A132 I have a couple of 48sx's and I'd like to know how to get the rom version of every machine. I know is not like the 48g or 49 because I've type VERSION and it don't work. . ==== I have a couple of 48sx's and I'd like to know how to get the rom > version of every machine. I know is not like the 48g or 49 because I've type VERSION and it > don't work. Any binary transfer from any 48 series starts with a header, HPHP48-x, where x is the ROM version, so you could transfer something in binary mode and look at the file on the other device. Or you could run (be careful to type in the argument exactly, including as a hex binary integer, if you want to retain memory): # 30794h SYSEVAL to get the binary transfer header as a string in level 1. This also works on any 48 series. Or, on the 48S series only: First, be prepared for a warmstart. You could press ON and D together to get into the interactive self-test mode, then press backspace to start the memory browser. You should see something starting with 705D9: at the top of the display. Press EVAL, and you should see something like: Copyright HP 1989 briefly displayed. Press EVAL again if you want another look. Press ON and C together to do a warmstart and get out of self-test mode. -- ==== I've found one of them is version E and the other is J. Curious at least. ==== I've found one of them is version E and the other is J. Curious at least. The answer to this question could be found in the HP48 FAQ at www.hpcalc.org, also lost of other usefull information about the 48 series, which is helpfull if you own a 48S and lost all manuals and documentation. By the way, where is coma mode ( [ON][SPC] on the 48) on the 49? ==== X > documentation. By the way, where is coma mode ( [ON][SPC] on the 48) > on the 49? It has been cured (-; ==== This is really a GREAT idea !! Is it also a new version of your HP-Zelda or not ? Lilian. Just a link here to announce new home page of my ZeldaHP project for HP49 > calculators. > Binaries and sources available here : http://zeldahp.jadeware.org -- > ==== > Just a link here to announce new home page of my ZeldaHP project for HP49 > calculators. > Binaries and sources available here : http://zeldahp.jadeware.org I have downloaded the binaries and installed it, but's a STRING-FILE for the HP48 Is that right? I think it's a project for HP49? Robert ==== You have the source code so you could recompile it for HP48 though.. Don't know if the HPDEV compiler is used by lot of coders.. Could someone tell me witch PC compiler is better, or most used, for MASD syntax like asm project ? Julien b847pq$6903m$1@ID-114548.news.dfncis.de... Just a link here to announce new home page of my ZeldaHP project for HP49 calculators. > Binaries and sources available here : http://zeldahp.jadeware.org > I have downloaded the binaries and installed it, but's a STRING-FILE for the HP48 Is that right? I think it's a project for HP49? ==== > You have the source code so you could recompile it for HP48 though.. Don't know if the HPDEV compiler is used by lot of coders.. > Could someone tell me witch PC compiler is better, or most used, for MASD > syntax like asm project ? I don't know if it's the best one, but have you tried Debug4x? -- PS: Of course downloadable from hpcalc. ==== I've always wondered.. Where do you get your .sig content ? GNU here stands for Guide du Neuneu de Usenet (in english, Guide for Usenet Dummy). There are other such guides. These are compilations of real expressions written by real people (or real dummies). Unix(-like) environment, just create your .signature file as a FIFO, and create a process that will always try to write one signature in the file. If noone is reading the FIFO, this process will be blocked. As soon as another process wants to read from this file, it will unblock the writer. The writer has to close the file as soon as it has finished writing to it, and wait for some time (typically 1 second is small and large enough). ==== ==== Where can I get the Advanced User Reference for the HP 48G series calculators? I found a place in Canada where I can do it, but I'll have to pay more. If you know of a DEFINATE place where I can get it, please let me -- ------------------------------- ==== Try: http://www.calcpro.com I ordered one this week, but the sales rep. wasn't so sure they actually had it in stock. He mentioned something about a shipment coming in (?) and I was in a hurry so I just placed the order and hoped for the best. You might try your luck. BTW, what's the Canadian source you found if I may ask??? ==== The Canadian Site is http://store.axidata.ca/kore/search/search.html?searchDomain=0&searchExpr=00 048-90136 and I will try it if the calcpro site doesn't work, but the Canadian site will be more expensive for an American. :-) I found http://store.axidata.ca through http://groups.google.com by clicking on the web section for google. I entered 00048-90136 as the search term. Good luck! > Try: http://www.calcpro.com I ordered one this week, but the sales rep. wasn't so sure they actually had > it in stock. He mentioned something about a shipment coming in (?) and I > was in a hurry so I just placed the order and hoped for the best. You might > try your luck. BTW, what's the Canadian source you found if I may ask??? Best, > Eduardo ==== >the sales rep. wasn't so sure they actually had >it in stock. He mentioned something about a shipment coming in (?) and I >was in a hurry so I just placed the order and hoped for the best. Sales Rep ??.... Calc Pro is just ONE guy... and he is blissfully unconcerned (or else extremely busy... like... too busy to give good service) Keep hoping for the best.... you may get it eventually.... sometime in 2005 ==== > Where can I get the Advanced User Reference for the HP 48G series > calculators? I found a place in Canada where I can do it, but I'll have to > pay more. With the exchange rate such as it is, their price must be way up there. Or maybe you can't do exchange rate currency on the net. ==== Does anyone know if there are any HP-11C's out there for sale? Either an active HP junkie or on Ebay or the like. An engineer I work with is interesting in obtaining one. _________________________________________________ ==== > Does anyone know if there are any HP-11C's out there for sale? Either an > active HP junkie or on Ebay or the like. > An engineer I work with is interesting in obtaining one. There are lots of them at ebay. But be prepared to pay more than $100 for it... ==== .... >There are lots of them at ebay. But be prepared to pay more than $100 for >it... That's amazing. I had no idea that prices were so high for those things these days. When I bought my 11C, I paid $40 for it, new, from Service Merchandise. By my math, if it's worth $100 that's a ~7% annual ROI... on a consumer electronics product! -- http://www.mschaef.com ==== > Merchandise. By my math, if it's worth $100 that's a ~7% annual ROI... on Imagine the prices (or have a frequent look at ebay) for these devices new in a box, never used. If we had known this it would have been the best investment ever in the 70/80ies. ==== What is this HP-11C that can cost 450$?? whats so special bout it? ==== > What is this HP-11C that can cost 450$?? whats so special bout it? I think what's so special about it is that the seller thinks he can get $450 for it. :-) Actually, it's possible. A HEPAX module for the HP-41 -- not the calculator itself, just a plug-in module for it -- recently sold on eBay for $610. Last year an HP-16C sold for about $700, and not long ago a 16C box -- not the calculator, just the cardboard box it came in -- went for $64. An HP-65 sold for $660 last month. Prices are getting unbelievable for the older models. (I wouldn't sell my 16C or 41CX for *any* price...) ==== > What is this HP-11C that can cost 450$?? whats so special bout it? That the seller hopes to get $450 for it? Prices for most non-RPL HP calculators have skyrocketed. No doubt some of the buyers intend to actually use them, but I expect that (especially at these prices) more of them are bought as collectors items; note that even the boxes and packing material that most of us discard are precious to some collectors. Sometimes I think that the collectors must have a lot more money than common sense, but I expect that we all have a bit of a tendency to keep things for sentimental reasons or to buy things that we'll never really use just because they're fine examples of excellent products. My calculators, for example, I intend to keep, even though I actually use mostly the 48GX, 48SX, and 49G. It may well be that even more of the older HP calculators are being bought by speculators, hoping to make a big profit when they resell them. I very much hope that this is merely a price bubble, and that the speculators will end up selling at a substantial loss. But it seems that the supply of an out-of-production item will inevitably decrease, so unless the demand decreases similarly, we can expect the market price to increase. The collectors seem to have a tendency to blame the sellers for unreasonably high prices, but I think that any blame more properly falls on those who pay such prices. I'm a bit surprised that the prices for used 28 series, 48 series, and 49G calculators haven't gone up nearly as much. It might be wise to buy a spare or two now, just in case anything ever happens to your working calculator. If it turns out that you never need a spare, then someday you might sell it to supplement your retirement income, or pass it on to your heirs as a treasured heirloom, or as a valuable item to be sold, as they see fit. But of course I do hope to someday be able to purchase an improved RPL calculator with even more bells and whistles to use (or perhaps more likely, to play with), an HP 50GX or an RPL model from some other company. -- ==== Recently, it seems that prices of HP-48SX models have gone up a notch (to around $50 from a low of $20). Maybe this is the beginning of the same for that line? -- * These statements and opinions are mine alone and do not reflect my employer's views. * > I'm a bit surprised that the prices for used 28 series, 48 series, and > 49G calculators haven't gone up nearly as much. > ==== > Recently, it seems that prices of HP-48SX models have gone up a notch (to > around $50 from a low of $20). That's my impression too, and I think that there's been an increase in 28 series prices as well. But I haven't really tracked the prices carefully. Whether the increase is due to a demand for spare or replacment calculators, for collector's items, or speculation, I don't know; I expect that it's a combination of all of these. > Maybe this is the beginning of the same for > that line? It may well be. If you want one of these, you might be well advised to buy one soon, while the prices are still well below the original new equipment prices. ==== >Recently, it seems that prices of HP-48SX models have gone up a notch (to >around $50 from a low of $20). Maybe this is the beginning of the same for >that line? >-- >* These statements and opinions are mine alone and do not reflect my >employer's views. * I'm a bit surprised that the prices for used 28 series, 48 series, and > 49G calculators haven't gone up nearly as much. > FWIW the HP-12Cs seem to have dropped a little over the last month or two. Were going regularly for $40-$50 now $30-$40. -- To the engineers who developed and produced the fine line of HP calculating machines. HP calculators have incalculably lead to real world improvements in prosperity and expanded knowledge for all who utilize them, and even those who have not. I recall the joy of learning more about math and programming with my first HP calc the HP25. Today, the HP49G expands on this experience with truely amazing features. HP calculator engineers, you have positively touch many lives. Your work is a wonderful example of the noble profession of engineering. ==== > HP calculator engineers, you have positively touch many lives. Your work is a > wonderful example of the noble profession of engineering. give it some rest now friend! I agree with a couple I assure you that there is nothing noble about engineering! Only college students speak like that with no real life experience in a corporate environment ;-) ==== Not many years in the corporate environ? Guess you esp needs a tune up, 26 years at many large corps. Yes, I know, the politics, bean counting, beauracracy, etc is bad. But, when a fine product roles out inspite of it all, who is really resposible? The engineers! Without engineers, were would civilization be? ==== > I assure you that there is nothing noble about > engineering! Only college students speak like that with > no real life experience in a corporate environment ;-) No matter where you work and what you do. You will always get a better job if it's done by people who like what they are doing... ==== Finally getting around to convert some USER RPL programs for my HP49. I have two books, The Gray Book {Donnelly} and Programming in System RPL by Eduardo de Mattos Kalinowski. Both are good, the later is really good. And yet I am not sure how to exactly convert. 2: real 1: real IF == THEN DROP 21. ELSE 21 + END I am thinking is should be: example: LAM x1 LAM x2 EQUAL IT :: DROP %21 ; ITE :: %21 %+ ; I am using ASM2 on the HP49G with ROM 1.19-6. Is this close? Also, I noticed that if I place ASM2 source as described by Mr. Kalinowski. shows syntax errors in debuger4x, why are the file syntaxes different? Can debuger4x be set to look at ASM2 sources? ==== The answer is: ITE takes a flag from level one. The flag is dropped. If TRUE, it evaluates the next object in runstream and skips the second one. If FALSE. skips the next object and evaluates the second one. In both cases, the program execution is resumed after the second object. So, in your example: EQUAL ITE :: DROP %21 ; :: %21 + ; Assuming that there are three reals on the stack: two of them are compared and the other (on level three) is either dropped and replaced by 21 if real1=real2 or added to 21 if real1=!real2. Kevin Finally getting around to convert some USER RPL > programs for my HP49. I have two books, The Gray Book {Donnelly} and > Programming in System RPL by Eduardo de Mattos Kalinowski. Both are good, the later is really good. And yet I am not sure how to exactly convert. 