A190 d/L to a PC (Stanley Trent's SMI program comes to mind) ...but now I need a customizable program with this feature: It must be able to print a paper receipt in the field. And I doubt they even still sell the old infrared-link thermal printers (and even if they didI'd think that would be a rather cumbersome solution). Does anybody have any ideas? BTW, if you have any experience with Portable DataLab I'd welcome your comments as well. /ramalane -- Offical Alt.Hackers.Malicious Survival Guide, http://www.ramalane.com ==== > ...they DRAG ME BACK IN! :o) I just blew the dust off of my 48SX and 48GX calculators. > I use to use the hell out of them back in my land surveying > days so I was familiar with some surveying software that > converted the 48 into a data collector. Now I'm in a > different field and I need a portable data collector which can The hp 82240B printers have been going for $60ish on ebay lately. and I don't see them as cumbersome at all. I've got a 48sx, manual, and printer all carried in a small (like, the old small 386 era) notebook pc envelope stuffed with foam cutouts to give protection. total weight around a kilo, size of a 3 ring binder for A4 paper. Actually, I've added an hp95lx to the case lately, and theres' room for batteries. > d/L to a PC (Stanley Trent's SMI program comes to mind) > ...but now I need a customizable program with this feature: It must be able to print a paper receipt in the field. And I doubt > they even still sell the old infrared-link thermal printers (and even > if they didI'd think that would be a rather cumbersome solution). > BTW, if you have any experience with Portable DataLab I'd > welcome your comments as well. while E <> ==== It appears to be flag -125 being set which is causing '\\v/2^2' not to simplify using either EVAL or EXPAND. . ==== I have a 28S as well as a 48GX and I prefer the single keyboard. The 28S is nice in some ways, but is a pain in the butt to hold. I think th 28S was and is a great calculator though! > It really was just about perfect for programming with the extra > alphabetic keys. What made them go to a traditional form-factor for the > 48? > ==== > The 28S is a pain in the butt to hold. With its double-hinged case (same as 18C/28C/19B[ii]), you can open it 360 degrees, in which case it looks (and holds) like other \vertical\ calculators, except that the alpha keys (and any associated functions on the HP28 models) are on the \back side,\ so that you have to flip it over, more or less, to use those (but the display and all the numeric keys and ENTER are in front). As to a computer interface, mentioned in another post, this \clamshell\ series has only IR *HP*printer* output (not readable by any PC unless some HP palmtop can read it), and of course no input but the keyboard, so there is no computer interface, hence no programming other than by manually typable user command programs. ((o)) . ==== It really was just about perfect for programming with the extra > alphabetic keys. What made them go to a traditional form-factor for the 48? I had a 28S and it was good for keying in...but I couldn't get software for it. HP told me they had only released the 28s to give programmers a worktool but that they themselves didn't write software, and to check Grapevine Publishing. But when I did, they said, \We don't have any programs for the 28S, but if you write one, we'll sell it for you.\ and intersection program, and then the 48 came out (and SMI already had a good cogo prog) so I returned the 28 and purchased the one I still own. I'm not sure but I don't remember an interface on the 28. /ramalane -- Offical Alt.Hackers.Malicious Survival Guide, FAQ, and Who's Who (Or as rikijo sez, \Who dat iz?\) http://www.ramalane.com ==== when it comes to an interface there were actually a possibility to connect the 28S to the PC transferring files (programs) forth and back between PC and calc. As the 28S was still top of the product line a german guy named Frederich Schr\.9ader (at that time living in Denmark) developed a cable connection to the PC. Several years ago I contacted him because I wanted him to modify one of my 28s but (I think he told me) it would be too much work starting this project again... and unfortunately I haven't ever seen such a modified 28 for sale on ebay... which means I am still waiting...:-) Martin ramalane© schrieb: >It really was just about perfect for programming with the extra >>alphabetic keys. What made them go to a traditional form-factor for the >>48? > I had a 28S and it was good for keying in...but I couldn't get software > for it. HP told me they had only released the 28s to give programmers a > worktool but that they themselves didn't write software, and to check > Grapevine Publishing. But when I did, they said, \We don't have any > programs for the 28S, but if you write one, we'll sell it for you.\ > and intersection program, and then the 48 came out (and SMI already had > a good cogo prog) so I returned the 28 and purchased the one I still > own. > I'm not sure but I don't remember an interface on the 28. /ramalane ==== i'll see how it turns out. did you guys see the comparison with mathematica they have on the site mentioned bellow? > http://www.softintegration.com/ ==== > Adding this command to thr prg, I still need press ON for refreshing the > stack The strongest and perhaps fastest command to refresh the display completely is SysDISPLAY - ==== I think you should use ClrDAsOK, which does :: ClrDA1OK ClrDA2OK ClrDA3OK ; (stack area 1 and 2 and menu area) Caspar If this does not work I have to check my Donnely book... > I think that maybe ClrDA3OK help you. I don't have the calc here so I > can't test. Adding this command to thr prg, I still need press ON for refreshing the > stack :-( > ==== > I think you should use ClrDAsOK, which does ClrDA1OK ClrDA2OK ClrDA3OK ; ==== FEM48 has been updated to version 5.0 and is available through the \ following link: http://home.hccnet.nl/c.lugtmeier/c.lugtmeier/HP48Fil/Fem48/FEM48v50.zip Please note that this link is only available for a short time. FEM48 will \ be (is being) ported to the HP49 by Alain Robillard. After the porting is finished the complete package will be published on my web-page and on hpcalc.org. Changes: * LCASE module á new load case and combinations module á now you can save loads as load cases and make combinations of load cases á includes updates of FEM48 commands like SAVEFEM2, PGLD2, SCALC2 etc * FEM48 module á added temperature loads option with command MLT á added display of choice position and choice list length to FBROW browser á SCALC now always uses Cholesky solver á added recall state of toggle commands (e.g. now BZÀ \ sets state and BZ? recalls state) á CHOL command removed á LCAS command added á modified SINFO display á added protection for FBROW for large header strings á removed autocalculation with SPLOT command (when \ DFORÀ is toggled on) á added recall state of toggle commands * QUERY module á modified NPLT, VPLT, MPLT, UXPLT, RYPLT and UZPLT commands, which make it possible to plot N, V, M, etc lines for more than one member in one plot (handy for continuous beams) á now also scrolling along plotted graphs, with displayed values under plot (trace mode) á removed batchplot facilities á removed QMEM commands, now member provided by user for each command (faster) á improved scaling of constant value plots (now in middle of screen) á improved reaction to ON (cancel) key á added optional tagging of stack results á added recall state of toggle commands * WIZRD module á added Ix to SED48 link (was only choice of Iy and Iz), order is now: Ix Iy Iz, with default position on Iy á bugfix: now Iz selection in SED48 link chooses Iz correctly (was Iy) * PRINT module á all non-integers are now displayed using stack format (e.g. 3 ENG) * MOVLD module á MOVLD command is now available from the FEM menu (Left-Shift SCALC or SCALC2) á now a nullnamed library * Description of FEM48: The FEM48 library uses the Finite Elements Method and is designed to be used for the structural analysis of 2D frames, trusses and (continious) beams. FEM48 is completely written in SysRPL (with some assembly). FEM48 follows a modular approach. You can choose to load only the modules you need. The available modules integrate seamlessly into the FEM48 interface. * Modules: á FEM48 module : main library, not optional á QUERY module : beam analysis á WIZRD module : wizards for structures, section properties and loads á PRINT module : generate/print strings of input and/or output á MOVLD module : generate moving loads on (continious) beams á LCASE module : handle load cases and load case combinations * Main features: á extensive manual (READ IT!) á modular