Calculators What's your favorite calculator?

[ArcanaNoir]

What's your favorite calculator and why?

 

[Dembadon]

[PLAIN]http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/public/39rJvE1sIWQYuswLuw2fd-iuHRJVLwlFDF-AVJiToaPf2_8tvW7B4H3quDqig44_A9CtZQjffI5BEXChlh6u5D5dKgrQh-0Gq6NYGgtTA7_DsLUXDp-v5AWeZARzPvMkV5Sm4lFgYRF2VNtGqgzKtl3tbzipDbBxr2v3PRPZE0ktUSxMsu4raA

I've used that calculator since middle school. I actually don't use calculators in my math courses anymore, but it works just fine for my other science needs.

 

[lisab]

I bought a Sharp Scientific calculator when I started college decades ago. I moved up to programmable types, various HPs with the reverse Polish notation, and fancy graphing ones.

Now at work I use the very same Sharp I bought so long ago...sigh, first love :!).

 

[Ben Niehoff]

Nearly all the math I do now doesn't involve numbers.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

My good old circa 1997 TI-89 is always close at hand. On-board unti-aware calculation and symbolic differentiation/integration is a must! Anything more complex than that, and I make a MathCAD sheet.

 

[Jack21222]

TI-89 here as well.

 

[ArcanaNoir]

My good old circa 1997 TI-89 is always close at hand. On-board unti-aware calculation and symbolic differentiation/integration is a must! Anything more complex than that, and I make a MathCAD sheet.

You'd think they'd have improved these in the last decade... Where's my backlit screen? Come ON... Features people! It's time for features!

 

[QuarkCharmer]

You'd think they'd have improved these in the last decade... Where's my backlit screen? Come ON... Features people! It's time for features!

In all fairness, I would prefer something reliable with a HUGE battery life. Back-lighting comes at a price.

I am a pretty big fan of this little gem as well (as I see most here are):

I hear that the HP's are much better if you can adjust to the "RPN" format (whatever that is). Perhaps I will try it out one day, but as a poor student, I chose to stick with what is reliable and cost effective. My older 89 (from like 1999 or something) broke, and I find that this newer model, though a bit thicker, is much faster at calculations and graphing. It doesn't need to "think" nearly as long.

 

[Willowz]

My feelings about the TI-89 Titanium:

 

[lisab]

I hear that the HP's are much better if you can adjust to the "RPN" format (whatever that is).

Reverse Polish Notation .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation

 

[hotvette]

I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for my very first calculator - an HP35 I purchased in 1973 for $395. That was a huge amount of money back then but well worth it.

 

[QuarkCharmer]

Reverse Polish Notation .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation

Sounds just as confusing as I am led to believe lol.

 

[Aelo]

I was sorely tempted to post a photo of a Curta mechanical calculator. I'd love to get the chance to play with one of those.

I'm currently quite fond of my TI-84 PSE. Its feet have started falling off, but I'm not one to judge.

 

[jtbell]

At work (school) I use a TI-84 because most of our students have something similar, and I can show them how to do stuff on it. But I'm really an HP fan, ever since the HP-21 that I bought 36 years ago when I started grad school. On the desk next to me right now, at home, is an HP-11C that I bought probably about 25 years ago. It's still going strong, and I use it for all my calculations at home.

 

[Proton Soup]

my first HP calculator when i went to engineering school was the HP-15C (looks like the 11C above). one of the things i really liked about it was the programming was simple, just a recording of keystrokes. my next, was the HP-48SX, but i never really did get into any expansion or programming with it, beyond simple one-off programs. so the same love wasn't quite there with the 48, despite higher utility. i think if it had been about 10X faster and came shipped with a serial cable and software i would have bonded better with it.

 

[Ivan92]

The best calculator ever!

 

[zomgwtf]

I like the TI-89s but really I rarely use it and when I do I could just use the one that I have downloaded onto my computer.

The calculator I use all the time is a casio fx-991MS

http://www.99shoppe.com/99shoppe/components/com_virtuemart/shop_image/product/Casio_fx_991MS_S_49085b1957c7f.jpg

I can do everything I need to on it and what made me originally love it was that it solves any polynomial. In grade 11 and 12 it saved my butt a couple times when I was using it to check my final answers (is that cheating?? haha)

 

[ArcanaNoir]

I'm really happy with my Casio ClassPad. The 2D math feature is so user friendly. I so wish the screen was brighter though.

