Slashdot Mirror
HP Releases New RPN Scientific Calculator
majid writes "HP just announced a new calculator, the HP 33S. It supports RPN and algebraic notation, and sports a funky V-shaped design. I don't think it looks as nice as the 33SII it is supposed to replace, and it seems to have rubber keys instead of the wonderful hard plastic keys on older HP calculators, but it's nice to have a new RPN scientific calculator that does not have the intimidating learning (and remembering) curve of the 48 or 49 series. This one just might join my trusty 15C ...
The User's manual PDF is available courtesy of Amazon, where it is apparently already No. 85 on the best-selling list."
The advantage of a graphing calculator is that it's made for just that -- calculating. The (conveniently placed) keys and display are a lot more convenient than having the Palm screen adapted to the purpose.
Nokia finally bought out HP. I guess if you cannot make the phone with the normal keys, you can make other consumer devices so screwed up that people think that it is OK to go on diagonal to type anything.
Sometimes I think form should still follow function. But I guess my brain was not destroyed by the rapid MTV editing.
Fifty bucks buys you a calculator with rubbery keys (in a weird 'newbie-friendly' pattern), a two-line (!!!) screen, and 31KB (!!!) of "RAM user memory"? What the fuck are they smoking? How is this better than a used HP48G that you could get for probably the same price?
Jesus Christ, it's 2004. We should have HP48G-looking units with 64MB of RAM, double-high-res colour transflective screens (think GBA), USB ports, AND full backwards-compatibility with all the wonderful HP48[G/GX/S/SX] software out there (think of how the newer Palm devices can run older Palm software), but no, we get this pile of steamed monkey dung...
I guess this is what we can expect from..... Compaq.
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
Who's taking Partial Differential Equations? You or the calculator?
I'm in grad school in EE about 6 or 7 years behind my fellow students (cashed in on the dotcom boom, etc.) and we were talking about this yesterday.
When I was in engineering school, the HP48GX was the calc. Everyone knew RPN, all the circuits students learned quickly how to solve linear algebra rather quickly on the HP. Now I'm the only one with an HP. Everyone, everyone has a TI-89. Symbolics plus nearly everything the HP could do (except RPN), much improved graphing, much improved processor. The new HP calc? Overwhelmingly, reviews have pronounced it crap, both in interface and underlying engineering. (It still uses the same old "Saturn" chip the HP48 series did ten years ago, with a slight speed bump.) Two or three students had never even SEEN an HP calculator.
Is this true everywhere? Has the HP calculator series been relegated to the trash heap? If so, how did HP allow itself to bungle this so badly?
OpenGLFan, whose love of RPN is the only thing attaching himself to his current calculator...
... that works. I'm a very successful and effective engineer who never made it past Calculus 2 at university. I have a strong creative impulse, good work habits, and an intuitive grasp of EE topics from signal propagation to circuit analysis that has served my employers well. But I can't deal with math. I don't like it, and it doesn't like me. I have the same problem with abstract mathematics that dyslexics have with words.
The truth that you'll never hear in college is that in engineering, intuition and imagination will get you 50% of the way there, and self-discipline will buy you another 40%. The remaining 10% is purely analytical work. It has to be done, and it's hard as hell. It's why they don't let EEs graduate without course upon course of advanced calculus, differential equations, and thermodynamics. However, at the Fortune 1000 company where I work (Agilent), there are always plenty of math geeks around, and I treat them like very smart, very valuable calculators. "Here, optimize this." "How's our max temperature looking?" "Can this be done any cheaper without sacrificing operating margin?"
Engineers and mathematicians make a killer combination. Personally, I think a lot of talented, creative folks are kept out of the EE community by the stiff math requirements, and that's a shame.
Why couldnt they have made it like the 48sx?
Because in recent years HP decided to save a bundle of money by decreasing the product quality which is what the HP name was known for. They made up for it with that shiny metallic paint. Some focus group must have preferred it to the staid ABS plastic that was typical of HP stuff. Good thing, too, since it makes it easy to recognize pre-Carly from post-Carly HP products.
I have an HP-28S that I got in 1988 and used through college, and a HP49g+ that I was stupid enough to get in 2000. I know exactly what you're talking about. Once an HP model gets that metallic sheen on it, it's game over.
If it ain't broke - don't fix it.