approach á extremely easy to use due to excellent interface á supports frames, trusses and (continious) beams á load cases and combinations are possible á beam analysis (numerical and/or graphical) á data can be entered in three (!) ways: 1) using a structure wizard for \standard structures\ 2) using input prompts for structure data 3) assemble data arrays and store them from the stack á text file (string) output of input and calculation results á (un)deformed structure plots with optional displaying of \ supports, node numbers, members numbers á seven (!) load types, including displacement loads, temperature loads and moving loads á configurable matrix viewer/editor (choose your own matrix editor i.e. MATRIX or EDITB with Metakernel) á configurable stringviewer (i.e. VV, the author's VIEW library or EDITB with Metakernel) á superfast Cholesky matrix solve routine (assembly language) á links to an external section database (SED48 v1.2 or higher) á file management á completely programmable (write your own batch files) ==== Good to hear. Hanging out for FEM49v50. FEM48 has been updated to version 5.0 and is available through the following > link: > http://home.hccnet.nl/c.lugtmeier/c.lugtmeier/HP48Fil/Fem48/FEM48v50.zip Please note that this link is only available for a short time. FEM48 will be > (is being) ported to the HP49 by Alain Robillard. After the porting is > finished the complete package will be published on my web-page and on > hpcalc.org. Caspar Lugtmeier Changes: * LCASE module > á new load case and combinations module > á now you can save loads as load cases and make combinations > of load cases > á includes updates of FEM48 commands like SAVEFEM2, PGLD2, > SCALC2 etc * FEM48 module > á added temperature loads option with command MLT > á added display of choice position and choice list length to > FBROW browser > á SCALC now always uses Cholesky solver > á added recall state of toggle commands (e.g. now \ BZÀ sets > state and BZ? recalls state) > á CHOL command removed > á LCAS command added > á modified SINFO display > á added protection for FBROW for large header strings > á removed autocalculation with SPLOT command (when \ DFORÀ > is toggled on) > á added recall state of toggle commands * QUERY module > á modified NPLT, VPLT, MPLT, UXPLT, RYPLT and UZPLT commands, > which make it possible to plot N, V, M, etc lines for more > than one member in one plot (handy for continuous beams) > á now also scrolling along plotted graphs, with displayed > values under plot (trace mode) > á removed batchplot facilities > á removed QMEM commands, now member provided by user for each > command (faster) > á improved scaling of constant value plots (now in middle of > screen) > á improved reaction to ON (cancel) key > á added optional tagging of stack results > á added recall state of toggle commands * WIZRD module > á added Ix to SED48 link (was only choice of Iy and Iz), order > is now: Ix Iy Iz, with default position on Iy > á bugfix: now Iz selection in SED48 link chooses Iz correctly > (was Iy) * PRINT module > á all non-integers are now displayed using stack format (e.g. > 3 ENG) * MOVLD module > á MOVLD command is now available from the FEM menu (Left-Shift > SCALC or SCALC2) > á now a nullnamed library > * Description of FEM48: The FEM48 library uses the Finite Elements Method and is designed > to be used for the structural analysis of 2D frames, trusses and > (continious) beams. > FEM48 is completely written in SysRPL (with some assembly). FEM48 follows a modular approach. You can choose to load only the > modules you need. The available modules integrate seamlessly into > the FEM48 interface. * Modules: á FEM48 module : main library, not optional > á QUERY module : beam analysis > á WIZRD module : wizards for structures, section properties > and loads > á PRINT module : generate/print strings of input and/or output > á MOVLD module : generate moving loads on (continious) beams > á LCASE module : handle load cases and load case combinations * Main features: á extensive manual (READ IT!) > á modular approach > á extremely easy to use due to excellent interface > á supports frames, trusses and (continious) beams > á load cases and combinations are possible > á beam analysis (numerical and/or graphical) > á data can be entered in three (!) ways: > 1) using a structure wizard for \standard structures\ > 2) using input prompts for structure data > 3) assemble data arrays and store them from the stack > á text file (string) output of input and calculation results > á (un)deformed structure plots with optional displaying of \ supports, > node numbers, members numbers > á seven (!) load types, including displacement loads, temperature > loads and moving loads > á configurable matrix viewer/editor (choose your own matrix \ editor > i.e. MATRIX or EDITB with Metakernel) > á configurable stringviewer (i.e. VV, the author's VIEW library \ or > EDITB with Metakernel) > á superfast Cholesky matrix solve routine (assembly language) > á links to an external section database (SED48 v1.2 or higher) > á file management > á completely programmable (write your own batch files) ==== > Take '1/X' as an example (try it out). '1/X' 'X=0' LIMIT -> unsigned inf > '1/X' 'X=0+0' LIMIT -> +inf > '1/X' 'X=0-0' LIMIT -> -inf Does the above make sense on its own? If not, please write again. Yes, it makes sense to me. However, when I try out the examples, I still get \ an unsigned infinity symbol each time. Are there certain CAS settings with must be set? ==== > Yes, it makes sense to me. However, when I try out the examples, I still get > an unsigned infinity symbol each time. Are there certain CAS settings \ with > must be set? Clear flag -120 (Silent mode off) Clear flag -106 (Simp. in series) -- Offical Alt.Hackers.Malicious Survival Guide, FAQ, and Who's Who (Or as rikijo sez, \Who dat iz?\) http://www.ramalane.com ==== http://www.engr.uvic.ca/~aschoorl/faq ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-group/comp.sys.hp48/ [old, and where's part 3?] Reply-To: peter@dutw1479.wbmt.tudelft.nl ==== Does this ng have a FAQ? (and no, being the lazy bastard that I am I > didn't check faq.org first). You're not trying very hard are you? If you really have been reading hpcalc.org you whould have seen the comp.sys.hp48 FAQ under the \More files\ \Documentation\ section It is no longer sent to this newsgroup to save bandwidth. ==== > I am a newbie to writing programs and I am trying to write a program > for both the Hp49 and the Ti89, and I need some help. I have looked > all over the net and can't find an answer to my question. Here it is: > I have a list stored in variable 'l1'as well as a list in 'l2', 'l3', > and 'l4'. How do write the program to randomly pick a value out of > list 'l1'? How about list 'l2', etc.? I have tried rand(), but that > doesn't work. Any ideas, or am I going about it all wrong? EG (89): :{1,2,3,4}->l1 > :{House, car, boat, bike}->l2 > :{CO,AZ,UT,NY}->l3 > :{Amy, Scott, Mike, Susan}->l4 > :Disp ??????? Plain user RPL : In order to get any element out of a list : 1: yourlist --> 1: random element out of yourlist << DUP SIZE RAND * CEIL GET >> store this and run it... That's a start, it's not very clear what end result you want to achieve with the other lists. > Plain user RPL : In order to get any element out of a list : 1: yourlist --> 1: random element out of yourlist << DUP SIZE RAND * CEIL GET >> store this and run it... That's a start, it's not very clear what end result you > want to achieve with the other lists. How about l1[rand(dim(l1))] ? (Same for l2 and l3.) -- ==== Does any body know if it is possible to do limits with two variables on the 49G running 1.19-6. For example, is it possible to do \ Îlim((cos(x)+y)/(y-sin(x)),x,y)' I don't know if it is possible, and if it is I don't know how to input the two variables at the end. (x,y) -> (pi/2,0) (x,y) -> (pi/2,0) is not a path, it is the final \destination\ of (x,y). You must first now for example how y depends on x (or vice versa) while you approach (pi/2,0). For example such a dependancy could be y=x-pi/2. It defines a straight line on the complex plane (the path). But it could also be y=cos(x) which is a completely different path, but also results in y=0 when x=pi/2. So you have to choose your path. Like real life ;-) . ==== > Does any body know if it is possible to do limits with two variables > on the 49G running 1.19-6. For example, is it possible to do 'lim((cos(x)+y)/(y-sin(x)),x,y)' I > don't know if it is possible, and if it is I don't know how to input > the two variables at the end. Multivariate limits don't make any sense without the relationship between the variables stated. Commonly speaking, you must know by