations [2004/10/07]
(contains pi to 64 decimals, for some reason :)
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.hp48/msg/99773b1b146d3992
[r->] [OFF]
Veli-Pekka Nousiainen
> Explanation:
>
> Since the slope of sin is 1 where it crosses the x axis,
>
> sin (Pi + tiny number) = tiny number
>
> In this case the "tiny number" is simply = 3.141592654 - Pi =
> 4.1020676153735661672049711580283060062489417902505540769218359371379100137....*10^-10
>
> So, of course the TI answer is correct too, since it corresponds to
> 14 sig. dig.. To justify the accuracy given by HP, both Pi and
> 3.141592654 would have to be given to about 22 digits (that would be
> something like 3.141592654000000000000 and 3.141592653589793238463). Of
> course HP
> does not in general compute to this accuracy. HP algorithm gives an
> accurate answer that is not justified by the number of digits it can
> handle in general, and this is OK in a calculator. It would be
> perfect if HP could give arbitrary accuracy numbers or machine
> accuracy results depending on a setting.
LongFloat library does this. It uses DIGITS
and it can also useinterval arithmetic, letting you to see the accuracy
The 49g+/50G are pretty fast with it - enough for my usage
(good bye laptop...)
GWB
> LongFloat library does this. It uses DIGITS
> and it can also useinterval arithmetic, letting you to see the accuracy
> The 49g+/50G are pretty fast with it - enough for my usage
> (good bye laptop...)
I should have used my 49G: I have LongFloat installed on it and it
really does the job nicely. I've just computed both expressions to 50
digits:
-410206761537356616708992895396990923551313900372000.E-60
-410206761537356616708992895396990923551310000000000.E-60
Some digits were lost when calculating the trigonometric identity but
this is still good enough for verifying the first 40 or so digits.
Gerson.
GWB
It appears I have a buggy Pentium III 500 MHz. On it my Dephi program
returns sin(3.141592654) as -4.10206857034707E-10. On other two
computers I have at home (AMD Athlon(TM)XP 1800+ and Intel DX-4 100)
the answers are -4.10206761624916E-10, not so accurate as the HP-48GX
because of the reasons explained elsewhere in this thread but much
better than the previous result.
By the way, does anyone know a standard test for the Pentium III bug?
(according to a test I performed years ago, my processor was not
buggy). Thanks!
Gerson.
Gerson.
Zeno
<jhme...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.hp48/browse_frm/thread/1516861443b2fbdf
In the above mentioned thread, there is a a part that claims the HPs
get a wrong answer and the Casio gets it right. But in fact, the Hps
get it right, and the Casios do not. The text from the thread is
here.....
"Balazs Fischer wrote:
> ---===> Quoting Nicholas Bodley to A Suehiro <===---
> NB> This matter of other makes giving "nice" ("pretty?"), but
> NB> theoretically-incorrect results has me wondering: Is it possible
> NB> to "trick" these other makes so that the results they give are
> NB> more-obviously wrong?
> Try sin(1146408/364913) on a calc that beautifies its results (in rad mode)
> and you should get 0. My TI-35 does give the wrong answer while the HP has no
> problems.
Unfortunately, the Casio CFX-9800G (the color-display calculator)
gets an answer of -1.6E-12 for this, and the HP48 gets -2.0676E-13.
The real answer is -1.610740019899030939776779...E-12, so I'm afraid
Casio wins this contest hands down.
Sorry. Pick a better example next time.
> Now you can guess how I came up with this number :-).
You obtained the fraction by 'pi' ->NUM ->Q in STD mode.
-Joe-
Volker Neurath
>> Try sin(1146408/364913) on a calc that beautifies its results (in rad
>> mode) and you should get 0. My TI-35 does give the wrong answer while
>> the HP has no problems.
>
> Unfortunately, the Casio CFX-9800G (the color-display calculator)
> gets an answer of -1.6E-12 for this, and the HP48 gets -2.0676E-13.
> The real answer is -1.610740019899030939776779...E-12, so I'm afraid
> Casio wins this contest hands down.
Even my HP 49G+ with new ROM gets the wrong result.