 

[Jaynte]

I have TI-84 Plus now, I think it's awesome, before i had TI-82 and
I don't see much of a different exept faster CPU in TI-84.

No symbolic integrals and equation solver but that's always more easy to do by hand i think.

 

[jtbell]

my first HP calculator when i went to engineering school was the HP-15C (looks like the 11C above).

I considered the 15C, but I finally decided that for the kinds of calculations I did (and still do), complex numbers, matrices, and numerical integration weren't worth the higher price, so I went with the 11C.

Last summer I found a good deal on a HP 50g at Best Buy and bought one, but I haven't really had the time to teach myself how to use it effectively yet. The 11C is still my workhorse at home.

 

[Jack23454]

I have open office and use the calc built into the software when using the spreadsheet function

 

[Jack21222]

No symbolic integrals and equation solver but that's always more easy to do by hand i think.

You're only saying that because you haven't tried it.

 

[qspeechc]

Real men don't use calculators.

 

[Jaynte]

You're only saying that because you haven't tried it.

Hehe, I have tried it, just like using a pen :)

 

[Jack21222]

Real men don't use calculators.

You're right. Real men don't do maths at all, in fact. Real men play rugby, lift weights, and dig ditches for a living. Or work construction, where they eyeball their measurements.

That's what I think of when I hear the term "real men" anyway. I don't think of some nerd in his basement with a table of integrals looking things up manually.

 

[BobG]

I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for my very first calculator - an HP35 I purchased in 1973 for $395. That was a huge amount of money back then but well worth it.

I have my dad's HP35. It still works, but the switch is a little dodgy, so it can turn off unexpectedly.

My favorite calculator is the Post 1460 Versalog (embedding the pictures is a little obnoxious since the picture has to big enough to see the scales).

http://www.sphere.bc.ca/test/ted/p-1460versalogvariant1a.jpg

http://www.sphere.bc.ca/test/ted/p-1460versalogvariant1aback.jpg

Has more capabilities than the standard scientific calculator. It can handle complex numbers, solve quadratic equations, convert from polar/spherical coordinates to Cartesian coordinates, among other things.

But, if you want a sub-$20 scientific calculator with symbolic notation, the Casio fx-300ES is the way to go:

[PLAIN]http://www.casio.com/resource/images/large/fx-300es_large.jpg

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I had been using a Casio fx-560 for the last 30 years without needing anything else. In fact, I haven't used most of its functions. However, recently I had need of a graphing calculator and my daughter got a TI-84+ from a friend. I like that one too.

 

[zomgwtf]

Many of you guys talk about using the graphing calculators for school... were you guys able to use them during tests/exams? It's always been a condition since high school that no graphing calculators were to be used during tests/exams. Even through college/university physics and math (chemistry they didn't care same with a few other courses but that's because you're just really doing simple math so the graphing calculator gives no advantage really)

Mind you I haven't taken upper level maths or physics yet so maybe that'll change.

 

[Dembadon]

Many of you guys talk about using the graphing calculators for school... were you guys able to use them during tests/exams? It's always been a condition since high school that no graphing calculators were to be used during tests/exams. Even through college/university physics and math (chemistry they didn't care same with a few other courses but that's because you're just really doing simple math so the graphing calculator gives no advantage really)

Mind you I haven't taken upper level maths or physics yet so maybe that'll change.

My Calc I & II professor didn't allow any calculators on exams. I don't really see how they would've helped on his tests anyways; he was heavy into theory and concepts, not computation. If there was some number-crunching to be done, the arithmetic was made simple enough to do by hand. He stated, "I don't care about your number-crunching skills. I want to know whether or not you understand the Calculus."

 

[BobG]

Many of you guys talk about using the graphing calculators for school... were you guys able to use them during tests/exams? It's always been a condition since high school that no graphing calculators were to be used during tests/exams. Even through college/university physics and math (chemistry they didn't care same with a few other courses but that's because you're just really doing simple math so the graphing calculator gives no advantage really)

Mind you I haven't taken upper level maths or physics yet so maybe that'll change.

Funny thing is that most of the students don't know how to use their graphing calculators well enough for it to give them much advantage over a standard scientific calculator.

Most of the students in physics classes haven't even realized that most of the constants they need are already built into their calculators, let alone that they can program in any of the less frequently used constants that they could store in their calculators themselves.