which path you want the multivariated limit calculated. ==== I am trying to use the FUMO DSP library I found in the HPCALC.ORG website but it requires a password to extract the file from the winrar file, the have not heard from him, does any of you by chance have the password for that winrar file (Fumo0v025)? ==== I can't mount a DoInputForm simple program !!! It simple doesn't work at all. there's the source: --- :: \LABEL\ ONE TEN ONE ZERO 'DROPFALSE \TITLE\ DoInputForm ; --- I also tryed with fields, but it is known that we can have a InputForm with only a label. I compile it and it don't run at all. *** I SPEND MORE THAT 4 HOURS IN IT, I'm doing certainly all right, but there's no way of this thing to work.. :( ==== You could use one of the Input Form Builders. for the HP-48 from me, and create some simple or even compley forms. Available at www.hpcalc.org Then you'll see that your example has one flaw: A form must consist of at least one label AND one field, aside from the title;-) And don't forget the label count and field count. Generic stack diagram for DoInputForm: Labels Fields LblCount FldCount FormProc Title --> ? hth, Raymond \Renato Jr\ schrieb im Newsbeitrag > I can't mount a DoInputForm simple program !!! > It simple doesn't work at all. > there's the source: --- > I also tryed with fields, but it is known that we can have a InputForm > with only a label. > I compile it and it don't run at all. > *** I SPEND MORE THAT 4 HOURS IN IT, I'm doing certainly all right, > but there's no way of this thing to work.. :( ==== >Has anyone got any information on weather HP is still in the calculator >business? The HPCC Conference this past weekend was to have reps from >HP to give the definitive answer to that, but so far no on is saying >anything. Summarising from the notes I took at HP's presentation: They are still in the calculator business but have only just restarted [so don't expect any great shakes soon]. They have a roadmap for the release of new models but these will be a low-end one in early 2003 and an updated financial model in Spring '03. New high-end scientific and high-end financial models won't appear until Summer/Autumn '03. They warned that the first product out of the starting gate will be a clone type calculator. Future models would feature \unique\ HP designs. They are definitely calculator focussed rather than \PDA + calculator software\ as this type of product \belongs\ to another division. They acknowledged that RPN is what differentiates their products and they have no intention of dropping it. However algebraic capability has to be there in order to sell at all. A suggestion from the floor was to introduce an RPN 4-banger - something that I have seen requested in this group a number of times. It was backed up by a maths teacher who added that the biggest obstacle in introducing RPN to older students is that they are too set in their ways. A simpler model introduced at an earlier age would do wonders. I can see the logic in this and I think HP do too. They didn't really have a presentation as such beyond the roadmap (+ some ideas about how to reduce supply chain and distribution costs inherent in the old ways of producing and selling calcs) and took questions. My opinion: it looks good - they appear to know what they are doing and have some good guys working in the group (called, incidentally, the Emerging Technologies Group). I am confident that they - as individuals - are in this for the duration, know what calculators are and aren't afraid to make something that they think will be cool for engineers as well as appealing to the mass, i.e. student, market. However, they are still a very small group in a very large company and things can change overnight through no fault of their own. ==== What about production quality, which was also a hallmark of HP? I think it would be cool to produce an entry level Scientific/Engineering calculator that is a cross between the 42 and 48 with a 3 or 4 level stack and 2-D graphics -- the multi-line stack display makes learning RPN very easy. G Savage > >Has anyone got any information on weather HP is still in the calculator > >business? The HPCC Conference this past weekend was to have reps from > >HP to give the definitive answer to that, but so far no on is saying > >anything. Summarising from the notes I took at HP's presentation: They are still in the calculator business but have only just restarted > [so don't expect any great shakes soon]. They have a roadmap for the > release of new models but these will be a low-end one in early 2003 and > an updated financial model in Spring '03. New high-end scientific and > high-end financial models won't appear until Summer/Autumn '03. They warned that the first product out of the starting gate will be a > clone type calculator. Future models would feature \unique\ HP designs. They are definitely calculator focussed rather than \PDA + calculator > software\ as this type of product \belongs\ to another division. They acknowledged that RPN is what differentiates their products and > they have no intention of dropping it. However algebraic capability has > to be there in order to sell at all. A suggestion from the floor was to introduce an RPN 4-banger - something > that I have seen requested in this group a number of times. It was > backed up by a maths teacher who added that the biggest obstacle in > introducing RPN to older students is that they are too set in their > ways. A simpler model introduced at an earlier age would do wonders. I > can see the logic in this and I think HP do too. They didn't really have a presentation as such beyond the roadmap (+ > some ideas about how to reduce supply chain and distribution costs > inherent in the old ways of producing and selling calcs) and took > questions. My opinion: it looks good - they appear to know what they are doing and > have some good guys working in the group (called, incidentally, the > Emerging Technologies Group). I am confident that they - as individuals > - are in this for the duration, know what calculators are and aren't > afraid to make something that they think will be cool for engineers as > well as appealing to the mass, i.e. student, market. However, they are > still a very small group in a very large company and things can change > overnight through no fault of their own. ==== > What about production quality, which was also a hallmark of HP? I think \ it > would be cool to produce an entry level Scientific/Engineering calculator > that is a cross between the 42 and 48 with a 3 or 4 level stack and 2-D > graphics -- the multi-line stack display makes learning RPN very easy. G Savage > I totally agree !!!! An HP52, same shape and size as the HP42, maybe slightly longer to accommodate a 3-4 stack display. Same quality keyboard, but with a better rechargeable lithium backup than the HP42. 2-way IR and 4-pin serial port. 128kb memory. Same User-RPL as the 48/49, or keystroke programming option. Inexpensive. That sort of calculator would be terrific. ==== An HP52, same shape and size as the HP42, maybe slightly longer to > accommodate a 3-4 stack display. Same quality keyboard, but with a > better rechargeable lithium backup than the HP42. 2-way IR and 4-pin > serial port. 128kb memory. Same User-RPL as the 48/49, or keystroke > programming option. Inexpensive. That sort of calculator would be terrific. Uhmm.... for a \sophisticated\ calculator with several screen lines I'm \ very happy with my 48GX. With \sophisticated\ I mean RPL programing, many many commands, graphics, etc... Many time and efforts for learning the calculator and developing sofware. I would like a classic \only numeric\ RPN scientific calculator like 15c (keystroke programming)... There is no accounting for tastes... ==== > An HP52, same shape and size as the HP42, maybe slightly longer to > accommodate a 3-4 stack display. Same quality keyboard, but with a > better rechargeable lithium backup than the HP42. 2-way IR and 4-pin > serial port. 128kb memory. Same User-RPL as the 48/49, or keystroke > programming option. Inexpensive. That sort of calculator would be terrific. Having 3-4 stack it seems a hp48 (more or less) so, yes, it is a terrific calculator :-) Anyway, I am agree that a hp52 (updated hp42s) would be a great machine.. Let's see what hp9s and 9g offer... J.Manrique Users Club from Gij\.97n http://www.etsiig.uniovi.es/asociaciones/clubusu http://www.hpcc.org ==== If your going to have the 48/49 User-RPL I'd keep the dynamic stack. I could do without the 48/49 graphing display if it had the HP42 formfactor and keyboard. Stephen.N > What about production quality, which was also a hallmark of HP? I \ think it > would be cool to produce an entry level Scientific/Engineering calculator > that is a cross between the 42 and 48 with a 3 or 4 level stack and 2-D > graphics -- the multi-line stack display makes learning RPN very easy. G Savage > I totally agree !!!! An HP52, same shape and size as the HP42, maybe slightly longer to > accommodate a 3-4 stack display. Same quality keyboard, but with a > better rechargeable lithium backup than the HP42. 