Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #212554 > unrolled thread

If Memory Had Been Cheaper

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  If Memory Had Been Cheaper Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-06 14:24 -0700
    Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Terry Kennedy <terry-groups@glaver.org> - 2020-08-06 16:59 -0700
      Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-06 17:22 -0700
      Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2020-08-08 16:10 -1000
        Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Terry Kennedy <terry-groups@glaver.org> - 2020-08-08 21:07 -0700
        Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-09 10:07 -0700
          Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2020-08-09 11:04 -1000
            Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2020-08-09 12:03 -1000
              Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-09 15:30 -0700
    Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-07 10:24 -0400
      Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper timcaffrey420@gmail.com - 2020-08-07 11:26 -0700
        Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper timcaffrey420@gmail.com - 2020-08-07 11:33 -0700
          Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Terry Kennedy <terry-groups@glaver.org> - 2020-08-07 13:30 -0700
        Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-07 11:39 -0700
        Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2020-08-07 14:11 -0500
          Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-07 12:35 -0700
            Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-07 12:37 -0700
              Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-08 13:23 -0400
          Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2020-08-08 16:29 -1000
        Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-08-08 13:21 -0400
      Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-08-07 11:31 -0700
    Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2020-08-07 10:05 -0600
      Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-08 14:23 -0700
      Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2020-08-15 11:42 -0700
        Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-15 21:48 -0700
          Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-07 12:36 -0700
            Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-07-07 17:03 -0400
              Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-07 23:13 -0700
                Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2021-07-08 09:51 -0600
                Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper char <char@code.ord> - 2021-07-08 17:56 -0500
              Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-08 09:31 -0700
                Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-08 18:14 +0000
                  Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper char <char@code.ord> - 2021-07-08 18:00 -0500
              Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-13 15:21 -0700
              Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-16 11:13 -0700
                Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-07-16 17:20 -0400
                  Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-20 12:08 -0700
                    Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2021-07-20 21:30 +0100
                    Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-22 04:09 -0700
                      Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2021-07-22 13:51 +0000
                        Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-22 14:50 -0700
            Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-07-07 22:20 +0100
            Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2021-07-07 18:52 -0600
              Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-13 15:15 -0700
                Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-14 00:02 +0000
                Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-07-13 21:30 -0400
            Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2021-07-11 21:31 +0100
        Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-08-16 11:15 -0500
          Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2020-08-17 12:36 -0700
          Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-18 02:04 -0700
            Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-08-19 07:53 -0500
              Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Robert Swindells <rjs@fdy2.co.uk> - 2020-08-19 14:15 +0000
                Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-08-19 10:51 -0500
    Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2020-08-15 11:39 -0700
      Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-08-15 21:54 -0700
        Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> - 2021-07-27 22:58 -0700
      Re: If Memory Had Been Cheaper David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> - 2020-08-16 21:44 +0000

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#218512

On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 7:51:32 AM UTC-6, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
> > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 1:08:43 PM UTC-6, undefined Hancock-4 wrote: 
> >> On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 5:20:55 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote: 
> > 
> >> > Do you actually _look_ at the links you post? Those are scans of 
> >> > magazine pages from 1945 and 1946. 
> > 
> >> The date is in fine print, but on the page. There's only five years between 
> >> 1995 and 1999. Chill. 
> > 
> > The fact that there's only five years between 1995 and 1999 does not 
> > change the fact that there are fifty years between 1945 and 1995,

> 1999-1995 = 4 (which you say is five) and 1995 - 1945 = 50 (which 
> you say is fifty). 
> 
> There is no way of counting including or excluding the starting 
> or end year that would cover both.

I just repeated what he said about 1995 and 1999, and used my
own way of counting for 1945 and 1995. Of course that could
result in an inconsistency.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218295

On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 12:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 12:48:53 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 15, 2020 at 12:42:05 PM UTC-6, undefined Hancock-4
> > wrote: 
> > 
> > > Serious engineering and science students rushed out and got
> > > electronic calculators when they became available in the early 1970s.
> > > _IF_ they could afford one. They were not cheap. The rest of us mere
> > > mortals stuck with our slide rules.
> > For a little while longer. The HP 35 came out in 1972 and it certainly
> > wasn't cheap. 
> > 
> > The SR-50 came out in 1974, and it wasn't quite as expensive, but it
> > wasn't cheap either. 
> > 
> > But by 1976, they were cheap. So while ordinary mortals had to wait for
> > four years, they did get their calculators eventually. 
> 
> I'd say it took a little longer before calculators became cheap enough
> for widespread use.

