Build Quality of Graphing Calcs & Others

[Matt Agajanian]

Hi all.

Since I have a few, I've wondered if graphing calcs are built with the same quality amount of circuitry that 70s calcs (HP Classics, TI: SR-52/56, TI-58/59, etc.) are created with.

On the flip side, it seems to me that the slimline calcs (TI-36X Pro, 30X, Casio fx-115 & 991 series, etc.) are built as disposable items since they're inexpensive (to some extent) to replace.

[carey]

(09-21-2023 10:06 PM)Matt Agajanian Wrote:  ...I've wondered if graphing calcs are built with the same quality amount of circuitry that 70s calcs (HP Classics, TI: SR-52/56, TI-58/59, etc.) are created with.

...it seems to me that the slimline calcs (TI-36X Pro, 30X, Casio fx-115 & 991 series, etc.) are built as disposable items since they're inexpensive (to some extent) to replace.

Others can comment on specific models, but two general comments on how perceptions about build quality can easily be mistaken.

1) The "good ole days" myth. I wouldn't want to exchange the circuit quality of any current graphing calculator model with the "same quality amount of circuity that 70s calcs" had.

2) Assessing build quality based on size, weight, or even price, is unreliable. Yes, the new generation of non-programmables (i.e., the "slimline calcs") are inexpensive due to mass production and disposable in that they're cheaper to replace than repair. However, that doesn't mean they have poor build quality. A common myth is that heavier (actually denser) products, i.e., products with greater heft when held in the hand, have better build quality. This perceptual myth is so pervasive that it has caused some product manufacturers (fortunately not calculator manufacturers!) to insert weights into their products so they will be perceived to have better build quality!

[Matt Agajanian]

(09-22-2023 04:17 AM)carey Wrote:  

(09-21-2023 10:06 PM)Matt Agajanian Wrote:  ...I've wondered if graphing calcs are built with the same quality amount of circuitry that 70s calcs (HP Classics, TI: SR-52/56, TI-58/59, etc.) are created with.

...it seems to me that the slimline calcs (TI-36X Pro, 30X, Casio fx-115 & 991 series, etc.) are built as disposable items since they're inexpensive (to some extent) to replace.

Others can comment on specific models, but two general comments on how perceptions about build quality can easily be mistaken.

1) The "good ole days" myth. I wouldn't want to exchange the circuit quality of any current graphing calculator model with the "same quality amount of circuity that 70s calcs" had.

2) Assessing build quality based on size, weight, or even price, is unreliable. Yes, the new generation of non-programmables (i.e., the "slimline calcs") are inexpensive due to mass production and disposable in that they're cheaper to replace than repair. However, that doesn't mean they have poor build quality. A common myth is that heavier (actually denser) products, i.e., products with greater heft when held in the hand, have better build quality. This perceptual myth is so pervasive that it has caused some product manufacturers (fortunately not calculator manufacturers!) to insert weights into their products so they will be perceived to have better build quality!

Well, that’s a water & ice bucket awakening!

[Steve Simpkin]

(09-21-2023 10:06 PM)Matt Agajanian Wrote:  Hi all.

Since I have a few, I've wondered if graphing calcs are built with the same quality amount of circuitry that 70s calcs (HP Classics, TI: SR-52/56, TI-58/59, etc.) are created with.

On the flip side, it seems to me that the slimline calcs (TI-36X Pro, 30X, Casio fx-115 & 991 series, etc.) are built as disposable items since they're inexpensive (to some extent) to replace.

Perhaps but Casio seems to be proud of their manufacturing quality.
   

[Dave Britten]

My experience is that Casios tend to have the best build quality and longevity, with TI not too far behind in second place. Casios on ebay almost always work, or just need some battery contact cleaning. I've only run across a couple I couldn't resurrect.

TIs are much more prone to having dead rows/columns, at least on the graphing models with dot-matrix displays, though I don't run across a lot that are outright dead. More recent models seem better in this regard, though it could just be they aren't old enough for the screen connections to have degraded yet.

Sharps tend to be the worst by far - I have at least 6 or 7 of their first-gen graphing models (EL-9200, EL-9300), most of them are completely non-functional, a few barely work, and maybe one of them is remotely reliable. Later models seem a bit better, but I don't have a big enough sample to paint in broad strokes here. I have an EL-9900 that definitely has some screen issues though. Haven't seen any major problems with their non-graphing models, aside from some software design quirks.

[Quadratica]

I've been using a TI-nspire CAS for 3-5 hours every week since I bought it in Sept 2011. It still has the same battery which holds a charge for ~2 weeks. The body of the calc has a few chips/scuffs, all the rubber feet have disappeared, the screen has a scuff due to my recklessness. However, it works perfectly and does everything I need it to do.

I bought it for about £100 in Sept 2011 and 12 years later it still serves me well, I think I got my money's worth !!

[toml_12953]

(09-21-2023 10:06 PM)Matt Agajanian Wrote:  Hi all.

Since I have a few, I've wondered if graphing calcs are built with the same quality amount of circuitry that 70s calcs (HP Classics, TI: SR-52/56, TI-58/59, etc.) are created with.

On the flip side, it seems to me that the slimline calcs (TI-36X Pro, 30X, Casio fx-115 & 991 series, etc.) are built as disposable items since they're inexpensive (to some extent) to replace.

Not the circuitry but the older calcs had double-shot injection molded keys. The symbols were molded in a different color plastic from that of the key itself and would never wear off. I've worn off many of the symbols on my NumWorks keys since they're just painted on.