 

[QuarkCharmer]

The only thing my university seems to worry about is the ability to differentiate, hence Calculus I tests cannot be taken with the TI-89. From Calc II and up, they don't seem to care what you use though (the TI-84 can find definite integrals, but not indefinite or differentials).

The major reason I like the 89 over the 84, is not for it's derivatives or integrals or anything like that though. It's simply because you can just arrow over and start typing (as you can on a computer) to edit equations. It also keeps all your past intermediate values that you can simply copy. I don't understand why the TI-84 does not have this feature. It's a pain to re-type intermediate values, and to press insert every time you want to add something. I also really like the custom menu system on the 89 and the Matrix Editor app that it ships with. It's much easier to just input rref([x x x],[x x x],[x x x]) than it is to bother typing all that stuff into the 84.

 

[ArcanaNoir]

Funny thing is that most of the students don't know how to use their graphing calculators well enough for it to give them much advantage over a standard scientific calculator.

I made learning to use my calculator effectively a part of my homework. When I would do a problem set, I would consult my calculator manual to see what my calculator could do that was relevant to expediting the problem and confirming my answer. I always had to show all my work anyway, so it really was mostly to confirm answers.

 

[stringy]

 

[zomgwtf]

I made learning to use my calculator effectively a part of my homework. When I would do a problem set, I would consult my calculator manual to see what my calculator could do that was relevant to expediting the problem and confirming my answer. I always had to show all my work anyway, so it really was mostly to confirm answers.

Yeah, same basically. They really are invaluable tools for checking answers. As I said above my calculator has saved my butt on numerous occasions.

@Quark, I'm sure there's a program that you can install to have your 84/89 do differentials. I mean on mine I downloaded games even! There was also this nifty program that solved some physics problems you just had to know which equation to use and it would show ALL the steps.

 

[Proton Soup]

I considered the 15C, but I finally decided that for the kinds of calculations I did (and still do), complex numbers, matrices, and numerical integration weren't worth the higher price, so I went with the 11C.

Last summer I found a good deal on a HP 50g at Best Buy and bought one, but I haven't really had the time to teach myself how to use it effectively yet. The 11C is still my workhorse at home.

mine was paid for with a small scholarship. otherwise, the high school TI would have gotten a lot more mileage.

 

[Redbelly98]

My favorite calculator is Excel.

2nd favorite is any solar-powered scientific calculator, of the non-graphing type. If I want a graph, I'll use Excel and have the option of saving the graph for future reference.

For the last 10 years I've been using the solar version of this:

[PLAIN]http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/public/39rJvE1sIWQYuswLuw2fd-iuHRJVLwlFDF-AVJiToaPf2_8tvW7B4H3quDqig44_A9CtZQjffI5BEXChlh6u5D5dKgrQh-0Gq6NYGgtTA7_DsLUXDp-v5AWeZARzPvMkV5Sm4lFgYRF2VNtGqgzKtl3tbzipDbBxr2v3PRPZE0ktUSxMsu4raA[/QUOTE]

I also own a TI 83+, mainly because I tutor math and the TI 8x's are so pervasive in the American education system.

I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for my very first calculator - an HP35 I purchased in 1973 for $395. That was a huge amount of money back then but well worth it.

My dad got hooked on HP programmable calculators in the early 1970's, and used/played with them pretty exclusively until he died in 2006. He never really made the jump to computers, though he owned a DEC Rainbow for a little while in the mid 1980's.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

The best calculator ever!

I just calculated the 12th root of 2 to 9 places in a fraction of a second on my old TI-30Xa. Can your brain do that?

 

[Integral]

I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for my very first calculator - an HP35 I purchased in 1973 for $395. That was a huge amount of money back then but well worth it.

Ha! I bought mine used for $175 in 1973, I also got a lot of use out of it. Right now it is in its hard case in my closet.

My current calculator is a HP 28s. This is the first graphing calculator, on the market in 1986.

Redbelly,
Sorry for the loss of your dad. I too "collected" HP calculators in the '70's . I had the 35, a 25, 33,34, 71b and the 28. I never owned the greatest HP calculator the HP41c.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I just calculated the 12th root of 2 to 9 places in a fraction of a second on my old TI-30Xa. Can your brain do that?

1.059463094 I think.

 

[QuarkCharmer]

1.059463094 I think.

I just memorized this answer so my brain is able to do this next time.