2: real > 1: real > IF == THEN DROP 21. ELSE 21 + END I am thinking is should be: example: LAM x1 > LAM x2 > EQUAL > IT :: DROP %21 ; > ITE :: %21 %+ ; I am using ASM2 on the HP49G with ROM 1.19-6. Is this close? Also, I noticed that if I place ASM2 source as > described by Mr. Kalinowski. shows syntax > errors in debuger4x, why are the file syntaxes > different? Can debuger4x be set to look at > ASM2 sources? > ==== I think you ought to stick with the 48gx. I have the 49g and 48gx and I really like the 48. The 49g comes with a very small man. but packed with memory. ==== > Specifically... they would like to know how to OPEN their 49G calc SAFELY and > with NO DAMAGE You can't open an HP calculators without doing any visible damage. With some experience you can minimize them, but it will always show that the calculator had been opened. ==== Specifically... they would like to know how to OPEN their 49G calc SAFELY and > with NO DAMAGE You can't open an HP calculators without doing any visible damage. With some > experience you can minimize them, but it will always show that the > calculator had been opened. > I don't remember where I saw it, but I thought I saw a document on how to open the HP-49G. I didn't pay too much attention to it though. It required drilling out the little blue plastic clips in the battery compartment, which is definitely something I would consider destructive. I don't know how to keep it closed after doing this. Does anyone remember this document? I looked yesterday, and all I could find was instructions on opening the HP-48. Maybe that's what I saw before. Like I said, I didn't pay much attention to it. --CS ==== I have already drilled on Chinese model with a hand drill. The capacitor is changed and it works now alright! I just put some epoxy into the holes when I closed it. It may not be necessary... Afterwards I got hold on this one: http://www.geocities.com/deachp/duda8.html PS: Opening the 48: http://www.hpcalc.org/hp48/docs/opening/ Specifically... they would like to know how to OPEN their 49G calc SAFELY and > with NO DAMAGE You can't open an HP calculators without doing any visible damage. With some > experience you can minimize them, but it will always show that the > calculator had been opened. > I don't remember where I saw it, but I thought I saw a document on how > to open the HP-49G. I didn't pay too much attention to it though. It > required drilling out the little blue plastic clips in the battery > compartment, which is definitely something I would consider > destructive. I don't know how to keep it closed after doing this. Does anyone remember this document? I looked yesterday, and all I > could find was instructions on opening the HP-48. Maybe that's what I > saw before. Like I said, I didn't pay much attention to it. --CS ==== For OPEN the HP-49G, please see: http://www.geocities.com/deachp/duda8.html This is a explained steps in Spanish Language. Miguel Angel CAPORALINI HERK (M.A.C.H.) **************************************************************************** **** Specifically... they would like to know how to OPEN their 49G calc SAFELY and > with NO DAMAGE You can't open an HP calculators without doing any visible damage. With some > experience you can minimize them, but it will always show that the > calculator had been opened. > ==== I opened near of 30 hp49g, begin to drilling subtle the 6 smalls plastic rivets from battery compartment, after move the positive contact it is easy to be opened (only with your hands). And there isn't any superficial trace or NO visible damage. JoGa > You can't open an HP calculators without doing any visible damage. With some > experience you can minimize them, but it will always show that the > calculator had been opened. > ==== BUT [NXT] TIME when the owner changes the batteries (s)he will see the drillet rivets filled (or not) with your stuff instead of the HP original. PS: Nice unshaky hands you have, you should see my handwork! I opened near of 30 hp49g, begin to drilling subtle the 6 smalls > plastic rivets from battery compartment, after move the positive > contact it is easy to be opened (only with your hands). And there > isn't any superficial trace or NO visible damage. JoGa > You can't open an HP calculators without doing any visible damage. With some > experience you can minimize them, but it will always show that the > calculator had been opened. > ==== >You can't open an HP calculators without doing any visible damage. I suppose HP believes they last forever.....forever may be too strong a word BUT... I have calculators here... dating back to the seventies.... and working perfectly. I have always been told.... pocket calculator failure is VERY exceptional.... and even more unlikely if there is no AC adapter. Battery leakage or physical damage is about the only thing that takes them out. ==== I had been using HP calculators for a long time, but then took a long break. Now I want to get back in using my HP48GX. Went to www.calculatingedge.com and landed on a hard core porn site - so I guess Calculating Edge has gone kaput. My attempt to connect with HP's info place at hpcvbbs.external.hp.com/hp48g.html failed, so I suppose HP has closed that down. Did discover that CalcPro is still alive, but I couldn't get it to run its search option. Are there other places that handle HP calculators and accessories, like manuals. What I am looking for is the 'HP48G/GX Advanced User's Reference.' Want to do some programing using labeled units. Anyone know whether that book is around somewhere. ==== this is a good site http://www.samsoncables.com/catalog/index.cfm you may want to look at the HP49G! ($170.00) > I had been using HP calculators for a long time, but then took a long > break. Now I want to get back in using my HP48GX. Went to > www.calculatingedge.com and landed on a hard core porn site - so I > guess Calculating Edge has gone kaput. My attempt to connect with HP's > info place at hpcvbbs.external.hp.com/hp48g.html failed, so I suppose > HP has closed that down. Did discover that CalcPro is still alive, but > I couldn't get it to run its search option. Are there other places > that handle HP calculators and accessories, like manuals. What I am looking for is the 'HP48G/GX Advanced User's Reference.' > Want to do some programing using labeled units. Anyone know whether > that book is around somewhere. > ==== this is a good site http://www.samsoncables.com/catalog/index.cfm you may want to look at the HP49G! ($170.00) But Samson Cables doesn't currently have the AUR listed. Keep checking, he often has used items for sale. Note that CalcPro prices (for presumably new items) is often lower that Samson Cable's prices for used items. But CalcPro's web site seems to be out of order right now; he seems to have a lot of problems with it. -- ==== this is a good site http://www.samsoncables.com/catalog/index.cfm you may want to look at the HP49G! ($170.00) But Samson Cables doesn't currently have the AUR listed. Keep checking, > he often has used items for sale. Note that CalcPro prices (for presumably new items) is often lower that > Samson Cable's prices for used items. But CalcPro's web site seems to be > out of order right now; he seems to have a lot of problems with it. I was able to connect yesterday - the home page has a 'we're back msg.' I was able to download the catalog; my quick look see's it as unchanged from three years ago. ==== Would both programs FEM48 v5.3 and VigaG v4.1b fit in the memory of a HP-48G+ (128kb)? Would the memory be sufficient? ==== 128KB? Yes, I think so. FEM max 52KB VigaG 24KB Sum max = 76KB + some data You will have more than 32KB left Would both programs FEM48 v5.3 and VigaG v4.1b fit in the memory of a > HP-48G+ (128kb)? Would the memory be sufficient? > > ==== The size of FEM48 depends on the modules you install, and if you use standard or compressed modules (as can be read in section 13.2 of the manual). The sizes quoted are for the compressed modules. Minimum size is 22586.5 bytes (FEM48 module), which gives you only basic features like FEA (only data at nodes), structure plots and file management. To do beam analysis you also need the QUERY module, at 12896 bytes. This yields a total of 35482.5 bytes. Note that other modules might come in handy too (load cases, wizards, pretty print output, moving loads)... Maximum size of FEM48, with all modules installed is either 58582 bytes (all modules compressed) or 73164 bytes (all modules standard = fastest). Note that the memory requirements (section 11.1 of manual) of FEM48 are: bytes needed = 79 x (nodes)^2 (good guesstimate) Caspar FRANCK <.franck@skynet.be> schreef in bericht Would both programs FEM48 v5.3 and VigaG v4.1b fit in the memory of a > HP-48G+ (128kb)? Would the memory be sufficient? > > ==== What solvents can be used for removing grease of calculator keyboards without doing damage? ==== Soapwater moistured non-rubbing clean cloth, (I use an old frotee sock) What solvents can be used for removing grease of calculator keyboards > without doing damage? > > ==== > Soapwater moistured non-rubbing clean cloth, > (I use an old frotee sock) A psychological tactic? (scare the grease away) Greetings Steve Sousa ==== > Soapwater moistured non-rubbing clean cloth, > (I use an old frotee sock) A psychological tactic? (scare the grease away) AND if that doesn't work, you could use XO Cognac instead of soap The combination with and old sock with certainly get the grease away like greased lightning. PS: *don't use too much moisture* OR if you insist (Steve?) then lay on your back and hold the calculatrice above your face while cleaning so that water doesn't penetrade the innards of the HP. ==== There has been much discussion, argument and speculation as to the future of the HP49G. Here is an additional datapoint :-). Note that I'm not trying to start a flamewar here - just thought I'd provide info to people in a similar position. I bought an HP49G about a year ago, and recently sent it back for a warranty replacement (had trouble switching it on). HP has had my calculator for well over a month now (sent it to them on 17/03/03, now it's 25/04/03). I've called them twice about it. Each time they have told me that they are waiting on supplies of HP49G calculators, and have given me a future arrival date. The latest one is May 5th. The chap I've been talking to (Graham Frasier) has told me the following: -> The lack of HP49G calculators is due to a a component shortage. -> Very few calculators have been returned with the doesn't switch on problem. The whole capacitor failure story is wrong, and comes from uninformed sources [I don't think I'm willing to believe this!]. -> He'd also be annoyed if someone took away his calculator for over a month, but there's nothing he can do about it. -> He would investigate the possiblity of HP giving me my money back instead. He said that they are changing the way they do things, and that he'd have to find out how to go about this. All in all, a pretty poor effort from HP. It's bitterly disappointing to see them end up this way. If I can get my money back, I will buy a 48GX instead (the keys on my 32sII are MUCH nicer than the hp49 keys). Take care! Alan ==== I have to agree with you on all your points. Pretty shoddy treatment in my estimation. I too hate to see HP end up this way. Fortunately my 48GX continues to work fine, as does my 28S. I hope they continue to do so as your report of HP's service does not bode well. Good luck! Rod There has been much discussion, argument and speculation as to the > future of the HP49G. Here is an additional datapoint :-). Note that I'm > not trying to start a flamewar here - just thought I'd provide info to > people in a similar position. I bought an HP49G about a year ago, and recently sent it back for a > warranty replacement (had trouble switching it on). HP has had my > calculator for well over a month now (sent it to them on 17/03/03, now > it's 25/04/03). I've called them twice about it. Each time they have told me that they > are waiting on supplies of HP49G calculators, and have given me a future > arrival date. The latest one is May 5th. The chap I've been talking to (Graham Frasier) has told me the following: -> The lack of HP49G calculators is due to a a component shortage. -> Very few calculators have been returned with the doesn't switch on > problem. The whole capacitor failure story is wrong, and comes from > uninformed sources [I don't think I'm willing to believe this!]. -> He'd also be annoyed if someone took away his calculator for over a > month, but there's nothing he can do about it. -> He would investigate the possiblity of HP giving me my money back > instead. He said that they are changing the way they do things, and > that he'd have to find out how to go about this. All in all, a pretty poor effort from HP. It's bitterly disappointing to > see them end up this way. If I can get my money back, I will buy a > 48GX instead (the keys on my 32sII are MUCH nicer than the hp49 keys). Take care! Alan ==== The HP49 is still sold (apparently) in Australia by Harris Technology. Check http://hpstore.ht.com.au/Scripts/xworks.exe?XwsSrvID=H,CAT:HHV#Tof As of 25th April they are on 28 day order. Since they have been discontinued in the US for some time now, it seems unreasonable that Australia should have any privilege in being the only country where the HP49 will remain available. Whether HP resellers get their stock on back order is a good question. Replacement warranty is only worthwhile if the wholesalers and repairers have sufficient stocks, which doesn't seem to be the case in your situation. HP are dropping their calculator range like hot bricks. In normal circumstances one would expect a product range overlap rather than extended gaps between succesive rations of calculators. Of course HP would yell out from their parapet if component suppliers have gone belly up. Maybe the team which is responsible for http://www.hp-calculators.com/index.phtml are probably scurrying around to find manufacturers of clone calculators which HP can re-badge. To design an HP48/49 type successor from scratch seems like a tall story after the shutdown of the ACO, especially one with an RPN/RPL operating system with different connectivity options. The HP49 had an excellent engine inside a lousy body. It seems that developers of the excellent software and firmware for the HP49 calculators have not been matched by the manufacturers. Outsourcing has reached ridiculous levels of absurdity. Outsourcing means that the users of calculators are kept further apart from the designers and manufacturers. If I were you I'd get an HP48GX before the undertaker takes them away. The Klotz RAM cards are terrific if you want the same (or more) memory and expandability as the HP49G. Richard (in Canberra) There has been much discussion, argument and speculation as to the > future of the HP49G. Here is an additional datapoint :-). Note that I'm > not trying to start a flamewar here - just thought I'd provide info to > people in a similar position. I bought an HP49G about a year ago, and recently sent it back for a > warranty replacement (had trouble switching it on). HP has had my > calculator for well over a month now (sent it to them on 17/03/03, now > it's 25/04/03). I've called them twice about it. Each time they have told me that they > are waiting on supplies of HP49G calculators, and have given me a future > arrival date. The latest one is May 5th. The chap I've been talking to (Graham Frasier) has told me the following: -> The lack of HP49G calculators is due to a a component shortage. -> Very few calculators have been returned with the doesn't switch on > problem. The whole capacitor failure story is wrong, and comes from > uninformed sources [I don't think I'm willing to believe this!]