	My first calculator was a CBM-4190 which I got when it came out in
1976.

> Note that $50 in 1976 was still a nice chunk of money, maybe $250 today.

	If memory serves it was about £40, one of three similar sized
purchases of the mid 70s - the others being one of the first Casio databank
watches and a folk guitar. I still have the guitar.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218298

undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> writes:

> On Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 12:48:53 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 15, 2020 at 12:42:05 PM UTC-6, undefined Hancock-4 wrote: 
>> 
>> > Serious engineering and science students rushed out and got electronic calculators 
>> > when they became available in the early 1970s. _IF_ they could afford one. 
>> > They were not cheap. The rest of us mere mortals stuck with our slide rules.
>> For a little while longer. The HP 35 came out in 1972 and it certainly wasn't 
>> cheap. 
>> 
>> The SR-50 came out in 1974, and it wasn't quite as expensive, but it wasn't 
>> cheap either. 
>> 
>> But by 1976, they were cheap. So while ordinary mortals had to wait for four 
>> years, they did get their calculators eventually. 
>
> I'd say it took a little longer before calculators became cheap enough for widespread use.
>
> Note that $50 in 1976 was still a nice chunk of money, maybe $250 today.

I got my first calculator (a Melcor SC-535) in 1975, when the $100
barrier was broken.  We can debate the definition of "wide spread", but
calculators were very common among my Physics major friends.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218375

On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 8:52:46 PM UTC-4, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:

> > Note that $50 in 1976 was still a nice chunk of money, maybe $250 today.


> I got my first calculator (a Melcor SC-535) in 1975, when the $100 
> barrier was broken. We can debate the definition of "wide spread", but 
> calculators were very common among my Physics major friends.

It's important to note that heavy numbers people, like sci/eng students
and professionals, were much more likely to spring for a good calculator,
even early on when they were rather expensive, because the improvement
over a slide rule were so powerful and they made extensive use of them.
 Everyday people simply made do with a slide run or waited until the price came down.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218382

On 2021-07-13, undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 8:52:46 PM UTC-4, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>
>>> Note that $50 in 1976 was still a nice chunk of money, maybe $250 today.
>
>> I got my first calculator (a Melcor SC-535) in 1975, when the $100 
>> barrier was broken. We can debate the definition of "wide spread", but 
>> calculators were very common among my Physics major friends.
>
> It's important to note that heavy numbers people, like sci/eng students
> and professionals, were much more likely to spring for a good calculator,
> even early on when they were rather expensive, because the improvement
> over a slide rule were so powerful and they made extensive use of them.
> Everyday people simply made do with a slide run or waited until the
> price came down.

Or, like the constipated mathematician, worked it out with a pencil.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  They don't understand Microsoft
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  has stolen their car and parked
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  a taxi in their driveway.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Mayayana

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218385

On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 15:15:18 -0700 (PDT), undefined Hancock-4
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 8:52:46 PM UTC-4, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>
>> > Note that $50 in 1976 was still a nice chunk of money, maybe $250 today.
>
>
>> I got my first calculator (a Melcor SC-535) in 1975, when the $100 
>> barrier was broken. We can debate the definition of "wide spread", but 
>> calculators were very common among my Physics major friends.
>
>It's important to note that heavy numbers people, like sci/eng students
>and professionals, were much more likely to spring for a good calculator,
>even early on when they were rather expensive, because the improvement
>over a slide rule were so powerful and they made extensive use of them.
> Everyday people simply made do with a slide run or waited until the price came down.