 

[zomgwtf]

Ha! I bought mine used for $175 in 1973, I also got a lot of use out of it. Right now it is in its hard case in my closet.

My current calculator is a HP 28s. This is the first graphing calculator, on the market in 1986.

Redbelly,
Sorry for the loss of your dad. I too "collected" HP calculators in the '70's . I had the 35, a 25, 33,34, 71b and the 28. I never owned the greatest HP calculator the HP41c.

All of these old calculators seem incredibly tedious to operate.

 

[BobG]

I just calculated the 12th root of 2 to 9 places in a fraction of a second on my old TI-30Xa. Can your brain do that?

1

My brain was smart enough to remember that your final answer shouldn't have more digits than the original numbers that went into the problem in the first place. Since the square root of 2 is less than 1.5 and I know the answer can't get below 1 no matter how many roots you take, that answer was pretty easy.

Getting 9 digit answers when the numbers in the problem only had 1 significant digit is one of the drawbacks of calculators. Ever since the introduction of electronic calculators, just about every math or science course now needs to start with a chapter about significant digits.

 

[ArcanaNoir]

1

My brain was smart enough to remember that your final answer shouldn't have more digits than the original numbers that went into the problem in the first place. Since the square root of 2 is less than 1.5 and I know the answer can't get below 1 no matter how many roots you take, that answer was pretty easy.

Getting 9 digit answers when the numbers in the problem only had 1 significant digit is one of the drawbacks of calculators. Ever since the introduction of electronic calculators, just about every math or science course now needs to start with a chapter about significant digits.

Significant digits only count in science, not in math. Pi goes forever, and so does the square root of two, and every other irrational number. We can take them as far as we like in pure mathematics, regardless of the length of other numbers in a calculation.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Significant digits only count in science, not in math. Pi goes forever, and so does the square root of two, and every other irrational number. We can take them as far as we like in pure mathematics, regardless of the length of other numbers in a calculation.

Yes. There's also a practical value to taking the 12th root of 2 to a desired level of precision. It's the constant multiplier of the fundamental frequencies across an "octave" (actually 12, not 8 tones). So taking a base frequency B and using B*2^{x/12} where x is an integer 0\leq x\leq 12, gives the fundamental frequency of the tones across the "octave".

 

[I like Serena]

Significant digits only count in science, not in math. Pi goes forever, and so does the square root of two, and every other irrational number. We can take them as far as we like in pure mathematics, regardless of the length of other numbers in a calculation.

Exactly, so in pure math we never need a calculator to calculate digits!
*Sigh*

 

[Redbelly98]

When pi comes up in mathematics or theoretical physics, it is represented as \pi. In engineering or experimental physics, 3.14 usually suffices. In neither case is an infinite number of digits required.

 

[hotvette]

Ha! I bought mine used for $175 in 1973, I also got a lot of use out of it. Right now it is in its hard case in my closet

Wow, good price. I didn't even consider used. I unfortunately sold mine in 1984 for $5 in a garage sale (including original hard case, leather soft case, charger, and manuals). Big mistake.

 

[glueball8]

Aww you beat me to it...

Thanks to it, I don't know how to solve integrals by myself anymore. ==

 

[Astronuc]

HP-41CX. I bought that during grad school, ca. 1982, and I still have and use it.

Before 1982 I had a TI-SR51 and TI-58C.

 

[zgozvrm]

I've always been partial to Sharp calculators. The first calculator I ever had was a TI (natch). They were the only ones available when handhelds first came out - they had those awful red LED displays. In college, I found a Sharp EL-512 which was around $30 and was programmable.

That was the beginning of my love affair with Sharp calculators. I have yet to find an inexpensive (< $20) calculator that I like that beats a Sharp. They have plenty of functions and (more importantly) their keyboards are generally laid out better than those of other companies.

Later in college, I found that many of the "rich" students were using HP calculators with RPN. I found those intriguing and ended up buying an HP 32SII (also for around $30).

It, too, is programmable, allowing for much more complex programs (albeit, with greater difficulty). After college, I found a newer Sharp to replace my trusty old EL-512 which had broken. I got an EL-520W for around $20 which has become my new favorite.

It does everything I need (including complex numbers) and even does simple derivatives and integrals.

A co-worker had this horrible Casio calculator that was extremely difficult to use (even for simple calculations). I bought him a Sharp EL-531X which is very similar to my EL-520 (lacking some of the more complicated functions) for $10 at Office Depot.