. -> He'd also be annoyed if someone took away his calculator for over a > month, but there's nothing he can do about it. -> He would investigate the possiblity of HP giving me my money back > instead. He said that they are changing the way they do things, and > that he'd have to find out how to go about this. All in all, a pretty poor effort from HP. It's bitterly disappointing to > see them end up this way. If I can get my money back, I will buy a > 48GX instead (the keys on my 32sII are MUCH nicer than the hp49 keys). Take care! Alan ==== > A directory CASDIR, was placed under the HOME directory but when trying to > remove CASDIR it will not remove per the instructions in the user manual. > on my other HP 49Gs. I tried reloading 1:19-5 but the CASDIR was not > removed. thx > CASDIR is a reserved variable in the HP49G from ROM 1.19-5. You can remove it, but it will be re-created almost instantly (the Main Stack display when trying to access VX will recreate the directory) You can re-order your HOME directory so CASDIR will be the last object and you won't have to worry about it. ==== > CASDIR is a reserved variable in the HP49G from ROM 1.19-5. You can > remove it, but it will be re-created almost instantly (the Main > Stack display when trying to access VX will recreate the directory) > You can re-order your HOME directory so CASDIR will be the last > object and you won't have to worry about it. With my Filer2 (for instance) you may even hide the CASDIR. Hence, it disappears from the VAR menu. It remains active. For instance, if 'z' is stored in its variable VX, 'z' is displayed in the Header instead of 'X'. One has still direct access to all variables in CASDIR via Filer2, not using the HP49 CAS. - Wolfgang ==== > not using the HP49 CAS. I thought the whole point of using an HP49G was for the CAS. -- Bhuvanesh ==== not using the HP49 CAS. I thought the whole point of using an HP49G was for the CAS. It's a nice add-on, but I use it primarily for numerics. The equation solver is nice, and Sune Bredahl's simultaneous equation solver is even nicer. It is sometimes useful to see symbolic results for integrals and derivatives, but it's not part of my everyday-life. The 3d graphing helps me in modelling. ==== > I thought the whole point of using an HP49G was for the CAS. It's a nice add-on, but I use it primarily for numerics. The equation > solver is nice, and Sune Bredahl's simultaneous equation solver is even > nicer. It is sometimes useful to see symbolic results for integrals and > derivatives, but it's not part of my everyday-life. The 3d graphing helps me in modelling. In that case, wouldn't you be better off using an HP48GX? -- Bhuvanesh ==== > It's a nice add-on, but I use it primarily for numerics. The equation > solver is nice, and Sune Bredahl's simultaneous equation solver is even > nicer. It is sometimes useful to see symbolic results for integrals and > derivatives, but it's not part of my everyday-life. The 3d graphing helps me in modelling. In that case, wouldn't you be better off using an HP48GX? Yes, but apart from the better keyboard and hardware build, I can't find anything much better. The flashrom sounded promising, and I _did_ want to try out the CAS. With the 48GX I'd have to get memory cards and other gadgets to enable the same functionality of a 49g. So, I decided to get the 49, especially since it was priced cheaper than a 48gx and I was told that they were discontinued. In any case, there's no reason to switch to a 48GX (apart from keyboard) for me, the 49g can do anything a 48 can. I do wish I had one, though, at times when certain applications are made only for the 48GX. ==== > In that case, wouldn't you be better off using an HP48GX? Why? The 49G has the same capabilities has the 48GX and you get 1.5MB of RAM/flash ==== > Why? The 49G has the same capabilities has the 48GX and you get 1.5MB of > RAM/flash Really? I can't find the card slot in my 49G. :-) ==== > Why? The 49G has the same capabilities has the 48GX and you get 1.5MB of > RAM/flash Really? I can't find the card slot in my 49G. :-) They fill it in at the factory with that 1.5MB RAM card and then seal the slot to puzzle twits like you. ==== > Really? I can't find the card slot in my 49G. :-) And why would you need it in a HP49G? It's all in there. No need for additional RAM card to get erable/alg48/metakernel running ==== > Really? I can't find the card slot in my 49G. :-) > And why would you need it in a HP49G? It's all in there. No need for > additional RAM card to get erable/alg48/metakernel running For my EE and Surveying cards. That's OK, I'll just keep using the 48GX for those. ==== > Why? The 49G has the same capabilities has the 48GX and you get 1.5MB of > RAM/flash Really? I can't find the card slot in my 49G. :-) And the IR I/O doesn't work! -- ==== I downloaded the remote control program. I have got it to work with our sony tv, mitsubishi tv, and JCB vcr. I have a sony DSS system,a Sanyo tv, and a magnovox tv that I could not find. Does anyone have these remotes? ==== I figured out the tv. Now I just need the DSS sytem. ==== Has anyone tried using the ECLIB library for the 49G by Mauro Chiri? (library 1001.) It depends on bzip (BZ49LIB #1770) so I installed it first, but once I run ECLIB I get an Undefined XLIB name error right when I choose any equation from the program's menu. I also have EQNLIB (library 999) but I don't think it's quite as nice as the 48GX eq'n library and was wondering if ECLIB is any better but of course if it ain't run, it ain't better. Eduardo ==== > Has anyone tried using the ECLIB library for the 49G by Mauro Chiri? > (library 1001.) It depends on bzip (BZ49LIB #1770) so I installed it first, > but once I run ECLIB I get an Undefined XLIB name error right when I > choose any equation from the program's menu. I also have EQNLIB (library 999) but I don't think it's quite as nice as the > 48GX eq'n library and was wondering if ECLIB is any better but of course if > it ain't run, it ain't better. > Eduardo I had the same problem. That is the wrong bzip. Try this one. -> 1788 * Bz+49 :v1.1 hp49/utils/compress/bzcomp49v11.zip:BzComp49v11.lib http://www.hpcalc.org/search.php?query=bzcomp49 Jorge Gonzalez ==== > I had the same problem. That is the wrong bzip. > Try this one. -> 1788 * Bz+49 :v1.1 > hp49/utils/compress/bzcomp49v11.zip:BzComp49v11.lib http://www.hpcalc.org/search.php?query=bzcomp49 Jorge Gonzalez ==== > I also have EQNLIB (library 999) but I don't think it's quite as nice as the > 48GX eq'n library and was wondering if ECLIB is any better but of course if > it ain't run, it ain't better. So now that you have it working, is it any better? ==== I have to admit I like EQLIB better, but it is an empowering feeling to have both of them at hand :-) Also, the BZIP library I installed by your > I also have EQNLIB (library 999) but I don't think it's quite as nice as > the > 48GX eq'n library and was wondering if ECLIB is any better but of course > if > it ain't run, it ain't better. So now that you have it working, is it any better? ==== Today I noticed I had to slow PC keyboard input or it would drop characters. Is there a way around this? Also, is there, or will there be newer rom version (than 1.18) available? ==== I'm using 1.30 and there could be something newer. Check the web page! http://privat.swol.de/ChristophGiesselink/emu48.htm Look's like 1.30 is the latest. Try it out and see if it fixes your problem Rod > Today I noticed I had to slow PC keyboard input or it would drop characters. Is there a way around this? Also, is there, or will there be newer rom version (than 1.18) available? ==== > I'm using 1.30 and there could be something newer. I use 1.32 from some time ago... ==== > I'm using 1.30 and there could be something newer. I use 1.32 from some time ago... > Sorry, I meant the HP 49 ROM image was 1.18, the emulator is 1.32. FWIW I am using it under XP. I don't recall this happening with an older version of EMU 48 and using it as a HP 48. ==== Where can I find an hp49g emulator? ==== LwOdnf-Le8bKJDWjXTWcrg@giganews.com... > Where can I find an hp49g emulator? You can find almost all hp4x-related software on hpcalc.org : http://www.hpcalc.org/hp48/pc/emulators/emu48-1.30.zip -- Khanh-Dang ==== Ziege schrieb im Newsbeitrag > Where can I find an hp49g emulator? Search for debug4 or for emu48 (forty-eight!) at www.hpcalc.org ..Heiko ==== I have the Emu48 program and the hp49g-1.18.flash file. How can I get Emu48 emulating an HP-49g? ==== With emu48 I prefer the 640x480 side by side rendition of the the HP48 (screen on left, most of the keys on the right. This works very well for 800x600 too. With the hp49 emulator (the one accessed on the Zelda page), it doesn't fit on a 800x600 screen. Is there something similar to the 640x480 side by side screen for the HP49 emulator? ==== Is there something similar to the 640x480 side by side screen for > the HP49 emulator? Yes, they are all the same emulator with different KML (the Emu48 skins). Just copy the KML and the bitmap you like in your emu48 directory ==== Some years ago I created a KML script for the EMU48.EXE to emulate a 38G with a screen that is twice as big as normal and has the keyboard on the right of the screen. You'd have to redo the image of the keyboard and the key mappings obviously but it's really not hard. If you want to see how mine works just download it from http://www.hphomeview.com/utilities.htm > >Is there something similar to the 640x480 side by side screen for >the HP49 emulator? Yes, they are all the same emulator with different KML (the Emu48 skins). > Just copy the KML and the bitmap you like in your emu48 directory > ==== > e639cb5b.0304221051.7e096f84@posting.google.com, > Is there something similar to the 640x480 side by side screen for > the HP49 emulator? > Yes, they are all the same emulator with different KML (the Emu48 skins). > Just copy the KML and the bitmap you like in your emu48 directory > Sorry, that isn't correct, the HP49 emulator mentioned on the Zelda page points to http://www.hpcalc.org/hp49/pc/emulators/calc.exe and that is the YorkeM emulator. the latest version v1.32) with HP49 KML scripts. You must get the ROM image for example from the YorkeM emulator. The www.hpcalc.org HP49 emulator section is full of HP49 KML script packages. Copy them into your Emu48 directory. The one at http://www.hpcalc.org/hp49/pc/emulators/spec49g.zip has a horizontal design and should fit on a 800x600 screen, but there are many others, which also fit on this screen size. For 640x480 resolution you have perhaps make one for yourself. Christoph ==== > Sorry, that isn't correct, the HP49 emulator mentioned on the Zelda page > points to http://www.hpcalc.org/hp49/pc/emulators/calc.exe and that is the > YorkeM emulator. the latest version v1.32) with HP49 KML scripts. You must get the ROM image > for example from the YorkeM emulator. The www.hpcalc.org HP49 emulator > section is full of HP49 KML script packages. Copy them into your Emu48 > directory. The one at http://www.hpcalc.org/hp49/pc/emulators/spec49g.zip > has a horizontal design and should fit on a 800x600 screen, but there are > many others, which also fit on this screen size. For 640x480 resolution you > have perhaps make one for yourself. Christoph Ok, I must be doing someting wrong. I got the rom.e49, copied as rom.49g, downloaded emu48 1.30, applied 1.32 patch, got a few 49 klm scripts, unzipped them to the emu48 dirctory. I see, under view all the usual 48 klm scripts, but no 49 scripts. btw, emu48 is terrific. ==== emu48.ini file and that allowed the 49 skins to appear. Kewl, that will work! ==== 662e00ed.0304210440.5907cb22@posting.google.com, Bhuvanesh > Did Erable support algebraic notation? I thought that came with the HP49G. > Of course it does. There's no real algebraic notation on the HP48 (or HP49). It's all in RPN, just the display make the user believe it's in algebraic. On the HP48 you can directly enter algebraic expression by using the ' (quote). Like '3*X+2' will be stored as: 3 X * 2 + I know a few of you have TI-89 as well as HP48 and 49 Well I just got my TI-89 a few days ago.... adding to my stock of HP's and other calcs.... I guess now I am a confirmed calculator freak, bona fide and getting worse... anyway, on page 8 and 9 of the TI-89 manual is the following example: Graph the function (abs(X^2 - 3) - 10) / 2 and find the value of the minimum in the fourth quadrant The calculator gives ( 1.7320508075707 - 4.9999999999969 ) but the picture in the book on page 9... clearly shows the screen shot as.... ( 1.7320508075682 - 4.9999.......... (it scrolls off the screen) All my HP's only go to 12 digits.... and they give ( 1.73205080756 - 4.99999999998 ) Can somebody with a TI-89 do the problem and tell me what they get ????? or... those with a long-float library... or Mathcad... tell me what the last digits should be ???? SM ==== > I know a few of you have TI-89 as well as HP48 and 49 I have an emulator... it just might survive longer than the real thing. > Well I just got my TI-89 a few days ago.... adding to my stock of HP's and > other calcs.... I guess now I am a confirmed calculator freak, bona fide and > getting worse... Welcome to the club! :-) > Can somebody with a TI-89 do the problem and tell me what they get ????? or... those with a long-float library... or Mathcad... tell me what the last > digits should be ???? You can easily get the exact result on the TI-68k using fMin(expression,x): fMin((abs(x^2-3)-10)/2,x)|x>=0 -- Bhuvanesh ==== > anyway, on page 8 and 9 of the TI-89 manual is the following example: Graph the function (abs(X^2 - 3) - 10) / 2 and find the value of the minimum in the fourth quadrant The calculator gives ( 1.7320508075707 - 4.9999999999969 ) but the picture in the book on page 9... clearly shows the screen shot as.... ( 1.7320508075682 - 4.9999.......... (it scrolls off the screen) With a HW2 TI-89 running AMS 2.08, I get: ( 1.7320508075704 - 4.9999999999974 ) It's not an error in the manual but a different ROM revision. Tom Lake ==== > You can easily get the exact result on the TI-68k using fMin(expression,x): fMin((abs(x^2-3)-10)/2,x)|x>=0 How come if you solve sign(x^2 - 3)*x [the derivative of the above function] for x, the Ti89 gives me x=0 while the HP49 gives me x=0, x=sqrt(3), and x=-sqrt(3)? Can the Ti89 not solve very well with 'sign' in the equation? ==== > You can easily get the exact result on the TI-68k using > fMin(expression,x): fMin((abs(x^2-3)-10)/2,x)|x>=0 How come if you solve sign(x^2 - 3)*x [the derivative of the above function] > for x, the Ti89 gives me x=0 while the HP49 gives me x=0, x=sqrt(3), and > x=-sqrt(3)? On the 89 fMin((abs(x^2-3)-10)/2,x) will give +sqrt(3) and -sqrt(3), if you throw in the constraint of x>=0 then you only get the positive value. On the 89 the sign() functions is defined as following: sign(positive) = 1 sign(0) = +-1 sign(negative) = -1. >Can the Ti89 not solve very well with 'sign' in the equation? Solving sign(x^2 - 3)*x =0, for x can only give one solution x=0, as the sign() function will never be 0. A simple graph of the origional function (abs(x^2-3)-10)/2 shows that at +-sqrt(3) the graph is pointy. Taking righthanded and left handed limits of the derivative as x goes to sqrt(3) gives two different results. So I ask you Can the hp49g not solve very well with 'sign' in the equation? -The one and only Cheerio: Samuel S www.calvin.edu/~sstear70 ==== > How come if you solve sign(x^2 - 3)*x [the derivative of the above function] > for x, the Ti89 gives me x=0 while the HP49 gives me x=0, x=sqrt(3), and > x=-sqrt(3)? Can the Ti89 not solve very well with 'sign' in the equation? Yep, that's interesting. I'll report it as a bug (or you can if you prefer). It's because sign(0) is not zero on the TI-68k. Here's a workaround: Define sign2(xx)=when(xx=0,0,sign(xx),sign(xx)) solve(csolve(sign2(x^2-3)*x=0,x),x) Bhuvanesh. ==== > On the 89 fMin((abs(x^2-3)-10)/2,x) will give +sqrt(3) and -sqrt(3), > if you throw in the constraint of x>=0 then you only get the positive > value. On the 89 the sign() functions is defined as following: sign(positive) = 1 > sign(0) = +-1 > sign(negative) = -1. In Auto mode on an 89 with HW2 and AMS 2.08, I get sign(0) = sign(0) and sign(0.) = sign(0.). It's never 0 or +-1 Tom Lake ==== > In Auto mode on an 89 with HW2 and AMS 2.08, I get sign(0) = sign(0) and > sign(0.) = sign(0.). It's never 0 or +-1 It would return +/-1 if you were in Real mode. In Complex mode, sign(0) represents