What is the difference between 'Physics' and 'Fundamentals of Physics'

[physicsisgrea]

Physics by Halliday, Resnick and Krane
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0471320579/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday, Resnick and Walker
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0470469080/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I want to know their difference. Also which one is better for an undergraduate course (an introductory course) on Newtonian mechanics, EM and optics?

 

[VantagePoint72]

According to the book descriptions, "Physics" is suitable for engineers and science majors and "Fundamentals of Physics" is for engineers. So, it sounds like the latter is geared towards more of an applied approach to the material. So, which one is "better" depends entirely on what you wish to get out of it.

 

[verty]

Is this for self-study? Consider whether it would be better to choose an OCW course and get the textbook, so you have a structured plan and extra assignments and exams to help you.

PS. I mention this because you mentioned suitability for an undergraduate course.

 

[dx]

I used both these books in high school. IMO "Physics" is way better.

 

[Natassha]

I have also used both recently, Krane is more advanced than Walker. So for Undergrad Course (Review Introductory Physics Book) you can go with Resnick, Halliday & Krane Text. (I have its 5th Edition)

 

[The Jericho]

I'm sure it will tell you in the preface. Each textbook is usually aimed at a particular level. "Fundamental physics" sounds as if it is aimed at teaching the basic classical physics and with simplified examples. The "Physics" textbook could be aimed at ANY level, out of context.