The 41 was THE calculator in its day. Nothing could come close to its power. The 41 was also one of the few calculators you could truly hack, both the software and the hardware.
-- Will program for bandwidth
A while back I owned a HP 28S.
:) A lot of other people were hacking on that calculator, there was a real scene, with a lot of good free software.
Then a 48SX and it was really an amazing beast. Not as a calculator but as a geek machine. Programming in assembly language was a breeze. I really loved the Saturn CPU. In fact, I spent a lot of time at school coding on the calculator instead of listening to teachers
Then the HP48GX was out. It rocked. It was twice faster as the HP48SX. More people joined the HP 48 scene, new tricks were found (like using interrupts for grey levels), minitel services were there to share and download code... well... it was just excellent.
-HPdream.
{{.sig}}
Is HP getting new fans with their product? It seems that it is mostly the "old guard" that digs the new products, but with the speed caveat.
Other people that give it a fair shake are those that can buy several brands at once. I had a Casio, when it didn't have one feature that I needed, I bought a TI. I haven't gotten anything new in nearly a decade.
RPN is something of a preference thing. I know some people swear by it, I really don't feel I should swap around the my order of thinking just to use a calculator, a slow one at that.
I suppose I should say that of TI and Casio, I don't think they can handle RPN any more than HP handles infix, which is somewhat unfortunate but the time it takes to get used to RPN seems to outweigh the time it takes just to use parentheses the few times I need to.
I have actually found that the graphing functionality in calculators are little more than a gimmick for insecure college students. The quality of the graph that the LCD screen will provide you with is just too low to really provide you with insight, and couple with the slowness of these instruments, you are essentially dealing with what is basically a waste of time and money, when you least can afford it: when you are a broke student during a cal final.
For that matter alone, one cannot overemphasize the need to culture the skill that is analytic geometry, i.e. the ability to skillfully build a graph by simple inspection of the equation provided. All information that is relevant can be generated with some skill, without a calculator doing it for you, with more speed and accuracy.
These were outsourced to an ROC company (Kimpo).
Oh, I don't know about that.
I remember a comment by an engineerring professor when I asked him his opinion of the scientific calculators. His reply: "I'm all for them. Because now, we can concentrate on some REAL math." i.e., the fancier the calculator gets, the more challenging the math and other problems become.
So, is life more easy because you have a fancy scientific calculator? No. The problems just get harder.
Math is a hierarchical kind of knowledge. If you don't understand the foundations you won't understand the higher level stuff. It's all well and good to use a high-powered calculator to do stuff that you already know well, since, as you say, it lets you focus on the harder parts. But when you are learning the things for the first time you shouldn't be relying on the calculator.
I love RPN. Many of the posters here love RPN. But to the average user, RPN is like "lol i dont get it its all BACKWREDZ". I remember offering to loan my HP48G to people who handed it right back to me after trying (and failing) to comprehend RPN.
Is there a paper somewhere on why RPN is a Good Thing(TM), and not just "lol teh math is backwardz"? Cuz to the average user, RPN is like "speak like Yoda do I!" It seems pointless to them, and only slows comprehension.
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
I agree that calculators are still useful for educational settings, although for a different reason that the one you suggest.
As a computational astrophysicist, I no longer find any use for hand-held calculators whatsoever. If I find the need to do a detailed numerical computation while working, I simply pop up Mathematica. I have hundreds of physical constants relevant for my work stored in a handy ".m" file, so if I wish to compute, say, the Planck mass, I can simply type in "Sqrt [hbar c / G]", rather than punching in numerical values. It is far more convenient and _more powerful_ than using a hand calculator since I can readily construct expressions, do symbolic manipulations on them, and produce complex plots with very little effort. Mathematica has an enormous understanding of mathematical functions, so if I want, say, the value of second derivative of the Laguerre polynomial of order n, I can simply enter "N [D [LaguerreL [n, x], x] ]". (Try to stuff than in your calculator and smoke it.) It also has unlimited numerical precision, so if I want the value of Pi to 100 digits, I just enter "N [Pi, 100]". (Not a practical example, given that 100 decades is greater than the total number of fundamental particles in the current Hubble radius, but an illustrative one nonetheless.) In addition, I have the ability to immediately translate those expressions into Tex format or C or Fortran code, so that they can be readily incorporated into papers or other standalone code. And that is saying nothing of the fact that a full-sized keyboard is vastly easier to use than _either_ a stylus or a weeny calculator keypad.