the unit circle. -- Bhuvanesh ==== > On the 89 the sign() functions is defined as following: sign(positive) = 1 > sign(0) = +-1 > sign(negative) = -1. On the Hp49, sign(x) evaluates to x / |x| or x/abs(x) if you will. > Solving sign(x^2 - 3)*x =0, for x can only give one solution x=0, as > the sign() function will never be 0. A simple graph of the origional > function (abs(x^2-3)-10)/2 shows that at +-sqrt(3) the graph is > pointy. Taking righthanded and left handed limits of the derivative as x goes > to sqrt(3) gives two different results. Yes, but it still looks like the graph of the derivative has valid roots at +-sqrt(3) and 0. In a Ti89 the sign() function can never be zero, but how come when I run it through Maple or other math software, it gives the same solution as the Hp49? For example, solving signum(x^2-3)*x for x in Maple 8 gives {x = 0}, {x = 3^(1/2)}, {x = -3^(1/2)}. So, which is the correct answer? The limits from both sides are different, but the solutions the HP49 gives are the minimums of the original function. Using the same methods as you would by hand, the HP49 gives the solutions. The sign() convention of derive/ti-68k is different from both maple and the hp49. Ti89: sign(0) = +-1 Maple 8: sign(0) = 0 Hp49: sign(0) = ? Which is right? Albert ==== X > Yes, but it still looks like the graph of the derivative has valid roots at > +-sqrt(3) and 0. In a Ti89 the sign() function can never be zero, but how > come when I run it through Maple or other math software, it gives the same > solution as the Hp49? For example, solving signum(x^2-3)*x for x in Maple 8 gives {x = 0}, {x = > 3^(1/2)}, {x = -3^(1/2)}. So, which is the correct answer? The limits from both sides are different, > but the solutions the HP49 gives are the minimums of the original function. > Using the same methods as you would by hand, the HP49 gives the solutions. The sign() convention of derive/ti-68k is different from both maple and the > hp49. Ti89: sign(0) = +-1 > Maple 8: sign(0) = 0 > Hp49: sign(0) = ? Which is right? Wolfgang may have an opinion... ==== > The sign() convention of derive/ti-68k is different from both > maple and the hp49. > Ti89: sign(0) = +-1 > Maple 8: sign(0) = 0 > Hp49: sign(0) = ? > Which is right? > Wolfgang may have an opinion... The signum function is originally defined for reals only. Any expansion to other objects, be it complex numbers or zints or algebraics or matrices is not normed. Hence, the author of a tool using an expanded signum function should clearly say in his docus how his system handles the expansion. This holds in particular for computer algebraic systems. The question which is the right one is as meaningless as the question Is 0^0 = 0 or 0^0 = 1 ? - Wolfgang ==== > Ti89: sign(0) = +-1 > Maple 8: sign(0) = 0 > Hp49: sign(0) = ? You missed one for the HP49: SIGN(0) = ?, but, to be compatible with the HP48 series, SIGN(0.) = 0. ==== I partly agree with your judgement about the sign function. If you want a definition for sgn(z) for all complex z<>0 that makes any mathematical sense at all, it better be z/abs(z). I doubt anyone ever has used an extension of the usual sgn(x) for x<>0 and real which isn't this. On the other hand, what sgn(0) is should be well documented since it isn't standard, if even you want to think of it as defined. About the 0^0 question, it is undetermined in the strictest sense but there are very good reasons to make 0^0=1. There's some discussion about this in chapter 1 of Knuth's Art of Computer Programming and, recalling from memory, he presents these arguments: (i) 0^0=1 if the binomial theorem '(a+b)^n == SIGMA(k,0,n,COMB(n,k)*a^(n-k)*b^k)' is to hold when a or b =0. (ii) If 'LIMIT(F(Z),Z=W)==0' AND 'LIMIT(G(Z),Z=W)==0' where F(Z) & G(Z) are *analytic* functions of Z (infinitely differentiable isn't sufficient) near W, then 'LIMIT(F(Z)^G(Z),Z=W)==1' (I think this was proven in some old book.) Nowadays I tend to be annoyed when a calculator complains if I ask it to compute 0^0. (I have yet to see a calculator that makes 0^0 anything other than 1, but I'm sure there must be some out there that give the value of 0^0=0). Eduardo > The signum function is originally defined for reals only. Any expansion > to other objects, be it complex numbers or zints or algebraics or > matrices is not normed. Hence, the author of a tool using an expanded > signum function should clearly say in his docus > how his system handles the expansion. This holds in particular for > computer algebraic systems. The question which is the right one is > as meaningless as the question Is 0^0 = 0 or 0^0 = 1 ? - Wolfgang ==== > (ii) If 'LIMIT(F(Z),Z=W)==0' AND 'LIMIT(G(Z),Z=W)==0' where F(Z) & G(Z) are > *analytic* functions of Z (infinitely differentiable isn't sufficient) near > W, then 'LIMIT(F(Z)^G(Z),Z=W)==1' (I think this was proven in some old > book.) I should be more precise. IF the limit of F(Z)^G(Z) exists as a limit in the *complex* plane (aka, Z is complex and approaches the (real or complex) value W) then it has to be 1. I realize this is really off the thread's topic, though. Eduardo ==== I want to order some Klotz memory cards. I noticed that you have to send the credit card numbers by fax. I dont have a fax machine and I have never used fax. Can my computer fax? Someone please explain to me how to do this. ==== You need a modem with fax support, and... If you have Windows XP you have fax. http://www.microsoft.com/WindowsXP/expertzone/columns/crawford/02october21.a sp You can also try one of the many fax software offered here: http://www.electrasoft.com/ Johannes >I want to order some Klotz memory cards. I noticed that you have to send the credit card numbers by fax. I >dont have a fax machine and I have never used fax. Can my computer >fax? Someone please explain to me how to do this. > ==== I'm tired of having files floating around in HOME because I forgot to switch into the correct directory and having to recall to stack, purge & re-store into correct directory. Is there a file utility out there for the 48SX that allows *moving* files among directories? I tried KillCommander and Donelly's FileManager but neither has this feature. Eduardo ==== That brings up another related thing: I have a 'HOME.' just below the real HOME so that it is less cluttered no matter in which do you prefer to think as your HOME but the IOPAR and all such OS things goes to the real HOME PS: Could this be the chosen one? http://www.hpcalc.org/details.php?id=2395 I'm tired of having files floating around in HOME because I forgot to > switch into the correct directory and having to recall to stack, purge & > re-store into correct directory. Is there a file utility out there for the > 48SX that allows *moving* files among directories? I tried KillCommander > and Donelly's FileManager but neither has this feature. > Eduardo ==== written it! So {HOME HOME} is your home away from home? ;-) Eduardo > That brings up another related thing: > I have a 'HOME.' just below the real HOME > so that it is less cluttered > no matter in which do you prefer to think as your HOME > but the IOPAR and all such OS things goes to the real HOME > PS: Could this be the chosen one? > http://www.hpcalc.org/details.php?id=2395 ==== I'm tired of having files floating around in HOME because I forgot to > switch into the correct directory and having to recall to stack, purge & > re-store into correct directory. Is there a file utility out there for the > 48SX that allows *moving* files among directories? I tried KillCommander > and Donelly's FileManager but neither has this feature. > One answer: PCT 5.0 Available on hpcalc.org ==== { HOME HOME. }@ note the dot after my own HOMEdot It is so small in many fonts. PS: There must be a better SysRPL/ML solution... > written it! So {HOME HOME} is your home away from home? ;-) Eduardo That brings up another related thing: > I have a 'HOME.' just below the real HOME > so that it is less cluttered > no matter in which do you prefer to think as your HOME > but the IOPAR and all such OS things goes to the real HOME > PS: Could this be the chosen one? > http://www.hpcalc.org/details.php?id=2395 > ==== :-) Eduardo ==== > no matter in which do you prefer to think as your HOME > but the IOPAR and all such OS things goes to the real HOME Unless you have renamed your HOME ... http://www.hpcc.org/V21N3/home.html HPCC #1046 ==== Oh, much too nice! Could we please have that in the 49G, too?! no matter in which do you prefer to think as your HOME > but the IOPAR and all such OS things goes to the real HOME Unless you have renamed your HOME ... http://www.hpcc.org/V21N3/home.html HPCC #1046 ==== A while (fairly long while) ago, I sent in my hp49 for a warranty replacement. After several weeks with no word from HP, I called them up and requested a cash refund (since they seemed to be unable to deliver a timely replacement). The HP fellow I spoke to (Graham Fraser) offered to have an hp49 shipped to me from Europe via UPS. I agreed, and the calculator arrived in 3 or 4 days. So, if any of you are waiting on replacements, calling up and sounding unhappy might help somewhat! I'm seriously considering selling this HP49 and getting an HP48 instead. Would anyone be interested in a just-replaced HP49 for $250 or so? I'm in Sydney, Australia. Alan ==== >In message <6gm0avsjjol3a8650qrs2dk1fcn2qltaoi@4ax.com>, Rodger Pay attention at the back! :-) >This story was posted to the group back on the 26th March. Obviously your posting technique isn't as good as mine; you elicited no response from the group, while I got a couple. :-) o.uk ==== > Correction is easy on the 48 but painful on the 49. > It has been ported from the HP48 to the HP49 and included in the > library GTOOLS. It's not very big (around 13kB). I find it useful > enough to have it in my HP49 all the time. I loaded GTOOLS. Powerful, indeed. Cursor movement excellent. Very pleasant that one can suspend a PICTURE session to visit the stack. That I missed so much in the default PICTURE environement. But we have seemingly a different opinion on what is big :-) Your rompointer PICT-> looks as follows :: CK0 :: GBUFF TOTEMPOB ; ; Why don't you simply write :: CKO GBUFF TOTEMPOB ; to save 5 bytes? The best of all is your ABOUT, a UsrRPL program in which you could save with your own elegant commands $>GROBCR or ViewStrobject at least 10 bytes. You must have written it veryvery long ago :-) > I guess I can always review the cursor handling in the original HP > graphic editor. It's not my fault if was poorly coded in the first > place and doesn't take into account that the OS (and the Interrupt > System) is much much faster on the HP49 so the delay in the cursor > is not good. But this was, IMHO, your business, not that of the Corvallis people or anybody else. > Should be based on the clock. I'll look into that. Please don't forget that. I've unfortunately no time to report bugs. Perhaps you can add at this occasion a HALT to one of the graphic application menus, and a (x,y) for the true pixel coordinates :-) - Wolfgang ==== > I loaded GTOOLS. Powerful, indeed. Cursor movement excellent. Very > pleasant that one can suspend a PICTURE session to visit the stack. > That I missed so much in the default PICTURE environement. But we have > seemingly a different opinion on what is big :-) Your rompointer PICT-> looks as follows :: CK0 :: GBUFF TOTEMPOB ; ; > Why don't you simply write :: CKO GBUFF TOTEMPOB ; to save 5 bytes? This is an historical reason. The original GTOOLS were using absolute addresses. There's a label before :: GBUFF TOTEMPOB ; that I'm using a few times to save space :) ==== If you have an old serial mouse, just use it's cable. The connectors are already made to work. You only have to reverse the two inside wires on the 4 pin side and slap some heat-shrink on there. mine been working for years just great. ==== I am using a serial port on my PC to connect to an HP 48GX (Rev R ROM) using HP's Serial Interface Kit software (on Windows 98). I know the connection is good, because I can put the 48 in server mode, and I can execute remote commands using the UI on the PC. MKRAM.KER (from hpcc.org) to the 48, as instructed. The first time I tried it, most of the file was transferred, then a glitch occured (I assume) and so I reset the 48 using ON-A-F. [I have a 128k card in slot 1, merged with the 48's memory.] Now, whenever I try to transfer the file, the 48 complains Error: Bad Argument Value after about 2 seconds, and the UI on the PC says Error sendin files. I know it must be simple, but after restarting the PC, re-installing the 48 utilities on the PC and resetting the calculator, I am stuck. Also, whenever I go to Right-Shift I/O to invoke the comms on the 48, the default is always KERMIT. Can I set Xmodem to be the default? TIA, Mark. ==== Please, put your HP-48GX in RPN MODE. Now, configure for Binary and delete extension (.KER) and try again. Miguel Angel CAPORALINI HERK (M.A.C.H.) **************************************************************************** **** > I am using a serial port on my PC to connect to an HP 48GX (Rev R ROM) using > HP's Serial Interface Kit software (on Windows 98). I know the connection > is good, because I can put the 48 in server mode, and I can execute remote > commands using the UI on the PC. MKRAM.KER (from hpcc.org) to the 48, as instructed. The first time I tried > it, most of the file was transferred, then a glitch occured (I assume) and > so I reset the 48 using ON-A-F. [I have a 128k card in slot 1, merged with > the 48's memory.] Now, whenever I try to transfer the file, the 48 complains Error: Bad > Argument Value after about 2 seconds, and the UI on the PC says Error > sendin files. I know it must be simple, but after restarting the PC, > re-installing the 48 utilities on the PC and resetting the calculator, I am > stuck. Also, whenever I go to Right-Shift I/O to invoke the comms on the 48, the > default is always KERMIT. Can I set Xmodem to be the default? TIA, Mark. ==== See the setup.tx file of mk230.zip (www.hpcalc.org), and then try again. **************************************************************************** **** 1-Unprotect the card if necessary and merge it with MERGE1 (in the Left shift- Library menu). 2-Empty the whole port 0. For instructions, read chapter 28 of the User's Guide. If there is no important data in your calculator, it is easier to initialize it by pressing simultaneously the keys ON, A and F, and answering NO. 3-Transfer the program named RECV.KER from the PC to the calculator, with XMODEM or KERMIT. 4-Then transfer the file MKRAM.KER. XMODEM is recommended, because of the huge size of this file. In order to use XMODEM, with an HP48 REV R, just use the built-in command XRECV. With an HP48 REV M or P, first send the file XRECV.PRG from the PC to the calculator, then use it as if it was the standard XRECV command. 