Update for CAS available? (just asking...)
Volker
--
Im übrigen bin ich der Meinung, das TCPA verhindert werden muss
Zeno
<nean...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Zeno wrote:
>
> >> Try sin(1146408/364913) on a calc that beautifies its results (in rad
> >> mode) and you should get 0. My TI-35 does give the wrong answer while
> >> the HP has no problems.
> >
> > Unfortunately, the Casio CFX-9800G (the color-display calculator)
> > gets an answer of -1.6E-12 for this, and the HP48 gets -2.0676E-13.
> > The real answer is -1.610740019899030939776779...E-12, so I'm afraid
> > Casio wins this contest hands down.
>
> Even my HP 49G+ with new ROM gets the wrong result.
>
> Update for CAS available? (just asking...)
>
> Volker
As I explained in my former posting, that thread that says the HPS get
it wrong is itself wrong, so the HPs get it right. Yours is fine. Only
the HPs get any trig answer correct to 12 significant digits no matter
what the input is.
Calculations of the HPs checked by me in Mathematica.
John H Meyers
> In article <op.te0il...@w2kjhm.ia.mum.edu>, John H Meyers wrote...
The part you quoted was from someone else.
>> Try sin(1146408/364913)
> Unfortunately, the Casio CFX-9800G (the color-display calculator)
> gets an answer of -1.6E-12 for this, and the HP48 gets -2.0676E-13.
> The real answer is -1.610740019899030939776779...E-12
'1146408/364913' \->NUM is 3.14159265359 (correctly rounded to 12 digits)
'SIN(3.14159265359)' [RAD mode] is -2.06761537357E-13 (also correct).
The CFX-9800G wasn't among those I've ever referred to,
but the only way in which it could appear more accurate
than the HP calcs was to calculate the original fraction to more digits,
thus changing the argument to SIN() (which was intended to be the
closest representable value to \pi on comparable calculators).
Let's try the stated fraction and then SIN anyway,
using SysRPL instead (which gives us 15-digit truncated mantissas):
:: % 1146408 %>%% % 364913 %>%% %%/ %%SIN %%>% ;
( Result -1.61E-12 on HP48/49)
> so I'm afraid Casio wins this contest hands down.
No, not even a calc using more digits in every value does any better.
> Sorry. Pick a better example next time.
Pick on a same-mantissa-size calc next time,
because even a smaller HP can still take on a bigger Casio ;-)
[r->] [OFF]
John H Meyers
>> Unfortunately, the Casio CFX-9800G (the color-display calculator)...
> Even my HP 49G+ with new ROM gets the wrong result.
It gets the absolutely most correct possible result
(same as earliest HP48) for a calc with 12-digit mantissas,
and even the right 15-digit result if performed in "long" mode.
Gee, I wonder how many are push-overs for equally specious
political nonsense? [and other fields of human experience as well]
[r->] [OFF]
sej...@gmail.com
HP 50g is of (far) better build quality, has no screen issues, unlike texas calcs, button feel on HP 50g is more distinct and better; faster processor (albeit obsolete on both machines), more built-in functions, SD card slot, serial connection, can be powered even by mini usb cable... I have sold (reluctantly) my HP50g, I would have kept it gladly, it is a beast of the calculator and for raw calculating power it has been told that it beats modern ones, HP prime and ti-nspire, which is a bit hard to believe, but some users have pointed this out; I will perhaps buy a used one in the future for the fun of it; for now I would in education, as a student find far more use for the Texas, due to the apps written for it, programmability (you can easily write your own small apps for it, for specific tasks you need and save a lot of time by that, and it's programming languages look far more easier to write in than the user rpl of HP 50g), it looks very cool (ti-92+ is coolest looking to me by far) and qwerty keyboard is a definite advantage. Once carrying the laptop, it is a bit hard to justify the use for these fine machines (once in the past) these days, in indoor environments... These companies could do much more to upgrade these machines, it is laughable that you can have fully functioning emulators on the low-end android phone and graph and do same things a lot faster than on the original gadgets.
I wish Voyage 200 had memory expandability (SD card slot), that would greatly enhance it imo.