Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Education Math Programming Technology

Casio Unveils New Color Screen Graphing Calculator 313

Posted by samzenpus
from the new-hue dept.
An anonymous reader writes "As reported by hobbyist calculator programmers, Casio has recently unveiled new graphing calculator models, the Casio fx-CG10/20 series, less than a year after Texas Instruments released the TI-Nspire Touchpad. The calculators features a 65536 colors screen (16-bit) with a resolution of 384x216 pixels, 16 MB of Flash memory (10 available for the user) and 140 hours of battery life. The calculators will retail starting at $129.99. Although Casio's new calculator official page have limited information about the calculator programming capabilities and processor speed, could this eventually mark the end of TI's reign in North American schools?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Casio Unveils New Color Screen Graphing Calculator

Comments Filter:
  • by gspr (602968) on Wednesday October 13, 2010 @04:03PM (#33886858)
  • Re:Why? (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 13, 2010 @04:10PM (#33886960)

    To keep the economy rolling. If you're satisfied with what you have and can rationally justify it, as opposed to emotionally, pretty soon you're not buying as much. Next thing you know you don't need to work as hard, and have more free time to think.... That's the last thing the powers that be want.

  • by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Wednesday October 13, 2010 @04:22PM (#33887140) Homepage Journal

    That and a device like an iPod Touch isn't recognized as a calculator, so like many laptops and the TI-92, it is barred in many tests were the standard calculator form factor is permitted.

    Oooh, somebody make an iPod case that looks like a cheap-plastic boxy graphing calculator case. Fake buttons FTW.

  • Lame. (Score:4, Funny)

    by QuantumPion (805098) on Wednesday October 13, 2010 @04:23PM (#33887170)

    No wireless. Less space than a TI. Lame.

  • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Wednesday October 13, 2010 @04:27PM (#33887226)

    I thought of that too. Maybe XKCD has shamed calculator makers into actually trying. I'm imagining it now.

    "Lets see, time to check the webcomics... ...

    I... I didn't become an engineer for this! Where did the dream of making the worlds best calculator die?!? I thought I was going to change the world of handheld calculators, but then I tried skipping coffee and spending more time with the family... before I knew it we were asking ourselves 'Why fix what's not really that broken and that students have to buy anyway' rather than 'What new features can we cram into it?' I knew I had hit some type of bottom when I actually told schools they should just recycle their old calculators rather than buying new.

    That changes today. By God, I'm putting color on this motherfucker... FOR AMERICA!!!"

  • Re:Why? (Score:3, Funny)

    by SirWhoopass (108232) on Wednesday October 13, 2010 @04:52PM (#33887536)

    I think most teachers allowed graphing calculators because they had no idea how to program the things, and assumed their students did not either.

    I'd probably have gotten better grades in school if I'd put as much effort into studying as I did in learning how to program my TI-85 into a reference library.

  • Re:Why? (Score:4, Funny)

    by nacturation (646836) * <[nacturation] [at] [gmail.com]> on Wednesday October 13, 2010 @08:58PM (#33889464) Journal

    I learned 10x more from Civilization (and the research I did on my own making historically accurate start maps) than I learned from all of the history classes I took K-college. Probably logged more hours on it too.

    Same here. What really surprises me is all the lies they teach in school. None of the textbooks I had indicated that Genghis Khan became the ruler of the world, developed space technology, and colonized Alpha Centauri.

  • by Kymermosst (33885) on Thursday October 14, 2010 @02:44AM (#33890852) Journal

    Take this example:
    (5 + 3) * (3 + 2)

    When we think and calculate it in our head, we take 5 and 3, add them to get 8. Then we take 3 and 2, add them, and get 5. Finally, we multiply 8 by 5 to get 40.
    And guess what? That's exactly how RPN does it. Including giving you the intermediate results of 8 and 5.

    That's not the way I think.

    I think: 5*3 + 5*2 + 3*3 + 3*2 = 15 + 10 + 9 + 6 = 40.

    I think I just foiled your argument.

"Say yur prayers, yuh flea-pickin' varmint!" -- Yosemite Sam

Working...