Check with Radio Shack. They sell "fractions" capable calculators for
around $15.

Bob Swinney
"Aaron Kushner" wrote in message
...
A few weeks ago, someone suggested using the HP32SII calculator for
its fraction capabilities. Thanks for the great suggestion! I've
had that calculator for seven years and never realized it could do
fractions. I was making 12 drawers for cabinets last night and used
the calculator extensively.

Too bad those calculators aren't made anymore. Very sad.
Evidently, those calculators are one of the few pieces of
electronics that seem to have gotten more expensive as they've
aged. I can't give away the Sparc Center 1000 in my garage - it
was a $120,000 box at one time.

Regards,
Aaron

Robert Swinney wrote:
Check with Radio Shack. They sell "fractions" capable calculators for
around $15.

Yeah, but you can no longer buy an RPN calculator that will comfortabley
fit in your pocket (except used, for big $). I really miss the HP42S
that I lost years ago. It was perfect for my needs and nobody makes one
like it now.

Aaron, Hang on to that HP32! I'm jealous.

-Greg

Greg wrote:

Yeah, but you can no longer buy an RPN calculator that will comfortabley
fit in your pocket (except used, for big $).

HP is coming out with a replacement for the 32SII, the HP 33S. It doesn't
seem to be widely available but some people have been able to buy them.
There's some discussion of this new model over on comp.sys.hp48.


--

Steve Dunbar wrote:

HP is coming out with a replacement for the 32SII, the HP 33S. It doesn't
seem to be widely available but some people have been able to buy them.
There's some discussion of this new model over on comp.sys.hp48.

Hey, thanks for the tip! I'll keep my eyes out for it.

-G

You may be able to buy it direct from HP's website. www.hp.com and click on
handheld devices to find calculators link.

"Greg" wrote in message
...


Steve Dunbar wrote:

HP is coming out with a replacement for the 32SII, the HP 33S. It
doesn't
seem to be widely available but some people have been able to buy them.
There's some discussion of this new model over on comp.sys.hp48.

Hey, thanks for the tip! I'll keep my eyes out for it.

-G

Greg wrote:


Steve Dunbar wrote:

HP is coming out with a replacement for the 32SII, the HP 33S. It doesn't
seem to be widely available but some people have been able to buy them.
There's some discussion of this new model over on comp.sys.hp48.

Hey, thanks for the tip! I'll keep my eyes out for it.

I couldn't help myself; I bought the HP 33S at a local
electronic store this week.

It has a few features not in the HP32S, but I kind of liked the
simpler HP32S interface. But now you've get the capability to do
calculations with exponents up to 500. I'm sure that will come in
handy when I want to figure out how many universes could be
filled with ping pong balls.

The second LCD line is nice to see what is in the previous stack.
On the downside, the keyboard is _way_ busier than the 32S and
will take some getting used to. And they moved the ENTER key to
the bottom right and it is the same size as the other keys. But
this would probably only bother someone who had been using other
HP calculators for the last 20 years.

-Aaron

In article hm1rm1-ujc.ln1@adsl-63-193-121-
233.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net,
says...

And they moved the ENTER key to
the bottom right and it is the same size as the other keys. But
this would probably only bother someone who had been using other
HP calculators for the last 20 years.

HP was never big on consistency. If you've ever worked with
HP test gear you may get a chuckle out of this.

http://www.robotics.com/hp/

Tektronix seems to have at least made an effort to maintain
some consistency in their designs over the years.

Ned Simmons

Greg wrote:



Robert Swinney wrote:

Check with Radio Shack. They sell "fractions" capable calculators for
around $15.


Yeah, but you can no longer buy an RPN calculator that will comfortabley
fit in your pocket (except used, for big $). I really miss the HP42S
that I lost years ago. It was perfect for my needs and nobody makes one
like it now.

Aaron, Hang on to that HP32! I'm jealous.

-Greg

I know what you mean - have a 28C clamshell and a TI 81 for the shop .
The 28 is for the office.

At work I use a software version of an HP on my PDA.

Martin

--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

Greg sez:
Yeah, but you can no longer buy an RPN calculator that will comfortabley
fit in your pocket (except used, for big $). I really miss the HP42S
that I lost years ago. It was perfect for my needs and nobody makes one
like it now.

