Slashdot Mirror

Was it the Casio fx-7000G? I still have mine.

Just looking at the other responses and I just realized that my first "home computer" (ie something that plugged into the TV and you could program and play games on) was actually my third.

I started with a Sharp PC1211 which was a large BASIC programmable calculator with a QWERTY keyboard, 2k of program memory and a thermal printer base station that allowed you to store programs on cassette: http://www.rskey.org/pc1211 I think it was purchased in 1979.

Then went to a CPM computer I designed/wire-wrapped myself: https://slashdot.org/comments....

And, because games were limited on CPM, mono-chrome text based machines in the early 1980s, I got myself an Atari 400 because it had the most sophisticated graphics and sound at the time (I still have the ANTIC chip manual) which is what you would consider a "home computer".

I have 2 Casio FX-115ESPlus calcs, and I use them all the time. One at my desk, one in my toolbox. I think I paid $12.99 for them, and they are available everywhere.

I like RPN, but the Casio textbook entry input works very well, and comes in handy when I have more important things on my mind.

www.casio.com/products/Calculators_%26_Dictionaries/Fraction_%26_Scientific/FX-115ESPLUS/

They also rank very highly for accuracy.

http://www.rskey.org/~mwsebastian/miscprj/forensics.htm

voidware.com/calcs/torturetest.htm

Tell me about it! And the TI-57 manual Making Tracks into Programming was phenomenal.

I just wish I knew about the constant memory trick with the infinite loop blanking the display back then. Where *was* the internet!

CFX-9800G Released in 1995, I stand corrected. I didn't know about this one.

.

Move on, there is little to see in TFA.

Yeah... I had one of the Tandy PC-7 pocket computers (a re-branded copy of the Casio fx-5200P).

I wrote programs for that thing... I still remember trying to eke out the most of its limited display and memory (1.5k should be enough for anybody!). It had a single array for its variables, which could be referenced through the variable names A-Z, or by base names followed by array offsets, e.g. B[2] is the 2nd slot beyond B (i.e. the same as D).

Each variable could hold either a number or a maximum of 7-character string value (if you put a $ after the variable name). It also had a special string variable that held something like 26 characters. You could adjust the size of the program/variable allocations... less than 26 variables and Z, Y, X, etc. disappeared; more than 26, and you could only access some of them through Z[n] or similar.

By leaving out spaces that weren’t necessarily required by the BASIC interpreter, you could also save a precious few bytes of space, I discovered... 10PRINT"A"; is two bytes smaller than 10 PRINT "A";.

Yeah... I had one of the Tandy PC-7 pocket computers (a re-branded copy of the Casio fx-5200P).

I wrote programs for that thing... I still remember trying to eke out the most of its limited display and memory (1.5k should be enough for anybody!). It had a single array for its variables, which could be referenced through the variable names A-Z, or by base names followed by array offsets, e.g. B[2] is the 2nd slot beyond B (i.e. the same as D).

Each variable could hold either a number or a maximum of 7-character string value (if you put a $ after the variable name). It also had a special string variable that held something like 26 characters. You could adjust the size of the program/variable allocations... less than 26 variables and Z, Y, X, etc. disappeared; more than 26, and you could only access some of them through Z[n] or similar.

By leaving out spaces that weren’t necessarily required by the BASIC interpreter, you could also save a precious few bytes of space, I discovered... 10PRINT"A"; is two bytes smaller than 10 PRINT "A";.

The real key to successfully land the lander is to understand that you need to apply enough thrust to slow your descent without actually reversing the velocity of the craft.

Yes, well known since the days of the HP 65("the first programmable handheld calculator in outer space") Lunar Lander.

CC.

I'm the original owner of (and still use) one of these bad boys. And no it's not for sale.

Then, I worked through a whole summer to buy myself a Texas Instruments SR-56, which was half the price of a HP-25... Eventually, after going through an TI-58 and an HP-29C, I got myself my first computer, a hand-made wire-wrapped motorola 6809 system running UNIX in 168K of RAM and two 8 inch floppies. Yes, sir, nothing less than UNIX!!!

It was not until 1986 that I got myself a PC compatible machine. And the rest is history...

Snort. You "early micro" guys had it easy. My first "computer" was a Texas Instruments SR-56 programmable calculator (in college circa 1976). 10 numeric registers, 100-step program memory, NO EXTERNAL STORAGE (you had to re-enter the program steps every time you turned it off or wanted to switch programs). I can't recall any particular programs I wrote on it, but it did give me a deep appreciation for permanent data and program storage. The first "real" computer I used was a Digital PDP-8, which allowed you to save your program on paper tape. That was an awesome improvement, and it's just kept getting better ever since.

.. Especially the ones without large LCD graphing displays. My trusty beast could handle at least first year chem and physics formulae.. And you didn't have the TAs refusing or confiscating them like they might some of the more advanced (and waay more expensive) HPs.. And no RPN ;)

Plus, you could get them at Service Merchandise (and possibly Consumers Distributing), which were the only places my folks bought consumer electronics back in the day...

(and for all you hatas out there, Casio _did_ have a more powerful programmable, but IIRC it was also way more expensive at the time..)

.. Especially the ones without large LCD graphing displays. My trusty beast could handle at least first year chem and physics formulae.. And you didn't have the TAs refusing or confiscating them like they might some of the more advanced (and waay more expensive) HPs.. And no RPN ;)

Plus, you could get them at Service Merchandise (and possibly Consumers Distributing), which were the only places my folks bought consumer electronics back in the day...

(and for all you hatas out there, Casio _did_ have a more powerful programmable, but IIRC it was also way more expensive at the time..)

Why not show them what they can achieve with the calculator rather than how to achieve what the calculator does?

Because then someday, none of us will know how to add, and any answer that any calculator gives us will seem right. They'll become more like lottery machines with a different answer between each other (or even give different answers every day!) than verified, scrutinized teaching aids.

How do we scrutinize our calculators? We do the math ourselves. How do we let them become misleading tools? Not knowing the math. I remember seeing differences, IIRC, between the Sharp EL-520R and the CASIO fx-4200P in how they calculate standard deviations (with small differences in their end results). (I cannot give examples because my Sharp's screen is garbled now, but their manuals give slightly different formulas also.) Will the plus sign become inconsistent next? I hope not.

You are right. Here is a site with info on it. Lovely calculator. Also known as Casio fx-5000F.

Yes, but he said TI68.

That whooshing sound you heard while posting your reply was his joke, whizzing by over your head.

~Philly