Everyday people made do with a pencil and a piece of paper.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218357

On 07/07/2021 20:36, undefined Hancock-4 wrote:
> On Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 12:48:53 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 15, 2020 at 12:42:05 PM UTC-6, undefined Hancock-4 wrote:
>>
>>> Serious engineering and science students rushed out and got electronic calculators
>>> when they became available in the early 1970s. _IF_ they could afford one.
>>> They were not cheap. The rest of us mere mortals stuck with our slide rules.
>> For a little while longer. The HP 35 came out in 1972 and it certainly wasn't
>> cheap.
>>
>> The SR-50 came out in 1974, and it wasn't quite as expensive, but it wasn't
>> cheap either.
>>
>> But by 1976, they were cheap. So while ordinary mortals had to wait for four
>> years, they did get their calculators eventually.
> 
> I'd say it took a little longer before calculators became cheap enough for widespread use.
> 
> Note that $50 in 1976 was still a nice chunk of money, maybe $250 today.
> 
I had a calculator by the time I was doing my A levels. For non-UK 
readers they are the 2 year course from ages 16-18 leading up to University.

That would have been ~1974.

<fx googles>
Hmm.

http://www.vintagebritishcalculators.info/html/memory_devices.html

says the ESR817 came out in 1974.

But I'm darnn sure mine had a red LED display. And no floating point 
which was sometimes a PITA.

Andy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212903

On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 11:42:04 -0700 (PDT), undefined Hancock-4
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 12:05:20 PM UTC-4, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> writes: 
>> 
>> > I was looking for information on K&E's abandoned prototype slide rule, the KE-Lon, 
>> > and found an article about how the demise of the slide rule was more gradual than 
>> > often acknowledged. 
>> > 
>> > That may be, but it certainly was still more rapid than most other replacements of 
>> > older products by new technologies.
>> Where was that article? I bought my last slide rule intended for actual 
>> use (as opposed to many I've gotten since 'cause they're cool) as a high 
>> school senior in 1975. That fall, the Melcor SC-535 scientific 
>> calculator got cheap enough for a college freshman to buy (I want to say 
>> it went sub-$100, but I'm not sure on that memory). By 1977 I was 
>> teasing my Physics lab partner about being a Luddite since she was one 
>> of the last people in the department to still have a slide rule.
>
>Serious engineering and science students rushed out and got electronic calculators
>when they became available in the early 1970s.  _IF_ they could afford one.
>They were not cheap.  The rest of us mere mortals stuck with our slide rules.
>
>I remember that for many years calculators were forbidden in exams as not
>all students had them--too expensive.  Slide rules were cheap.  (Someone
>mentioned the Sterling plastic units, I think only $3).

I was working at a junior college in the late 1970s. They had two very
heavy calculators by I think Litton. Cost was $800 each. Purchased,
IIRC, about 5 years previous. I had bought an algebra and regular
function calculator for less than $40.

By 1977, that community college had stopped teaching its slide rule
class.

In 1978, I bought the TI SR-52 programable calculator for just under
$400. The next year the TI- 78, etc. came out. Half that price and had
twice as many programming steps. I think the most expensive of those
three could vary the number of programming lines at a sacrifice of
memory.

-- 
Jim

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212947

On Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 12:16:03 PM UTC-4, JimP wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 11:42:04 -0700 (PDT), undefined Hancock-4
> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 12:05:20 PM UTC-4, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> >> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> writes: 
> >> 
> >> > I was looking for information on K&E's abandoned prototype slide rule, the KE-Lon, 
> >> > and found an article about how the demise of the slide rule was more gradual than 
> >> > often acknowledged. 
> >> > 
> >> > That may be, but it certainly was still more rapid than most other replacements of 
> >> > older products by new technologies.
> >> Where was that article? I bought my last slide rule intended for actual 
> >> use (as opposed to many I've gotten since 'cause they're cool) as a high 
> >> school senior in 1975. That fall, the Melcor SC-535 scientific 
> >> calculator got cheap enough for a college freshman to buy (I want to say 
> >> it went sub-$100, but I'm not sure on that memory). By 1977 I was 
> >> teasing my Physics lab partner about being a Luddite since she was one 
> >> of the last people in the department to still have a slide rule.
> >
> >Serious engineering and science students rushed out and got electronic calculators
> >when they became available in the early 1970s.  _IF_ they could afford one.
> >They were not cheap.  The rest of us mere mortals stuck with our slide rules.
> >
> >I remember that for many years calculators were forbidden in exams as not
> >all students had them--too expensive.  Slide rules were cheap.  (Someone
> >mentioned the Sterling plastic units, I think only $3).
> 
> I was working at a junior college in the late 1970s. They had two very
> heavy calculators by I think Litton. Cost was $800 each. Purchased,
> IIRC, about 5 years previous. I had bought an algebra and regular
> function calculator for less than $40.
> 
> By 1977, that community college had stopped teaching its slide rule
> class.
> 
> In 1978, I bought the TI SR-52 programable calculator for just under
> $400. The next year the TI- 78, etc. came out. Half that price and had
> twice as many programming steps. I think the most expensive of those
> three could vary the number of programming lines at a sacrifice of
> memory.