Hey! No problem. I was never "comfortable" with RPN all along. IMO, RPN
was developed (HP probably)
to accommodate the shortcomings of early microprocessors. It takes a
helluva lot more processing power to enter equations "the natural way".
Again, and IMO, those that became "comfortable" with RPN were deluding
themselves into thinking they were some sort of math geniuses for doing so.
On the other hand -- I assume anyone that could be "comfortable" with the
awkward back and forth motion of a slide rule might not agree. Now, before
anyone jumps on me for that statement - I have several slide rules and know
how to use them. Expertise with a slide rule did not dupe me into learning
RPN - I chose to wait until AE came along.

Bob Swinney

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 08:42:19 -0700, the renowned "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Greg sez:
Yeah, but you can no longer buy an RPN calculator that will comfortabley
fit in your pocket (except used, for big $). I really miss the HP42S
that I lost years ago. It was perfect for my needs and nobody makes one
like it now.

Hey! No problem. I was never "comfortable" with RPN all along. IMO, RPN
was developed (HP probably)
to accommodate the shortcomings of early microprocessors.

I think it was developed by engineers with programming experience who
thought it was more efficient. It is. Forth and Postscript both are
stack-based computer languages. Languages such as C generally
re-arrange things at compile time so that they can execute similarly
at run time. That re-arrangement is somewhat non-trivial (recursion)
but that's not what AE calculators do- they just store intermediate
results and pending operators.

Eg. 2 * sin(43°) + 0.5

RPN AE
--- --
43 2
sin *
2 43
* sin
..5 +
+ 0.5
=

Eg. 4 * ( 5 + 7)

RPN AE
--- --
5 4
7 *
+ (
4 5
* +
7
)
=


It takes a
helluva lot more processing power to enter equations "the natural way".

Nah, the stack on early HP calculators was 4 levels. If you want to
use "the natural way", the calc chip needs to store one intermediate
result for each level of paren or implied paren, and the operator. So
it is just a tiny bit more RAM (to hold the operators) and probably a
few more intermediate results (depending on how many levels of paren
the calculator can handle).

Again, and IMO, those that became "comfortable" with RPN were deluding
themselves into thinking they were some sort of math geniuses for doing so.

Entering things from the "inside out" rather than from "left to right"
always seemed easier to me, fewer keystrokes and less chance of making
an error. The results you need for the next step often seem to right
there from the last step. The fact that people would avoid borrowing
your calculator was just a bonus. ;-)

On the other hand -- I assume anyone that could be "comfortable" with the
awkward back and forth motion of a slide rule might not agree. Now, before
anyone jumps on me for that statement - I have several slide rules and know
how to use them. Expertise with a slide rule did not dupe me into learning
RPN - I chose to wait until AE came along.

Bob Swinney

Too bad no manufacturer (AFAIK) has offered RPN as a simply set
*option*- like radians vs. degrees for trig. It would add negligible
cost, and modern calculators can show several levels of stack at once.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

In article , Spehro Pefhany says...

Too bad no manufacturer (AFAIK) has offered RPN as a simply set
*option*- like radians vs. degrees for trig. It would add negligible
cost, and modern calculators can show several levels of stack at once.

I think the newer HP calculators can be operated in either mode.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 17 Apr 2004 10:42:42 -0700, the renowned jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Spehro Pefhany says...

Too bad no manufacturer (AFAIK) has offered RPN as a simply set
*option*- like radians vs. degrees for trig. It would add negligible
cost, and modern calculators can show several levels of stack at once.

I think the newer HP calculators can be operated in either mode.

Jim

HP48 is the latest I have, and it's RPN only, but I've got a (n even
older?) clamshell HP financial calculator HP19B that is AE only.



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

HP48 is the latest I have, and it's RPN only, but I've got a (n even
older?) clamshell HP financial calculator HP19B that is AE only.

See, HP finally realized that basically non-math types wouldn't want to mess
with all that complexity so they put in AE. But we know the real reason
don't we.

Bob Swinney

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
...
On 17 Apr 2004 10:42:42 -0700, the renowned jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Spehro Pefhany
says...

Too bad no manufacturer (AFAIK) has offered RPN as a simply set
*option*- like radians vs. degrees for trig. It would add negligible
cost, and modern calculators can show several levels of stack at once.

I think the newer HP calculators can be operated in either mode.

