B239 new approved list will be allowed into the exam. That means the only products made by hp allowed are the 9s and the 33s. Please write the NCEES and let them know what you think about the new policy. People have been writing letters ever since they heightened the restrictions the first time. It doesn't make any difference. It's dissappointing, there used to be a Sharp calculator on that list the had a simultaneous equation solver. I'm a little surprised that the companies that didn't make the list aren't complaining. The only real argument I've heard for not using the higher lavel calculators has to do with what happens when I'm stuck in the field with no access to batteries/calculators. Maybe we should take the test in a dark room by candlelight, we might be stuck having to engineer something at night with no electricity (conditions that would certainly have to be true if I can't get batteries). --CS The HP-33s manual has a simultaneous equation solver program listed for up to 3x3 systems. (Although it's a poor implementation; somewhere on the web there's a guy who posted a much better one.) I agree with you here: Most jobs are so dependent on technology today that, if their calculators/laptops/GPS units/etc. die out in the field, they just go home for the day -- no great loss. In businesses that are expected to operate in 'unfavorable' conditions (e.g., fireman, rescue workers, etc.) there's lots of thought given to expected (power) failure mechanisms and their workarounds (generators, solar, etc.) I was at the Antartic Museum in Christchurnch, New Zealand a few years ago and one of the points they make is that the only way humans can live down in Antartica is with a _tremendous_ application of all things high-tech. ---Joel The one in the manual is unnecessarily long, and seems to be more illustrative than functional. It's still pretty neat, but eats up too much memory. Does anyone know where a better version is? AND this calculator is the only one EVER from HP that has been blamed for having *too much* memory (or too few labels) [VPN] http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/hpmuseum/archv014.cgi?read=61463 There's also a PDF write-up about it that I have. Came from the web page of some HP conference lately, although I couldn't find that page again in 30 seconds of searching. --CS The full list: Hewlett Packard - HP 33s Hewlett Packard - HP 9s Casio - 115 MS and 115 MS Plus Texas Instruments - TI 30X IIS and TI 30X IIB Texas Instruments - TI 36X Oh, I dunno, the 33s is an OK machine. Is there some calculator you think should be on there that isn't? Of those listed, it would appear that the 33s is still the most 'powerful.' Sheesh... the Casio FX-115MS Plus is all of $15 at Amazon. Yeah, I think HP making be making _just a little_ profit on the 33s! ---Joel At the very least, the 15C should be on the Approved list. In fact, the entire Voyager series (10C, 11C, 12C, 15C, 16C) should be there. -- Wayne Brown (HPCC #1104) | When your tail's in a crack, you improvise fwbrown@bellsouth.net | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give | your pelt to the trapper. e^(i*pi) = -1 -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, Silverlock Before adding calculators that aren't even sold anymore, I'm sure you could find tons of still-available calculators that are clearly no more sophisticated that those allowed. I think they're making the list based on what's popular at the moment and trying to keep it short so that enforcement is tenable. Realistically, there are hundreds if not thousands of calculators that would 'make the cut' based on their features, and it's not reasonable to have everyone 'check their calculators' at the door of the exams to make sure they're a known quantity. And at $15 for that Casio machine, it's not like people could site economic hardship as a reason for not having one of the listed machines. ---Joel [SNIP] could on enforcement not economic I am inclined to agree with Wayne, but I'll go even farther. When this crusade from NCEES first started several months ago, I tried to orchestrate a drive to stop them from getting involved in defining which tool a applicant is allowed to bring in. I contacted my own state board and a couple of the others in states where I am a registered engineer. At that time I was told that the state boards had drawn the line at creating a list of approved calculators. As you can see, this has changed. This whole fiasco is being caused by one major event in California in which an applicant was caught using his powerful calculator to carry questions out of the test. I believe the solution is to intelligently develop the test bank and use intelligent proctors to prevent abuse. If the NCEES is incapable of doing this without ignorant bans on this calculator or that, then perhaps the 50 state organizations need to rethink NCEES. The (to me) simple fact is that there should be only two limitations on what an applicant brings into the test: 1. He or she must not have the actual questions that will be on the test available to him or her. 2. He or she must not be allowed to communicate with anyone else for help whether in the room or outside of it. These are the basic rules that have been in place since engineering registration began and they should continue. If the NCEES is not able to proctor their tests adequately, then a new organization and/or different people should be selected to run things. Alternatively (my personal preference) the NCEES should be dissolved and the states should continue to operate as they have, successfully, in the past. My $2.00 worth. John It seems that an HP-33s could store a lot of questions in its otherwise not-particularly-useful capacious memory! :-) Not much fun (or fast) to key in though. You're suggesting laptops should be allowed? Fair enough, but I think the test would need to be significantly re-written to reflect this fact if so. ---Joel X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response Just as a reference, I took the FE test from NCEES a month ago. My HP49G+ was obviously banned, so I had to buy an inexpensive Casio calculator just for the exam. The difference? None, I just wasted some time trying to punch numbers in that little calc in RPN mode :). The exam did not require any special calculator power. All you need is a square root, a sine and a cosine. Any extra power is useless unless you want to cheat. Even a Laptop would