2-way IR and 4-pin > serial port. 128kb memory. Same User-RPL as the 48/49, or keystroke > programming option. Inexpensive. That sort of calculator would be terrific. Reply-To: ttw@lanl.gov ==== Something along the lines of the HP27 (I think) would be good. ==== I have my apprehensions about their introduction of an updated financial calculator. Update what? The 10BII? Why, when they just introduced it a year ago. The 19BII? Perhaps, since that case & parts must be getting difficult to make and obtain. The HP-12C? Do they really want an uproar from the financial community over this? I don't think so. Perhaps kill off the 10BII and the 19BII entirely and come out with a low end model that can actually compete against the excellent TI BAII Plus (for $30 the thing even does hyperbolic trigs!) and also come out with a different higher end model. Mistakes to avoid...these would signal, IMO, that HP has learned NOTHING from their past mistakes... 1) Do not introduce a business calculator unless it has the ability to evaluate 1+2x3 to be equal to 7, without parentheses. HP must put an AOS mode rather than just chain logic on any algebraic calculator. Parentheses are not enough. Make this mistake and it will sell very poorly. 2) Do not skimp on features and functions. Include trig. Include combinations/permutations. Even on the low end calculator. Come out with a low end financial that will actually COMPETE with the BAII Plus or my suggestion would be...don't bother. Why waste your time coming out with a $40 calculator that does much less than the $30 TI model? > >Has anyone got any information on weather HP is still in the calculator > >business? The HPCC Conference this past weekend was to have reps from > >HP to give the definitive answer to that, but so far no on is saying > >anything. Summarising from the notes I took at HP's presentation: They are still in the calculator business but have only just restarted > [so don't expect any great shakes soon]. They have a roadmap for the > release of new models but these will be a low-end one in early 2003 and > an updated financial model in Spring '03. New high-end scientific and > high-end financial models won't appear until Summer/Autumn '03. They warned that the first product out of the starting gate will be a > clone type calculator. Future models would feature \unique\ HP designs. They are definitely calculator focussed rather than \PDA + calculator > software\ as this type of product \belongs\ to another division. They acknowledged that RPN is what differentiates their products and > they have no intention of dropping it. However algebraic capability has > to be there in order to sell at all. A suggestion from the floor was to introduce an RPN 4-banger - something > that I have seen requested in this group a number of times. It was > backed up by a maths teacher who added that the biggest obstacle in > introducing RPN to older students is that they are too set in their > ways. A simpler model introduced at an earlier age would do wonders. I > can see the logic in this and I think HP do too. They didn't really have a presentation as such beyond the roadmap (+ > some ideas about how to reduce supply chain and distribution costs > inherent in the old ways of producing and selling calcs) and took > questions. My opinion: it looks good - they appear to know what they are doing and > have some good guys working in the group (called, incidentally, the > Emerging Technologies Group). I am confident that they - as individuals > - are in this for the duration, know what calculators are and aren't > afraid to make something that they think will be cool for engineers as > well as appealing to the mass, i.e. student, market. However, they are > still a very small group in a very large company and things can change ==== \ > They warned that the first product out of the starting gate will be a > clone type calculator. Future models would feature \unique\ HP designs. Can you explain me this a little? ==== > They warned that the first product out of the starting gate will be a >> clone type calculator. Future models would feature \unique\ HP \ designs. >Can you explain me this a little? We all know that the HP-6S is a clone of a Texet Albert or whatever it's called. This is because they are made by the same no-name company in China that contracts to make them for Texet and HP. I'm told that if you take them apart, even the circuit board labelling is the same. The first new model will be produced in a similar way - i.e. non-exclusively so you could see virtually identical models on sale under someone else's name. However, HP realise that this is not the way to go. So future high-spec models will be manufactured under contract but exclusively to HP and more to HP's design. This is what I describe as being \HP unique.\ ==== > release of new models but these will be a low-end one in early 2003 and > an updated financial model in Spring '03. New high-end scientific and > high-end financial models won't appear until Summer/Autumn '03. They warned that the first product out of the starting gate will be a > clone type calculator. Future models would feature \unique\ HP designs. They are definitely calculator focussed rather than \PDA + calculator > software\ as this type of product \belongs\ to another division. They acknowledged that RPN is what differentiates their products and > they have no intention of dropping it. However algebraic capability has > to be there in order to sell at all. X Oh! They have pushed the release dates of the \clones\ to 2003 ??! Well - a dull Xmas then :-( It seems that my sources have been \drained\. The high-end model info release at this early stage was a shock to me, but it seems that we have to wait almost a year for the \good\ new RPN/ALG models to appear. Nothing earth shaking, but I'm gonna buy a new financial model then... Veli-Pekka ==== > The high-end model info release at this early stage > was a shock to me, but it seems that we have to wait almost a year > for the \good\ new RPN/ALG models to appear. Well, scientific and financial ones. No mention of any graphing calcs? Almost a year - you know how the HP49G software was, when released? \ \Almost a year\ is NOT enough time to develop an advanced calculator from scratch. > Nothing earth shaking, but I'm gonna buy a new financial model then... Not me. I've had it with HP - they ditch the ACO, just to start the ETG? Right... <7yAk9.34$l7.12279@reader1.news.jippii.net> <5aFk9.32637$Qk5.1394838@news010.worldonline.dk> ==== >Well, scientific and financial ones. No mention of any graphing calcs? There was - it was only me being not very precise as I was using scientific to mean graphing as well. The Aug '03 scientific releases will be graphing calcs aimed at students. (One less capable, one more capable. They didn't say exactly what the differentiator would be but high-school versus college seems a reasonable guess.) ==== all ACO personnel to the ETG? Part of the initial trouble, I have been led to believe, that ACO encountered was starting a great deal from scratch. Why will ETG be any different? Gene -- * All opinions herein expressed are mine and * * mine alone. You may choose to ignore them * * but I own them. * > Not me. I've had it with HP - they ditch the ACO, just to start the ETG? > Right... ==== > all ACO personnel to the ETG? When you don't know what to do, reorganize. It keeps people busy and fools the stockmarket, for a while. --tim ==== I think the reason the ACO was canned was because they said they knew what the consumer wanted and then failed to deliver. When HP got the \ complaints, they had to do something to make things right. If I wanted a TI look/work-a-like (Clone), I would buy a TI. I don't, I want an HP in the tradition, standard and reliability of an HP, that is what the consumer wants. You can't sell calculators like sneakers. Changing the color, making it out of cheap parts and making it look like your competitor is not the way to treat loyal consumers or to get new one and keep them. move > all ACO personnel to the ETG? > ==== Hard to argue with this, I'm afraid. The designers can say all they want about how TI succeeds with this type of calculator look, but apparently HP consumers do not want this, or at least, the TI consumers HP tried to \ appeal to do not want an HP that looks like the TI they really want. Still think several things sealed this fate and wonder if the new folks \ will fix it or suffer the same way... 1) Pitiful documentation 2) Buggy initial release 3) Physical packaging (keyboard type, screen cover scratchiness, etc.) Your statement \If I wanted a TI look/work-a-like (Clone), I would buy a \ TI\ says it all. HP don't make this mistake again! Please. Gene -- * All opinions herein expressed are mine and * * mine alone. You may choose to ignore them * * but I own them. * > I think the reason the ACO was canned was because they said they knew \ what > the consumer wanted and then failed to deliver. When HP got the complaints, > they had to do something to make things right. If I wanted a TI > look/work-a-like (Clone), I would buy a TI. I don't, I want an HP in the > tradition, standard and reliability of an HP, that is what the consumer > wants. You can't sell calculators like sneakers. Changing the color, > making it out of cheap parts and making it look like your competitor is not > the way to treat loyal consumers or to get new one and keep them. move > all ACO personnel to the ETG? ==== > I think the reason the ACO was canned was because they said they knew \ what > the consumer wanted and then failed to deliver. When HP got the \ complaints, They really knew what market wanted, and they sucess in the software side. Hardware is other world, and knowing the resources ACO had, they had done a good job. If you see PCX photos, you would see one of Avenard talking... Look it carefully: - No papers - No computer - Just he and his brain ;-) Well, he was talking about hp49 keyboard.. Imagine the situation, Avenard talking about one of the most criticized part of hp49 calculator to a group of advanced users... It was like seeing someone in the mouth of the wolf, and he explained a lot of details of why is that way instead of the classic way. Complaints should go to HP, not ACO. There is one thing to remember, Avenard and other ACO members, were/are always puting his face here like braves, something that HP has never done, and it was HP who limited resources and time, not ACO. > they had to do something to make things right. If I wanted a TI > look/work-a-like (Clone), I would buy a TI. I don't, I want an HP in the Maybe, but it was HP managers who ordered ACO to make TI clones. First ACO project ordered by HP was a TI83 clone... > tradition, standard and reliability of an HP, that is what the consumer > wants. You can't sell calculators like sneakers. Changing the color, > making it out of cheap parts and making it look like your competitor is \ not > the way to treat loyal consumers or to get new one and keep them. Yes, maybe, but competitor is making money with its cheap and \cool\ look like machines... and companies are here to make money. You can think about it like having two target markets: - Mass market: people is not using calculators the way they were used 10-20 years ago. Now people see calculators as a \toy\. Of course, once you begin discovering its habilities you can discovered a new world. Since computers are getting cheaper, calculators are losing the use they have in the past. So, you have to redefine its use. Calculators need to look \cool\ to atract market, and once they began to use it, they will discover its potential. - Adavanced users: yes, most of clasical users, and people that use its calculator in a professional way. But, how many are they? How many of the \new engineers\ continue using his calculator as professional tool or just buy a laptop? How may engineers buy a calculator as a tool? I speak from my point of view, seeing what happen at my university and engineers I know. Almost none buy a calculator after ending their studies, most of them buy a laptop (or handheld pc). Most of them continue using the calc they bought at university, but not as \hard\ as they did at university... So we have two main markets: - Young people and students: looking for a \cool\ calc. And this is the big market, so the one that gives more money. Would you do a super-calc hard to use? Many people I know say that hp49 is difficult to use because it has \a lot of keys\!!! And I know peole (Avenard, you met one of them at Polish Club dinner) that said that hp49 keyboard is much better than hp48 one... why? Because it is their first calculator, they don't compare with the past, they doesn't mind what HP has done in the past, they mind what their machine do and how. - Advanced and professional market: looking for a super-hp41cx machine. This is smaller market, and it is getting smaller each day, since new laptops and handheld computers are a relative cheap option for professionals. Would you buy a hp49 when for similar price you could buy a low cost Palm or PocketPC and run an emulator on it (or some emulators) and do much more things than in a calc??? With this thoughts I have my own idea of how future should go: - Cheap and \cool\ calcs for students, in the hp40g and hp42s way: so HP could offer a good product for mass market. - Advanced handheld computers designed for professional use, just to atract new market to them, something like a Scientific Digital Assistant or similar: so HP could grow in professional handhelds http://www.etsiig.uniovi.es/asociaciones/clubusu http://www.hpcc.org ==== > Many people I know say that hp49 is difficult to use > because it has \a lot of keys\!!! Perhaps all those people would have bought an \Expander,\ then (or Calypso?) Why so many false starts? Projects which are never completed are also R&D drains, aren't they? Was it ever mentioned whose idea those products were, who killed them, and why? Might they resurface in the next incarnation of the HP group? > - Cheap and \cool\ calcs for students, in the hp40g and hp42s way: so > HP could offer a good product for mass market. - Advanced handheld computers designed for professional use, just to > atract new market to them, something like a Scientific Digital > Assistant or similar: so HP could grow in professional handhelds > market. . ==== > Many people I know say that hp49 is difficult to use >> because it has \a lot of keys\!!! > >Perhaps all those people would have bought an \Expander,\ then >(or Calypso?) The Xpander has lots of keys, although they aren't special purpose keys. Note that the Xpander is not a calculator; it's a learning tool. >Why so many false starts? Projects which are never completed >are also R&D drains, aren't they? As Wally once told his PHB, only one in ten R&D projects succeeds, so why not cancel the other nine and save money. ==== > The Xpander has lots of keys, although they aren't special > purpose keys. Note that the Xpander is not a calculator; > it's a learning tool. Yeah, yeah, just like the Voyage 200 PLT. Marketing term :-) . ==== The ACO software team (JYA, CdB, BP, MH, GS,...) was never responsible of the HW decisions nor the marketing and/or sales. The same stupid decision makers REMAIN at HP 1)Corvallis 2)ACO 3) the current calc unit will go down the drain the same \HP Way\ as the earlier. Don't blame ACO, blame the Carly clones that the she-devil has hired to get mooore profit in the most short-sighted manner possible: Cut the Research&Development !! How was it BC? (Before Carly) Veli-Pekka - still very >:-( > I think the reason the ACO was canned was because they said they knew \ what > the consumer wanted and then failed to deliver. When HP got the complaints, > they had to do something to make things right. If I wanted a TI > look/work-a-like (Clone), I would buy a TI. I don't, I want an HP in the > tradition, standard and reliability of an HP, that is what the consumer > wants. You can't sell calculators like sneakers. Changing the color, > making it out of cheap parts and making it look like your competitor is not > the way to treat loyal consumers or to get new one and keep them. move > all ACO personnel to the ETG? When you don't know what to do, reorganize. It keeps people busy and > fools the stockmarket, for a while. ompany great. >Actually, it is more necessary, in the stupid system of > \democracy\ where everyone's voice supposedly counts the same, > to have the entire population's consciousness raised to this level, > but looking around this newsgroup doesn't give one much hope for that. Ahh, so democracy is stupid, because it does not accord you the adulation and respect which you think your towering intellectual capabilities should bring to you? > Of course, this group is just an average sample of the > entire population, which is what is especially scary. But you of course, are smarter than all of us? So much smarter, possible theses which may apply in this circumstance: 1) You are one of the staff of your ivory tower. Your contempt for democratic principles is one of the things you attempt to instill in your students. As a symptom of your wooly-headedness, I assume that you have never met a leftist, marxist, terrorist or utopianist with whose principles you disagreed, no matter how bloodthirsty. PolPot is one of your heroes. Unfortunately, you are tenured and therefore impossible to treat with the respect your principles deserve. 