Jim




Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers:
http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers:
http://www.speff.com

Too bad no manufacturer (AFAIK) has offered RPN as a simply set
*option*- like radians vs. degrees for trig. It would add negligible
cost, and modern calculators can show several levels of stack at once.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers:
http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers:
http://www.speff.com

If you happen across an old HP17BII, it has selectable RPN or AE modes. But
be aware the HP17B is AE only.

Yeah! I guessed it was something like that.

Bob Swinney
"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 08:42:19 -0700, the renowned "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Greg sez:
Yeah, but you can no longer buy an RPN calculator that will
comfortabley
fit in your pocket (except used, for big $). I really miss the HP42S
that I lost years ago. It was perfect for my needs and nobody makes one
like it now.

Hey! No problem. I was never "comfortable" with RPN all along. IMO,
RPN
was developed (HP probably)
to accommodate the shortcomings of early microprocessors.

I think it was developed by engineers with programming experience who
thought it was more efficient. It is. Forth and Postscript both are
stack-based computer languages. Languages such as C generally
re-arrange things at compile time so that they can execute similarly
at run time. That re-arrangement is somewhat non-trivial (recursion)
but that's not what AE calculators do- they just store intermediate
results and pending operators.

Eg. 2 * sin(43°) + 0.5

RPN AE
--- --
43 2
sin *
2 43
* sin
.5 +
+ 0.5
=

Eg. 4 * ( 5 + 7)

RPN AE
--- --
5 4
7 *
+ (
4 5
* +
7
)
=


It takes a
helluva lot more processing power to enter equations "the natural way".

Nah, the stack on early HP calculators was 4 levels. If you want to
use "the natural way", the calc chip needs to store one intermediate
result for each level of paren or implied paren, and the operator. So
it is just a tiny bit more RAM (to hold the operators) and probably a
few more intermediate results (depending on how many levels of paren
the calculator can handle).

Again, and IMO, those that became "comfortable" with RPN were deluding
themselves into thinking they were some sort of math geniuses for doing
so.

Entering things from the "inside out" rather than from "left to right"
always seemed easier to me, fewer keystrokes and less chance of making
an error. The results you need for the next step often seem to right
there from the last step. The fact that people would avoid borrowing
your calculator was just a bonus. ;-)

On the other hand -- I assume anyone that could be "comfortable" with
the
awkward back and forth motion of a slide rule might not agree. Now,
before
anyone jumps on me for that statement - I have several slide rules and
know
how to use them. Expertise with a slide rule did not dupe me into
learning
RPN - I chose to wait until AE came along.

Bob Swinney

Too bad no manufacturer (AFAIK) has offered RPN as a simply set
*option*- like radians vs. degrees for trig. It would add negligible
cost, and modern calculators can show several levels of stack at once.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers:
http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers:
http://www.speff.com

In article ,
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 08:42:19 -0700, the renowned "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

[ ... ]

It takes a
helluva lot more processing power to enter equations "the natural way".

Nah, the stack on early HP calculators was 4 levels.

It depends on what you mean by "early". The 9200 and 9200B
desktop machines (which is where I got my start programming HP
calculators) were three levels of stack -- with real *core* memory, and a
mag card reader/writer. All three levels of stack were visible at once
on the tiny crt display. Since it had core memory, you could turn it
off, and when you turned it back on, your program was still there, ready
to run.

It also had a clamshell printer which fit on top of the case
like a toupee, and it printed on an electro-sensitive paper (conductive
aluminum foil, and it wrote by blasting through with electrostatic
discharges that to the black background on the paper. As your printout
extended, you were unfurling an antenna to broadcast your calculations
to the world. :-)

So -- when I got my HP-45, I was already comfortable with RPN,
and also with a slipstick.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On 18 Apr 2004 00:46:03 -0400, the renowned (DoN.
Nichols) wrote:

In article ,
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 08:42:19 -0700, the renowned "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

[ ... ]

It takes a
helluva lot more processing power to enter equations "the natural way".

Nah, the stack on early HP calculators was 4 levels.

It depends on what you mean by "early". The 9200 and 9200B
desktop machines (which is where I got my start programming HP
calculators) were three levels of stack -- with real *core* memory, and a
mag card reader/writer. All three levels of stack were visible at once
on the tiny crt display. Since it had core memory, you could turn it
off, and when you turned it back on, your program was still there, ready
to run.