If I am in a meeting of some kind or just informally speaking to someone, and the need for a quick numerical estimate comes up, I can always whip out an estimate good to within 10% without using any calculating aid other than a pencil and paper. You'll find that all good scientists and engineers can do quick back-of-the-envelope calculations when the need arises.
So what use are calculators in schools when students could be using Mathematica (or any other mathematical software of their choice) on their laptops? The plain fact of the matter is that math and science instructors almost universally do not wish to construct a course in which the learning goes beyond the simplest applications of the principles learned. Therefore, they must almost always artificially control additional information and calculating aids during exams (normally no notes, books, or computers). Calculators are the one concession they do allow, only because their functionality is limited, and therefore the aid they provide is also limited. I admit calculators have become reasonably sophisticated as of late, and so as a result, partially to offset any potential unfair advantage, instructors are increasingly allowing students to stuff all of the equations they can fit onto a "cheat sheet" of a certain size.
When you think about the situation, it is fairly ludicrous. No literature professor would make a student write a term paper on Shakespeare without having access to the original plays and all the additional supplemental information he can lay his hands on. But it is easier to construct a system in which students are tested on rote memory and simple application of known template examples from class, rather than being able to use all the resources at their disposal to synthesize everything they have learned in creative applications. Synthesis and creative use of one's knowledge, is, after all, what real world science and engineering are all about. Primarily because of this artificial construction, classwork performance is quite often a poor indicator of a student's potential as a real scientist or engineer.
Bob
Science, like Nature, must also be tamed, with a view turned towards its preservation.
Try finding some solutions to a transcendental equation like the solutions to a finite square well potential.
solve for k
k = -c tan(a k)
or
k = c cot(a k)
Graphing k against c tan(a k), visually inspecting the intersections, and then numerically calculating the intersections is the easiest way to do this.
I agree that people need to learn the hard way first, but we don't all have to be ascetic math monks.
A Usenet Troll Triumphs on Slashdot
Nope, he was wrong. As an earlier post says, the 48GII and 49G+ use ARM9 processors. The 48GII uses a 48MHz chip, and the 49G+ uses a 75MHz chip.
Yeah, but don't you find when you're doing your...um...computational astrophysicist stuff or you're at your...telescope or something...microscope thingy...whatever you scientists use to do your scientists things, and you need to make a quick calculation or something. Isn't it easier to just grab a calculator or something?
Or just grab a scrap of paper and a pencil and figure it out in your head.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
I am reasonably skillful at maths, and a somewhat successful engineer (leastways I enjoy it and get good appraisals). For most of my career I have been involved in Noise and Vibration, which meant I had to eat Fourier transforms for breakfast. FTs are one of the few 'advanced' maths concepts I regard as easy.
There are a lot of people around who have a good feel for stuff that I tend to analyse, but often I analyse it because its fun, not necessary. I have had some technicians working with me who could not have described an FT, let alone worked one out, who still managed to do very good work.
Now I work in a field where a basic knowledge of Hamiltonians is helpful (suspension/mechanisms analysis/non linear dynamics), but, I have a strong suspicion that many engineers in my field don't use them or understand them. Doesn't seem to hold them back.
It's inherent in an interpreted language like TI-Basic that it'll be slower and less powerful than raw assembly. A tetris program written in assembly, like ZTetris, is going to wipe the floor with a Basic tetris program, especially if the Basic program is an inefficient one written on the calculator by an inexperienced coder.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Sadly when they "click" it does not mean that a keypress has registered! It's like having a keyboard with buckling springs only the noise & touch gives no indication that you have done what you intended. Could it be a fake click has been added to keys that were never meant to click, that the click has nothing to do with electrical operation? Would the old HP have made a fake click? No, the click was there because it was how the reliable key mechanism operated. Click meant electrical contact, not fooled user.
Fake click is like a huge exhaust on a stock Civic. It's an Indonesian copy Rolex. It's the fake leather smell on a "pleather" laptop case - it's what's wrong with HP. But the people running HP think you're too stupid to notice that what you're buying isn't what it seems.
HP jumps down into the gutter with a Korean OEM, Kimpo, wasting the good will and reputation built over decades by the real engineers that used to (and no longer will) work there - GG Carly! Give me a Casio over a new HP any day.