Casio fx-9750GIII vs. HP35s - Professional Use

[wb.c]

Now that the HP35s has bit the dust, and prices for even used ones are well over $300. If I was a professional that required a capable programable calculator, I would grab a Casio fx-9750GIII for $45.95 from my local Walmart instead. I just noticed this calculator the other day, and its surprising how packed with features it is (basically a TI-84 Plus CE), but more importantly, it is programable in basic and in python, and you can save program and add more via usb. I mean, for actual professional use, honestly, why even keep the extremely limited HP35s at this point?
The Casio costs even less than the HP did before it was discontinued.

Thoughts?

[Steve Simpkin]

(12-14-2023 07:28 PM)wb.c Wrote:  Now that the HP35s has bit the dust, and prices for even used ones are well over $300. If I was a professional that required a capable programable calculator, I would grab a Casio fx-9750GIII for $45.95 from my local Walmart instead. I just noticed this calculator the other day, and its surprising how packed with features it is (basically a TI-84 Plus CE), but more importantly, it is programable in basic and in python, and you can save program and add more via usb. I mean, for actual professional use, honestly, why even keep the extremely limited HP35s at this point?
The Casio costs even less than the HP did before it was discontinued.

Thoughts?

It should also be noted that KhiCAS is available on the Casio Fx-9750GIII (thank you Parisse!) giving it a CAS that is similar to the one in the HP Prime (same Xcas engine). The Casio fx-9750GIII often sells for less than $30 USD new on eBay. That is a lot of functionality for the price.

[wb.c]

Steve, That is indeed a very useful and valid point. I did not even think to look on ebay, and the KhiCAS functionality is awesome, which incredible for sub $30. I can't think of a better deal for a programable calculator with this level of functionality.

[bxparks]

Is the fx-9750giii programmable in C, so that I can write an RPN app for it? :-) I know nothing about the Casio ecosystem. I do like its size and shape, and the standard AAA batteries, which means standard NiMH rechargeables.

The used prices for the HP-35s and HP-50g are indeed insane. I regret not buying them when they were in production. But I didn't know about them until recently, having been out of the calculator world for a couple of decades.

[Peet]

(12-14-2023 07:28 PM)wb.c Wrote:  If I was a professional that required a capable programable calculator, I would grab a Casio fx-9750GIII ... I mean, for actual professional use, honestly, why even keep the extremely limited HP35s at this point?

That sounds to me a little like someone questioning a sailboat because a station wagon is more practical and cheaper. I think most users use the Casio because they have to and the HP because they enjoy it.

[wb.c]

(12-15-2023 03:31 PM)Peet Wrote:  That sounds to me a little like someone questioning a sailboat because a station wagon is more practical and cheaper. I think most users use the Casio because they have to and the HP because they enjoy it.

I guess that is why we see a lot of companies using sail boats instead of cargo ships? I'm talking about a tool used in a professional environment, not a hobby. My typewriters are very classy and I thoroughly enjoy using them, but I would never use a typewriter for work, and nobody does.

Am I questioning the HP35s' practicality and functionality given it has no way to backup anything, requires exhaustive manual input of programs, and is actually quite limited when compared to options that are at a lower price than the HP35s has ever been? Yes, I am doing that exactly. The HP35s seems to be a calculator favored among people who need to do calculations in the field, like in surveying. Which I'm sure that at one point it was the gold standard. It used to cost about $50. Would anyone argue that a DM42 is not as good as an HP35s? The DM42 looks amazing, but it is $264 vs $30 for something equally if not arguably better.

As amazing as my Olympia typewriters are, they also eventually became just hobbies. This is just life, the result of progress. Probably slide rule people felt the same way when people said the slide rule was impractical and inefficient as compared to calculators. I think there are very few people using a slide rule at work today. I've never seen anyone.

There is no reason to be offended. This is just a discussion.

[klesl]

I use Casio calculators daily and I enjoy it. Give me Casio, TI, Sharp, Citizen, HP-10s+, HP-300s+ or similar calculators and I am able to start using them immediately. Give me HP-35s (I have this calc) and I am lost without the userguide.
Do you really suppose the almost all world use Casio/TI because they have to use it?