2) Even more scary, you are one of the students, and you have been brainwashed by a 'teacher' of the sort described in paragraph 1. Fortunately, I will never be faced with the possibility of hiring you. And scariest of all, if you are the person in paragraph 2, you will one of the generation providing the politicians of the future. You will make Al Gore look like a deep thinker. > Some have the wisdom to look around for worthy mentors, > and to listen and learn from them, perhaps to become the same > once they've grown into masters in their own right; others > think that the freedom to spout anything that comes out of their > mouth is the legacy that their forbears really wanted to leave them, > which must cause some of their souls to be rolling over in their > graves, wondering whether it was a complete waste to *mutually* > pledge to *each*other* (and to posterity) their lives, > their fortunes, and their sacred honor. Let's go back to some basic principles: Those who do not know are ignorant. Those who do not remember what they have been taught, are stupid. Since you seem to know something about 'the freedom to spout' it is clear that you are not ignorant. Therefore you are in the other class. The legacy which our (common) forebears really wanted to leave us, was the right to be able to speak. Whether or not we spoke shit, trivialities of gossip or profound truths was irrelevant, because those speeches would be treated with the respect they deserved, by the bystanders who were listening at the time. And especially those speeches were not to be judged by some unknown secret service agent who might later decide that those thoughts were 'impure' or worse that they presaged some intent to do some 'improper' act in the future (see Minority Report). Regarding 'their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honour', I suggest you go and read the Federalist Papers respecting 'free speech'. Regarding 'their lives', I suggest that you re-read the Gettysberg Address, carefully, and ponder deeply about the events and motivations to which Abraham Lincoln was referring, especially the ending words of the first sentence \.....dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal\. > and would you \buy\ opinions > from people whose minds are welded shut? Nope, I won't from you because it appears that your mind *is* welded shut. The saying is that 'wisdom comes with age'. But sometimes wisdom comes alone. R. Geoffrey Newbury ==== On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 00:41:03, \G Savage\ > People are, by mandate of natural law, entitled > to employment You've been steeped too long in socialist liturgy. No-one, NO-ONE is ENTITLED to employment. Everyone is entitled to seek employment, and should not be restricted by laws which protect the employment status of others. AS to natural law, if you really like what 'natural law' is, I suggest you go live under Saddam Hussein. Hobbes properly described a life under 'natural law': short, nasty and brutish. >and not to be treated like *things* to be discarded at the > transitory whims of management. THIS, I agree with. > It is a matter of morality and social > responsibility given that the loss of a single job has an impact on more > than share holder value. The morality and social responsibility parts have nothing to do with shareholders. They should be part of what used to called civic responsibility. ==== Layoffs can also have a very practical, bottom-line effect on the company's future ability to recruit, on morale, loyalty, productivity (what percentage of \work\ time is spent job-hunting?), as well as stability and continuity. Wasn't there a report posted about HP laying off the production line workers for calculators still in production, and then scrambling to try to hire them back? The corporate environment has gone somewhat along the same path as has farming; in its shortsighted ignorance, it has been depleting its own soil and also paving over much of what used to be fertile land; it has also jumped headfirst into using technologies that soon will be out of control, and will cause extreme harm. This is what happens when arrogant people lose their identity, and sever the connection of their own minds with the source of all minds, at the same time severing their deeper connection with the rest of humanity, as well as from all other life on earth. Many who write in this newsgroup are just like this; I have never heard from anyone in this group who comprehends the reality of what I said in the prior sentence, although it has been a known and well examined fact throughout all human history, deeply understood by its most developed individuals. [r->] [OFF] . ==== > This is what happens when arrogant people lose their identity, and > sever the connection of their own minds with the source of all minds, > at the same time severing their deeper connection > with the rest of humanity, as well as from all other life on earth. Many who write in this newsgroup are just like this; > I have never heard from anyone in this group > who comprehends the reality of what I said in the prior sentence, > although it has been a known and well examined fact > throughout all human history, > deeply understood by its most developed individuals. It is impossible to 'comprehend the reality' of psychobabble. And that is what that sentence sounds like... Or was it 'revealed truth? 'Cause I have NO idea what 'known and well examined fact' you are referring to. And BTW, I ignore backhanders which imply that I am not one of the 'most developed individuals' because I don't understand what the hell you're talking about. Until that sentence I was in basic agreement with what you had written. Layoff programs *do* hurt morale and loyalty, *and* productivity. Corporatism is often shortsighted... Then you seemed to go off your meds... Geoff ==== reality is nothing else than an interpretation that we make (fabricate). it is also a necessity for us in order to live. this interpretation is unique to individual circumstances. for example, a table can have infinity realities. if the table is in our way, then it is an obstacle. if we need to write a letter, then is a convenience. a table by itself is nothing without interpretation. reality is what we make in order to feel secured upon insecurity. it is the interpretation we give to circumstance in order to be convinced of something. reality depends on one's orientation (circumstance) and needs. and what is a necessity? it depends on circumstance :) many consider the feeling of love a necessity in life. thus, from their own perspective love is a real fact, a primordial necessity for living. something more important than any external facts. if we don't try look from their perspective, we will have trouble understanding them. > It is impossible to 'comprehend the reality' of psychobabble. And that > is what that sentence sounds like... Or was it 'revealed truth? 'Cause > I have NO idea what 'known and well examined fact' you are referring > to. And BTW, I ignore backhanders which imply that I am not one of the > 'most developed individuals' because I don't understand what the hell > you're talking about. Until that sentence I was in basic agreement with what you had > written. Layoff programs *do* hurt morale and loyalty, *and* > productivity. Corporatism is often shortsighted... Then you seemed to > go off your meds... Geoff ==== > reality is nothing else than an interpretation that we make > (fabricate). it is also a necessity for us in order to live. this > interpretation is unique to individual circumstances. yadda, yadda, yadda.. Sounds like you just walked out of your Philosophy 101 class. \Reality\ caan be dealt with on various levels. on none of them, is 'reality' a necessity to live. However, on at least one of those levels, our interpretation must necessarily coincide with the interpretations held by the mass of mankind. It *is* kinda hard to disagree with the reality of a car moving on the highway, just because *you* want to believe that there is no car coming. And necessity as a psychological condition has nothing to do with reality. End of my discussion. Geoff ==== >yadda, yadda, yadda.. >End of my discussion. hi hi hi > reality is nothing else than an