So, if you never delve into programming much, chances are you won't have too much issue with Casio Prizm FX-CG50. It's a really good calculator, especially if you are not a high-tech person who will easily miss programming features or lack of memory. If you are the average person, it won't stand out to you that the memory is lacking below even the TI-84 and will in fact run out of things get too big for it. However, unlike the TI-84, it does not obsessively use decimals when it could be giving you the exact value that this calculator will give you. This is enough for many people to ditch the TI-84 decimal-obsessed calculator that has barely evolved for a decade. The TI-84 is very old, outdated, and causes work that is completely unnecessary in modern studies. Scientific calculators are not CAS and yet give exact values for radians and roots, so really there is no excuse for it in the aged TI-84 calculator. This calculator, however, does have both scientific and graphing abilities that give exact value where it can. So as far as graphing calculator feature, I give it a 4 out of 5. TI-84 is a 3 out of 5. The Casio Prizm FC-CG50 has a more sturdy body than the TI line of calculators. It is better made as far as body and material. When you hold it in your hands, it has a nice strong sturdy grip on it. A grip you cannot find in any of the TI lines of calculators, which feels too light and flimsy. It also has larger, easier to press keys that would be better for stronger hands. It is also better for people that need larger text. A lot. Not as strong as the older models. As far as Casio, I don't think there was too much better it could do. It is above baseline. I give it a 5 out of 5 for quality and sturdiness. TI-84 and nSpire only are very basic 3 with quality and the other company for sure held back. Now in the area of programming, which makes or breaks modern graphing calculators. For this calculator, since it offers both native programs and micro-python, we will look at both areas of programming, separately: Native Programs: When it comes to native (non-Python) programming on the Casio Prizm FX-CG50, there is so much to be desired. For native calculator programming, it is beaten out horribly by the TI-84. It's not the language that's the huge problem, but rather the way the whole thing is set up. It's just not user-friendly and very, very little has been put into making programming this calculator easy. Unlike Texas Instruments Ti-84, you cannot run programs while the device is plugged into the PC to test it. Instead, expect to go through a drawn-out process of exporting the program to text, to a folder within the calculator, then plugging it into the PC as attached storage, editing with a completely unguided text notepad, putting the file back on the computer, unplugging it again because it won't work while plugged in -- then allowing the calculator to convert the text file back to a program, of which it will often fail. This is because all of those commands look just like regular text but aren't. They are some other kind of bytecode. So the converter often gets very confused trying to parse the text file back to binary -- it can't always tell an intended command from the text. It is both confusing for the user and the converter -- in and out of the calculator. They could at least color the commands in the internal debugger, but you literally cannot visually tell text from the command other than the way the cursor hops across it. That it was done this way was just a very bad idea as far as the programming world. So, as far as the native programming language of the calculator, you pretty much are best off programming right in the calculator, which is extremely slow in that you are using the calculator's limited keyboard. To Casio: It would greatly benefit your market if you offered a FREE interface for debugging, testing programs on the PC/Mac without a clumsy emulator interface as TI does. The reason why the TI programming community is so large is that programming with the TI is so much more flexible and easier. People want to help your brand and end this monopoly on the other side, by making code for it, but let's be real. You don't make it easy for us. The verdict: I give the PRIZM FX-CG50 only a 2/5 overall. With TI-84, native programming, it's a 4 out of 5 for overall native programming. It can't be a 5, since the Ti-nSpire is already that and will run circles around both of these calculators. Casio's way of doing things is so frustrating, many people just jump straight to hacking the calculator with assembly or the calculator's internal micro-python which is way better. The language itself isn't bad at all and seems on par with Ti-84's calculator, it's just you barely want to deal with it. Also -- oh and a big one -- it lacks string support. If you don't care about this, then moving forward in this review you won't find much more drawbacks. Truly, this is the main thing working against it. Now. As far as python support, this calculator is pretty strong in comparison. If it wasn't for its lack of memory over the Ti-84, it is almost best out (except not over nSpire, which even the non-CAS can version can be beaten out only by a CAS calculator because of its memory and power of it). The python on the FX-CG50 calculator is less stripped-down than the one on the TI-84, so you will find you can use more native python libraries on it than you can the TI-84. For example, TI-84 lacks regular expression support, while the other two have limited Regular Expression support. For people who need the strength of this calculator but also want stronger programming ability, it's the Python on this calculator that will actually save it some returns. Python implementation is as follows: Ti-84 is 3 out of 5 as far as python library implementation, but a 5/5 with the internal python programming interface which is pretty nice. FX-CG50 is 4 out of 5 mainly due to lack of memory, with its library implementation, but the python internal programming interface is a basic 3. It's okay. Most people doing anything in-depth will likely program on a computer and import it. Neither one of them stand close to TI-nSpire's python implementation. But how could it not be better when it has far more memory than these two? Now, don't think the Ti-Nspire is the obvious option though. Again, the US American version of the Ti-Nspire, like TI-84, also excessively uses decimals over the exact answer (that most NON-CAS scientific AND non-as graphics calculators do not do) which means more work for the student and running out of time on tests trying to convert answers back. That doesn't seem worth the money to me. It is the modern standard now, to give you radians and roots as exact values. You will get that with FX-CG50. But for some odd reason, TI-84 has not learned that. It must have something to do with the monopoly and making the calculator just difficult enough to keep teachers comfortable because CAS calculating has absolutely nothing to do with non-symbolic exact values, which radians nor roots are not. So, due to CX-CG50 Python support, which saves it, I prefer, slightly, this calculator over the TI-84. That's because you're likely to get through tests faster with it, even on test mode, without having to use all those convert options that you shouldn't have to do with a calculator of this price tag. Plus, the calculator's python has regular expression support, which is super huge. It's like, what is python without re? TI-84 has more functions, more resolution, yes. But it's really, really hard for some people to get past all those conversions required because the company won't take a clue. And the python. Without RE support, that's nearly unredeemable. As a note, I own TI-84 CE Python, Casio Prizm FX-CG50, TI-nspire CX II CAS, and TI-nSpire CX II-T (non-cas). Summary: - So, in sum, as a calculator, Casio Prizm FX-CG50 is more modern than the TI-84. It will give you r