be just a waste of time. Unfortunately, there is always an idiot that wants to cheat and makes all of us pay for the sin. I didn't want to spend the money to buy an HP 33s just for a single exam, so I had to forget about RPN (which I use everyday since 1997, so I had a hard time trying to adapt to normal calculations). What NCEES doesn't want is somebody creating a database of questions and taking the answers to the exam with a calculator, or even worst, sell the answer database on ebay. When I took the test, the proctors had a book with big color pictures of every calculator to help them determine which ones to allow. They carefully checked each and every calculator. However, I doubt that they have the knowledge (most of them above 50 years old) to identify calculators that are not in the book but have capabilities exceeding the reasonable. I saw a guy close to me with a TI calculator with a big screen. I couldn't see which model, but I'm pretty sure it had some graphing and maybe text storing capabilities. He was allowed to use it because it wasn't in the book and the proctors were unable to see that device as a threat. To finish, I think banned calculators are fine because the world is full of idiots. In a perfect world, I could use my 49G+ in RPN mode to take the exam without cheating but in this world I prefer to buy another calc before letting those idiots get an engineering license by cheating. Claudio I'm highly math challenged and need help with what's probably a very simple algebraic expression problem... I've used an HP 19B for the past 18 years. I primarily use it for it's solver function, as well as simple calculator functions. I really liked the way the solver function allowed me to enter simple one line algebra expressions with variable labels, save it, enter the known variables, then solve for the remaining unknown. Very straight forward. The 19b suited my needs very well over all these years, but unfortunately the display has faded to the point where it's becoming hard to read no matter what the contrast setting or angle of viewing. So I started shopping for a new HP calculator and discovered the 19b was long since discontinued. I purchased the 49g+ thinking it would be a good replacement, because the specs showed it contained the solver function. Well I've had the 49g+ for about 2 weeks now and this is a whole new ball game from the 19b! I'm still in the learning mode and being severely math challenged is making this transition from the 19b to the 49g+ difficult. After I got the feel for the 49g+ (creating expressions, storing them, recalling and running them), my first order of business was to try and recreate the existing expressions I have in the 19b in the 49g+. Some have worked fine, but one in particular is driving me nuts. It's probably the way I'm trying to enter it into the 49g+ or it's a terribly written expression (or both)... In the 19b I have the formula: SQF = LBS / ((GSM x .0022) / 10.76) SQF = Square feet LBS = Pounds GSM = Grams per Sq. Meter I work in a paper related industry and use this formula to calculate how many square feet of paper I have when I know the basis weight (in grams per square meter) and total weight. For example, a 40,000 pounds truckload of 80 gsm paper has about 2,435,690 square feet. When I enter this identical formula into the 49g+, then attempt to store it calculator displays the equation on the stack and displays: SQF = 1,008,750.0000 on the bottom line of the display. (I have fixed display on with 4 decimals). When I recall the TEST variable, the display shows: .0164 What the heck am I doing wrong? I've read and reread the manual and am lost. John L. PS: Please remove SNIP-THIS from my email address to reply via email. If you find that you can't get on with the 49 then there is always the hp17bII+ which has a virtually identical solver to that in the 19B. -- Bruce Horrocks Surrey England The question you posted is a good example to show the flexibility offered by the HP49g+. For the relatively simple equation to be solved, I like the use of the solver myself. But, here's an alternative suggestion for the conversion, using the programming approach as given in replies previous to this one. This uses the UNITS capability of the calculator, which means that you don't have to worry about the conversion between different units yourself. Let the calculator use it's conversion and precision. Then you can round the final answer. Here is the program: << 1_lb * 1_g CONVERT 1 1_m^2 * 1_ft^2 CONVERT * P * 1_g * / P is used to store the weight of the paper in grammes per square metre, 80 in the example given. No units need to be stored in P, just the number 80, or whatever the value is. This program gives a slightly different answer to the one posted in the original, but it should be more accurate, provided the conversion table(s) in the HP are accurate. This is not an elegant program, but it's an alternative. As a new user, the biggest problem one might have is typing this progrem - i.e. locating the special characters like underscore '_' and caret '^'. I think this posting is long enough already without explaining use of UNITS with the left shift and right shift keys. The manual can do that better than me. I haven't tried to do this in the solver yet. Mark. mr cried as he was chased by little green monsters: Interesting idea Mark! The example equation I used had the conversion factors severely rounded for brevity sake in my post to this newsgroup. In the equation I was using in the 19b I think I had the conversion factors out to 10+ digits for more accurate results. John L. Excuse me for replaying to my own post, but I have tried to use the conversion program using units in the Numeric Solver on the HP49g+ (actually it's on my 48gII). I enter the following expression into the solver: 'SQF*1_ft^2=LBS*1_lb/(GSM*1_g/m^2)' However, the Solver fails to recognise GSM as a variable. It also moves the m^2 in the denominator of the denominator to the numerator, which is fine. It also changes GSM*1_g to GSM*g, which destroys the explicit unit (I thought) but the result is correct (!). I can force GSM to be a recognised variable by Editing the variables list offered by the Solver. But if I subsequently edit the expression, the Solver reverts to recognising only the two variables SQF and LBS. Any help appreciated to explain and possibly fix this will be welcome :-) Mark. Mark, I entered your suggested conversion program and it works great. Very accurate. John L. OK, OK, I'm talking to myself, but anyway I found out why I was having a problem. You must enter the units as the last part of any expression. So, the correct way to enter the equation into the Solver is: 'SQF*1_ft^2=LBS/GSM*1_lb*m^2/g' This, I think, uses the flexibility of the 49g+ or 48gII (or 49G) well. The conversion is done internally and all the variables can be input and solved using the Solver. Mark. It's similar on the 49g+, once you get the hang of it. 