5-On the calculator, put the name of this file on the stack. and execute the program RECV.KER. **************************************************************************** **** Miguel Angel CAPORALINI HERK (M.A.C.H.) **************************************************************************** **** > I am using a serial port on my PC to connect to an HP 48GX (Rev R ROM) using > HP's Serial Interface Kit software (on Windows 98). I know the connection > is good, because I can put the 48 in server mode, and I can execute remote > commands using the UI on the PC. MKRAM.KER (from hpcc.org) to the 48, as instructed. The first time I tried > it, most of the file was transferred, then a glitch occured (I assume) and > so I reset the 48 using ON-A-F. [I have a 128k card in slot 1, merged with > the 48's memory.] Now, whenever I try to transfer the file, the 48 complains Error: Bad > Argument Value after about 2 seconds, and the UI on the PC says Error > sendin files. I know it must be simple, but after restarting the PC, > re-installing the 48 utilities on the PC and resetting the calculator, I am > stuck. Also, whenever I go to Right-Shift I/O to invoke the comms on the 48, the > default is always KERMIT. Can I set Xmodem to be the default? TIA, Mark. ==== I do not intend to start some flame wars... but I think the below information that I have compiled may be useful to some of you. This is the result of my research on the web about the history of calculators. It does not exist as it is on the web, as many sites focus only on one brand of calcs, or do not have date information. Basically, this simple spreasheet sorts the major innovations by year, with the first machine to introduce it, and then the 'replies' by the I tried to make this information as objective as possible (although I post it on comp.sys.hp48 which shows that I am kind of biased ;)). I welcome corrections if any piece of information is unaccurate. As a short summary, my conclusions are as follows: 1) More than 50% of all major inovations were introduced by HP: The first scientific (HP-35, 1972), the first programmable (HP-65, 1974), the first alphanumeric (HP-41C,1979), the first native complex & matrix support (HP-15C, 1982), the first symbolic (HP-28C, 1987), the first (and last) bi-directionnal IR and PC link(HP-48SX, 1990). 2) Casio excelled in one thing: screens ! With some of the first LCD displays (fx-502P), multi-line machines (PB-700) and, above all, first calc was a fx-8500G in high school. Although I became a die-hard fan of HP latter with the HP-48SX, and that now I discover the virtue of the simple yet powerful and efficient HP-41CX (amazing machine, even for today: with the good emulator on Palm, P41CV, you have today a truely pocketable marvel !), I never forgot that Casio was once not so bad. 3) TI almost did not innovate at all. The only 2 notable innovative machines were the TI-59 (1977), the first one with ROM modules, and, much latter, the TI-92 (first with CAS - but can that thing be called a calculator ??, 1995), corrected by the first 'calc-size' CAS (TI-89 in 1998 - with Flash ROM). 4) Sharp invented the basic pocket computer. That's about it... Now, TI is dominating the market. Conclusion: Innovation does not serve success... look at Micro$oft ! :) HP, wake up !! What has Carly done to you ??? Your comments are welcome. Vincent Weber 1972 Scientific HP-35 TI-Datamath 1972 1972 LCD Sharp EL-805 TI-Minimath 1973 Casio CP-10 1974 1973 Business HP-80 TI-Business Analyst 1976 Casio FC-1000 1986? 1974 Programmable HP-65 TI-SR52 1975 Casio-FX201P 1976 1974 Card reader HP-65 TI-SR52 1975 1975 Timer HP-55 TI-65 1987 1976 Fully merged steps HP-67 TI-57 1977 1976 Continuous memory HP-25C TI-58C 1978 1977 ROM modules TI-59 HP-41C 1979 1978 Business programmable HP-38E/C TI-BA54 1982 1982 Programmer's HP-16C 1983 Multi-line Casio PB-700 Sharp PC-1260/1350 1984 HP-18C 1986 1984 PDA Psion Organizer 1 Sharp PC-1100 1985 Casio IF8000 1987 1986 Output I/R HP-18C 1987 Touch-screen Casio-IF8000 Palm Pilot 1996 1988 Dual-line Calc HP-42S TI-30X IIS 1999 1989 C programmable Casio PB-2000C 1989 DOS pocket computer Atari Portfolio HP-95LX 1991 1990 Serial link HP-48SX Casio fx-7700G 1990 TI-85 1992 1990 Bi-directionnal IR HP-48SX 1991 Keyboard PDA Psion 3 HP-95LX 1991 1993 Tablet PDA Apple Newton Palm 1 1996 1995 CAS TI-92 HP-49G 1999 1998 CAS in calc size TI-89 HP-49G 1999 1998 Flash ROM TI-89 HP-49G 1999 Casio FX 1.0 2000 ==== > As a short summary, my conclusions are as follows: 1) More than 50% of all major inovations were introduced by HP: The > first scientific (HP-35, 1972), the first programmable (HP-65, 1974), > the first alphanumeric (HP-41C,1979), the first native complex & > matrix support (HP-15C, 1982), the first symbolic (HP-28C, 1987), the > first (and last) bi-directionnal IR and PC link(HP-48SX, 1990). Some other HP firsts (at least according their ads of the 1970's!): Sealed battery compartment. Other brands had circuit boards showing. First use of double-shot injection molded keys so the symbols wouldn't wear off. Other companies silk-screened the characters onto the keys and they wore off with use. Mylar moisture barrier under the keys to help protect against spills. All-in-all, the HP line was the epitome of quality. Every detail had been carefully planned and you could feel the difference in calculators just by picking one up. It didn't flex. Other brands were lighter, their cases would flex to an amazing degree and they felt cheap in comparison. Tom Lake ==== don't feel too bored while I'm away... Enjoy ! >> My HP40G Gripes >> As your flamethrowers might get a little rusty nowadays (while HP tries very effectively to keep them in good working order), I believe a recent experience might fuel (!) some use for them. So read on, and start the blast ! I'm not a new user of calculators, and purchased the HP40G at the time when HP finally lowered its price in France (it had done so in the US many many years before - but we European users are just good old cash cows, you know). Recently, as I was happily calculating at home on a numerical problem, I said to myself : Why not use a portable tool and do this while commuting ? Why not give the good old HP40G another try ?. I recalled I had put it back in the box in despair a couple of years ago, but the idea looked interesting at the time. Not for long ! So off we go. The 40 is a durable, powerful, low price offer with a wonderful CAS and I like this. Now, I start by a little program to retrain my skills on the machine. No need to reread the manual (er, User Guide), this is targeted at the educational market you know. So let's switch it on and press [Program]. My simple goal so far is to display the date correctly formatted (DD/MM/YYYY) plus the day on screen. Hum, no string manipulation. No free position display of data on screen (only DISP ;). So let's display on consecutive lines. Well well, how was this 'difference of dates' function called by the way ? No catalog. No way to search for a function. Nothing in possibly related function catalogs. By the way, those menus never recall what was the last family used, so let's scroll up and down every time... OK, I'm done, this program can't be written. The input form capability can't display a screen for input of multiple values at once (while it is possible, the system does this all the time - see the [Plot Setup] for example). Now I'm in a bad mood, but let's try a small calculation for fun. Let's look at the history in search of an example I have done in the past. Easy to use, but the history displays only two past calculations at a time (one line for expression, one for result, this 2 times makes for the 4 available lines). Not very good, since there is a wasted line both at the top AND the bottom of the screen? Yes yes, TI does no such mistakes ! On the competition, there are 8 lines of which 7 keep previous calculations. I like the fact that you can remove flexibly past entries or results on the 40G, but this is a meager benefit. Why not the ability to switch to a small font, or remove those useless decorating lines ? OK, I just found a simple integral, so simple in fact that I can figure it in my head in under 5 seconds. But let's run it : integral of (x+1)/(x-1) from -1 to 0. Typing... Syntax Error ! A nice popup, but it obscures the screen and slows down the process : you must take an extra step to acknowledge the error (never too good to insist in saying that the user is dumb, right ?). Well, what I need is some help, and I recall there is a function to explain all operations. What a nice feature ! Not so. I cancel the error message, and get back to the bad expression. Strange that the 40G doesn't take the 'standard' syntax used on every single graphing calculator I know : integral(function, var, start, stop). Well, why make it easy ? Now, I face an egg and chicken problem. I want to know the syntax, but I am still editing the equation. Note that as it was incorrect, it was not pushed on the history stack. Fair enough, but the help function is a command-line function itself, hence a conflict. Eventually, I find a solution : put it within quotes and prepend a DISP 1; to enter it in the history stack. A real p... in the a.. my friend. So now I have the syntax, I see that the parameters are expected in the 'wrong' order. Morale : Syntax should be an interactive tool not interfering with current entries, maybe even a catalog (!!). Note also that before it accepts to give you directions, you'll have to remove all opening parentheses that the typing aid could have inserted for you. Lose what you gain. Would it be hard to recognize any line and provide help on the first word encountered ?? I now just have to recall my DISP line and (painfully - did I tell you about the keys ?) edit it to calculate. But wait ! What's going on ? Yes, w-a-i-t really, the machine loops endlessly on that simple integral. After one minute, I kill the calculation. No machine on the market should be so excruciatingly slow ! It's just amazing for such a simple function. I go into the CAS and type my integral, and yes the result comes out nicely in a few seconds. Note that I had to press OK because step-by-step display of calculations was on, I think I recall this was mandatory to see some results (like TABVAR, which doesn't work otherwise). Just painful, but not too bad. But what about those complex numbers in the result (they cancel just right, but are presented to the amazed user - the 40 also asked if I wanted complex mode ON) ? Argh. Now is the time to do what I was aiming at : graph a function defined by a 'complex' calculation. My function takes one real number and spits out another. It's time for [Program] mode again. I must enter a program name, only the 40 hasn't the brains to put me in alpha mode on name entry. Just another pitfall, my friend. I like mixed-case names, capitalizing words. So my program will be called LimMoy. How do I type this ? Alpha lock is not available on the keyboard (you must look up the soft keys), and then switching between upper and lower case is a pain. Finally I get it right. You all know that all variables are global on the 40, and you only get 26 of these (ok, 27. Or 28. 29 ? Right. Changes everything). , . I don't recall if the A..Z memories can be used for complex numbers, and at this time I don't really care any more. Time for quick results, my patience is growing thin. Another probleem arises immediately : how do I type the FOR loop I need ? Of course, HELPWITH being a command line statement, I must go back to the Home screen. Too painful, so I look at old programs I back' from this place. HP has a name for this, I think it is something like 'contextless loop', so you can't go back : you always must select a function anew. So type [Program] or [Home] again and again. Now I have the syntax : how weird ! HP chose to use the comma to separate arguments in a function BUT the semicolon ; for arguments to commands. Why, Oh Mamma why ? Don't tell me the machine can't decide between these based on the context. This is just a p... in the a.. again. I believe a program must absolutely be easily readable to be of use, as you're bound to reuse it and edit it (if you haven't run away in disgust, that is). So I always use end of lines to separate long statements. What does this mean my friend ? When I say END of line, I mean this is the END of the line. The line is FINISHED. So why oooooh why do I still have to type the statement separators ? TI did it right again ! What a pity. Also, note that the separator MUST NOT be typed between the last statement of a loop and the closing END (the statement this time). Otherwise : Syntax Error ! OK HP, I know you hate me, but I hate you too now !!!! Do I have to say that verbose programming style is the norm on this machine (take a look at INPUT) ? Also, where is the [STO>] key on the keyboard ? Oh yes it is a soft key, but to me this function is so fundamental that it should be available at any time. We only have 6 soft keys, so reserving one space for the STO key is a waste. On the other hand, if HP programmers have forgotten to reserve a space for the STO key on *ONE* menu, you're just stuck (I haven't seen this happen, but why create a potential bug waiting to happen ?). At long last, my program is correct (albeit pitiful). To run it, you have two possibilities : either use the [Program] menu, but you can't see the result, or use the command line, but you can't get a typing aid for the program name. HP, you did it again ! (***Correction : as I reread this, I recall a solution on the command line : just use the [Vars] menu. Still 5 keypresses at minimum, but this is much less than retyping the name !) The results are correct, now I want to plug this program into the grapher. But this is not possible : RUN is not allowed in the grapher, neither is (X). No Graph(Something) capability from the command line either. So finally I'm stuck !! Yes they finally got me !! Too bad this toy is a little too expensive for the trash can. To be honest, I'm not convinced other graphing calculators (apart the TI92/89) are capable of defining user functions (the wonderful HP71B had them in good ol'times...). For the record, I finally did this and a lot more on the TI92 with great success, the TI92 has even a script capability which allows you to create worksheets mixing comments and calculations with the capability to run these on a split screen, what a nice feature (teachers must love this !). Well, goodbye HP40G. Tomorrow you're back in the box. But this time, I won't forget. Just to say farewell, I do some tests on the CAS. Nice feature, very badly integrated with the normal operation of the calculator. I know it is possible to transfer expressions back and forth between CAS and command line, but without the manual I dare you to find it. I didn't. Also, remember that the expressions will have to be carefully rewritten by hand, since the sommand line uses S1/S2/... variables for unknowns while the CAS accepts the normal X/Y/... The CAS settings are accessible if you search a little, but it is very unfriendly. For instance, the settings displayed are the reverse of what's in effect - logical if you consider that selecting that line will put the item in effect (You see, I just can't explain that screen !!!). Why didn't they use a configuration screen like the [Modes] screen ? Was this designed by another person without synchronization with the main team or what ? What strikes me too is the bad use of the available keys. The 6 Aplet management keys are of minor importance and could have been put as Shift- or Alpha- functions of the soft keys (these key combinations are unusable now as the soft keys have no secondary function labelled). Also, why put the alpha characters BELOW their corresponding key ? I typed the wrong key an uncountalbe number of times. There is no justification for this, space is available above the keys. And please please please give me alpha lock !!! Well, this is the end of the road. As for CAS, the overall slowness and strange opinions on a valid result prevent its use. As for the use of screen real estate, it is a joke (I would say a case in point). As for the typing facilities and ease of