I have used the 991 MS, ES and now CW. I agree the change in layout has messed me up. But after a few days I find it so much more better. Some notes after watching your video - If you don't like the standard fractional output, change the calculation i/o setting to Math/Decimal which is a one time change, if you need to switch temporalily use the format key. Someone mentioned it doesnt follow BODMAS, which is categorically incorrect and yes 3(3) is a valid expression and evaluates to 9. The menu system also has a more logical flow. It might be annoying for us coming from the old one, but for new students learning, the new CW has a drastically easier learning curve because of the menus.
That whole headache with the ÷ operator is the reason I only use fractions with a number over another. I find it a lot more intuitive. Not that I can't use ÷, but when I do I always use bracketing everywhere to show exactly what I want it to do, which is a pain, but a lot more consistent between calculators. A fraction is a lot faster to type.
I wish a calculator manufacturer would put implicit multiplication as a selectable option. It would solve the problem of different education systems handling it in different ways. Personally, I quite like the Casios, but the CW's design changes were a bit misguided if you ask me. They seem to be doubling down on that direction though. IMO, the TI-30X Pro Mathprint is better, but they're not common here in Casio land (the UK).
The new design is a bad. I have the both versions of the FX-991de X and the CW. The CW is a overcomplicated menu-monster. I could not believe they moved the % key to a submenu. I like the round buttons but why do they have to make a very good device like the X and turn it into a thing that should fly out window and into the trash after 5 minutes of use? Oh yes and that i cant choose menus with numbers... what where they thinking? I know why i love the DM41/DM32/DM42 so much!
Apparently some researchers at Casio surveyed about student's classroom experience with calculators and the most received response was "Too many colored texts on buttons that were very confusing" so instead of teaching them about the use of each coloured functions they went on to 'Solve' that problem by moving every shift functions inside a menu. I can't believe CW was developed by some idiotic developers trying to solve a problems that doesn't exist.
That was cruel. I really didn't expect the appearance of a SwissMicros DM42, no competition, poor Casio. The price is an order of magnitude greater mind. RPN is a dream to use, no ambiguity as to whether your answer is correct or not. It's mathematics, there should be no ambiguity. I just feel like data entry zombie solving long equations with an infix calculator using parentheses. With RPN you are in the calculation every step and the Stack is brilliant.
so let me get this straight, you're either comparing way more expensive calculator (SwissMicros) or a calculator that has a worse precision than the later casio model (HP , but the same would be true for TI), right? also the issue with the implicit calculation is resolved in the latest model, by showing you how they represent your calculation, but that is not good enough? also you'll get the same result for 2x10^3/3x10^2 on TI calculators as on the last casio models, so what is your point? also at it's price point it's more precise then the competition.
I think you missed the point. Comparing equivalent models of Casios shows fundamental differences and contradictions in their operations. Some of the changes will cause students to get incorrect answers if they trained on the previous model. The changes cannot be justified.
Agree all CW calculators are rubbish. I tell all students to avoid ANY Casio CW calculator . The OS is dreadful , particularly with scientific notation. The case is awful, cheap and plasticky. One point though : To convert output 1/3 to decimal on the CW press "shift>EXE". 0.33333. All calculators are supposed to follow BODMAS = ()^2/x+- But 3(3) is not usually considered a legitimate way of entering 3x3. If the x sign is used I think they all give the same answer.
WRT the issue with precedence between multiplication and division - that I know of, there are four acronyms that turn up for this - BIMDAS, BIDMAS, BODMAS and PEMDAS. Notice that exactly half have MD, the other half DM. AFAICT the reason that all are (arguably) correct when interpreted correctly is that multiplication and division have equal precedence and are evaluated left-to-right. Addition and subtraction do the same. So what we really have is BI(MD)(AS), BI(DM)(AS), BO(DM)(AS) and PE(MD)(AS). Interpret one of these acronyms differently - ie exactly how it's normally stated and explained - and you sometimes get wrong results. I think most of us really learn by example, ignoring and forgetting the acronym until we have some special reason to revisit it (in my case, just revisiting all the basics of math - it's amazing what you forget over the years). But using "BIMDAS" or "PEMDAS" (misinterpreted) are reasons to evaluate the 3(1+2) to 9 before evaluating the division, and without evidence I wouldn't assume the ES is correct either - it may be going by "BIDMAS" or "BODMAS" (misinterpreted) instead of evaluation multiplication and division left-to-right. My fx-CG50 evaluates both 2×3÷4 and 3÷4×2 to 1.5 (ie. doing multiplication first instead of evaluating left-to-right). Obvious key points (1) the supposed unambiguity of math notation is a bit overstated, at least in practice (even the left-to-right thing is just my assumption, I haven't found anything to formally confirm or deny it - not being a member of any formal math organisation or knowing the secret handshakes etc. doesn't help, of course), and (2) even calculators can benefit from a few extra parentheses. IOW the issue isn't necessarily Casios fault - the ambiguity exists WRT widespread (mis)interpretation of notation and acronyms, and odds are that Casio changed from one precedence scheme to another after complaints by people who (mis)use different acronyms for precedence - it's easy to determine that any given acronym is used (e.g. Google each acronym in turn), and easy to not notice that others are also used. If implicit multiplication is ever treated as having different precedence to explicit multiplication operators (or the multiplication dots), I don't remember it being described anywhere ATM. WRT dividing two numbers given in standard form - every instinct tells me they are two numbers, not four, but the usual acronyms (at least those with DM rather than MD) appear to disagree, and (annoyingly) so does my left-to-right interpretation. Seriously, IMO interpretation of notation just isn't as consistent and well defined as people claim.