[toml_12953]

(12-14-2023 07:28 PM)wb.c Wrote:  Now that the HP35s has bit the dust, and prices for even used ones are well over $300. If I was a professional that required a capable programable calculator, I would grab a Casio fx-9750GIII for $45.95 from my local Walmart instead. I just noticed this calculator the other day, and its surprising how packed with features it is (basically a TI-84 Plus CE), but more importantly, it is programable in basic and in python, and you can save program and add more via usb. I mean, for actual professional use, honestly, why even keep the extremely limited HP35s at this point?
The Casio costs even less than the HP did before it was discontinued.

Thoughts?

You have to also take into account that many pros will only use RPN, not an algebraic calculator. The price of an HP RPN or new SwissMicros calculator is well worth the difference to us, as well as the SM being less than the price of a well-used 35s.

[Maximilian Hohmann]

Hello!

(12-15-2023 05:17 PM)toml_12953 Wrote:  You have to also take into account that many pros will only use RPN...

What do you base this statement on? I must say that I have seen very few professionals (i.e. people during the process of earning their living) using pocket calculators in the last three decades. And of those few that I have seen using a calculator, for example a car dealer who calculates the discount that he can give you, exactly zero had an RPN model.

Regards
Max

[wb.c]

(12-15-2023 05:17 PM)toml_12953 Wrote:  You have to also take into account that many pros will only use RPN, not an algebraic calculator. The price of an HP RPN or new SwissMicros calculator is well worth the difference to us, as well as the SM being less than the price of a well-used 35s.

Isn’t the argument for the HP35s as a useful tool was the fact that people made programs, for example in surveying. The argument for or against RPN is a different discussion all together. HP35s programs, even though written in RPN, do not exactly use RPN for entry. Single line entry then R/S. I’m talking about the HP35s here, not the SM calculators.

[jthole]

(12-15-2023 03:06 PM)bxparks Wrote:  Is the fx-9750giii programmable in C, so that I can write an RPN app for it? :-) I know nothing about the Casio ecosystem. I do like its size and shape, and the standard AAA batteries, which means standard NiMH rechargeables.

Well, at least there’s a SDK, which (according to the readme) supports the fx-9750Giii ;-)

https://gitea.planet-casio.com/Lephenixnoir/fxsdk

I agree on the batteries; I highly prefer standard batteries instead of a manufacturer specific battery.

I had a 35S and sold it again (for a normal price) … I didn’t realize I had a future treasure in my hands ;-)

[bxparks]

(12-15-2023 06:03 PM)jthole Wrote:  Well, at least there’s a SDK, which (according to the readme) supports the fx-9750Giii ;-)
https://gitea.planet-casio.com/Lephenixnoir/fxsdk

Fantastic! The SDK seems to be maintained, and uses the latest GCC, which means C11, C++20, and other languages supported by GCC. I can get a $30-$40 calculator on eBay, and write C++ for it, at a similar price point as some Arduino-compatible microcontrollers. But the calculator provides more: a screen, battery power, and keyboard. Wow. This could be my next project after stabilizing my RPN83P for TI-83+ TI-84+ project. One possible drawback is that most of the development work for the Casio seems to be out of France, and I have forgotten almost all my highschool French.

The list of Casio calculators from the README:

• (Partial support) SH3-based fx-9860G, fx-9860G SD, similar models with OS 1.xx, and the fx-9860G SDK emulator.
• SH3-based fx-9750G, fx-9860G II, fx-9860G II SD, and similar models with OS 2.xx.
• All SH4-based models with OS 2.xx, including the fx-9750G II and SH4 fx-9860G II.
• The fx-9750G III and fx-9860G III.
• The original fx-CG 10/20.
• The fx-CG 50.
  

[Steve Simpkin]

Yes, I believe Bernard Parisse used this Casio SDK to port his Giac/Xcas CAS software to the following Casio calculators : CG10, CG20, CG50 and Fx-9750GIII, Fx-9860GIII.

