Hi all.

One of my favorite hobbies is to wade through a TI calc’s manual and follow along with one of my HPs.

I usually indulge so I can make note of how efficient the RPN way is. And, yeah, I'll admit it. I have geeky fun with that.

Currently, I went through the SR-50 manual. Towards the latter part, there were various applications for civil and electrical engineering, physics and others. On observation at first, it's quite a case for RPN when you see the mathematical and register gymnastics you need to go through. Then, as I went into using RPN to calculate the examples, its quite an awakening to see how much more efficient, logical, and easier an RPN methodology is.

What's funny is that even though TI picks on RPN's rearrangement, TI even states that some rearranging and memory shifting needs to be implemented because of its sum-of-products hierarchy.

Next, it's the SR-51's turn. Obviously, no surprises there. Although, it'll be interesting to see and calculate through the sample applications contained in that manual.

I think that is fun too. And yes it can be tough using an algebraic scientific calculator that doesn't have parentheses keys. I think the first TI to have them was the SR-52 introduced in Sept 1975.

(10-01-2022 03:43 AM)Matt Agajanian Wrote: [ -> ]Hi all.

One of my favorite hobbies is to wade through a TI calc’s manual and follow along with one of my HPs.

I go both ways (regarding calculators, anyway) It's also fun to use an HP manual and follow the examples with an TI. I can see both sides of the argument. If I have a written equation I want to enter, I like TI's AOS. I can type the equation pretty much just as it's written, other than having to include extra parentheses for denominators occasionally. If I'm solving a problem right on the calculator, I like RPN. That's one reason I use the HP Prime. I can have both systems on one calculator.

(10-01-2022 09:16 AM)toml_12953 Wrote: [ -> ]...

I go both ways (regarding calculators, anyway) It's also fun to use an HP manual and follow the examples with an TI. I can see both sides of the argument. If I have a written equation I want to enter, I like TI's AOS. I can type the equation pretty much just as it's written, other than having to include extra parentheses for denominators occasionally. If I'm solving a problem right on the calculator, I like RPN. That's one reason I use the HP Prime. I can have both systems on one calculator.

This is why I found the HP-28C was such a game changer when it came out. Aside from its many other capabilities, I could use algebraic or RPN entry on a problem depending on what was more clear or appropriate. It became even easier to evaluate complex algebraic problems when the HP-48SX came out with its Equation Writer. I found it ironic at the time that HP, of all companies, had created the world's best algebraic calculator.

Algebraic on an HP. That’s ironic, alright!

(10-01-2022 05:53 AM)Steve Simpkin Wrote: [ -> ]I think that is fun too. And yes it can be tough using an algebraic scientific calculator that doesn't have parentheses keys. I think the first TI to have them was the SR-52 introduced in Sept 1975.

Yup! The 56 as well was in that first gen AOS.

SR-52/56 brochure
True, but the SR-52 was introduced MUCH earlier than the SR-56 - nearly 8 months. I know these are companion models, but the gap is rather large. The SR-52 was the first AOS for over 8 months. :-)

SR-52 - September 16, 1975

SR-56 - May 21, 1976

(10-01-2022 08:17 PM)Gene Wrote: [ -> ]True, but the SR-52 was introduced MUCH earlier than the SR-56 - nearly 8 months. I know these are companion models, but the gap is rather large. The SR-52 was the first AOS for over 8 months. :-)

SR-52 - September 16, 1975

SR-56 - May 21, 1976

Thanks for the clarification. I see it now why the 52 came out way before the 56.

Since TI wanted an improvement/competitor to '74's HP-65, the 52 came out of the gate at least a year & a half after the 65.

Thus, once Woodstocks were released, I can see the lag between the 25 and SR-56.

Correct.

But I completely agree with you that the SR-52 and the SR-56 SEEM to be contemporaries - they were sold at the same time for a year or more.

But the SR-52 was all by itself for 8 entire months. Rather hard to remember that, at least for me!

(10-01-2022 11:55 PM)Gene Wrote: [ -> ]Correct.

But I completely agree with you that the SR-52 and the SR-56 SEEM to be contemporaries - they were sold at the same time for a year or more.

But the SR-52 was all by itself for 8 entire months. Rather hard to remember that, at least for me!

Methinks the SR-56 was meant to compete with the 25 once the Woodstock line was released.

It looks like this explains the 52’s lone release.

SR-52 Brochure