home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!agate!agate!phr
- From: phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.handhelds
- Subject: Re: Opinions on HP42S/HP32S2/28S wanted...
- Date: 10 Sep 92 02:53:46
- Organization: CSUA/UCB
- Lines: 21
- Distribution: inet
- Message-ID: <PHR.92Sep10025346@soda.berkeley.edu>
- References: <Btrn5y.CHF@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <PHR.92Sep3155757@soda.berkeley.edu>
- <7SEP199222055772@utarlg.uta.edu>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
- In-reply-to: b645zjo@utarlg.uta.edu's message of Tue, 8 Sep 1992 03:05:00 GMT
-
- But the 42S can do more matrix functions than the 48S(X).
-
- What are the extra functions, and are they useful? The 42s can't
- do the most important thing with matrices, which is finding the eigenvalues.
- I'm sure there are 48sx library functions available to do this even
- if it's not built in. Sure, you could program it into a 42s, but
- the 42s is so much slower (10x or more) than a 48 that it would be
- sheer masochism. The 48 is also a lot easier to program (though
- still awful in my opinion).
-
- Re TI-85 vs. HP42S: I've always liked HP's better than TI's because
- of the better construction and more careful user interface.
- But with the 42S they seem to have done a TI-like job, so maybe
- the TI-85 is a reasonable choice in this case. I'd still watch it:
- HP's tend to have much better numerics (solver, integrator, etc.) than TI.
-
- Note: I own a 42s (happy enough with it; got it cheap; don't really
- need a fancy calculator since I have Mathematica on my PC) but have
- only played with 48's for a few minutes. I think the 48 is a a
- much better choice if you need a fancy calculator but I don't feel
- the need myself.
-