'SQF = LBS / ((GSM x .0022) / 10.76)' ENTER 'PAPER' STO Run NUM.SLV, choosing Solve equation Press CHOOSE, and you will see 'EQ'PAPER at the top of the list. Press OK and you will see a screen listing SQF, LBS and GSM. Down arrow to LBS:, press 40000 OK, then 80 OK for the GSM then up arrow to the SQF and press SOLVE. You can just enter all your 19B equations and name them and recall any to NUM.SLV whenever you want. Good luck! -- Tony Hutchins New Zealand Tony Hutchins cried as he was chased by little green monsters: Your simple explanation worked... almost. In your example above after I type PAPER, and then hit ENTER again. Is this because I'm using ALG entry and you're using RPN? I'm beginning to understand that on the 49g+ there's probably a dozen ways to attack any given problem! John L. X-NNTP-Client: ROBOT/LX -=[ Mon, 22.11.04 08:00 a.m. +1300 (NZDT) ]=- [...] Indeed! Marks's method with units is really ingenious. If you want to use a PC to enter your equations just transfer PAPER from the calc to a PC using ASCII transfer (click the icon on the transfer kit PC interface showing 0101.. or ABC .. till it shows the latter), look at it in an editor and you'll see the format that a PC file needs to have to be transferred back to the calc. You could even have all your equations (and their variables) in say the EQN directory on the calc, and transfer the whole directory back and forth. Have fun! -- Tony Hutchins For example, a 40,000 pounds truckload of everybody goes through this at first. It's even worse these days because of poor documentation from HP. But you've come to the right place - this is the helpfullest place on the net. :-) First, you have a precedence error caused by the bracketing. The equation should read 'SQF=LBS/(GSM*.0022/10.76). Actually you can simplify it further by dividing .0022 by 10.76 and using that number. But let's say you want to keep it as is. Put the equation on the stack and type STEQ (or select STEQ from CAT). That stores it in the reserved variable EQ (EQ is reserved for the solver and the plotter). Now run Solve Equation. The equation should be at the top in Eq. Next is SQF, and below that LBS. Enter 40000. Below that is GSM - enter 80. Cursor back to SQF and select SOLVE. Out comes 2445454.54546. When you exit the solver, you'll find the answer on the stack and all the parameters stored as variables. Purge these if you want. Here's a programming way to do it that's faster. Enter this program: and save it as SQF. To run it, put 40000 on the stack and follow it with 80. Press the key for SQF. The result should be: 40000 Of course, you have to remember the order of entry, weight first and then GSM. Otherwise, it's pretty convenient. There are whole bunches of other options, but I didn't want to plow you under. :-) You must be Canadian - we're supposed to be metric but everybody uses a hybrid mix of English and metric the way you did... Bill Toronto, Canada (Bill Markwick) cried as he was chased by little green monsters: Bill, Do you know if there's a way to create equations on my PC... maybe using a text editor... and then save them to the 49g+ using the data cable? So far I've been able to successfully run the connectivity software with the data cable in order to backup my variables, read the calculator's directories, etc. I was just wondering if there's something else immediately useful I can do with the connectivity kit and data cable? John L. NOTE: Remove the SNIPTHIS from my address to reply via email. Of course! For an example file, write your variable on the calculator, then, in Conn4x, enable all translations, and upload it as a text file. Use any text editor to write or edit the file. Use Conn4x help if you have any problems with the non-ASCII character translations. Or you can use Conn4x's Edit as text capability. Or you can use Conn4x's Calculator Command capability to run the calculator remotely from the PC.... Of course Kermit has similar capabilities, but I don't know if it will work with USB. -- James I only use my PC for backups, so I'm not familiar with anything for writing equations for the 49. However, there's an HP49 emulator available from www.hpcalc.org, and I assume it can store its output as a PC file. Can anybody fill in? Bill (Bill Markwick) cried as he was chased by little green monsters: buying this model... like maybe it's *way* too complicated to easily store, recall, and execute simple equations like my trusty old 19b did. While it probably is overkill for me immediate needs, I'm beginning to appreciate the power and flexibility it can offer... once I get it all figured out. That's exactly the kind of math help I desperately need! I take it that your example of storing this equation in variable EQ was just for simplicity sake in the example? If I have a dozen equations I want to store and run, I'm going to need to store them with separate names and possibly organize them in subdirectories, etc... right? I just want to make sure I understand the concepts correctly. As opposed to using a programmed approach, I really like using the NUM.SLV function because it allows me to quickly enter any two unknowns and solve for the remaining unknown. I often need to convert from LBS to SQF, or SQF to LBS, etc. Although I come from Canadian heritage (my parents), I'm here in the good ol' USA (Tacoma, WA) where we can't figure out what standard to use, so we mix them all together. It's pretty crazy... Some of the papers weights I buy (I'm in purchasing) are specified in GSM (grams per square meter). GSM is pretty straightforward. Other papers are specified in LBW (pound basis weight). The LBW is *usually*, but not always, the number of pounds in 3000 square feet of paper. Then there are other basis weight specifications I normally don't have to use (thank goodness) such as caliper and point. No matter what the basis weight specification, most of our suppliers quote the price by the pound. But