He has some Developer Notes of his port here.

His main post for announcing the above χCAS Casio software is at:
https://www.cemetech.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14888

It has the links to the documentation and download files.

If you want a Color graphing calculator with more memory than the Fx-9750GIII, the Casio fx-CG50 is currently selling for around $86 USD at Amazon. With its expanded memory Bernard was able to create a more complete version of χCAS for the FX-CG50. This more complete version has more Xcas commands (like geometry commands), a 3d rendering engine, some additional apps (like a formal spreadsheet or a financial application) and a port of MicroPython 1.12 with more modules than the Casio port of MicroPython 1.09.

There is also a C.BASIC language available for some Casio models that is faster than Casio Basic.
https://egadget2.web.fc2.com/CBasic/Inte...reter.html

[toml_12953]

(12-15-2023 05:37 PM)wb.c Wrote:  

(12-15-2023 05:17 PM)toml_12953 Wrote:  You have to also take into account that many pros will only use RPN, not an algebraic calculator. The price of an HP RPN or new SwissMicros calculator is well worth the difference to us, as well as the SM being less than the price of a well-used 35s.

Isn’t the argument for the HP35s as a useful tool was the fact that people made programs, for example in surveying. The argument for or against RPN is a different discussion all together. HP35s programs, even though written in RPN, do not exactly use RPN for entry. Single line entry then R/S. I’m talking about the HP35s here, not the SM calculators.

True, but I know many engineers who won't consider algebraic no matter what the difference in cost. They will gladly pay $300 or more for a used HP before spending $39.95 on a new algebraic. Even the 35s is familiar enough to them to be useful. The separate entry line and X register don't bother them much.

[wb.c]

(12-15-2023 08:38 PM)toml_12953 Wrote:  

(12-15-2023 05:37 PM)wb.c Wrote:  Isn’t the argument for the HP35s as a useful tool was the fact that people made programs, for example in surveying. The argument for or against RPN is a different discussion all together. HP35s programs, even though written in RPN, do not exactly use RPN for entry. Single line entry then R/S. I’m talking about the HP35s here, not the SM calculators.

True, but I know many engineers who won't consider algebraic no matter what the difference in cost. They will gladly pay $300 or more for a used HP before spending $39.95 on a new algebraic. Even the 35s is familiar enough to them to be useful. The separate entry line and X register don't bother them much.

Alright, I wanted to save this topic for a new thread, but I will go on a little rant here in regard to RPN vs modern entry types. Keep in mind that the single line "algebraic" entry from the 80's is not what I have in mind when I compare modern entry types to RPN. Natural text book format, or mathprint entry styles quite literally ended RPN. Don't take my word for it, just ask HP, they are all but out of the calculator game discontinuing the HP35s in 2021. They now have only 3 models listed: HP10BII, HP12C, and HP Prime G2. Modern natural/mathprint input styles allow for speed without having to learn a new "skill" (RPN). It is plug and play. You can verify entries, let the calculator worry about order of operations, edit inputs, reuse inputs. The whole argument for RPN was the fact that algebraic entry on single line with parenthesis was terrible, and if you had to work out all the parenthesis, it was faster to work your way out of a problem with RPN, which it was, and HP capitalized on that while it lasted. Even if for an individual user, RPN entry was faster because of familiarity, there is a reason HP stopped making them. People simply stopped buying them. I do all my work on a computer, all my hand calculation are done in SMath (MathCAD type program), all my units are verified, all my number crunching is checked, I can edit and modify past calculation and reuse then in new calculations. Most engineers probably use excel, but I don't like the fact that it doesn't directly show your work, so it is not as good for engineering calculations (IMO). The last time I did a hand calculation with a calculator for work was the moment before I discovered a better way to do it, probably about a week into my first job. Obviously I was not alone, otherwise we would see a lot more "professional" calculators on the market. Instead, we see educational calculators and exam calculators. Aside from people who do calculations in the field (i.e. surveying and the like), and the minority of professionals who crank out hand calcs, the calculator is a tool from a time before computers. Even then, field calcs are becoming less common as surveying tools have improved and all the data is worked into the digital world.
Like I said before. I'm sure at one point a slide rule guy said the same thing about calculators, and now history is repeating itself, but RPN is in the place of the slide rule.