Handheld, of course. I picked up one of those (the 9200B) at a
stationery shop in Downey CA back in the early eighties for song
($40), with JPL stickers all over it. CRT display. Gold-plated PCBs.
VERY nice, and it still worked. Unfortunately it disappeared last time
we moved to a new house. Very sad, it was a beautiful example of
American engineering. It cost about $4000.00 in '68 according to an
old (hardcover) HP catalog I had. Back when HP was a real instrument
company.

It also had a clamshell printer which fit on top of the case
like a toupee, and it printed on an electro-sensitive paper (conductive
aluminum foil, and it wrote by blasting through with electrostatic
discharges that to the black background on the paper. As your printout
extended, you were unfurling an antenna to broadcast your calculations
to the world. :-)

I never saw that.

So -- when I got my HP-45, I was already comfortable with RPN,
and also with a slipstick.

Enjoy,
DoN.

The HP-35 and 45 were just a bit before my time- I knew of them, but
couldn't afford (or justify) them.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

In article , Spehro Pefhany says...

... It cost about $4000.00 in '68 according to an
old (hardcover) HP catalog I had. Back when HP was a real instrument
company.

Agilent still makes some pretty nice stuff. They're the
spin-off of HP's instrument division. I suspect that
babe fiorina is going to run that business straight into
the ground, and then eject at the last minute with her
parachute.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article ,
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On 18 Apr 2004 00:46:03 -0400, the renowned (DoN.
Nichols) wrote:

In article ,
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 08:42:19 -0700, the renowned "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

[ ... ]

Nah, the stack on early HP calculators was 4 levels.

It depends on what you mean by "early". The 9200 and 9200B
desktop machines (which is where I got my start programming HP
calculators) were three levels of stack -- with real *core* memory, and a

[ ... ]

Handheld, of course. I picked up one of those (the 9200B) at a
stationery shop in Downey CA back in the early eighties for song
($40), with JPL stickers all over it. CRT display. Gold-plated PCBs.
VERY nice, and it still worked. Unfortunately it disappeared last time
we moved to a new house. Very sad, it was a beautiful example of
American engineering. It cost about $4000.00 in '68 according to an
old (hardcover) HP catalog I had. Back when HP was a real instrument
company.

I wish that I had one.

It also had a clamshell printer which fit on top of the case
like a toupee, and it printed on an electro-sensitive paper (conductive

[ ... ]

I never saw that.

You may have noticed near the front on the top curve of the case
were a pair of screws which were normally screwed in flush with the top.
You unscrewed them a short distance, and a pair of lock levers took
those and used them to clamp the printer in place.

So -- when I got my HP-45, I was already comfortable with RPN,
and also with a slipstick.

Enjoy,
DoN.

The HP-35 and 45 were just a bit before my time- I knew of them, but
couldn't afford (or justify) them.

The 35 I resisted, but when the 45 came out, I decided to bite.
I never regretted it.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Robert Swinney wrote:
Greg sez:
Yeah, but you can no longer buy an RPN calculator that will
comfortabley fit in your pocket (except used, for big $). I really
miss the HP42S that I lost years ago. It was perfect for my needs
and nobody makes one like it now.

Hey! No problem. I was never "comfortable" with RPN all along.
IMO, RPN was developed (HP probably)
to accommodate the shortcomings of early microprocessors. It takes a
helluva lot more processing power to enter equations "the natural
way". Again, and IMO, those that became "comfortable" with RPN were
deluding themselves into thinking they were some sort of math
geniuses for doing so. On the other hand -- I assume anyone that
could be "comfortable" with the awkward back and forth motion of a
slide rule might not agree. Now, before anyone jumps on me for that
statement - I have several slide rules and know how to use them.
Expertise with a slide rule did not dupe me into learning RPN - I
chose to wait until AE came along.

Bob Swinney

I think it is more efficient for many calculations, if you can keep track of
what's on the stack. It's also fun when some engineer borrows it at a
meeting and can't figure out how to multiply two numbers.

I think it is more efficient for many calculations, if you can keep track
of
what's on the stack. It's also fun when some engineer borrows it at a
meeting and can't figure out how to multiply two numbers.