some suppliers quote the selling price by the hundred weight (CWT), by the ton (both metric and English), Kg, and in rare cases by the lineal foot! We always stock the paper in our inventory by the pound, no matter how I buy it. We then sell our finished product (paper laminates) to our customers by thousand square feet (abbreviated MSF) or square meters. We ship in trucks and containers by pounds or Kg's. I won't get started on the chemicals I buy. :) John L. If I have a dozen equations I want to I guess you're up to your eyeballs in Solver hints by now - so I'll add to your information overload. :-) Here's a concise way to store equations *and* run the numeric solver without fiddling with EQ (it gets overwritten each time). Let's say your equation is 'A=B+C'. Enter the following program: Store this under any name *except* the names of the variables in the equation. That is, don't name it A, B, or C because the solver will get confused. You can make as many of these programs as you have equations. Now when you press the program's key, up comes the Numeric Solver with your variables displayed. Some of the variables will probably be ones you use all the time, so you can store their values under the variable name. (Point of interest: that LIBEVAL works with the HP48, too.) Bill with the same caution about saving it under names 'A', 'B', or 'C'. Then with a value on the stack, store that value into a variable by pressing the variable soft key. Recall a value by pressing left-shift then the variable soft key. Solve for a variable by pressing right-shift then the variable key. This latter form (30 MENU) has the added advantage that you can replace 'A=B+C' by a list of equations, say {'A=B+C' 'C=D=E'} and switch easily between equations while still in 30 MENU mode by using the NXEQ softkey. Try it and see. right-shifthold SIN key, using the Keyman library. Then, with an equation or program or list of equations and programs on level one of the stack in USER mode, pressing right-shift-hold SIN gets me in solver mode immediately. Boy this is frustrating! I entered the above exactly as you have it, and I get invalid syntax with the word STEQ highlighted when I [ENTER]. I even tried pulling up this command through the [CAT] function and I still get a syntax error when I hit enter. I must have some mode setting wrong, because I'm also getting errors trying to enter other examples. Any ideas? John L. Agh!!! I've made TWO assumptions. I assumed you were using RPN mode. If you're in algebraic, I won't be much help - I've never even tried it. Bill I think the problem is that I assumed too much. Did you actually type delimiters, press the Rightshift and then the Plus key. The cursor will be waiting in between. If that's not it, I don't know what it could be. STEQ doesn't depend on modes or other settings, although it expects to find a valid equation to its left - check the syntax of the equation. Other than that, I dunno. Bill Welcome to the world of progress. :) I think the following procedure will do what you want. Type in your formula. Start it with the single-quotes found on the O key. Now store this formula in the variable EQ. Hit the store key. (or use your favorite way to store the equation.) Now open up the equation solver by pressing (not holding) the red right-arrow and then pressing 7. Select the first choice, 1. Solve equation.. You should now see your equation up top, followed by one line each for SQF, LBS, and GSM. Enter in values for two or more of them, and then go to a third and press F6, which should be labelled as SOLVE. Presto. When you exit the solver, you will see that it created any variables needed for the equation. It also logged the values it solved for onto the stack. When working with several equations, you can save the formulas to a variable other than EQ, and then copy them over as needed. Hope that helps, Daniel D Herring cried as he was chased by little green monsters: So it's the little single-quotes I was missing that were causing all the headaches! What exactly is the difference to the calculator with and without the single-quotes? I assume the quotes force the calculator accept the equation as written without attempting to simplify or solve it? Wouldn't it be simpler to store them using unique names at the outset and eliminate the need to copy them? Or am I missing something? John L. Hi John, Yep. The single quotes basically mean, don't evaluate this until I case, by the numeric solver. Example in ALG mode, : 3+5 8 : eval('3+5') 8 : '3+5' 3+5 8 I think you know what to do; my sentence was more confusing than helpful. It was *supposed* to hint that you won't have to retype the formulas if you save each one into a separate variable, just like you said. Later, Daniel SQF = LBS / ((GSM * .0022) / 10.76) = LBS / (GSM * .0022 / 10.76) = 10.76 * LBS / (GSM * 0.0022) = (10.76/0.0022) * LBS / GSM = 4891 * LBS / GSM Ahhhhh... that's very important to know. Very helpful! John L. simple have per it it works perfectly, you just use equation writer, type the formula exactly as it is. when you're done hit [enter] to push it into level 1 of the stack. then type 'test' [enter] [sto]. after that use the numeric solver as usual. how exactly do you recall your test variable? is that the only way you use the formula (to calc SQF having LBS and GSM)? reth how about this? key in the VAR menu. 2445454.5455 will display (if you have 4 decimals showing) Tom Lake I am trying to decide whether to buy an HP 49g+ or TI 89 titanium. Are TI 89 Titaniums better or HP 49g+? Which one is more powerful machine, has more features? Which one is better for calculus? I have been working on a benchmark comparing these two calculators: http://technicalc.org/benchmark/benchmark.pdf It includes a functionality comparison. There is no summary yet, partly because I'm trying to avoid bias (sometimes it's hard to say whether a feature is more important than another). Also, it's work in progress. Nevertheless, it should (I hope) be useful. Ray Kremer has also compiled a comparison: http://technicalc.org/tifaq/tivshp.htm Bhuvanesh. I've been working on this benchmark: http://technicalc.org/benchmark/benchmark.pdf It includes a functionality comparison. There is no summary yet, partly because I want to avoid any sort of bias (it's hard to say whether one feature is more important than another). Also, it's work in progress, but should still (I hope) be useful. Ray Kremer has also