|Re: Why not 49g+?|
Message #14 Posted by Mike Morrow on 11 Nov 2009, 9:44 a.m.,
in response to message #11 by Crawl
I agree completely with that outlook, but mostly on the basis of how extremely inexpensive for the capabilities provided such things as the HP 50G are.
But economic, "investment", or simple utility prospects in the long term for any particular computational device made in the last 50 years are not too good. Examples:
(1) In my senior year of high school (1969) I bought what I still consider to be the best slide rule ever made (Dietzgen N1725L), for $35. That's the equivalent of about $210 today. I justified that on upcoming engineering school. (It was the only "calculator/computer" required of engineering students at Georgia Tech in 1970.) My last real professional use of it was in 1974.
(2) In 1977, I spent about $600 on a new HP-67 and associated accessories. That's about $2200 today. I justified it based on assumed long-term professional use. That last real professional use occurred in 1980, after which it was replaced by an HP-41C.
Nothing computational or electronic keeps its value unless a cult following developes around it. Something better and cheaper will soon follow, with the only exception in the known universe being the HP 42S. :-)
I have been entertaining myself recently with a cheap device (Casio fx-115ES, a.k.a. fx-991ES) purchased at Wal-Mart for less than $18. It's amazing what computational capability is available for almost nothing now-a-days.