Note that in 1979 $40 was still serious money, maybe
roughly $150 today.  Affordable, but not trivial.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212957

On Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 10:16:03 AM UTC-6, JimP wrote:

> In 1978, I bought the TI SR-52 programable calculator for just under
> $400. The next year the TI- 78, etc. came out. Half that price and had
> twice as many programming steps. I think the most expensive of those
> three could vary the number of programming lines at a sacrifice of
> memory.

Huh?

The SR-52 came out, and at $400 it was expensive. It saved programs on magnetic 
cards, and thus was competing with the HP-65.

Texas Instruments' next programmable scientific calculator was the SR-56. That 
was a _lot_ less expensive. I had one. No magnetic cards, and _fewer_ steps than 
the SR-52.

*Two* years later (The SR-52 came out in fall 1975; the TI-58 and TI-59 came out in May, 1977) there were the TI-58 and TI-59. The TI-59 had magnetic cards; the 
TI-58 had 480 programming steps, the TI-59 had 960 programming steps, and they 
both used the same programming code. The later TI-66, a slim LCD calculator, was 
also program-compatible.

Never heard of a TI-78 that came out the next year after the SR-52 and had more 
programming steps.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212972

On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 02:04:29 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 10:16:03 AM UTC-6, JimP wrote:
>
>> In 1978, I bought the TI SR-52 programable calculator for just under
>> $400. The next year the TI- 78, etc. came out. Half that price and had
>> twice as many programming steps. I think the most expensive of those
>> three could vary the number of programming lines at a sacrifice of
>> memory.
>
>Huh?
>
>The SR-52 came out, and at $400 it was expensive. It saved programs on magnetic 
>cards, and thus was competing with the HP-65.
>
>Texas Instruments' next programmable scientific calculator was the SR-56. That 
>was a _lot_ less expensive. I had one. No magnetic cards, and _fewer_ steps than 
>the SR-52.
>
>*Two* years later (The SR-52 came out in fall 1975; the TI-58 and TI-59 came out in May, 1977) there were the TI-58 and TI-59. The TI-59 had magnetic cards; the 
>TI-58 had 480 programming steps, the TI-59 had 960 programming steps, and they 
>both used the same programming code. The later TI-66, a slim LCD calculator, was 
>also program-compatible.
>
>Never heard of a TI-78 that came out the next year after the SR-52 and had more 
>programming steps.
>
>John Savard

I was grasping for model names. Ah well. I thought there were 3 models
in that series of 58 and 59. I guess not.

My SR-52 worked, until the card reading motor ran away with itself.
And the early rechargable batteries were no good.

-- 
Jim

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212973

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 07:53:09 -0500, JimP wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 02:04:29 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote:
>>On Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 10:16:03 AM UTC-6, JimP wrote:
>>
>>> In 1978, I bought the TI SR-52 programable calculator for just under
>>> $400. The next year the TI- 78, etc. came out. Half that price and had
>>> twice as many programming steps. I think the most expensive of those
>>> three could vary the number of programming lines at a sacrifice of
>>> memory.
>>
>>Huh?
>>
>>The SR-52 came out, and at $400 it was expensive. It saved programs on
>>magnetic cards, and thus was competing with the HP-65.
>>
>>Texas Instruments' next programmable scientific calculator was the
>>SR-56. That was a _lot_ less expensive. I had one. No magnetic cards,
>>and _fewer_ steps than the SR-52.
>>
>>*Two* years later (The SR-52 came out in fall 1975; the TI-58 and TI-59
>>came out in May, 1977) there were the TI-58 and TI-59. The TI-59 had
>>magnetic cards; the TI-58 had 480 programming steps, the TI-59 had 960
>>programming steps, and they both used the same programming code. The
>>later TI-66, a slim LCD calculator, was also program-compatible.
>>
>>Never heard of a TI-78 that came out the next year after the SR-52 and
>>had more programming steps.
>>
>>John Savard
> 
> I was grasping for model names. Ah well. I thought there were 3 models
> in that series of 58 and 59. I guess not.