compiled a comparison: http://technicalc.org/tifaq/tivshp.htm Bhuvanesh. I have owned a TI 89 HW1 I simply can't recomment any TI to anybody now that the ultra-fast hp 49g+ is here I just use my SD card with a joy and invert my matrices only 10 times faster, enjoy some nice libraries and the totally integated extensible EQW [VPN] TI89 HW2 and Titanium are different (much improved) machines. It has been 3 years or so since I last needed to invert a matrix. Regarding libraries and built-in programming beyond UserRPL - these are mainly features a person who is familiar with earlier HPs (48/49 or 28) will find usefull. How long time did you use HP calculators before you got proficient at SysRPL programming? There are good 3rd party programs for the TIs too - I'd say most of the above-nerd level software is present on the TI platform :-) We're talking about a calculator used mainly for calculus - the question is; which level of calculus? Since we're requested to recommend a calculator, I'd say the level is far below Mathematica-turf, hence probably not much higher than college level. The TIs are simpler to use for someone who haven't got much experience with high-end graphing and scientific calculators (which is the group I suspect our original poster belongs to). Sure, the HP48/49 probably has more power and flexibility at the end of the day (not out of the box), but even the HP49G+ is merely tied with the TI89 performance-wise. But the above points are moot - the HP49G+ has a defective keyboard, hence it's not even in the running in my book. My recommendation: Get a TI89 Titanium or a TI Voyager 200 to use now. Then maybe get a used inexpensive HP48GX or HP49G+ (probably USD 30 to 40) and see if the flexibility of HP calculators is of any interest to you - if it is, pray that the quality problems of current HP calculators will be fixed in the future. Steen X I'm still not proficient, I started with Saturn Assembler (HP style) when I bought Forth/Assembler ROM for 71B I did not use SysRPL until the 48SX days Some hacking was done in the 28 series 1999 I started to use the 49G (which severy lacks many 48 features) but to say proficient.. too bold X X How about (if you have the time to wait) Qonos? The V200 is still quite large, I'd personally buy the Titanic and then overclock it to the max BTW: what is the Titanic max clock frequency? Can it be adjusted on the fly? BUT I'm still better of with my 49g+ One is running usually around 32MHZ and when I need the speed. [VPN] Let's see it first, ok? By the preliminary specs it doesn't seem to be a competitor to either calc. When do you need that speed? Steen Improved? They have a clock. Titanium has USB. NO differences in built-in capability. NO difference in software compatibility if you have the latest OS installed. I'd have to say the exact opposite -- you'd have to install plenty of 3rd party software to get the 89 to the level the 49g+ has built-in. My KB works fine -- and it gives a much more satisfying feel than the 'mushy' 89 kb. V200's are banned in many uni's. I couldn't use them at my school. Even though the differences between them and their 89 cousins are superficial. The fact remains, though, that if you want a machine will give you the satisfaction of getting a correct answer without having to do much 'playing around' first, you'll appreciate the TI 89. Either machine will do anything you *need* them to do for most applications. Luke HW2 and Titanium is 10-30% faster than HW1 - they have a faster CPU and a new LCD controller. HW2 also has more flash memory. There are *many* software incompatibilities between the two hardware versions. Greyscale and kernel patches are examples. Lucky you. None of my HP49G+'es had/have a functioning keyboard. They are useless to me. Steen Comparing the speed, I will grant that there is a difference. But, I wouldn't call it 'much improved'. Going from 10 MHz to 12 MHz is incremental, at best. machines, might lead some to favour it over its 'improved' cousin. Sorry; I so very rarely used these machines with programs that need kernels / gs, I overlooked that difference. However, any flash app that has been published on TI's web site will run on any HW version. TI Basic programs that do not make use of clock functions are 100% compatible. Any program written in C compiled with TI Flash Studio, using only officially supported libraries will run on any HW version. Not to mention, you'll be able to write C / asm programs that can make use of the same GUI API as the rest of the calculator's system software. Sorry to hear that. Luke You find a 30% increase in calculation speed incremental? I won't begin to count the hours I've spent trying to achieve that kind of speed improvement in a SysRPL program. HW1 has 384 kB flash ROM and HW2 has 702 kB available to the user. Can anyone else confirm that HW1 has access to 702 kB flash when loaded had a HW1 TI89 (hence his opinion will still be biased by the HW1 versus HW2 disadvantages). 3rd party programs on HW2. Steen Then why not use your 49g+ at 203MHz? Hows that for speed increase? AND all this is software selectable C'moon Steen!!! You know that it's only the keyboard (and your own weird style of punching it) that stops you from using the far better 49g+ Admit it! Admit it! True! The extra speed and extra Flash are welcome, but there is no HUGE development difference, hence: Ti=Titanic Hmmm...should I buy a 1000MB SD card? Naaah! 64MB (which beats the Titanic once again) is enough I'm glad to hear that some lifeboats worked on Titanic [VPN] LOL :-) That's not why it was nicknamed the Titanic. It was because it broke compatibility with older C programs written using TIGCC (not that programs. Bhuvanesh. X Oh! I did not read enough mails from ti forum I only noted many people complaining about the speed and that is also my complain about TI Ti [VPN] I haven't noticed any speed issues. Bhuvanesh. X BUT the 49g+ brought extra speed and the Titanium did not (HW2) Search your own newsgroups, please. Vepanesh I would if I made software for my HP49G+. I have never said otherwise. I don't know if I use the keys in a weird way (I must be sharing that way with a lot of people then). I never had a problem with my HP48s for instance. No, but the TI89 HW2 is at least as fast as the HP49G+ generally. That's my point. I have a 128 MB card in mine (a high speed Kingston card btw), and I had great ideas about how to take advantage of all that space. Now