As for the awesome DM42, it is very cool, updated and as far as RPN goes, the best you can get. Would I use it as my primary computation device for work and make design programs to calculate my designs? Not in the engineering work I do. People don't pay extra for hand calcs, and it would be extremely limiting. So then, you have to ask yourself if the price of the DM42 is worth the simple arithmetic calcs you might do on it at your desk while sitting in front of your work station that has a core i9 in it.

If you want to use an RPN calculator because you like it, that's fine, just say I like RPN and that is why I use it. I still love messing around with my HP35s, but you can't make the claim that it is better when literally the entire world disagrees.

The fact is:
slide rule < single line algebraic < RPN < Natural/Mathprint < Computers

That is why calculator manufactures are now only focused on education and testing and desk calculators for basic arithmetic (which admittedly I use my overly capable TI's, Casio's, and HP's for).

[Peet]

(12-15-2023 10:21 PM)wb.c Wrote:  The fact is:
slide rule < single line algebraic < RPN < Natural/Mathprint < Computers

Not at all. This isn't a fact, this is only your opinion and these are not even comparable terms.

P.S. RPN corresponds to natural. It is exactly the way people usually calculate.

[wb.c]

(12-15-2023 10:47 PM)Peet Wrote:  

(12-15-2023 10:21 PM)wb.c Wrote:  The fact is:
slide rule < single line algebraic < RPN < Natural/Mathprint < Computers

Not at all. This isn't a fact, this is only your opinion and these are not even comparable terms.

P.S. RPN corresponds to natural. It is exactly the way people usually calculate.

They refer to methods of calculating, so they are comparable in that regard. You are exactly right about RPN being “natural, and people will always slower and make more mistakes than a computer. That is 100% fact.

[nickapos]

There is a difference between scientific calculations that require formulas, and basic number crunching you would usually do manually or with a basic calculator.
In this second case the professionals use adding machines even today and adding machines use postfix notation.
I find my Rpn/rpl calculators a lot easier to use in these cases compared to regular textbook scientific ones, but then again, unless you have been an accountant or a bank cashier as I have been many years ago you can survive with a phone calculator app just fine.

[wb.c]

(12-15-2023 11:42 PM)nickapos Wrote:  There is a difference between scientific calculations that require formulas, and basic number crunching you would usually do manually or with a basic calculator.
In this second case the professionals use adding machines even today and adding machines use postfix notation.
I find my Rpn/rpl calculators a lot easier to use in these cases compared to regular textbook scientific ones, but then again, unless you have been an accountant or a bank cashier as I have been many years ago you can survive with a phone calculator app just fine.

Mechanical adding machines actually use a simple two level stack with a running total. Each entry is automatically added or subtracted to/from the stack, but this is because it would be so complex to store intermediate values in purely mechanical systems. On the roll, and in the key stokes it looks like infix, but under the hood it’s postfix. Not because it was better, but because of physical limitations. The + button was actually +=. And this is why some earlier calculators had these += and -= buttons. They just carried over into electric calculators and subsequently this stack concept works quite well in data structures.

Maybe it’s just what people are used to, but the truth is RPN was made because of hardware limitations. Calculators could benefit from a the human super computer brain to simplify processing with relatively weak hardware. It literally makes you do all the work in regard to order of operations. Modern Natural/Mathprint entry modes do all the work for you. On the TIs you can even leave parentheses multiplication operators out and it will add them in automatically for you. Because of this, you can focus on entry correctness/accuracy more than solution process and order of operations. This actually speeds things up and minimizes mistakes, which saves more time. Even with basic number crunching, say you needed to add 10 numbers together. If your total was off, you’d have no way to know where you made your mistake. You could redo the calculation again, but you risk another mistake. With modern input, I can see each operand and operator and modify them if needed. For more complex number crunching in RPN you need to spend time thinking about order of operations and how to approach the problem to make good use of your stack. Whereas on modern input, I can input my problem exactly how it is written on paper once, and get a solution without spending a second in order of operations, or thinking about my stack. If I made a mistake on my input, I can see it and fix it and get an updated answer quickly, but in RPN I would need to redo the entire problem if my final output was wrong.