My point exactly. The engineer is unable to re-learn his math under
pressure (and he is math trained). So, the ordinary mortal is in for a ton
of confusion if he tries to figure out RPN. True, it makes lots of folks
break arms patting themselves on their backs over how smart they are - but -
the fact remains, RPN was introduced because of electronic limitations of
the time. Sphero explained it very well when he said that AE takes more
interim memory.

Bob Swinney

"ATP" wrote in message
et...
Robert Swinney wrote:
Greg sez:
Yeah, but you can no longer buy an RPN calculator that will
comfortabley fit in your pocket (except used, for big $). I really
miss the HP42S that I lost years ago. It was perfect for my needs
and nobody makes one like it now.

Hey! No problem. I was never "comfortable" with RPN all along.
IMO, RPN was developed (HP probably)
to accommodate the shortcomings of early microprocessors. It takes a
helluva lot more processing power to enter equations "the natural
way". Again, and IMO, those that became "comfortable" with RPN were
deluding themselves into thinking they were some sort of math
geniuses for doing so. On the other hand -- I assume anyone that
could be "comfortable" with the awkward back and forth motion of a
slide rule might not agree. Now, before anyone jumps on me for that
statement - I have several slide rules and know how to use them.
Expertise with a slide rule did not dupe me into learning RPN - I
chose to wait until AE came along.

Bob Swinney

Robert Swinney wrote:
I think it is more efficient for many calculations, if you can keep
track of what's on the stack. It's also fun when some engineer
borrows it at a meeting and can't figure out how to multiply two
numbers.

My point exactly. The engineer is unable to re-learn his math under
pressure (and he is math trained). So, the ordinary mortal is in for
a ton of confusion if he tries to figure out RPN. True, it makes
lots of folks break arms patting themselves on their backs over how
smart they are - but - the fact remains, RPN was introduced because
of electronic limitations of the time. Sphero explained it very well
when he said that AE takes more interim memory.

Bob Swinney

I don't think it's confusing once you've learned it, and it has the added
benefit of stack manipulation. You don't have to save interim results in
memory, you can easily transpose results when needed, and certain operations
seem more meaningful and logical. I've had quite a few HP calculators and
TI's, I always liked the HP's.

In article , ATP says...

I don't think it's confusing once you've learned it, and it has the added
benefit of stack manipulation. You don't have to save interim results in
memory, you can easily transpose results when needed, ...

Yep - I seem to find that the X-Y key seems to get a good
deal of work on my calculators.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 13:08:37 -0700, "Robert Swinney" wrote:
I think it is more efficient for many calculations, if you can keep track of
what's on the stack. It's also fun when some engineer borrows it at a
meeting and can't figure out how to multiply two numbers.

My point exactly. The engineer is unable to re-learn his math under
pressure (and he is math trained). So, the ordinary mortal is in for a ton
of confusion if he tries to figure out RPN. True, it makes lots of folks
break arms patting themselves on their backs over how smart they are - but -
the fact remains, RPN was introduced because of electronic limitations of
the time. Sphero explained it very well when he said that AE takes more
interim memory.

Well, when Jan Lukasiewicz invented polish notation in 1920, it wasn't to
save memory. When Charles Hamblin adapted it for calculation by changing
the operators from prefix to postfix, it was to save keystrokes, allow you to
start anywhere in an equation, see each intermediate result, and have a
reasonable confidence that you'd wind up with the correct final result.

As John noted, RPN works exactly the way you'd do the calculations with
pencil and paper, so it is a natural and familiar way to work for people who
are comfortable with doing hand calculation.

Gary

Gary sez:
" As John noted, RPN works exactly the way you'd do the calculations with
pencil and paper, so it is a natural and familiar way to work for people
who
are comfortable with doing hand calculation. "

I will have to agree, as I often begin calculating in the middle of a
lengthy expression. Problem is, you have to record the interim results and
some care is required to maintain those results. I can do it, but it is so
much easier to begin at the beginning and enter things sequentially in AE.
Thanks Gary, I didn't realize RPN was a product of the 20s. It would seem
that for really lengthy calculations, RPN would be a labor saver.

Bob Swinney

"Robert Swinney" wrote:

So, the ordinary mortal is in for a ton
of confusion if he tries to figure out RPN.

You just gotta be kidding. I've never met anybody I couldn't explain
RPN to in a matter of a few seconds. After that, its just a matter of a
few minutes practice.