I couldn't care less. You sound as if no workarounds have been necessary on HP calcs. You don't remember any 3rd party 'lifeboats' programmed for HP calcs? I could mention dozens. The important part is that problems are overcome. In the day of the HP48G/X the HP community really made a point of including 3rd party software when comparing it with the TI89/92 (or else it wouldn't stand much of a chance). Why is that a bad thing when it's the other way around? Steen X X Quite right - there still is a problem. I would love to have the 41C series keyboard Still going strong, light click and is Steen compatible [VPN] PS: Have you tested the hp 33s? As far as I know, I'm not the only one with problems regarding this keyboard? No, I don't buy HP products anymore. Steen AND you don't have any friends that own a hp 33s either? Then go and try it out in a store I really want your opinion about the keys [VPN] I not really like it compare to my old hp42s keyboard... hp33s missing keys time to time for example +,*,-,/ in very fast typing (short time pressed in ms region) and i always typing (punshing) very fast... this missing keys not happen on hp42s and feeling of SW-depend problem (scanning keys or missing debouncer circurit? - well know problem on old microcontrollers applications) on 33s compare to hp42s possibly interrupt driven keyboard handling (and never missing...) But Hp33s is overall good calculator and more or less best, not so big, everyday using calculator choice to days, compare to many other calc (and want RPN-handling). - to time new version of hp42s comming out... (I hopefully) I really miss hp42s good and natural handling of complex numbers without bells and whishels and only working trustly... /TE the hp41 keyboard is IMHO the best ever. if Qonos has that kind of keyboard it'll be the winner for loooong time ahead X X I remind you that the speed of the 49g+ can be software programmed between 12MHz and 203MHz. My 49g+ will sink any TI Ti X 'cause I'm bashing TI AND [VPN] It will? Well, let's try then, shall we :-) How long time does your 203 MHz HP49G+ spend on the following problems: 1) Integer factorization of 49444366451936478203 2) Integer factorization of '53231^38' 3) The fifth derivative of 'SQRT(X)' 4) The indefinite integral of '1/(x^2-y^2)' in x 5) The limit of 'LN(x)/x' towards positive infinity I was sad to find that my comparison between HP49G+ and TI89 is corrupt - the file on my PC must have taken a serious hit during harddrive access one day. Bugger! The above is almost all I could salvage from maybe a thousand examples. Something I can relate to ;-) Yes it does - even though symbolic objects on the TI89 usually are less than half the size as on the HP. On the HP the limit is 256 kB or 128 kB (depending on where your object is located). Steen Please wait maybe 2-3 months, then ask these 2 questions again. Al The HP doesn't spend that long on these tasks, merely a couple of seconds ;-) Seriously, I have programs that factor these numbers much faster than the built-in CAS, but that was not the point. I guess you're up to something ARM based? It's a shame I don't have the motivation to code for HP calculators anymore. Such wasted potential... Steen Including add-ons does make things more complicated, but without them, a CAS comparison is (IMHO) grossly inaccurate, since these are programmable machines. Bhuvanesh. Two comparison sheets then? One for the calcs base firmware and other with extensions? [VPN] PS: some use a combined like this: - non-existent o with extension x buid-in Done some research (and some first-hand investigation) It turns out that the HW1 calculators _do_ have the same physical amount of flash ROM as HW2 units. However, only the first 384 kilobytes will be accessible for storing user variables. Because of a 'misfeature' in hardware, it is not possible to place user variables beyond that limit. HW2 calculators can sotre user variables in the entire 720 kK of Flash ROM. to a total of 384 kB of Flash ROM. occupy the entire 720 kB of Flash ROM, regardless of the HW version you are using. The 'Flash ROM Free' entry in the MEM screen refers to the combined Flash app + User Archive space, and that is the number I looked at when comparing HW1 with HW2. Running a couple of large flash apps (I've got EE*Pro and CellSheet) will leave the exact same amount of user-accessible Flash ROM on either a HW1 or a HW2 calculator, since the comined space used by the apps is 490412 bytes (it uses all of the upper 'half' of the ROM, plus some of the lower 384 kB), leaving 230476 bytes of free Flash ROM. If the very fact that it is possible to have more than 478 kB of data stored in the Flash ROM as Apps does not convince you, then you can create a bunch of insanely large matricies and archive them in flash ROM, coexisting with at least one Flash app, and you'll see that all 720 kB are, in fact, being used. Verified on both a HW1 and a HW2 calculator. Luke I am convinced Luke. It's not that I didn't believe you, I simply hadn't heard about it before and couldn't seem to find anything on Google about it :-) Steen X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response All numbers are 20 kB off... stupid little me... posting-account=Dzyc9wwAAABCml63_5kidLcMpxekXI5I I begin To make things really clear I'll remind people that because TI changed the LCD controller, it no longer interferes with the 68k's access to ram, therefore code executes even faster than what you would expect newly Can This is sort of correct. there is 702 kb of archive free, but that includes a 64k archive section that you cannot use because it is reserved for garbage collection purposes. On a hw1 there is (702k-64k-384k) = 254k that must be used for flash apps. That 254k is not fully useable because ti did not add execution protections on it. If a hw1 owner really wanted they could execute code from this area of flash. But you can put anything into the 384 kB flash. These are the official rules, you can patch the HW1 OS so that all flash is available. -Samuel Isn't the 24k limit on programs removed in 2.09? Maybe it is not a point in TI's favor but a 3rd party program can be installed which removes this limit if the version you use has it in place. Regardless, all files are limitied to 64k because of the nature of the file system. However, you can use libraries and other methods to split your program up into files if it takes up more than 64k. VPN you are wrong, I