Again, I want the emphasize modern “natural” entry as Casio calls it and “MathPrint” as TI calls it, that allow you to enter a problem as shown on paper. I’m not taking about single line algebraic entry. Sadly a lot of advanced graphing calculators don’t have this entry style on dedicated keys and require entering submenus to access these entry styles. Of the TIs for example, only the French TI-83 premium CE has a dedicated MathPrint fraction entry key. Most scientific calculators have this, both in Casio and TI, it is common place. For me, this is what broke RPN. No matter how good the DM42 is, it will never afford me the speed, ease, and flexibility that my TI-30X Pro MathPrint gives me, even with just number crunching.

[nickapos]

(12-16-2023 04:56 AM)wb.c Wrote:  

(12-15-2023 11:42 PM)nickapos Wrote:  There is a difference between scientific calculations that require formulas, and basic number crunching you would usually do manually or with a basic calculator.
In this second case the professionals use adding machines even today and adding machines use postfix notation.
I find my Rpn/rpl calculators a lot easier to use in these cases compared to regular textbook scientific ones, but then again, unless you have been an accountant or a bank cashier as I have been many years ago you can survive with a phone calculator app just fine.

Mechanical adding machines actually use a simple two level stack with a running total. Each entry is automatically added or subtracted to/from the stack, but this is because it would be so complex to store intermediate values in purely mechanical systems. On the roll, and in the key stokes it looks like infix, but under the hood it’s postfix. Not because it was better, but because of physical limitations. The + button was actually +=. And this is why some earlier calculators had these += and -= buttons. They just carried over into electric calculators and subsequently this stack concept works quite well in data structures.

Maybe it’s just what people are used to, but the truth is RPN was made because of hardware limitations. Calculators could benefit from a the human super computer brain to simplify processing with relatively weak hardware. It literally makes you do all the work in regard to order of operations. Modern Natural/Mathprint entry modes do all the work for you. On the TIs you can even leave parentheses multiplication operators out and it will add them in automatically for you. Because of this, you can focus on entry correctness/accuracy more than solution process and order of operations. This actually speeds things up and minimizes mistakes, which saves more time. Even with basic number crunching, say you needed to add 10 numbers together. If your total was off, you’d have no way to know where you made your mistake. You could redo the calculation again, but you risk another mistake. With modern input, I can see each operand and operator and modify them if needed. For more complex number crunching in RPN you need to spend time thinking about order of operations and how to approach the problem to make good use of your stack. Whereas on modern input, I can input my problem exactly how it is written on paper once, and get a solution without spending a second in order of operations, or thinking about my stack. If I made a mistake on my input, I can see it and fix it and get an updated answer quickly, but in RPN I would need to redo the entire problem if my final output was wrong.

Again, I want the emphasize modern “natural” entry as Casio calls it and “MathPrint” as TI calls it, that allow you to enter a problem as shown on paper. I’m not taking about single line algebraic entry. Sadly a lot of advanced graphing calculators don’t have this entry style on dedicated keys and require entering submenus to access these entry styles. Of the TIs for example, only the French TI-83 premium CE has a dedicated MathPrint fraction entry key. Most scientific calculators have this, both in Casio and TI, it is common place. For me, this is what broke RPN. No matter how good the DM42 is, it will never afford me the speed, ease, and flexibility that my TI-30X Pro MathPrint gives me, even with just number crunching.

First of all I would like to say that I mostly agree with you. Second the adding machines I used were/are electric and third, you are mistaken about the errors.
We used those machines to check all the cashier till transactions because we could find the errors. Even though the display was one line, everything was printed on the tape.
That tape was a lifesaver for us. I can not remember how many times we used to find and fix errors.
These days I simulate that behaviour using plus42 for accounting calculations and textbook style on my prime for more complex equations.