interpretation that we make > (fabricate). it is also a necessity for us in order to live. this > interpretation is unique to individual circumstances. > yadda, yadda, yadda.. Sounds like you just walked out of your Philosophy 101 class. > \Reality\ caan be dealt with on various levels. on none of them, is > 'reality' a necessity to live. However, on at least one of those > levels, our interpretation must necessarily coincide with the > interpretations held by the mass of mankind. It *is* kinda hard to > disagree with the reality of a car moving on the highway, just because > *you* want to believe that there is no car coming. And necessity as a psychological condition has nothing to do with > reality. End of my discussion. > Geoff ==== I hope people will post more info soon, but yes, HP is still in Calculators Business. HPCC Conference was great, and for a newbie HPCC member like me, it was a pleasure meeting a lot of people from the past times, from the ex-ACO, and from the new Personal Systems Group, Emerging You must wait for more info... J.Manrique Users Club from Gij\.97n #1077 HPCC Member > Has anyone got any information on weather HP is still in the calculator > business? The HPCC Conference this past weekend was to have reps from HP \ to > give the definitive answer to that, but so far no on is saying anything. ==== And of course, there are already some photos from PCX site: http://press.ehsal.be/pcx/conference_2002/pcx%20pictures.html You might found some interesting... Have fun, J.Manrique Users Club from Gij\.97n #1077 HPCC Member I hope people will post more info soon, but yes, HP is still in > Calculators Business. HPCC Conference was great, and for a newbie HPCC member like me, it > was a pleasure meeting a lot of people from the past times, from the > ex-ACO, and from the new Personal Systems Group, Emerging You must wait for more info... J.Manrique > Users Club from Gij\.97n > #1077 HPCC Member > Has anyone got any information on weather HP is still in the calculator > business? The HPCC Conference this past weekend was to have reps from \ HP to > give the definitive answer to that, but so far no on is saying \ anything. ==== > And of course, there are already some photos from PCX site: > http://press.ehsal.be/pcx/conference_2002/pcx%20pictures.html You might found some interesting... Have fun, > J.Manrique > Users Club from Gij\.97n > #1077 HPCC Member <11624751.0209250226.35eba055@posting.google.com> <81f1e5dc.0209251105.655d0d97@posting.google.com> ==== In message <81f1e5dc.0209251105.655d0d97@posting.google.com>, Aaron If you mean picture 16 then that is Wlodek Mier-Jedrzejowicz kneeling in Avenard looking across and talking. -- Bruce Horrocks Hampshire England bh@granby.demon.co.uk ==== Looks like Wlodek to me. Gene -- * All opinions herein expressed are mine and * * mine alone. You may choose to ignore them * * but I own them. * > And of course, there are already some photos from PCX site: > http://press.ehsal.be/pcx/conference_2002/pcx%20pictures.html ==== A) I couldn't afford to go to that event. C) Mine has _only_ odd key coloring: [ON] key color is ROLLed Down to [ALPHA] [ALPHA] -> [LeftShift] -> [RightShift] -> [ON] which means that I make error pressing my blue right-shift key, while the original blue left-shift was my intention. No other problems with this oddity. Certainly a collectors piece: ID93101038 Veli-Pekka PS: It seems that the key labeling is done AFTER the calculator has been assembled together. > Looks like Wlodek to me. > Gene -- > * All opinions herein expressed are mine and * > * mine alone. You may choose to ignore them * > * but I own them. * > And of course, there are already some photos from PCX site: > http://press.ehsal.be/pcx/conference_2002/pcx%20pictures.html ==== Yes, he is Wlodek playing with Avenard's golden calculator.... It is not clear in the photo, but you can also see Cyrille's black one. J.Manrique Users Club from Gij\.97n #1077 HPCC Member > Looks like Wlodek to me. > Gene -- > * All opinions herein expressed are mine and * > * mine alone. You may choose to ignore them * > * but I own them. * > And of course, there are already some photos from PCX site: > http://press.ehsal.be/pcx/conference_2002/pcx%20pictures.html ==== > Yes, he is Wlodek playing with Avenard's golden calculator.... A golden HP49G? That's funny, HP seems to be copying TI as much as they can. But then I guess they have no choice... -- Bhuvanesh ==== > A golden HP49G? That's funny, HP seems to be copying TI as much as > they can. But then I guess they have no choice... Hehe - no, it's not a new TI83 ultra+++++ ;-) Also, exactly (I believe) one black HP49G exist - that one is Cyrille dB's. ==== > Also, exactly (I believe) one black HP49G exist - that one is Cyrille \ dB's. It's too bad they didn't offer that color on retail units -- I might actually have considered buying a black 49. -- Wayne Brown | \When your tail's in a crack, you improvise fwbrown@bellsouth.net | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give | your pelt to the trapper.\ \e^(i*pi) = -1\ -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, \ \Silverlock\ ==== > A golden HP49G? That's funny, HP seems to be copying TI as much as > they can. But then I guess they have no choice... Hehe - no, it's not a new TI83 ultra+++++ ;-) Well, fortunately they don't make these things orange or some such color. It would be so weird to take something like that to the office. Also, exactly (I believe) one black HP49G exist - that one is Cyrille \ dB's. I see, they are not being made for the general public that way. Still, I find it weird to have custom-colored calculators... maybe to make sure they don't get switched with someone else's? ;-) Bhuvanesh. ==== > I see, they are not being made for the general public that way. Still, > I find it weird to have custom-colored calculators... maybe to make > sure they don't get switched with someone else's? ;-) Have you seen the HP30S? Interchangeable front covers with different colours a la mobile phones. The kids love it. ==== > I see, they are not being made for the general public that way. Still, > I find it weird to have custom-colored calculators... maybe to make > sure they don't get switched with someone else's? ;-) > Have you seen the HP30S? Interchangeable front covers with different > colours a la mobile phones. The kids love it. I guess I'm getting old ;-) -- Bhuvanesh ==== > Has anyone got any information on weather HP is still in the calculator > business? The HPCC Conference this past weekend was to have reps from HP \ to > give the definitive answer to that, but so far no on is saying anything. First, I did not go, so my comments are purely speculation. But if the Hp Rep did not show, that is an answer in itself. The poor Hp Rep could have been part of Carly's work force reduction (fancy, soft way to say FIRED! or LAID OFF!). I hope not. I hope Hp is going to market an affordable pocket sized RPN. The 49G is a good graphics (by most standards, the best yet available, and if they had stayed with 48 type hardware and tripled the clock rate, A GREAT CALC). But I prefer a good pocket calc. When I go back to my desk for serious number crunching I can use a PC just as easily as a desktop graphics calculator. I think that says the reality for over 90% of the engineering workforce. Bill Hewlett wanted a pocket calculator 30 years ago, I still want one today. AND the 49G isn't that calculator! My favorite pocket calc is an Hp15c for general number crunching, perfect size and layout, but a more practical calc is the 42s (much more RAM and alpha prompts). But at this stage I will take a 30s in RPN if Hp will brand label such a product (Hp certainly isn't going to make calculators themselves anymore). Just me, ranting and raving! ==== >Bill Hewlett wanted a pocket calculator 30 >years ago, I still want one today. > >Just me, ranting and raving! Rant on, brother! I agree completely. Don ==== Since today is Tuesday, one would think someone would have posted info by now...have they all been sequestered somewhere? :-) Gene -- * All opinions herein expressed are mine and * * mine alone. You may choose to ignore them * * but I own them. * > Has anyone got any information on weather HP is still in the calculator > business? The HPCC Conference this past weekend was to have reps from HP to > give the definitive answer to that, but so far no on is saying anything. -- Richard Garner > rgarner@vidnet.net ==== I really expected to hear , but I have seen no word. The hpcc website links to another \sister\ organization where you can see pictures from the conference. Unfortunately, the pictures are all I have found. Not exactly what I was looking for. Perhaps Gene