On Aug 21, 7:32 am, "Grumpy Aero Guy"
beerme.org> wrote:
> "The only reason" is probably also a function of what you're exposed to. How
> many high school teachers, now a days, actually know what RPN is?
But why would they need that ? See, this is the key reason people tend
to like TI. If you don't like RPN then TI is a better machine. I know
many people who hate RPN and don't want anything to do with RPN. For
years that would automatically put them into the TI camp since HP did
not had algebraic even available on their top of the line models. When
the algebraic was eventually added on HP49 it had the same problem
that MS Windows has (plus poor hardware). It was compromised by the
need to be compatible with the old, RPN based, system of the old HP48
software. So in the end it was and still is not as good as TI system,
which was built to be algebraic from the day one. Now from the teacher
standpoint, why would you want to teach students a notation that is
different from the notation they have in their text book ? Teachers
have enough problems with teaching students to understand the material
that is in the standard algebraic notation. Making that even more
difficult and confusing students with RPN notation / logic would make
their job even more difficult. RPN by it's nature is limited to the
few talented people, who have no problems with math and tend to
appreciate additional power that comes from the special notation. This
makes HP a niche product and TI a mainstream product. Keep in mind
that even in that group RPN is not a "given". There are number of math
talented people who still dislike RPN and prefer algebraic calculator.
> I get the impression that a large majority of folks that frequent this forum
> have credentials in physics, engineering, architecture, surveying and other
> heavily computational fields. I am sure that many of us, myself included,
> are 40+ years old, went to college during the main-frame to PC
> metamorphosis, and found hand helds indispensible from a portability,
> capability and aviailability standpoint.
Yeah. But those are probably the same people who claim that command
line interface is powerfull and don't understand why general public
prefers to pay $200 for Windows instead of using command line driven
Linux for free :-)
> It was hard to carry a VAX around
> in your back-pack, or use one on a thermo final, or a chemistry final. Those
> of us that had a need for such a device, and experimented between TI (or
> equivalent) and HP back then, IMMEDIATELY saw the superiority of the HP
> machines in terms of speed of use, programability, support, accessories and
> after market applications back in the day.
Well. You seem to forget, that when TI92/89 come to the market it
outclassed HP48 and for several years HP did not responded with a
machine that was competitive. And when they finally did, the HP 49 /
49g models were poorly executed in hardware.
> MS does the same thing, btw, albeit more quietly. I teach Visual Studio
>
2005.Net at a local community college. I get TONS of free software from MS.
> Actually, they, MS, are VERY available to programming educators. IF ya hook
> 'em when they're learning, you got a customer for life. If I called the
> right number at school, I can walk home with a major version of any MS
> software I want.
Lucky !!!
> Matter of fact, if MS treated EVERY customer the way they deal with me
> (being an instructor) that way, the rap they get would dissappear, even if
> the short-comings in their products may not.
Well. I actually pay for MS products and still like them :-)
> TO be fair, their software has "issues" that make me wonder at times, but,
> overall, it's hard to find HUGE faults with Visual Studio.
The studio itself is OK. I have more problems with their .NET
approach. I dislike the need to have runtime installed, lack of native
code and convoluted access to OS API (unless you want to go through
the sadistic convolutions of C++ .NET). The garbage collection of .NET
is a beautifull thing, but it would be nice if you could at the end to
be able to compile the whole C# project into the native code that can
be run on any Windows machine without the need of runtime being
installed there first. The MFC is a DINOSAUR. If I want to make native
code, Borland VCL is light years ahead of MFC. I think Borland vs
Microsoft is such a HP versus TI case. Borland VCL tools seems to be a
much more interesting proposal for Windows programming than MS .NET or
the outadated by an era MFC approach. The only downside of VCL is that
it does require programmer to free allocated resources. I would love
to see MS C++ compiler being used with VCL. Borland compiler seems to
be not as good as MS product these days. It's a shame that so many
young people today don't even know what Borland is or was for PC
industry :-)
> Let's face it... often good marketing trumps capability of a product...
> (remember the VHS vs. Beta wars?) VHS (JVC) won, Beta (Sony) lost. Although,
> arguably, Beta was, in every respect, a better format.
You can get Borland Turbo C++ (or Turbo Delphi) for free :-) Why so
few people even use it today ?
> (??)
>
> --
> Grumpy Aero Guy
JAM
