On 18/02/14 13:12, I'm Old Gregg wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...


Did you also build the Sinclair Calculator that came along in about
1973? Painfully slow to use, a quick slide rule user could probably
beat it in a calculation which had a few trig functions in it, but
geek 'must have' ;-)

I built the 'Wireless World' calculator about 72/73, it's still around
somewhere. I thinkthe kit cost about £40, a lot of money then (for me at
least) which was less that half the price of ready made one.


Much less. A class mate was bought a Sinclair Scientific by his father
for £180. That was a staggering sum of money. A good 3 bed room semi
could be bought for about £3800 at that time in the area. When the
Sinclair kit came out, New Scientist did an offer for £14.95.


Whoever started the thread is, I assume, an ardent and active
constructor. Perhaps he/she will share some of their designs to
inspire others to follow their example.

I don't think the above para was needed, but perhaps you don't read all
of the theads.

I don't, even while laid up following a knee op. I've other things to do.

I paid about £180 for an HP35 in 1973, this calculator used reverse polish
notation (no equals key).

On 18/02/14 15:21, Phi wrote:
I paid about £180 for an HP35 in 1973, this calculator used reverse
polish notation (no equals key).
That seems cheap for an HP at the time. As I recall, that was the launch
price of the Sinclair, although it soon dropped.

The Sinclair was also RPN, as were the early Texas calculators I think.
Sinclair lacked the "Enter" button, using the + key its place.

For the 'everyday' user, RPN was not popular and calculators offering,
almost, algebraic, entry became more popular. I think the first
calculator to offer true algebraic entry (ie following BODMAS/BIDMAS
convention) was Texas. Even today some cheap calculators don't follow
the convention. One of the many things I warn pupils of when I teach
calculator use.

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Brian Reay wrote:

On 18/02/14 15:21, Phi wrote:
I paid about £180 for an HP35 in 1973, this calculator used reverse
polish notation (no equals key).
That seems cheap for an HP at the time. As I recall, that was the launch
price of the Sinclair, although it soon dropped.

The Sinclair was also RPN, as were the early Texas calculators I think.
Sinclair lacked the "Enter" button, using the + key its place.

I don't remember the TI calculators having RPN. I remember them as being
more reasonably priced versions of "electronic slide rules", which was
what they called them originally.

It's odd to look back now. I think that HP35 that a fellow ham got in
1972 or maybe 73 (a group buy at his place of employment) was the first
pocket calculator I ever saw close up. So many functions, yet so few
compared to what you can get on a $10 calculator today

I don't know what the first TI scientific calculator cost, but it was less
than the HP by far, and soon you could get one in the $50 range, and then
$30 range, which is when I got my TI-30.

Such a big change, a sudden surge in articles in the ham magazines showing
equations, suddenly you could actually work things out without needing
much math skill.

I think it was the National scientific calculator that had RPN, coming
later but also being quite cheap.

For the 'everyday' user, RPN was not popular and calculators offering,
almost, algebraic, entry became more popular. I think the first calculator to
offer true algebraic entry (ie following BODMAS/BIDMAS convention) was Texas.
Even today some cheap calculators don't follow the convention. One of the
many things I warn pupils of when I teach calculator use.

That's interesting. I look at the cheapest of the cheap scientific
calculators, and the functions are at least the same as my TI-30 from
about 1977. I assume the calculators have gotten so cheap because the
work was done long ago, buying old technology to implement cheap today.

Michael

On 18/02/14 18:33, Michael Black wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Brian Reay wrote:


The Sinclair was also RPN, as were the early Texas calculators I
think. Sinclair lacked the "Enter" button, using the + key its place.

I don't remember the TI calculators having RPN. I remember them as
being more reasonably priced versions of "electronic slide rules", which
was what they called them originally.

I recall the "electronic slide rule" jargon being used. I could be wrong
about the early TIs. I have an American friend who may know, he was a TI
user as I recall.


It's odd to look back now. I think that HP35 that a fellow ham got in
1972 or maybe 73 (a group buy at his place of employment) was the first
pocket calculator I ever saw close up. So many functions, yet so few
compared to what you can get on a $10 calculator today

I don't know what the first TI scientific calculator cost, but it was
less than the HP by far, and soon you could get one in the $50 range,
and then $30 range, which is when I got my TI-30.

I invested in a TI50 to start my Uni. course, it cost around £50 as I
recall, The next model up, with the card reader, was about double that.

The Japanese were just bringing cheaper calculators into the market at
the time- Commodore in particular. This was 1979/80.

Such a big change, a sudden surge in articles in the ham magazines
showing equations, suddenly you could actually work things out without
needing much math skill.


As a Mathematician, I would argue that calculators enter the game when
it has become arithmetic ;-) (However, as few know the difference I tend
to 'go with the flow' before someone refers to one of my widely
circulated articles.)

I think it was the National scientific calculator that had RPN, coming
later but also being quite cheap.

I don't recall those. The only calculators I recall using RPN are HP,
Sinclair, and (I thought) some early TI ones- although that may be an error.


For the 'everyday' user, RPN was not popular and calculators offering,
almost, algebraic, entry became more popular. I think the first
calculator to offer true algebraic entry (ie following BODMAS/BIDMAS
convention) was Texas. Even today some cheap calculators don't follow
the convention. One of the many things I warn pupils of when I teach
calculator use.