Fitch

In article ,
Fitch R. Williams wrote:

"Robert Swinney" wrote:

So, the ordinary mortal is in for a ton
of confusion if he tries to figure out RPN.

You just gotta be kidding. I've never met anybody I couldn't explain
RPN to in a matter of a few seconds. After that, its just a matter of a
few minutes practice.

Fitch

Bet I've taught 30 or 40 over the years as well. Don't recall ANY of
mine that didn't like it... or any having much trouble learning.

Erik

Fitch R. Williams wrote:
"Robert Swinney" wrote:


So, the ordinary mortal is in for a ton
of confusion if he tries to figure out RPN.


You just gotta be kidding. I've never met anybody I couldn't explain
RPN to in a matter of a few seconds. After that, its just a matter of a
few minutes practice.

Fitch
Looke here - The Architecture Cad Man is Back! - Bet the Cad Digger needed work :-)

Martin

--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

In my opinion, the HP-27 was the best pocket calculator of its day -- perhaps
the best of all time. It could do algebraic, statistical, and financial
routines -- all hard wired. Yes, it had a LED display, and needed to be
recharged often, but it could do it all. Mine won't any more, because the key
contacts have been worn out. I would pay dearly for the same capabilities in a
similar wonder machine with LCD display.

JWDoyleJr wrote:

In my opinion, the HP-27 was the best pocket calculator of its day -- perhaps
the best of all time. It could do algebraic, statistical, and financial
routines -- all hard wired. Yes, it had a LED display, and needed to be
recharged often, but it could do it all. Mine won't any more, because the key
contacts have been worn out. I would pay dearly for the same capabilities in a
similar wonder machine with LCD display.
Wonder if the switches could be fixed with 'mo strips' - the thin silver filled cells
in a sheet of rubber...

Martin

--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

Bob doesn't understand RPN or push / pop a stack commands of computers.
RPN emulated the stack features and is a powerful tool for many advanced mathematic
routines.

Martin [ long time machine language writer, upgraded to assembly with less ability(language not me)
then to the lower levels of life of Fortran, Cobol, Forth, Basic (the extended version )
with two slide rules in his current desk. ]

Robert Swinney wrote:
Greg sez:

Yeah, but you can no longer buy an RPN calculator that will comfortabley
fit in your pocket (except used, for big $). I really miss the HP42S
that I lost years ago. It was perfect for my needs and nobody makes one
like it now.


Hey! No problem. I was never "comfortable" with RPN all along. IMO, RPN
was developed (HP probably)
to accommodate the shortcomings of early microprocessors. It takes a
helluva lot more processing power to enter equations "the natural way".
Again, and IMO, those that became "comfortable" with RPN were deluding
themselves into thinking they were some sort of math geniuses for doing so.
On the other hand -- I assume anyone that could be "comfortable" with the
awkward back and forth motion of a slide rule might not agree. Now, before
anyone jumps on me for that statement - I have several slide rules and know
how to use them. Expertise with a slide rule did not dupe me into learning
RPN - I chose to wait until AE came along.

Bob Swinney







--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

Martin, who presumes to know what I understand admits to having 2
sliderules - that is cool, and quite archaic, for a long time machine
language writer.

Bob Swinney
"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
. com...
Bob doesn't understand RPN or push / pop a stack commands of computers.
RPN emulated the stack features and is a powerful tool for many advanced
mathematic
routines.

Martin [ long time machine language writer, upgraded to assembly with less
ability(language not me)
then to the lower levels of life of Fortran, Cobol, Forth,
Basic (the extended version )
with two slide rules in his current desk. ]

From: "Robert Swinney"

I was never "comfortable" with RPN all along

Robert, I agree with you completely. I grew up with slide rules, log tables
and hand calculations. I have programmed processors from Litton, Intel,
Motorola, Rockwell, RCA and problably some others in everything from machine
code punched in through console swithces to Fortran, Forth et al. I'm well
aware of stack operations and how to use 'em but I don't like RPN calculators.
My first calculator was a four banger sold by one of the Litton divisions in
the early 70s but my first "real" calculator was a TI something. All I
remember is that it had an LED display and clickety-clack buttons and I thought
it was nothing short of miraculous. I tried an HP for a while and never like
it. I traded it to a friend for something and went back to TI. I still have a
little solar powered TI 30 that I use some but my main one is a Casio fx7700g
and of course Mathcad. Maybe it's just my internal logic but to me RPN is just
exactly what it says. Backwards.