There were 3 models in that series, the other one was the TI-57, my father
had one.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TI-57>

The wiki pages on the different models match what I remember.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212974

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 14:15:40 -0000 (UTC), Robert Swindells
<rjs@fdy2.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 07:53:09 -0500, JimP wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 02:04:29 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
>> wrote:
>>>On Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 10:16:03 AM UTC-6, JimP wrote:
>>>
>>>> In 1978, I bought the TI SR-52 programable calculator for just under
>>>> $400. The next year the TI- 78, etc. came out. Half that price and had
>>>> twice as many programming steps. I think the most expensive of those
>>>> three could vary the number of programming lines at a sacrifice of
>>>> memory.
>>>
>>>Huh?
>>>
>>>The SR-52 came out, and at $400 it was expensive. It saved programs on
>>>magnetic cards, and thus was competing with the HP-65.
>>>
>>>Texas Instruments' next programmable scientific calculator was the
>>>SR-56. That was a _lot_ less expensive. I had one. No magnetic cards,
>>>and _fewer_ steps than the SR-52.
>>>
>>>*Two* years later (The SR-52 came out in fall 1975; the TI-58 and TI-59
>>>came out in May, 1977) there were the TI-58 and TI-59. The TI-59 had
>>>magnetic cards; the TI-58 had 480 programming steps, the TI-59 had 960
>>>programming steps, and they both used the same programming code. The
>>>later TI-66, a slim LCD calculator, was also program-compatible.
>>>
>>>Never heard of a TI-78 that came out the next year after the SR-52 and
>>>had more programming steps.
>>>
>>>John Savard
>> 
>> I was grasping for model names. Ah well. I thought there were 3 models
>> in that series of 58 and 59. I guess not.
>
>There were 3 models in that series, the other one was the TI-57, my father
>had one.
>
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TI-57>
>
>The wiki pages on the different models match what I remember.

Ah, there were three of them. And they basically cost less than what I
paid for the SR-52. Didn't get them as I didn't need a calculator
anymore. Well, not for calculus which is why I bought the SR-52.

-- 
Jim

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212869

On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 5:24:24 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> I was looking for information on K&E's abandoned prototype slide rule, the KE-Lon, 
> and found an article about how the demise of the slide rule was more gradual than 
> often acknowledged. 
> 
> That may be, but it certainly was still more rapid than most other replacements of 
> older products by new technologies. 
> 
> One thing that came to my mind was that, while it was true that machines like the 
> Wang 500 or the HP 9100A preceded the arrival of the pocket calculator, still, 
> while slide rule makers could perhaps have been expected to see the pocket 
> calculator coming _eventually_, the rapid pace of improvement in digital 
> electronics was not so obvious at the time. 

I'm not so sure digital electronics was so rapid.  In magazine ads from
the 1960s, digital electronic equipment was enormously expensive.
For instance, where there were electronic desk calculators, their
high cost limited them for years and the slow chuggy electro-mechanical
units remained in service.

It took a long time for electronics to come down enough in cost to
replace relays and mechanical units.




> And the pocket calculator came to market *before* the 8-bit personal computer. 
> 
> Computer memory chips are, of course, made using the same basic digital microchip 
> technology as computer processor chips. There are differences in the fabrication 
> processes used, so that memory designs can emphasize density over speed, but these 
> are variations on the same basic technology. 

I am far from an expert on that, but I suspect the differences in electronics
of a calculator compared to a mainframe computer are pretty significant.
The IBM S/360 history goes into a lot of the issues involved.