accessing the functions, it is a pain. Farewell. ==== > don't feel too bored while I'm away... Enjoy ! > >My HP40G Gripes >As your flamethrowers might get a little rusty nowadays (while HP > tries very effectively to keep them in good working order), I believe > a recent experience might fuel (!) some use for them. > So read on, and start the blast ! > It is unfortunate that you've spent more time writing this rant than reading the manual. You would have learned on how you can very easily display more than one item on a screen. The HP40G has an additional feature DISPXY that hasn't been documented due to its late introduction. To see how it works: HELPWITH DISPXY like with any other commands You would have got how to actually calculate an integral (which is the same way as any other HP calculators). The standard? HP calculators were the first to actually calculate an integral in a symbolic calculator. I guess you could say that HP way of writing it IS the standard. calculator or to spend a little bit of time reading the manual If I had to throw away any piece of machine I bought because I couldn't use it at its best within 5 minutes I wouldn't own anything. Have a look at the manual, I believe the HP40G is one of the easiest machine to use. It does work differently than some other machines but you will quickly see that the logic behind each action is very clear and very sharp. Sure the TI83 let you do things differently, but these two calculators are not in the same range. It's like comparing a DOS machine to a MacOS one and say: MacOS sucks it doesn't work like my good old DOS machine ==== > Strange that the 40G doesn't take the 'standard' > syntax used on every single graphing calculator I know : I for one am extremely happy that HP doesn't do things like everyone else. If they followed everyone else, we wouldn't have RPN calculators. > integral(function, var, start, stop). Hmmm...when I write the integral on paper, I say to myself in my head The integral from (start) to (stop) of (function) d(var). In your example, I would read it the integral from -1 to 0 of (x+1)/(x-1) dx. HP's way seems more logical, even if it isn't like every other [TI] calculator you've ever seen. > HP chose to use the comma to separate > arguments in a function BUT the semicolon ; for arguments to > commands. Isn't this the way C++ works? Semi-colons for loop commands and commas for functions? Aw, no one uses that old programming language anyway. You're comparing the HP-40G to a TI-92. This seems a little like comparing a Ford Mustang to a Chevrolet Cavalier, and coming to the conclusion that all the cars Chevy makes are slow and cheap. You can't expect HP's mid-range calculator to compete with TI's top of the line calculator. I own an HP-49G and haven't had any of the problems that you have described. The equation writer (which you have to buy separately on the TI) takes care of most of the formatting issues. The HP-49G evaluated the integral you mentioned in 2.8494 seconds. Granted, you could have still done it faster in your head (it took a couple seconds to type it in) but I would not consider this painfully slow. Of course, I got a decimal approximation in .1694 seconds. This is quite a bit faster than most people can do in their heads (unless you happen to have memorized the 2*Ln(2) ). You want to see slow, try using the numerical solver on the TI. --CS ==== > HP chose to use the comma to separate > arguments in a function BUT the semicolon ; for arguments to > commands. > Isn't this the way C++ works? Semi-colons for loop commands and > commas for functions? Aw, no one uses that old programming language > anyway. On the 89 there is only 1 command that can take it arguments seperated by a ';' It is the augment command. augment([5],[6]) gives [[5,6]] augment([5];[6]) gives [[5] [6]] I thing ti engineers like to make things hard for themselves because this is accomplished by two different tags for augment, the tokenizer picks between them depending on how the arguments are seperated. > I own an HP-49G and haven't had any of the problems that you have > described. The equation writer (which you have to buy separately on > the TI) takes care of most of the formatting issues. Four links: http://triton.towson.edu/users/bbhatt1/ti/eqw.htm FREE http://home19.inet.tele.dk/ew/eqwflash.htm NOT FREE http://www.calvin.edu/~sstear70/exw.html FREE And for the 83+ http://www.softheiss.de/int_prj_prettypt.html FREE, The interface for this is an entry line that simulateously displays what you are writing as a pretty print expression. -Samuel S, My Yahoo acount is just for Spam. ==== I'm glad to see that you spent some time experimenting. Some of your comments are fair, others are the result of inexperience with the machine (notice I avoid using the word 'ignorance' :-). > So off we go. The 40 is a durable, powerful, low price offer with a > wonderful CAS and I like this. Bear it in mind that the calculator was aimed at a low price high school market. It's pretty damn good for the price charged! > Now, I start by a little program to > retrain my skills on the machine. No need to reread the manual (er, > User Guide), this is targeted at the educational market you know. Do I really need to comment on the statement No need to reread the manual???? > So let's switch it on and press [Program]. If you'd read the manual you'd know that's not necessarily the best way to go. The proper procedure, except for small utility programs, is to write an aplet. > My simple goal so far is to > display the date correctly formatted (DD/MM/YYYY) plus the day on > screen. Hum, no string manipulation. True and a bad lack. Hopefully fixed soon with the addition of a library currently being developed. > No free position display of data > on screen (only DISP ;). Not true. Use DISPXY or DISP with multiple vars output. You can also use MSGBOX to pop up a box with the result. > So let's display on > consecutive lines. Well well, how was this 'difference of dates' > function called by the way ? No catalog. No way to search for a > function. Nothing in possibly related function catalogs. The MATH button contains functions sorted by use. Unfortunately not linked to syntax which, I agree, is a pain. > By the way, > those menus never recall what was the last family used, so let's > scroll up and down every time... Simply press the first letter of the menu or function you want. For example, pressing the 7 button ('P') will jump to Polynomial functions. This trick works in ANY menu. > OK, I'm done, this program can't be written. The input form capability > can't display a screen for input of multiple values at once (while it > is possible, the system does this all the time - see the [Plot Setup] > for example). The program can be written but admittedly not using input of multiple values. The command: will produce the output you require. The only drawback is that 30 April, manipulation means that you can't have the extra zero. > [..]the history displays only two past calculations > at a time (one line for expression, one for result, this 2 times makes > for the 4 available lines). Not very good, since there is a wasted > line both at the top AND the bottom of the screen? Not a valid criticism. If you are scrolling back through the history then it is more likely that you will be seeking a result than the calculation that led to it. This is not an opinion but based on observation of students using the 38G and 39G. > I cancel the error message, and get back to > the bad expression. Well, why make it easy ? Now, I > face an egg and chicken problem. I want to know the syntax, but I am > still editing the equation. Note that as it was incorrect, it was not > pushed on the history stack. Fair enough, but the help function is a > command-line function itself, hence a conflict. I agree with this criticism. > Strange that the 40G doesn't take the 'standard' > syntax used on every single graphing calculator I know : > integral(function, var, start, stop). Crap! I don't care what the rest of the world does, it makes sense to me to have the parameters in the order in which you speak the function. By this I mean, we say The integral from 1 to 3 of funtion dx and that's how it is entered: integral(1,3,function,X) Other functions, such as differentiation and summation are the same. As JYA says, HP did it first so the rest of the world are the ones not doing it right! > Moral : Syntax should be an interactive tool not interfering with > current entries, maybe even a catalog (!!). I agree. > Now is the time to do what I was aiming at : graph a function defined > by a 'complex' calculation. If you mean a calculation involving complex numbers then very few calculators will graph these in the way you seem to expect. Certainly not one for this price. If you simply mean a calculation which is 'not simple' then it can be done but admittedly not conveniently. In your program, create a list var (say L1) using MAKELIST that contains the function values for Xmin to Xmax step (Xmax-Xmin)/131. eg. MAKELIST(X^3-X,X,Xmin,Xmax,(Xmax-Xmin)/131) /> L1: If your function is too complex to fit into the MAKELIST then simply create an empty list and then use a FOR loop to calculate its values. These values correspond to the pixel points on the horizontal width of the screen. Now, in the Function aplet, graph the function I'm NOT, by the way, claiming that this is at all easy or convenient! Just that it can be done. I agree that it would have been nice to be able to define a user function and then graph it. However, again, this is not the sort of thing one expects in a mid-range calculator aimed at high school students. > My function takes one real number and spits out another. It's time for > [Program] mode again. I must enter a program name, only the 40 hasn't > the brains to put me in alpha mode on name entry. I agree. > I like mixed-case names, capitalizing words. So my > program will be called LimMoy. How do I type this ? Alpha lock is > not available on the keyboard (you must look up the soft keys), and > then switching between upper and lower case is a pain. Finally I get > it right. I think it is better on the soft keys so that it is only available when required and does not take up a permanent hard key. A large group of people spent a LOT of time thinking about what keys should appear as hard keys. I don't see any easy way if you're going to insist on mixing cases. > You all know that all variables are global on the 40, and you only get > 26 of these (ok, 27. Or 28. 29 ? Right. Changes everything). conflicts on>, . var of any required length and use it to store your vars. I agree it would have been nice to have longer names for vars though. > I don't recall if the A..Z > memories can be used for complex numbers, and at this time I don't > really care any more. Time for quick results, my patience is growing > thin. They can't. Use the complex vars Z1, Z2,... Z0. > Another probleem arises immediately : how do I type the FOR loop I > need ? [...] how weird ! HP chose to use the comma to separate > arguments in a function BUT the semicolon ; for arguments to > commands. Why, Oh Mamma why ? Every language has its small ways of doing things. This is quite similar to C as someone pointed out. > Don't tell me the machine can't decide > between these based on the context. True but it would have meant more complexity in the OS. More bugs, more size..... > Do I have to say that verbose programming style is the norm on this > machine (take a look at INPUT) ? Did you try using the short form of PROMPT : ? INPUT is specifically set up to be as flexible as possible to as to allow easy 'user friendly' programming. Remember (again) that this is aimed at high school students - we want the input forms to be very verbose. > Also, where is the [STO>] key on the > keyboard ? Oh yes it is a soft key, but to me this function is so > fundamental that it should be available at any time. Ummm... it is. Just go through the CHARS button if it is not a soft key in the current context. Four key presses - SHIFT CHARS LEFTARROW ENTER. > At long last, my program is correct (albeit pitiful). To run it, you > have two possibilities : either use the [Program] menu, but you can't > see the result, RTFM. Just include a FREEZE command at the end of the program. > or use the command line, but you can't get a typing > aid for the program name. HP, you did it again ! > (***Correction : as I reread this, I recall a solution on the command > line : just use the [Vars] menu. Still 5 keypresses at minimum, but > this is much less than retyping the name !) Actually 4 keypresses: VARS 'P' RIGHTARROW ENTER (if it's the first in the list), otherwise one more to press the button of the first letter in the name. This seems to me quite reasonable. > The results are correct, now I want to plug this program into the > grapher. But this is not possible : RUN is not allowed > in the grapher, neither is (X). No Graph(Something) > capability from the command line either. So finally I'm stuck !! Yes > they finally got me !! Covered earlier.... > Too bad this toy is a little too expensive for > the trash can. To be honest, I'm not convinced other graphing > calculators (apart the TI92/89) are capable of defining user functions > (the wonderful HP71B had them in good ol'times...). For the record, I > finally did this and a lot more on the TI92 with great success, the > TI92 has even a script capability which allows you to create > worksheets mixing comments and calculations with the capability to run > these on a split screen, what a nice feature (teachers must love this > !). As was commented by others, I don't think it is fair to compare it with the TI92. I think a better comparison is with the TI83+. For a detailed comparison of the HP39/40G with the TI83+ by Tim Wessman see http://www.hphomeview.com/timwesmn/ti83-hp39.pdf > What strikes me too is the bad use of the available keys. The 6 Aplet > management keys are of minor importance and could have been put as > Shift- or Alpha- functions of the soft keys (these key combinations > are unusable now as the soft keys have no secondary function > labelled). Now this shows your total misunderstanding of the philosophy of the calculator. The whole HP39G revolves around the aplets and the keys APLET, HOME, PLOT, SYMB and NUM are by far the most commonly used on the calculator. Hence their prominence. > Also, why put the alpha characters BELOW their > corresponding key ? I typed the wrong key an uncountalbe number of > times. It takes a short time to get used to and then you never do it again. > Well, this is the end of the road. You bring up some interesting and valid points in a few places but you are too quick to make a final rejection without considering that you may be mistaken in some places. ==== > HP chose to use the comma to separate > arguments in a function BUT the semicolon ; for arguments to > commands. > > Isn't this the way C++ works? Semi-colons for loop commands and > commas for functions? Aw, no one uses that old programming language > anyway. On the 89 there is only 1 command that can take it arguments seperated > by a ';' It is the augment command. augment([5],[6]) gives [[5,6]] > augment([5];[6]) gives > [[5] > [6]] I thing ti engineers like to make things hard for themselves because > this is accomplished by two different tags for augment, the tokenizer > picks between them depending on how the arguments are seperated. > I own an HP-49G and haven't had any of the problems that you have > described. The equation writer (which