Richard Coke

I suppose my comments re. RPN and pomposity caused this thread to degrade
into 2 camps. I should have known that would happen. It is always easy to
attack another's position when you suspect there will be many allies. In
case my earlier assertion was, well, errrr, maybe a bit strong, let me state
it again in terms that will appeal to the majority of posters here.

Reverse Polish Notation: Method of entering math phrases into a calculating
device. The method is somewhat arcane and difficult to follow for those
with ordinary mathematical proclivities. It is, however, "very efficient"
for those with pre-existing mathematical training. Mastering RPN provides
great feelings of satisfaction, no! pride for those that learn to use it --
errrr, make that "learn to use it well". RPN savviness yields another click
on the lock of the great Math inner sanctum. In general, those that beat
their breasts about how conversant they are with RPN, remind one of the very
tired childhood phrase, "I know something you don't know".

Bob (I'll stick to AE, thank you very much) Swinney

In article , Robert Swinney says...

Reverse Polish Notation: Method of entering math phrases into a calculating
device. The method is somewhat arcane and difficult to follow for those
with ordinary mathematical proclivities. It is, however, "very efficient"
for those with pre-existing mathematical training.

Although oddly, I used the 'other' kind of calculators
for years before trying the RPN ones. Even after all
the indoctrination beforehand, I still am an RPN convert.

Bob (I'll stick to AE, thank you very much) Swinney

(translation, 'I can't figure those darn things out?')

grin

Sorry Bob, could not resist!!

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Rozen sez, glibly!

"(translation, 'I can't figure those darn things out?')"

Naw, Jim -- I liken it to climbing down a ladder with 2 rungs missing from
the bottom. You have it figured OK but it is still a damned uncomfortable
situation to be in. The more you climb that defective ladder, the more
aggravating it becomes.

Bob (RPN is like trying to run CNC with no manual machining experience)
Swinney




"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Robert Swinney says...

Reverse Polish Notation: Method of entering math phrases into a
calculating
device. The method is somewhat arcane and difficult to follow for those
with ordinary mathematical proclivities. It is, however, "very
efficient"
for those with pre-existing mathematical training.

Although oddly, I used the 'other' kind of calculators
for years before trying the RPN ones. Even after all
the indoctrination beforehand, I still am an RPN convert.

Bob (I'll stick to AE, thank you very much) Swinney

grin

Sorry Bob, could not resist!!

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Robert Swinney" writes:

Reverse Polish Notation: Method of entering math phrases into a calculating
device. The method is somewhat arcane and difficult to follow for those
with ordinary mathematical proclivities. It is, however, "very efficient"
for those with pre-existing mathematical training. Mastering RPN provides
great feelings of satisfaction, no! pride for those that learn to use it --
errrr, make that "learn to use it well". RPN savviness yields another click
on the lock of the great Math inner sanctum. In general, those that beat
their breasts about how conversant they are with RPN, remind one of the very
tired childhood phrase, "I know something you don't know".

You may have run into RPN advocates like that.

But RPN really is better, at least for the way some people think. I own
several RPN and several algebraic calculators, and have for decades. I
use both. I normally use them in private, with nobody watching me, and
thus no one to notice which one I'm using. If I'm doing a simple
computation with one or two operations, I don't much care which type I
use. But for longer calculations, I always prefer RPN. It just fits
the way I do calculations mentally.

The problem with AE is that you have to enter the expression in the
order it's written, complete with appropriate parentheses. For complex
expressions, that means I need to *write it down before starting*. And
I do not normally do that. I calculate by performing a series of
smaller operations in their natural order, and an RPN calculator allows
me to run the calculator in parallel with my head, seeing intermediate
results as I go along. I don't start with an expression for the answer,
and I don't end up with one - I just work out the process of deriving
the answer from the inputs as I go.

So why do I own AE calculators as well? They're ubiquitous and cheap.
I'd rather lose a $10 calculator than a $100 one, so I carry the former
in my knapsack and that's what I have at work. The calculator on my
Palm supports both input modes, but I leave it set to RPN all the time.

Dave