@@PhysicswithKeith I used Forth a bit a few decades ago (purely hobby), but I never really liked RPN that much. WRT calculators, I tend to reach for a Sharp EL-5020 from the 1990s first, but I recently had a nostalgia thing and bought some models of calculators I used to have before that - a 1970s Casio fx-102 and a 1980s Texas Instruments TI-30. For both you press trig/log/whatever after the value, and get an immediate result, which I like. For the fx-102, all arithmetic is in the order you enter it, no parentheses even - it didn't have enough memory - which I don't really like overall, but it leaves no ambiguity. My fx-CG50 was meant to be more convenient than using my phone, but it's the opposite, and usually has dead batteries when I reach for it.
They may be ok for physics, but they are not enough for engineering. We need fx-991 or 570 models. And, avoid the CW models at all costs. Not all the Casio calculators are bad, if you know how to use them properly.
I have used the 991 MS, ES and now CW. I agree the change in layout has messed me up. But after a few days I find it so much more better. Some notes after watching your video - If you don't like the standard fractional output, change the calculation i/o setting to Math/Decimal which is a one time change, if you need to switch temporalily use the format key. Someone mentioned it doesnt follow BODMAS, which is categorically incorrect and yes 3(3) is a valid expression and evaluates to 9. The menu system also has a more logical flow. It might be annoying for us coming from the old one, but for new students learning, the new CW has a drastically easier learning curve because of the menus.
That whole headache with the ÷ operator is the reason I only use fractions with a number over another. I find it a lot more intuitive. Not that I can't use ÷, but when I do I always use bracketing everywhere to show exactly what I want it to do, which is a pain, but a lot more consistent between calculators. A fraction is a lot faster to type.
25:19 you can turn it off in the setup.
I wish a calculator manufacturer would put implicit multiplication as a selectable option. It would solve the problem of different education systems handling it in different ways.
Personally, I quite like the Casios, but the CW's design changes were a bit misguided if you ask me. They seem to be doubling down on that direction though. IMO, the TI-30X Pro Mathprint is better, but they're not common here in Casio land (the UK).
Numworks Graphing calculator does
31:40 Ah! The good ol' EL-506 clones!
Unfortunately the Casio fxGT85-x has been discontinued.
The new design is a bad. I have the both versions of the FX-991de X and the CW. The CW is a overcomplicated menu-monster. I could not believe they moved the % key to a submenu. I like the round buttons but why do they have to make a very good device like the X and turn it into a thing that should fly out window and into the trash after 5 minutes of use? Oh yes and that i cant choose menus with numbers... what where they thinking? I know why i love the DM41/DM32/DM42 so much!
DM42 is the greatest of all time (in my opinion) 😂 in other news, my HP15c CE just arrived recently. I love that calculator
Apparently some researchers at Casio surveyed about student's classroom experience with calculators and the most received response was "Too many colored texts on buttons that were very confusing" so instead of teaching them about the use of each coloured functions they went on to 'Solve' that problem by moving every shift functions inside a menu. I can't believe CW was developed by some idiotic developers trying to solve a problems that doesn't exist.
Rolls into the class with an HP 35.
It has happened 🤣
@PhysicswithKeith The OG one from the 70s?
@@StanleytheCat-v8z ah, I didn't read properly, no, not an original HP 35 (an HP 35s), but I'd be impressed if they did!