That's interesting. I look at the cheapest of the cheap scientific
calculators, and the functions are at least the same as my TI-30 from
about 1977. I assume the calculators have gotten so cheap because the
work was done long ago, buying old technology to implement cheap today.

It is common to see 'clones' of quite respectable calculators which
function as the originals and only differ in their name and case colour.
Probably common parts.

The ones I was referring tend to be simple 4 function (or perhaps 4
function and a couple of others eg % Mem) which real 'cheapies'.

Perhaps it is just old designs no one has corrected.

--
73
Brian
G8OSN/W8OSN
www.g8osn.net

In message , Brian Reay writes
On 18/02/14 15:21, Phi wrote:
I paid about £180 for an HP35 in 1973, this calculator used reverse
polish notation (no equals key).
That seems cheap for an HP at the time. As I recall, that was the
launch price of the Sinclair, although it soon dropped.

The Sinclair was also RPN, as were the early Texas calculators I think.
Sinclair lacked the "Enter" button, using the + key its place.

For the 'everyday' user, RPN was not popular and calculators offering,
almost, algebraic, entry became more popular. I think the first
calculator to offer true algebraic entry (ie following BODMAS/BIDMAS
convention) was Texas. Even today some cheap calculators don't follow
the convention. One of the many things I warn pupils of when I teach
calculator use.


I used a National Semiconductor 4640 RPN calculator for about 30 years.
So much so that I can't use a "normal" calculator. I've still got it but
it needs the charger socket and the batteries replaced.

RPN can't be beat for long chain calculations.

My Window desktop calculator is RPN

http://excalibur.en.softonic.com/

Brian
--
Brian Howie

On 18/02/14 20:21, Brian Howie wrote:
In message , Brian Reay writes

For the 'everyday' user, RPN was not popular and calculators offering,
almost, algebraic, entry became more popular. I think the first
calculator to offer true algebraic entry (ie following BODMAS/BIDMAS
convention) was Texas. Even today some cheap calculators don't follow
the convention. One of the many things I warn pupils of when I teach
calculator use.


I used a National Semiconductor 4640 RPN calculator for about 30 years.
So much so that I can't use a "normal" calculator. I've still got it but
it needs the charger socket and the batteries replaced.

RPN can't be beat for long chain calculations.


True.

Either way, RPN as the user interface has become a 'niche' market. Do HP
still offer RPN?

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Brian Reay wrote:

On 18/02/14 20:21, Brian Howie wrote:
In message , Brian Reay writes

For the 'everyday' user, RPN was not popular and calculators offering,
almost, algebraic, entry became more popular. I think the first
calculator to offer true algebraic entry (ie following BODMAS/BIDMAS
convention) was Texas. Even today some cheap calculators don't follow
the convention. One of the many things I warn pupils of when I teach
calculator use.


I used a National Semiconductor 4640 RPN calculator for about 30 years.
So much so that I can't use a "normal" calculator. I've still got it but
it needs the charger socket and the batteries replaced.

RPN can't be beat for long chain calculations.


True.

Either way, RPN as the user interface has become a 'niche' market. Do HP
still offer RPN?

Yes, but they are still higher priced, so you'd be going out of your way
to buy one. I seem to recall seeing one in a flyer that could be switched
between RPN and "normal", which I suppose has advantages. But, if you have
both, I suspect the pull is towards "normal".

I have a minor collection of early scientific pocket calculators. Some
TI, including the one that could be hooked to a printer (and the printer).
And some HP, but the batteries don't keep a charge.

I should get one of the HP going, not only are they RPN, but they have LED
readouts, astonish people with the ancient technology. Just as soon as I
figure out how to get that battery clip back on my TI LED watch from 1977.

Michael

Michael Black wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, Brian Reay wrote:

Either way, RPN as the user interface has become a 'niche' market. Do HP
still offer RPN?

Yes, but they are still higher priced, so you'd be going out of your way
to buy one. I seem to recall seeing one in a flyer that could be
switched between RPN and "normal", which I suppose has advantages. But,
if you have both, I suspect the pull is towards "normal".

HP calculators were always the most expensive, at least in the UK.

I think Casio probably have the bulk market sewn up. Anything you can't do
with one of their £8 scientifics (other than perhaps function plotting) is
probably something to do on a package.

I have a minor collection of early scientific pocket calculators. Some
TI, including the one that could be hooked to a printer (and the printer).
And some HP, but the batteries don't keep a charge.

I should get one of the HP going, not only are they RPN, but they have
LED readouts, astonish people with the ancient technology. Just as soon
as I figure out how to get that battery clip back on my TI LED watch from 1977.

I suppose I have an informal collection as I probably have all of my old
calculators.
I never reduced myself to a digital watch.

On 18/02/2014 15:21, Phi wrote:
I paid about £180 for an HP35 in 1973, this calculator used reverse
polish notation (no equals key).

HP15C was my best calculator (still use it) its quality is such that it
still sells for £150+ on ebay.
Complex maths, matrix manipulation, polar to rectangular conversion all
in a 1981 calculator. Lovely bit of engineering.

Andy