own both a hp49g+ and a ti89 titanium and the ti is faster in most situations, for example large matrix eigenvectors and numeric integration greetings X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response I'm not wrong Give any numeric matrix of reasonable size, say 32 by 32 (32x32=2^5*2^5=2^10=1024=1K therefore 8K) Even the old, slow version will beat Titanic, not to mention about the 49g+ I ask anybody to try it out and then face me and say I'm wrong 49g+ simply beats the Titanic in this case by more than 10* speed try and weep, TI-lovers, then wake up and step into the world od speed, power and flexibility [VPN] PS: yes, in some cases TI is still faster, but don't sink with ship... Ok I am not a titanic fan, was a hp calculator fan but now neither... How can you be fan of a machine that doesn't register 100% keystrokes 100% of time? it can have a cray or wahtever into it i will burn it!! I like my hp42 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response X I also like my 42S (best RPN4 calc in the world or is it 41-CY ???) BUT My 1st 49g+ works after a wiggle fix and 2nd works after selecting single alpha lock My style of pressing the keys may come from the 49G 1st 49G was extremely hard to press lucky enough the 2nd was much better, similar to 40G I remember to switching the first to a 49G with one that has wrong colors for the alpha, left shift, RS, and ON keys That has also a speed fix sp called double speed which is actually 2,5MHz 5MHz switchable (standard is 4MHz) The second one I swapped for a chinese model, which has much better screen protector [VPN] But how fast a calculator can find the Eigenvectors or numerically integrate is trivial. The difference in the two models is negligible in many cases and the TI couldn't possibly out pace the HP in others. The true measuring stick of the machine should be how flexible it is and how programmable it is. TI Basic just can't compete with SysRPL in functionality and overall speed. And I am sure you or someone will talk of the ability to program it in 68K assembly but the HP has assembly. And it can be done directly on the calc with builtin tools which the TI cannot boast. This further maintains my claim that the HP is far more flexible. Hell, you get three languages built into the HP right out of the box! Plus you can use it in RPN *or* algebraic mode right out of the box. The 8 character naming convention thing is so limiting. Yes, the TI is a good calculator. But it is NOT as powerful as the HP. It never will be. Best, ------ ~/.signature Hey Al, You are probably right, but I really can't work with a machina that fails a single keystroke, because it creates a missconfidence that makes to have to check every single keystroke and that is not acceptable is it for you? I atually don't need the power of a hp49 because all operations in engineering are reducted to x+- and / (ah fortran) and with my hp42 I get what is needed, simplicity is the best for me. (actually a calculator in my oppinion is not a computer substitute...) Urban legend has it that a theif once broke into the home of a TI owner - he left the calc, but stole the copy of Readers Digest that it was sitting on. Not sure where I first heard it ;) group. We don't tend to support the TI in general. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ I am trying to decide whether to purchase an HP 49g+ Graphing Calculator or a TI 89-Titanium Graphing Calculator; I will mainly be using it for calculus. Which calculator is better and more powerful has more features and how do they compare? keys working 100% when pressed? TI is better key layout, progrmmability of the keys, etc... HP is better power, fleximbility HP is better expansion HP is better Buil-in languages HP is better matrix operations HP is better [VPN] Agreed :-) Agreed about the first one. I disagree with the second one, since there is a program on the 68k that allows key programmability. In my opinion, the TI-89 and HP49G+ are about even as far as power is concerned. Of course, power is somewhat hard to define precisely, especially since these are programmable, extensible calculators. As far as flexibility goes, the HP is definitely better. Agreed. This is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, for a lot of things (by which I mean nontrivial math programs), TI-Basic is better (I *am* gradually learning UserRPL, though). Well, the OP asked about using it for calculus, not linear algebra... :-) Bhuvanesh. X Could you kindly explain the things belonging to A) Calculus B) Linear Algebra in the US of A and 1) before university studies 2) during the university studies just to get a better grip on things [V P N] A.) I'm not Bhuvanesh B.) I'm not exactly sure what you were wanting C.) I hope the following helps derivatives; limits; areas and volumes; mostly 2 and 3-dimensional stuff; Cartesian, spherical, and cylindrical coordinates Plotting and symbolic integration capabilities are often considered essential by students in these courses. matrices; eigenvalues and vectors; nullspace, span, rank, ... Here you want easy entry and display of matrices. High school usually involves only basic math. Simple algebraic equations. Trigonometric derivatives and integrals. Some get a brief intro to linear algebra, although this is usually limited to the use of row operators to solve a set of linear equations. There's also a token introduction to percentages and statistics. Displaying data on and interpreting plots is also covered. This entirely depends on discipline. Engineering hits a lot of numerical differential equations and vector calculus. Linear algebra is essential to some disciplines and mostly ignored by others. Some dig deep into probability, while others are faced with differential geometry or PDE's describing quantum effects or even real analysis and modern algebra. DH X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response As a EE graduate, I can confidently state that at the undergraduate level calculus gets by with vectors and very little (if anything) in the way of more sophisticated linear algebra. Hello all, I am looking for an assembly programmer who would be inerested in writing an input routine for use in my new version of exal. It is for the 49G+ and will be a complete rewrite of the original 48 version. If you are interested please contact me via email at aarduengo AT sbcglobal DOT net. -- ~/.signature I have a simple question - what is the largest Secure Digital card I can use with the HP-49G+? 