|Re: 48g vs. 50g|
Message #10 Posted by Les Wright on 22 Sept 2008, 6:50 a.m.,
in response to message #1 by Chad Wermager
Chad, despite the near legendary status of the 48G and GX, I would have to recommend the 50G.
I am a happy owner of 49G+, which I use happily despite its icky esthetics. So far, I haven't been cursed with the keyboard issues that led to sharp criticism of the others. The only reason I don't replace it with a 50G is that the 49G+ is basically the same calculator, albeit of slightly inferior build quality. When the 49G+ dies, I will get a 50G.
The 50G has idiot-proof 21st century I/O capabilities (SD card and USB cable), a build quality and keyboard that has won praise after the extensive disappointment with the 49G+, a dazzling scope of functions and features, lots of internal memory, greater speed than the beloved 48 series classics, and, as someone has pointed out, impressive programming capabilities. The 48GX has many of these features, but the i/o interface is arcane and tricky and I have long given up trying to get it to work on my computer.
And, yes, the alphanumeric capacities of the 48 and 49 series calculators are extensive, so nothing to fear there.
Keep in mind that programming these beasts is a whole new world, albeit rewarding. Last year I ported some of my beloved 41CX routines to SysRPL that used extended internal precision, and the speed and accuracy of my routines was impressive, though I did have a lot of reading to do to bring myself up to speed. If you stick to UserRPL, you will notice a syntax more like a "real" programming language. Some people like it. Some don't.
Get a 48 series if you are a buff and collector, but for the ultimate flexibility, usefulness, and enjoyment, you will find the 50G well worth the investment. Folks around here seem to love theirs. A lot of the niggling deficiencies of the 35S are blissfully absent from the 50G, as they should be for three times the price!
Edited: 22 Sept 2008, 6:51 a.m.