you have to buy separately on > the TI) takes care of most of the formatting issues. Four links: > http://triton.towson.edu/users/bbhatt1/ti/eqw.htm FREE > http://home19.inet.tele.dk/ew/eqwflash.htm NOT FREE > http://www.calvin.edu/~sstear70/exw.html FREE And for the 83+ > http://www.softheiss.de/int_prj_prettypt.html FREE, The interface for > this is an entry line that simulateously displays what you are writing > as a pretty print expression. -Samuel S, My Yahoo acount is just for Spam. my HP and are impressed. They will be happy to know that they can get one for free. I also know a lot of TI-83 owners that will be happy about the other link as well. --CS ==== > As JYA says, HP did it first so the rest of the world are the ones not > doing it right! HP most certainly didn't do it first. There have been dozens of computer algebra systems before the HP48. -- Bhuvanesh ==== As JYA says, HP did it first so the rest of the world are the ones not > doing it right! HP most certainly didn't do it first. There have been dozens of > computer algebra systems before the HP48. Were they integrated into any handheld calculators? ==== As JYA says, HP did it first so the rest of the world are the ones not > doing it right! HP most certainly didn't do it first. There have been dozens of > computer algebra systems before the HP48. HP was the first one to put it in a calculator and to calculate a numerical integral. Writing like INTEGRAL(min,max,function, variable) is by far the most logical way of writing an integral, as it's how you write it on paper. technical choice. The TI allows you to use the integral size in different way: INTEGRAL(function,variable) INTEGRAL(function,variable,min,max) etc.. Obviously writing the argument in this order allows the system to easily check what kind of result it should return. The HP49 had to stick with the original HP choice so we had to put new command like INTVX, INT, RISCH etc... As the HP49 OS doesn't have the ability to know how many arguments are supplied (they are all in the stack) ==== > As the HP49 OS doesn't have the ability to know how many arguments are > supplied (they are all in the stack) I have never seen a Too Many Arguments error on a 49. :) On a Ti89 I see it quite often, sometimes when the brackets are not in the right spots or there are some missing. >:) ==== As JYA says, HP did it first so the rest of the world are the ones not > doing it right! HP most certainly didn't do it first. There have been dozens of > computer algebra systems before the HP48. HP was the first one to put it in a calculator and to calculate a numerical >integral. Writing like INTEGRAL(min,max,function, variable) is by far the most logical >way of writing an integral, as it's how you write it on paper. > So then you agree that on the hp 2+3 should be written 2+3 Enter not as 2 Enter 3 +. Ok thats good to know. ;-) >technical choice. >The TI allows you to use the integral size in different way: >INTEGRAL(function,variable) >INTEGRAL(function,variable,min,max) etc.. Obviously writing the argument in this order allows the system to easily >check what kind of result it should return. >The HP49 had to stick with the original HP choice so we had to put new >command like INTVX, INT, RISCH etc... >As the HP49 OS doesn't have the ability to know how many arguments are >supplied (they are all in the stack) > ==== > I have never seen a Too Many Arguments error on a 49. :) On a Ti89 I see it quite often, sometimes when the brackets are not in the > right spots or there are some missing. >:) Why don't you use the Equation Writer? -- Bhuvanesh usually important. ==== > Writing like INTEGRAL(min,max,function, variable) is by far the most logical > way of writing an integral, as it's how you write it on paper. So then you agree that on the hp 2+3 should be written 2+3 > Enter not as 2 Enter 3 +. Ok thats good to know. ;-) This is an entirely different matter. You're talking RPN in the middle of an algebraic expression. The HP4x can perfectly handle '2+3' as well as 2 3 + You could even use the integral sign in RPN mode putting all your argument on the stack first. When talking about algebraic expression, writing integral(min,max, function, variable) is more logical. <662e00ed.0304300747.7c3f355b@posting.google.com> ==== In message , >Writing like INTEGRAL(min,max,function, variable) is by far the most logical >way of writing an integral, as it's how you write it on paper. So then you agree that on the hp 2+3 should be written 2+3 Enter >not as 2 Enter 3 +. Ok thats good to know. ;-) Colin's an HP38/39/40 fan so what would he know about 2 Enter 3 + ? :-) Here's a little test though. Suppose you want to evaluate 6x + 5x^2 + 4x^3 + 3x^4 + 2x^5 + x^6 where x=7. How many keystrokes do you think that it takes under algebraic versus RPN? On the 39G I entered it as read e.g. 6*7+5*7^2+4*7^3... etc. for a total of 30 keystrokes. How many keystrokes do you think it takes on an HP-12C, say, which is an RPN only machine? Answer: 19. A piddly 19. That's less than two-thirds what it takes on the 39. Wanna know how? I'll make that a mini-challenge and see who's up to it. No special tricks needed so you don't have to use a 12C. :-) -- ==== > In message , Writing like INTEGRAL(min,max,function, variable) is by far the most > logical > way of writing an integral, as it's how you write it on paper. So then you agree that on the hp 2+3 should be written 2+3 > Enter not as 2 Enter 3 +. Ok thats good to know. ;-) > Colin's an HP38/39/40 fan so what would he know about 2 Enter 3 + ? :-) I am neither ignorant nor an idiot (contrary to some opinions in this forum ;-). I have owned and used RPN calculators in the dim prehistoric past. Personally I agree that it is far more efficient once you get used to it. However, years of experience in the classroom have shown me that only the top 25% of students ever understand it well enough (and quickly enough) to make it a desirable option for the medium to low ability student. That's my ONLY objection to it. > Here's a little test though. Suppose you want to evaluate 6x + 5x^2 + > 4x^3 + 3x^4 + 2x^5 + x^6 where x=7. How many keystrokes do you think > that it takes under algebraic versus RPN? On the 39G I entered it as read e.g. 6*7+5*7^2+4*7^3... etc. for a total > of 30 keystrokes. Actually only 29 since ^2 is one keystroke. :-) > How many keystrokes do you think it takes on an HP-12C, say, which is an > RPN only machine? Answer: 19. A piddly 19. That's less than two-thirds > what it takes on the 39. Wanna know how? I'll make that a mini-challenge and see who's up to it. No special tricks needed so you don't have to use a 12C. > :-) Actually, I can do it using only 27 keystrokes on my humble little HP39G! Still not as good as 19 but getting better. Just use: 7 + 2 ENTER * 7 + 3 ENTER * 7 + 4 ENTER * 7 + 5 ENTER * 7 + 6 ENTER * 7 ENTER I thought this might be your method, using factorising as 6x + 5x^2 + 4x^3 + 3x^4 + 2x^5 + x^6 = x(6+x(5+x(4+x(3+x(2+x)))))? Actually.... 22 keystrokes is enough if we use the 'intelligence' of the HP39G efficiently! Just enter the keys below and it will fill in the * and )'s as required ;-) 7 ( 6 + 7 ( 5 + 7 ( 4 + 7 ( 3 + 7 ( 2 + 7 ENTER Now I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't this also require 22 keystrokes in RPN as below? 7 ENTER 2 + 7 * 3 + 7 * 4 + 7 * 5 + 7 * 6 + 7 * Maybe I got the wrong method because I can't get 19. Finally, I'm probably going to expose my ignorance here but bear in mind that it has been 20 years (!) since I've used RPN other than for 5 minutes here and there so be forgiving! Doesn't doing it as a straight forward expression using RPN without factorising or tricks require 37 keystrokes as follows? 7 ENTER 6 ^ 7 ENTER 5 ^ 2 * + 7 ENTER 4 ^ 3 * + 7 ENTER 3 ^ 4 * + 7 ENTER 2 ^ 5 * + 7 ENTER 6 * + Maybe I've got this wrong but if not then I think 29 (the straight forward method on the 39G) compares very well with 37 in RPN!! ==== I have never seen a Too Many Arguments error on a 49. :) On a Ti89 I see it quite often, sometimes when the brackets are not in the > right spots or there are some missing. >:) Why don't you use the Equation Writer? I do, but only for more complex equations... Sometimes I do not know the arguments needed for a function so I have to 'guess' what order to put the arguments in and how many are needed. When I was learning the 49 I got the Too Few Arguments error quite often :) ==== > Here's a little test though. Suppose you want to evaluate 6x + 5x^2 + > 4x^3 + 3x^4 + 2x^5 + x^6 where x=7. How many keystrokes do you think > that it takes under algebraic versus RPN? On the 39G I entered it as read e.g. 6*7+5*7^2+4*7^3... etc. for a total > of 30 keystrokes. How many keystrokes do you think it takes on an HP-12C, say, which is an > RPN only machine? Answer: 19. A piddly 19. That's less than two-thirds > what it takes on the 39. Now compare symbolics, on a 49 (in RPN mode) it takes 35 keystrokes to type in 6x + 5x^2 + 4x^3 + 3x^4 + 2x^5 + x^6 (with the x's), while in algebraic mode, it takes only 26 keystrokes. That's less then three-quarters of what it takes in RPN mode. Albert ==== Well said. Superior technologies are rarely mass technologies. > In message , Writing like INTEGRAL(min,max,function, variable) is by far the most > logical > way of writing an integral, as it's how you write it on paper. So then you agree that on the hp 2+3 should be written 2+3 > Enter not as 2 Enter 3 +. Ok thats good to know. ;-) > Colin's an HP38/39/40 fan so what would he know about 2 Enter 3 + ? :-) > I am neither ignorant nor an idiot (contrary to some opinions in this > forum ;-). I have owned and used RPN calculators in the dim prehistoric > past. Personally I agree that it is far more efficient once you get used > to it. However, years of experience in the classroom have shown me that > only the top 25% of students ever understand it well enough (and quickly > enough) to make it a desirable option for the medium to low ability > student. That's my ONLY objection to it. ==== > I am neither ignorant nor an idiot (contrary to some opinions in this > forum ;-). I have owned and used RPN calculators in the dim prehistoric > past. Personally I agree that it is far more efficient once you get used > to it. However, years of experience in the classroom have shown me that > only the top 25% of students ever understand it well enough (and quickly > enough) to make it a desirable option for the medium to low ability > student. That's my ONLY objection to it. > I agree with this objection, having observed the same. I have another objection against RPN, it can not handle function with variable arguments number (except if you precise the number of arguments at stack level 1), which for example is the reason why you have INTVX, RISCH, and the integral symbol, 3 differents function for the same integration function. And RPN programs are, if not commented correctly, very hard to understand, and even if commented correctly harder to modify (except if you are not using the stack intensively). Algebraic languages (like C++ or higher-level scripting CAS language) are much easier to code and modify. One of the big advantage of RPN is the memory footprint which was essential 15 years ago and (for a CAS) the fact that it must be a non-typed langage because of the stack. It is also excellent for programming parsing expressions if you don't want to use tools like flex/bison. <662e00ed.0304300747.7c3f355b@posting.google.com> <3EB1FFDD.8000705@iinet.net.au> ==== In message <3EB1FFDD.8000705@iinet.net.au>, Colin Croft > Colin's an HP38/39/40 fan so what would he know about 2 Enter 3 + >? :-) >I am neither ignorant nor an idiot (contrary to some opinions in this >forum ;-). I have owned and used RPN calculators in the dim prehistoric >past. Personally I agree that it is far more efficient once you get >used to it. However, years of experience in the classroom have shown me >that only the top 25% of students ever understand it well enough (and >quickly enough) to make it a desirable option for the medium to low >ability student. That's my ONLY objection to it. I've heard it suggested that HP should put RPN into their low-end models so that children can be exposed to it from a much earlier age i.e. from when they first start to use calculators in the classroom rather than by the time they need something more advanced and are ready to buy a 49G level machine. Does this sound reasonable, practicable? > Here's a little test though. Suppose you want to evaluate 6x + 5x^2 + >4x^3 + 3x^4 + 2x^5 + x^6 where x=7. How many keystrokes do you think >that it takes under algebraic versus RPN? > On the 39G I entered it as read e.g. 6*7+5*7^2+4*7^3... etc. for a >total of 30 keystrokes. >Actually only 29 since ^2 is one keystroke. :-) Nope it's 30. Unless I can't count key-presses while scrolling through the expression on a 39G. :-) > How many keystrokes do you think it takes on an HP-12C, say, which is >an RPN only machine? Answer: 19. A piddly 19. That's less than >two-thirds what it takes on the 39. > Wanna know how? I'll make that a mini-challenge and see who's up to >it. > No special tricks needed so you don't have to use a 12C. > :-) Actually, I can do it using only 27 keystrokes on my humble little >HP39G! Still not as good as 19 but getting better. Just use: 7 + 2 ENTER * 7 + 3 ENTER * 7 + 4 ENTER * 7 + 5 ENTER * 7 + 6 ENTER * 7 >ENTER Getting there... >I thought this might be your method, using factorising as 6x + 5x^2 + 4x^3 + 3x^4 + 2x^5 + x^6 = x(6+x(5+x(4+x(3+x(2+x)))))? Red hot! >Actually.... 22 keystrokes is enough if we use the 'intelligence' of >the HP39G efficiently! Just enter the keys below and it will fill in >the * and )'s as required ;-) 7 ( 6 + 7 ( 5 + 7 ( 4 + 7 ( 3 + 7 ( 2 + 7 ENTER Getting colder. Not bad for the algebraic machine though. >Now I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't this also >require 22 keystrokes in RPN as below? 7 ENTER 2 + 7 * 3 + 7 * 4 + 7 * 5 + 7 * 6 + 7 * Maybe I got the wrong method because I can't get 19. Finally, I'm probably going to expose my ignorance here but bear in >mind that it has been 20 years (!) since I've used RPN other than for 5 >minutes here and there so be forgiving! Doesn't doing it as a straight >forward expression using RPN without factorising or tricks require 37 >keystrokes as follows? 7 ENTER 6 ^ 7 ENTER 5 ^ 2 * + 7 ENTER 4 ^ 3 * + 7 ENTER 3 ^ 4 * + 7 >ENTER 2 ^ 5 * + 7 ENTER 6 * + Maybe I've got this wrong but if not then I think 29 (the straight >forward method on the 39G) compares very well with 37 in RPN!! 9/10 for effort :-) The bit you've forgotten during that 20 years is that the traditional HP machines have a 4 level stack (X, Y, Z and T) where T retains its contents rather than dropping them when items are consumed by an operation. Thus the 19 keystroke version is: 7 ENTER ENTER ENTER 2 + * 3 + * 4 + * 5 + * 6 + * The saving comes from not having to enter the 7 repeatedly. This is one of the very few examples where the old-style stack has an advantage over the unlimited stack of modern RPL. It's also pretty idiot-proof to evaluate since it's a repetitive enter the coefficient, press +, press * and repeat operation. -- ==== > However, years of experience in the classroom > have shown me that only the top 25% of students ever understand it > well enough (and quickly enough) to make it a desirable option for the > medium to low ability student. That's my ONLY objection to it. > > I've heard it suggested that HP should put RPN into their low-end models > so that children can be exposed to it from a much earlier age i.e. from > when they first start to use calculators in the classroom rather than by > the time they need something more advanced and are ready to buy a 49G > level machine. Does this sound reasonable, practicable? My first instinctive reaction was that it wouldn't make a difference - the top 25% would still be the only ones to really benefit. But then I stopped and thought about it: to be quite honest I don't know. I've never heard of such an experiment being conducted (getting them really young I mean) and I don't know whether it would make a difference. Does anyone know of a serious study having been done comparing achievement using RPN vs algebraic, differentiated by mathematical ability and/or age at time of first exposure? 