That was cruel. I really didn't expect the appearance of a SwissMicros DM42, no competition, poor Casio. The price is an order of magnitude greater mind. RPN is a dream to use, no ambiguity as to whether your answer is correct or not. It's mathematics, there should be no ambiguity. I just feel like data entry zombie solving long equations with an infix calculator using parentheses. With RPN you are in the calculation every step and the Stack is brilliant.
so let me get this straight, you're either comparing way more expensive calculator (SwissMicros) or a calculator that has a worse precision than the later casio model (HP , but the same would be true for TI), right? also the issue with the implicit calculation is resolved in the latest model, by showing you how they represent your calculation, but that is not good enough? also you'll get the same result for 2x10^3/3x10^2 on TI calculators as on the last casio models, so what is your point? also at it's price point it's more precise then the competition.
I think you missed the point. Comparing equivalent models of Casios shows fundamental differences and contradictions in their operations. Some of the changes will cause students to get incorrect answers if they trained on the previous model. The changes cannot be justified.
Agree all CW calculators are rubbish. I tell all students to avoid ANY Casio CW calculator . The OS is dreadful , particularly with scientific notation. The case is awful, cheap and plasticky. One point though : To convert output 1/3 to decimal on the CW press "shift>EXE". 0.33333. All calculators are supposed to follow BODMAS = ()^2/x+- But 3(3) is not usually considered a legitimate way of entering 3x3. If the x sign is used I think they all give the same answer.
nice vid thanks
The ‘S’ on the ‘S-D’ button stands for surd.
It stands for 'Standard' as mentioned in their manual
WRT the issue with precedence between multiplication and division - that I know of, there are four acronyms that turn up for this - BIMDAS, BIDMAS, BODMAS and PEMDAS. Notice that exactly half have MD, the other half DM. AFAICT the reason that all are (arguably) correct when interpreted correctly is that multiplication and division have equal precedence and are evaluated left-to-right. Addition and subtraction do the same. So what we really have is BI(MD)(AS), BI(DM)(AS), BO(DM)(AS) and PE(MD)(AS). Interpret one of these acronyms differently - ie exactly how it's normally stated and explained - and you sometimes get wrong results. I think most of us really learn by example, ignoring and forgetting the acronym until we have some special reason to revisit it (in my case, just revisiting all the basics of math - it's amazing what you forget over the years). But using "BIMDAS" or "PEMDAS" (misinterpreted) are reasons to evaluate the 3(1+2) to 9 before evaluating the division, and without evidence I wouldn't assume the ES is correct either - it may be going by "BIDMAS" or "BODMAS" (misinterpreted) instead of evaluation multiplication and division left-to-right. My fx-CG50 evaluates both 2×3÷4 and 3÷4×2 to 1.5 (ie. doing multiplication first instead of evaluating left-to-right). Obvious key points (1) the supposed unambiguity of math notation is a bit overstated, at least in practice (even the left-to-right thing is just my assumption, I haven't found anything to formally confirm or deny it - not being a member of any formal math organisation or knowing the secret handshakes etc. doesn't help, of course), and (2) even calculators can benefit from a few extra parentheses.
IOW the issue isn't necessarily Casios fault - the ambiguity exists WRT widespread (mis)interpretation of notation and acronyms, and odds are that Casio changed from one precedence scheme to another after complaints by people who (mis)use different acronyms for precedence - it's easy to determine that any given acronym is used (e.g. Google each acronym in turn), and easy to not notice that others are also used.
If implicit multiplication is ever treated as having different precedence to explicit multiplication operators (or the multiplication dots), I don't remember it being described anywhere ATM.
WRT dividing two numbers given in standard form - every instinct tells me they are two numbers, not four, but the usual acronyms (at least those with DM rather than MD) appear to disagree, and (annoyingly) so does my left-to-right interpretation. Seriously, IMO interpretation of notation just isn't as consistent and well defined as people claim.
Unless you're using RPN, then no parentheses are required 😁
I much prefer RPN
@@PhysicswithKeith I used Forth a bit a few decades ago (purely hobby), but I never really liked RPN that much. WRT calculators, I tend to reach for a Sharp EL-5020 from the 1990s first, but I recently had a nostalgia thing and bought some models of calculators I used to have before that - a 1970s Casio fx-102 and a 1980s Texas Instruments TI-30. For both you press trig/log/whatever after the value, and get an immediate result, which I like. For the fx-102, all arithmetic is in the order you enter it, no parentheses even - it didn't have enough memory - which I don't really like overall, but it leaves no ambiguity. My fx-CG50 was meant to be more convenient than using my phone, but it's the opposite, and usually has dead batteries when I reach for it.
They may be ok for physics, but they are not enough for engineering. We need fx-991 or 570 models. And, avoid the CW models at all costs.
Not all the Casio calculators are bad, if you know how to use them properly.