> 
> So it's difficult to see how an alternate history could have happened in which CPU 
> technology developed more slowly, but memory technology, at least in terms of 
> density if not speed, developed more quickly. 
> 
> A pocket calculator chip performs calculations on decimal floating-point numbers, 
> often including trig and log functions. So it performs pretty complex operations. 
> And there were also programmable calculators. 
> 
> The operations performed by the instructions in even a mainframe computer like 
> the IBM System/360 weren't any more complex. 

Others have commented that the instruction set of the S/360 was far more
complex than a calculator.  There were many more options regarding
storage, addressing, data type, and I/O.  Note how many ADD instructions
existed in the basic S/360.




> So, even without a major change in CPU technology versus memory technology... 
> instead of 8-bit processors like the 8080 and 6800, why didn't some enterprising 
> chipmaker take a microchip with an 8-bit ALU, and, through microprogramming, 
> produce a chip that was similar to a System/360 Model 30 - a chip with 
> instructions to operate on 32-bit integers and 32-bit and 64-bit floating-point 
> numbers? 

I don't think it was possible, especially in the technology of the time.  Indeed,
the S/360-30, despite being a low end machine, was too expensive for
many prospective customers.  IBM had to develop the model 20 series
and even that was too expensive.  It took later electronic developments
for IBM to come out with the 'discount' System/3 product line, which had
a far simpler architecture (well described in bitsavers).

Again, I am far from an expert, but I think chips at the time for fairly
limited.  Note that in 1967 they were still advertising classic vacuum tubes
for certain applications, such as color TV snivet control (whatever that is).
I think the ICs of the time were pretty limited.  They didn't have a full
microprocessor yet, and wouldn't for a few years.

> I suppose that the reason was one of efficiency and flexibility. A chip designed 
> that way wouldn't have been able to run with maximum efficiency on problems only 
> involving 8-bit integers; the microprogram layer would always be in the way. The 
> other way around, BASIC interpreters could certainly include floating-point 
> subroutines... and, if desired, one could even have the UCSD P-System, where an 
> 8-bit micro is turned into a mainframe-like computer through the use of an 
> interpretive routine for a more powerful instruction set. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212895

On Saturday, August 15, 2020 at 12:39:16 PM UTC-6, undefined Hancock-4 wrote:

> I am far from an expert on that, but I suspect the differences in electronics
> of a calculator compared to a mainframe computer are pretty significant.
> The IBM S/360 history goes into a lot of the issues involved.

There were differences. In order for a computer, even one with just a four-bit 
ALU, to be small enough to be put in a pocket, and cheap enough to afford, the 
cheapest, densest fabrication process was used to make complicated but slow 
chips. So calculator chips at the time used PMOS, while early microprocessors 
used the faster NMOS process.

Mainframe computers used TTL for a while longer, or even ECL, those processes 
producing the fastest chips, but with higher power consumption.

These days, everything uses CMOS. It uses both types of MOS transistors, so it's 
fundamentally as slow as PMOS - but because it uses less power, the circuits 
could be shrunk, and that more than made up for it, so that today's chips run at 
a few gigahertz.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218551

On Saturday, August 15, 2020 at 9:54:12 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:

(snip)

> There were differences. In order for a computer, even one with just a four-bit 
> ALU, to be small enough to be put in a pocket, and cheap enough to afford, the 
> cheapest, densest fabrication process was used to make complicated but slow 
> chips. So calculator chips at the time used PMOS, while early microprocessors 
> used the faster NMOS process. 

(snip)

Early microprocessors, the 4004 and 8008, are PMOS.
 
The transition to NMOS is the 8080, along with (about the same time) the 6800.

PMOS UARTs stayed around for a while, too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#212908

undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> writes:


>Again, I am far from an expert, but I think chips at the time for fairly
>limited.  Note that in 1967 they were still advertising classic vacuum tubes
>for certain applications, such as color TV snivet control (whatever that is).
>I think the ICs of the time were pretty limited.  They didn't have a full
>microprocessor yet, and wouldn't for a few years.

FWIW:
AT&T Long Lines used circa 1930 K-Carrier {muliplexing} in revenue service
until 1975. It was CHOCK full of vacuum tubes, made by WECO of course.

I bought a HP-35 in 1972. Best move I ever made.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web