Re: 36-year-old calculator ad Message #9 Posted by Don Shepherd on 4 June 2010, 6:27 p.m., in response to message #8 by megarat
Those are good observations. In 1974, electronic calculators were so new that Bowmar could get away with meaningless comparison criteria; or, maybe they couldn't, because TI survived and they did not.
Which brings us to today, and if I were to make a list of criteria that a calculator had to include, to get me to buy it, it might look like this:
- conveniently fits in my shirt pocket
- solar powered so never needs batteries
- a large, clear display that I can read without a flashlight (TI NSpire, are you listening?)
- the keys always register the first time and are of sufficient size that I don't miskey entries
- you can figure out how it works without looking at the manual
- but, yes, there needs to be a printed manual with large type and no grammatical errors
- the calculator should look "professional", and I'll be the judge of that
- it must, of course, have the four basic arithmetic functions, plus typical math functions like square root, Log, etc.
- must support large integers; 20! should show me all the significant digits, not just 10 or 12
- programmable with sufficient memory and a way to backup/restore programs from a PC without a Master's degree in IT
- it must be a dedicated piece of hardware, not something that runs on devices that are also phones/cameras/gps recievers/voice recorders/Internet trash
I don't think my ideal calculator exists today. Hugh's Reckon probably comes closest.
|