128, 256, or 512 MB? Just wanted to know before I buy one! Tom I have a 256Mb SD installed and it works fine. Anything above 32MB is a waste for a typical small routine Unless you plan to store photos on the same card forgrt it. I'm sharing an old 8MB MMC from a Nokia Communicator with my 49g+ and both can fit they data there just fine. The maximumsize could be 2GB with 32K clusters using FAT16 Maybe you're the first to test? REMEBER: Usually Cards startung at size 512KB will be (pre-)formatted using FAT32 You have to use the calc or specially ask for FAT16 [VPN] The largest I've tried(and got working) is a 128 MB one. I haven't tried any larger ones as I don't have any. Anyway, do you really need 512 MB of storage for a HP49G+? I don't think there with all the available programs combined will fill anywhere near that much. -- Wing Wong. Webpage: http://wing.ucc.asn.au Hi! I hope somebody can help me... today I was using my 49g+ and during a calculation with FluidHp the numbers on the display disappeared! You can see them but it's very hard,it seems like the display has lost the contrast. I tried changing the batteries but the problem still remains. Next week I'll have an important exam so I have no time to wait for a new calc from hp... Giacomo Have you put in new batteries. I have noticed on my students TI's and other brand calculators ( HP too) that contrast is lost if the batteries are weak. I can't see how they do not go blind trying to read the display of a calculator with low batteries. Harold A. Climer Dept. Of Physics,Geology, and Astronomy U.T. Chattanooga 318 Grote Hall 615 McCallie Ave Chattanooga TN 37403 (just a thought) I don't think they have weak batteries, i suspect studens sometimes reduce contrast to the minimum, so when looked from many directions calculator apperars to be turned off or very weak visibility (not atracting too much attention) BUT, from certain angle you can read the display quite well :-) manjo posting-account=yuQmiw0AAAD2RcKJvFA1B8Xo_7_mIEp5 Hold down ON and + until the display is contrasty again. If you overdo it, press ON and - until the display looks ok. have I've already tried all this things but nothing changed. I re-flashed the calc with rom 1.23,I deleted all libraries and programs,I used the diagnostic utility ([ON] + [F6]) and I left all night long the calc without batteries too. During the lcd's test, when I pressed [+] nothing happend, same thing with [ON] + [+]. It seems that is impossible to set the contrast. The last program I put into the calc was FluidHp, but It was more than a week ago!I used it without problems since yesterday when, durirng a calculation of the entalpy the lcd lost its contrast. Sounds like your calculator may be defective. However, just to be sure, you didn't try ON/+ while the calculator was in diagnostic mode, did you? ON/+ should be done in normal calculator mode, and it probably won't work while in the self-diagnostic. -- www.designacourse.com The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere. Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer MindIQ Corporation replace it under warranty [VPN] Chenge the contrast by pressing the ON key and the + or - key. By this I mean to hold down the ON key and at the same time press Plus or Minus to increase or decrease contrast. -Al Try to do a paper-clip reset (on the bottom of the calc is a reset hole, gently leas in the tip of a paper clip and push) -your calc should reset and your display should be set to factory default. Try removing software which you installed when you noticed the problem -maybe library's attachment routine messes with contrast setting for some reason manjo Matrixes Here's an approach you might try: Define lookup functions for a and b. When this is done for each dataset, the original dataset is no longer needed. It might actually be more efficient to do this while reading in the data (assuming it came from a file), so that the data is never stored in a matrix at all. (I'm assuming the index is in column 1.) Clear@aFind aFind[_] := {} aNDX = (aFind[First@#] = Rest@#; First@#) & /@ a Clear@a Clear@bFind bFind[_] := {} bNDX = (bFind[First@#] = Rest@#; First@#) & /@ b Clear@b Now we can loop through indices in aNDX or bNDX to reach all the data, or we can loop through abNDX = Intersection[aNDX, bNDX] to see only the records in both datasets. The value of extract will be the concatenation of both dataset rows. It will look like {{data from table a},{data from table b}}, {{},{data from table b}} or {{data from table a}, {}}, depending on whether x is in both datasets, dataset b only, or a only. extract[x_] := {aFind[x], bFind[x]} This replaces your For loop, AppendTo, and Extract. It takes zero time to define this. The nth column of a record in a or b can be accessed using Part in a couple of different ways: aFind[x_][[n]] == extract[x][[1,n]] bFind[x_][[n]] == extract[x][[2,n]] The first will fail (in either form) if x isn't an index in dataset a, and the second will fail (in either form) if it isn't in b. I have no idea what Flatten is doing for you, what the variables interestBalance and currentBalance are, or what you intend matsort to do. Bobby -- DrBob@bigfoot.com www.eclecticdreams.net Matrixes Fellow MathGroup, I have been using Mathematica for financial analysis purposes and have been developing note book programs for about 5 years. My skills at this are self taught with help from Wolfram training and support. The largest challenge has been the speed in the analysis of large data sets. The following is an example of a routine that takes many hours. PLEASE HELP AND SHOW HOW I CAN IMPROVE THE ROUTINE TO MAKE THE RUN TIME SHORTER. Equipment HP XP 3.24 processor 2 Gigs Mathematica 5.01 Data set a= 257470 by 40, Mixed numeric and string fields, but each field (column) is either or numeric or string Data set b= 258705 by 5, All fields are numeric Objective: RowJoin the rows from each data set that have the same ID field in their corresponding column one. ROUTINE Create Index By Invoice ID firstCol=loc01[[1]]; lastCol =loc01[[1]]; aa = Transpose[Take[Transpose[a],{firstCol, lastCol}]]; Length[aa] 257470 firstCol=loc04[[1]]; lastCol =loc04[[1]]; bb = Transpose[Take[Transpose[b],{firstCol, lastCol}]]; Length[bb] 258705 idx=Intersection[aa,bb]; Length[idx] 257249 n=Length[idx]+1 257250 Locate Position Of Each Record In aTable ans01={}; For[i=1,i