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.

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

K&E officially presented to the Smithsonian the last slide rule they
ever produced on July 11, 1976.

That suggests that by that date the transition from slide rule to
electronic calculator was essentially complete.

Around that time I bought a for-cheap scientific whose brand escapes
me (it was not HP, TI, Casio, Commodore, or any other company that
anybody has ever heard of). It was more reliable than the two HPs I
had (which rotated to HP monthly).

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/

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.

On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 7:03:09 AM UTC+10, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 12:36:55 -0700 (PDT), undefined Hancock-4
> <hanc...@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.
> >
> >Note that $50 in 1976 was still a nice chunk of money, maybe $250 today.
> K&E officially presented to the Smithsonian the last slide rule they
> ever produced on July 11, 1976.
>
> That suggests that by that date the transition from slide rule to
> electronic calculator was essentially complete.
..
I used a slide rule for computing grades, until 1998.
Quicker than calculator.
..
Some folks still use the abacus.

Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 7:03:09 AM UTC+10, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 12:36:55 -0700 (PDT), undefined Hancock-4
>> <hanc...@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.
>> >
>> >Note that $50 in 1976 was still a nice chunk of money, maybe $250 today.
>> K&E officially presented to the Smithsonian the last slide rule they
>> ever produced on July 11, 1976.
>>
>> That suggests that by that date the transition from slide rule to
>> electronic calculator was essentially complete.
> .
> I used a slide rule for computing grades, until 1998.
> Quicker than calculator.
> .
> Some folks still use the abacus.

Outliers don't invalidate the point.

On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 3:03:09 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> Around that time I bought a for-cheap scientific whose brand escapes
> me (it was not HP, TI, Casio, Commodore, or any other company that
> anybody has ever heard of).

My first calculator was also of an obscure cheap brand, but I do
remember it; it was a Microlith Scientific, model 205.

http://www.calcuseum.com/SCRAPBOOK/BONUS/15854/1.htm

John Savard

On 2021-07-08, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 3:03:09 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Around that time I bought a for-cheap scientific whose brand escapes
>> me (it was not HP, TI, Casio, Commodore, or any other company that
>> anybody has ever heard of).
>
> My first calculator was also of an obscure cheap brand, but I do
> remember it; it was a Microlith Scientific, model 205.
>
> http://www.calcuseum.com/SCRAPBOOK/BONUS/15854/1.htm

A cow orker in the early '70s had a Casio Mini
http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/casio_mini.html

It had a 6-digit display, but there was a button you could
push to display more digits. One day I discovered a combination
of button presses that would make this extra register count up
rapidly. I showed it to the owner, and he wouldn't let me
play with it anymore.

--
/~\ 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

On 7/8/21 1:13 AM, Robin Vowels wrote:
> On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 7:03:09 AM UTC+10, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 12:36:55 -0700 (PDT), undefined Hancock-4
>> <hanc...@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.
>>>
>>> Note that $50 in 1976 was still a nice chunk of money, maybe $250 today.
>> K&E officially presented to the Smithsonian the last slide rule they
>> ever produced on July 11, 1976.
>>
>> That suggests that by that date the transition from slide rule to
>> electronic calculator was essentially complete.
> .
> I used a slide rule for computing grades, until 1998.
> Quicker than calculator.
> .
> Some folks still use the abacus.
>

It is still quick to use tally piles (beans, pennies, pebbles). It's
really fast to just slide over a bean from one pile to the other without
needing to look up. It's about twice as fast as feeling for a calculator
button.

On 7/8/21 1:14 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2021-07-08, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 3:03:09 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> Around that time I bought a for-cheap scientific whose brand escapes
>>> me (it was not HP, TI, Casio, Commodore, or any other company that
>>> anybody has ever heard of).
>>
>> My first calculator was also of an obscure cheap brand, but I do
>> remember it; it was a Microlith Scientific, model 205.
>>
>> http://www.calcuseum.com/SCRAPBOOK/BONUS/15854/1.htm
>
> A cow orker in the early '70s had a Casio Mini
> http://www.vintagecalculators.com/html/casio_mini.html
>
> It had a 6-digit display, but there was a button you could
> push to display more digits. One day I discovered a combination
> of button presses that would make this extra register count up
> rapidly. I showed it to the owner, and he wouldn't let me
> play with it anymore.
>
Do you remember the first smart watches with a tiny calculator? My dad
had one in the late 1980s. I thought it was the neatest thing since the
steam engine. The buttons were tiny, and dad would use his retractable
pen to punch in the numbers.

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

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.

On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 5:03:09 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:

> K&E officially presented to the Smithsonian the last slide rule they
> ever produced on July 11, 1976.
> That suggests that by that date the transition from slide rule to
> electronic calculator was essentially complete.

Some observations...

1) K&E made a premium slide rule. Most of their customers were probably
serious users who would be more likely to go electronic earlier (see separate post).

2) K&E was only one of many slide rule manufacturers. There were cheaper
brands available for students, and they continued to be available.

3) K&E slide rules were well made. The date of last production doesn't
mean date of last use. Undoubtedly a great many continued in service
long after production ceased. Other durable products, like Western Electric
telephone sets, VHS tape units, etc remained in service long after production ceased.
Indeed, many kids at high school and college came in with a K&E slide rule passed
down from their father.

4) In 1976 electronic calculators were still relatively expensive and not worth
the expense for casual users.

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

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.

On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 5:03:09 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> K&E officially presented to the Smithsonian the last slide rule they
> ever produced on July 11, 1976.

These K&E ads for slides appeared in the 1990s.
K&E slide rule April 1995
https://worldradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-Site-Technical/Engineering-General/Archive-Electronics-IDX/IDX/40s/Electronics-1945-04-OCR-Page-0005.pdf#search=%22slide%20rule%22

K&E partners in creating July 1996
https://worldradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-Site-Technical/Engineering-General/Archive-Electronics-IDX/IDX/40s/Electronics-1946-07-OCR-Page-0005.pdf#search=%22slide%20rule%22

On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 11:13:16 -0700 (PDT), undefined Hancock-4
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 5:03:09 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>> K&E officially presented to the Smithsonian the last slide rule they
>> ever produced on July 11, 1976.
>
>These K&E ads for slides appeared in the 1990s.
>K&E slide rule April 1995
>https://worldradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-Site-Technical/Engineering-General/Archive-Electronics-IDX/IDX/40s/Electronics-1945-04-OCR-Page-0005.pdf#search=%22slide%20rule%22
>
>K&E partners in creating July 1996
>https://worldradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-Site-Technical/Engineering-General/Archive-Electronics-IDX/IDX/40s/Electronics-1946-07-OCR-Page-0005.pdf#search=%22slide%20rule%22

Do you actually _look_ at the links you post? Those are scans of
magazine pages from 1945 and 1946.

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.

On 20/07/2021 20:08, 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.
>
Looks like he didn't read your reply either.

The first is smudged, but the second is clear as anything. 1946. As
you'd expect from the link text.

Andy

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, so the
relevance of your reply is obscure.

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@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.

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