9/10 for effort :-) The bit you've forgotten during that 20 years is > that the traditional HP machines have a 4 level stack (X, Y, Z and T) > where T retains its contents rather than dropping them when items are > consumed by an operation. Thus the 19 keystroke version is: 7 ENTER ENTER ENTER 2 + * 3 + * 4 + * 5 + * 6 + * The saving comes from not having to enter the 7 repeatedly. > You're quite right - I was not aware of that. What a neat idea! I had been assuming a three or four level stack as was the case on the machine I used for some time in the early eighties. A very early HP that my brother bought - the first programmable one I seem to remember. Don't know what the model was. I can see why the idea would be handy but I suspect that, despite your comment of it being 'idiot proof', you'd really have to have a fair bit of practice before it became easy to use without having to stop and think about it. I'd have to have a play before I could make a guess as to whether it would raise or lower that 25% who'd get it well enough. ==== > In message <3EB1FFDD.8000705@iinet.net.au>, Colin Croft X > 9/10 for effort :-) The bit you've forgotten during that 20 years is > that the traditional HP machines have a 4 level stack (X, Y, Z and T) > where T retains its contents rather than dropping them when items are > consumed by an operation. Thus the 19 keystroke version is: 7 ENTER ENTER ENTER 2 + * 3 + * 4 + * 5 + * 6 + * The saving comes from not having to enter the 7 repeatedly. This is one of the very few examples where the old-style stack has an > advantage over the unlimited stack of modern RPL. It's also pretty > idiot-proof to evaluate since it's a repetitive enter the coefficient, > press +, press * and repeat operation. A) Since I use NDUPN quite often, I have it on keyboard, - one can spell it: 7 [SPC] 6 hold [ALPHA] press N D U P N release [ALPHA] then [ENTER] continue with DROP 2 + * 3 + * 4 + * 5 + * 6 + * - call it from the CATalog: 7 [SPC] @ or [ENTER]@ 6 [CAT] [ALPHA] [N] [DownArrow] [ENTER] continue with DROP 2 + * 3 + * 4 + * 5 + * 6 + * - use [TOOL] softmenu keys: 7 [SPC] 6 [TOOL] |STACK| (F3) and [LeftShift] PREV (Lor NXT) then |NDUPN| (F1) continue with DROP 2 + * 3 + * 4 + * 5 + * 6 + * - or have it on some key like I do 7 [ENTER] 6 shift&hold [LeftShift] ANS @ assigned key continue with 2 + * 3 + * 4 + * 5 + * 6 + * (I have my own NDUP which has the DROP build-in as ; ) B) The hard way: 7 [ENTER] [ENTER] [ENTER] [ENTER] [ENTER] [ENTER] continue with 2 + * 3 + * 4 + * 5 + * 6 + * OR 7 [SPC] 7 [SPC] 7 [SPC] 7 [SPC] 7 [SPC] 7 [ENTER] continue with 2 + * 3 + * 4 + * 5 + * 6 + * OR 7 [SPC] 7 [SPC] 7 [ENTER] [LeftShift] [CMD] [ENTER] [ENTER] continue with 2 + * 3 + * 4 + * 5 + * 6 + * Ayway the HP 28/48/49 style is not as good in keystrokes as the old system. there is always a trade-off... PS: Is there yet another way to do it? ==== > Ayway the HP 28/48/49 style is not as good in keystrokes as the old system. > there is always a trade-off... > PS: Is there yet another way to do it? Yes. [p/r] + 7 * [p/r] 7 [enter] 2 [r/s] 3 [r/s] 4 [r/s] 5 [r/s] 6 [r/s] For a total of seventeen keystrokes... dd. ==== > I agree with this objection, having observed the same. I have > another objection against RPN, it can not handle function with > variable arguments number (except if you precise the number > of arguments at stack level 1), which for example is the reason Expect one list of arguments. ==== > >Here's a little test though. Suppose you want to evaluate 6x + 5x^2 + >4x^3 + 3x^4 + 2x^5 + x^6 where x=7. How many keystrokes do you think >that it takes under algebraic versus RPN? On the 39G I entered it as read e.g. 6*7+5*7^2+4*7^3... etc. for a total >of 30 keystrokes. How many keystrokes do you think it takes on an HP-12C, say, which is an >RPN only machine? Answer: 19. A piddly 19. That's less than two-thirds >what it takes on the 39. > Now compare symbolics, on a 49 (in RPN mode) it takes 35 keystrokes to type > in 6x + 5x^2 + 4x^3 + 3x^4 + 2x^5 + x^6 (with the x's), while in algebraic > mode, it takes only 26 keystrokes. That's less then three-quarters of what > it takes in RPN mode. Albert How about (where E = enter) 7 E E E E E (puts 6 copies of x on the stack) 2 + * (x^2 + 2x) 3 + * (x^3 + 2x^2 + 3x) 4 + * (x^4 + 2x^3 + 3x^2 + 4x) 5 + * (x^5 + 2x^4 + 3x^3 + 4x^2 + 4x) 6 + * (the whole megilla) 21 strokes and the values of x only has to be entered once. btw, isn't there a command on the 49 for evaluating a polynomial given the values and a vecor of coefficients? Martin Cohen ==== > Now compare symbolics, on a 49 (in RPN mode) it takes 35 keystrokes to type > in 6x + 5x^2 + 4x^3 + 3x^4 + 2x^5 + x^6 (with the x's), while in algebraic > mode, it takes only 26 keystrokes. That's less then three-quarters of what > it takes in RPN mode. I got 34 for both entry modes. You didn't count the 2 enter pushes per term in the middle, right? If you do, you get 2*4 more pushes, and that's not including the final Enter, which would bring the EQW version to 35. I do have to admit, the entry was much more straightforward in EQW mode though... -Aaron ==== X > btw, isn't there a command on the 49 for evaluating > a polynomial given the values and a vecor of coefficients? [LeftShift] [ * ] gives [ square brackets ] then I use [SPC] [1 2 3 4 5 6 0] the [RightArrow] 7 hold [ALPHA] P E V A L release [ALPHA] and press [ENTER] PS: Maybe one could use SEQ or DOLIST ==== >I agree with this objection, having observed the same. I have >another objection against RPN, it can not handle function with >variable arguments number (except if you precise the number >of arguments at stack level 1), which for example is the reason > Expect one list of arguments. Then it takes one argument, the list. Remember that you can not do what you want with lists (e.g. inside symbolics). ==== > On an AOS machine, the user has to use a lot of parenthesis to reach the > same level of confidence in the results than an RPN user. I think that's > the biggest advantage of RPN over AOS. Actually I find by observing high school students that they seldom use brackets on the 39G. rally they will evaluate part of the expression something like 2+4 ---- 3+5 would be done as 2+4 ENTER. Then 3+5 ENTER. Then copy result and divide by copy result. I use an absurdly simple example here - in reality with one that simple they'd mostly use their heads (well, sometimes. Sigh!). But you get the idea. They do not tend to have confidence in brackets because of the way that they are so often 'implied' rather than specifically stated, as in the example above. ==== > btw, isn't there a command on the 49 for evaluating > a polynomial given the values and a vecor of coefficients? You're right! There certainly is on the 39G - it's called POLYEVAL. Doing it that way requires 25 keystrokes, including those needed to fetch it from the menu. ie. POLYEVAL([1,2,3,4,5,6,0],7 ENTER (no final bracket is required). <662e00ed.0304300747.7c3f355b@posting.google.com> <3EB1FFDD.8000705@iinet.net.au> ==== In message , David Davies Ayway the HP 28/48/49 style is not as good in keystrokes as the old system. > there is always a trade-off... > PS: Is there yet another way to do it? Yes. [p/r] + 7 * [p/r] 7 [enter] 2 [r/s] 3 [r/s] 4 [r/s] 5 [r/s] 6 [r/s] For a total of seventeen keystrokes... 10/10 for effort but [p/r] is two keystrokes[1] so that brings it up to 19 - the same as mine. [1] For the benefit of those without an HP-12C, [p/r] is a shifted function. -- ==== You're right! There certainly is on the 39G - it's called POLYEVAL. > Doing it that way requires 25 keystrokes, including those needed to > fetch it from the menu. > ie. POLYEVAL([1,2,3,4,5,6,0],7 ENTER (no final bracket is required). Please note that the bracket is not required on the HP39/40G only. It is required on the HP38 ==== >You're right! There certainly is on the 39G - it's called POLYEVAL. >Doing it that way requires 25 keystrokes, including those needed to >fetch it from the menu. >ie. POLYEVAL([1,2,3,4,5,6,0],7 ENTER (no final bracket is required). > Please note that the bracket is not required on the HP39/40G only. It is > required on the HP38 > Ummm.. actually no - it's not required on the 38G either. :-) ==== > However, years of experience in the classroom > have shown me that only the top 25% of students ever understand it > well enough (and quickly enough) to make it a desirable option for the > medium to low ability student. That's my ONLY objection to it. I've heard it suggested that HP should put RPN into their low-end models > so that children can be exposed to it from a much earlier age i.e. from > when they first start to use calculators in the classroom rather than by > the time they need something more advanced and are ready to buy a 49G > level machine. Does this sound reasonable, practicable? My first instinctive reaction was that it wouldn't make a difference - > the top 25% would still be the only ones to really benefit. But then I > stopped and thought about it: to be quite honest I don't know. I've > never heard of such an experiment being conducted (getting them really > young I mean) and I don't know whether it would make a difference. Does > anyone know of a serious study having been done comparing achievement > using RPN vs algebraic, differentiated by mathematical ability and/or > age at time of first exposure? No, I don't know of any such study, but here are a few anecdotal observations. When my grandniece was in junior high, she forgot to bring her calculator home, and asked if she could borrow one of mine to do her homework. I had my 28S with me, and after I showed her how to do basic arithmetic on it, she was delighted; so much easier than the calculator that she had been using. The 49G came out, and she talked me out of one of those (it looks cool), so now I have my 28S back. Oh well, I suppose that the 28S will be a collector's item soon. My niece, not quite middle-aged yet, seldom uses math for anything more complicated than balancing her checkbook or calculating a percentage. Recently, she was trying to add a column of a few hundred figures with a calculator, and kept having to start over. She said I hate calculators! I wish I had an adding machine!. I offered a 48GX, showed her how to do basic arithmetic with it, and she got it done with one try. Her comment was something like: Now this is how calculators *should* work. Maybe it's a tic quirk? But my sister and her husband, both math teachers, insist that RPN/RPL is far too complicated. Hard to figure; they were both math majors in college, and graduated before handheld calculators were available to most people, so I know that they're not stupid. I'm convinced that anyone who hasn't been too indoctrinated into using an algebraic user interface would find an RPN interface easier to use. After learning to use an RPN interface, would anyone willingly go back to using an algebraic interface? I believe that marketing a very basic low-cost RPN style calculator, even if it weren't especially profitable in itself, would lay the groundwork for future sales and long-term profits. Unfortunately, corporations all too often sacrifice long-term profits for the sake of short-term profits. For those occasions when you're copying an algebraic formula, you can simply enclose it withing '' quotes to have an RPL calculator interpret it properly, and use parentheses if you're not sure of the precedence. You can have it display implied parentheses if you want to check on how it will treat an expression. So RPL calculators give you the best of both worlds. -- ==== > In message , David Davies Ayway the HP 28/48/49 style is not as good in keystrokes as the old system. > there is always a trade-off... > PS: Is there yet another way to do it? Yes. [p/r] + 7 * [p/r] 7 [enter] 2 [r/s] 3 [r/s] 4 [r/s] 5 [r/s] 6 [r/s] For a total of seventeen keystrokes... 10/10 for effort but [p/r] is two keystrokes[1] so that brings it up to > 19 - the same as mine. > ... [1] For the benefit of those without an HP-12C, [p/r] is a shifted > function. Earlier models (at least up to the HP41 series) had a standalone Program / Run switch or key, making it quite natural to record any repetitive sequence of keystrokes without going to the trouble of 'writing a program'. To someone used to working that way the repetitive use of + * cried out for immediate simplification. It's rather like recording Emacs keyboard macros instead of writing a Lisp function. Having the run/stop key next to the numeric keys helps too... dd. ==== Ummm.. actually no - it's not required on the 38G either. :-) > I can't remember exactly what I changed, but the compiler on the HP39G/HP48G has been changed to always accept argument without a closing parentheses. Now I have to admit that my memory is not as good as it used to be. I'm pretty sure that INTEGRAL (integral sign) on either the HP38 or HP48 you had to use a closing parenthesis. You don't have to on the HP39 or HP49. There are other cases like that. My mistake for POLYEVAL :) ==== I'm back from holidays and as I suspected when posting my little message all answers are correct, to the point, and informative. Worth G.E. ==== > Now compare symbolics, on a 49 (in RPN mode) it takes 35 keystrokes to type > in 6x + 5x^2 + 4x^3 + 3x^4 + 2x^5 + x^6 (with the x's), while in algebraic > mode, it takes only 26 keystrokes. That's less then three-quarters of what > it takes in RPN mode. I got 34 for both entry modes. You didn't count the 2 enter pushes > per term in the middle, right? If you do, you get 2*4 more pushes, > and that's not including the final Enter, which would bring the EQW > version to 35. I do have to admit, the entry was much more straightforward in EQW > mode though... I'm not sure what you mean by the 2 enter pushes, but I did not use the EQW for the algebraic mode, I actually switched it to algebraic mode :) It looks a lot different in that mode, a whole new world. I wasn't considering doing the factoring method because you can't do that with all polynominals. The POLYEVAL is a much better method for entering polynominals anyhow. ==== X > My niece, not quite middle-aged yet, seldom uses math for anything > more complicated than balancing her checkbook or calculating a > percentage. Recently, she was trying to add a column of a few hundred > figures with a calculator, and kept having to start over. She said I > hate calculators! I wish I had an adding machine!. I offered a 48GX, > showed her how to do basic arithmetic with it, and she got it done with > one try. Her comment was something like: Now this is how calculators > *should* work. X I once had to find a bug in a Cobol program, in year 1983 I guess, concerning of more than hundred numbers, which did not add up correctly. I first claimed memory for 1..126 (IIRC the