is right. They are bound, gagged, and forced to watch HP executives demonstrate how many levels of nested parentheses the new HP (re-badged TI) algebraic calculators have. It must be hell on earth. On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 13:47:17 -0500, \Gene Wright\ >Since today is Tuesday, one would think someone would have posted info by >now...have they all been sequestered somewhere? :-) >Gene -- >* All opinions herein expressed are mine and * >* mine alone. You may choose to ignore them * >* but I own them. * >> Has anyone got any information on weather HP is still in the calculator >> business? The HPCC Conference this past weekend was to have reps from \ HP >to >> give the definitive answer to that, but so far no on is saying anything. >> -- >> Richard Garner >> rgarner@vidnet.net > > ==== I just looked on HP's site (www.hpshopping.com) and went to look at the latest prices and apparently you can't get any details on *any* calculators anymore. Can anyone confirm this? I suppose this is the end of all calculators from HP? Doug ==== I just ordered a spare HP48GX a few days ago and it came in two days. I went to hpshopping.com just now after reading your message, and found the calculator ordering information just fine. I don't think there has been a change there. Don >I just looked on HP's site (www.hpshopping.com) and went to look at the >latest prices and apparently you can't get any details on *any* \ calculators >anymore. Can anyone confirm this? > >I suppose this is the end of all calculators from HP? > >Doug ==== One other thing - I did notice that the 38G and the really low-end algebraic 6S have disappeared from the web site. If you have a 6S, rush out right now and get an insurance policy on it. They'll be selling for $300 on ebay by tomorrow evening! :-) Don ==== > I just looked on HP's site (www.hpshopping.com) and went to look at the > latest prices and apparently you can't get any details on *any* \ calculators > anymore. Can anyone confirm this? I suppose this is the end of all calculators from HP? Doug > In the lower left corner, under \home office product store\ is a \ calculator entry. Jack ==== Is there a way to get the ROM version from a serial number of an HP-48SX? Doug ==== > Is there a way to get the ROM version from a serial number > of an HP-48SX? Is it a dead unit, or does it work? If working, do HEX then #30794h SYSEVAL (*HP48* only!) Note: That's a HEX address ^^ NOT decimal! (a wrong address could wipe out memory, folks!) The result will be \HPHP48-x\ where \x\ is the rom version letter (yes, this is the function used to create binary output file headers) On the *HP49*, :VERSTRING: #2F389h SYSEVAL produces either \HPHP49-B\ or \HPHP49-C\ (so it's not particularly informative :) ((o)) . ==== It's a unit that I don't have access to so I was just wondering. Doug Is there a way to get the ROM version from a serial number > of an HP-48SX? Is it a dead unit, or does it work? If working, do HEX then #30794h SYSEVAL (*HP48* only!) Note: That's a HEX address ^^ NOT decimal! > (a wrong address could wipe out memory, folks!) The result will be \HPHP48-x\ where \x\ is the rom version letter > (yes, this is the function used to create binary output file headers) > On the *HP49*, :VERSTRING: #2F389h SYSEVAL > produces either \HPHP49-B\ or \HPHP49-C\ > (so it's not particularly informative :) > ((o)) > . ==== When I download a program from the calculator to the PC, I find a lot of the characters are not recognised. For example; the classic ->. I manipulate the program and try to tell the calculator the translate codes so I can download the program back to the calculator but it doesn't work. How do I get around this? I am using a HP48GX Rom version R. Rod ==== > When I download a program from the calculator to the PC, > [I get non-ascii characters] For example; the classic -> Before you upload any more programs, perform 3 TRANSIO; then your PC editor (e.g. Notepad) will be much happier. > I manipulate the program and try to tell the calculator > the translate codes so I can download the program > back to the calculator but it doesn't work. As to previously uploaded programs, if you change %%HP: T(?)... to %%HP: T(3)... at the top of the PC file, then I would expect the programs to still download properly, but the question remains, how did you encode any non-ascii characters that you might have wanted to replace or insert? You would have to use the special \backslash\ sequences found here: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8013hf%24apm%241%40nnrp1.deja.com ((o)) http://www.mum.edu . Reply-To: nickek@algonet.se ==== How do I convert the expression 'mystuff' to the string \mystuff\ on the hp48? The ->str command convert it to \'mystuff'\, but i don't want the single quote. TIA Nikodemus ==== > How do I convert the expression 'mystuff' to the string \mystuff\ > on the hp48? The ->str command converts it to \'mystuff'\ For variable names (but not for algebraic expressions): 'name' \\ + ==> \name\ For variable names *or* algebraic expressions: \\<< \\->STR 2 OVER SIZE 1 - SUB \\>> The result of \\->STR can be recompiled, but often not so after removing quotes. ((o)) http://www.mum.edu . Reply-To: nickek@algonet.se ==== /Nikodemus > How do I convert the expression 'mystuff' to the string \mystuff\ >> on the hp48? The ->str command converts it to \'mystuff'\ > For variable names (but not for algebraic expressions): 'name' \\ + ==> \name\ > For variable names *or* algebraic expressions: \\<< \\->STR 2 OVER SIZE 1 - SUB \\>> The result of \\->STR can be recompiled, > but often not so after removing quotes. > ((o)) http://www.mum.edu > . ==== i would like to use the KEYEVAL command to get a character back. eg. given wanted 11 -> A (character) or better \A\ so i can read with user rpl keyboard inputs. if i execute 11.4 KEYEVAL A is in the commandline and not in stacklevel 1. i use rom 1.19. i used it before like this and it worked. so are there other ways to get the string (or character) back? or are any flags wrong set? should be a very fast routine. hope you understand my problem max ==== You have to \press\ ENTER Be aware of a FOR variable problems with KEYEVAL i would like to use the KEYEVAL command to get a character back. eg. given wanted > 11 -> A (character) or better \A\ so i can read with user rpl keyboard inputs. > if i execute 11.4 KEYEVAL A is in the commandline and not in stacklevel \ 1. > i use rom 1.19. i used it before like this and it worked. so are there other ways to get the string (or character) back? > or are any flags wrong set? > should be a very fast routine. hope you understand my problem max ==== I need help configuring keyman. I want to do a very simple thing, I want to make a key assignment that does \ one thing when the key is left-shifted normally, and another thing when \ left-shift is hold down while the key is pressed. I have tried, but I can't get it to work properly, I hope anyone experienced \ with this program could help. thanx, Artur ==== > I want to do a very simple thing, I want to make a key assignment that > does one thing when the key is left-shifted normally, and another thing > when left-shift is hold down while the key is pressed. Do what the manual says. If you want to assign two actions to a key, first put the two actions on the stack 1 and 2. The action in 2 will be evaluated with shift-hold, 1 with normal shift. Then execute IFSH, this produces a sort of wrapper program. Then use A?D to assign this program to the key you want. -- Ralf Kleineisel ==== I got HP 49G I downloaded few libraries. I transferred them via cable. I \ can see them on calculator but I don't know how to run them. Please help... Daniel ==== > I got HP 49G; I downloaded a few libraries. > I transferred them via cable. I can see them on the calculator > but I don't know how to run them. Libraries are not executable objects, and they don't \run\! Libraries are generally collections of *several* different commands, which get *installed* into the calculator, to expand the built-in command set (which in turn consists of other libraries in ROM). That's why libraries have to reside in a different area than where user variables reside; that's what \ports\ are for. Many libraries are packaged along with complete instructions for installation and use, or see other posts and answers. ((o)) . ==== I got HP 49G I downloaded few libraries. I transferred them via cable. I \ can > see them on calculator but I don't know how to run them. Please help... Daniel place the library on the stack, then type the port number you wish to install it to between 0-2 (i always use port 0). then press sto. Do a on-c combination to reset the calc, and your set! ==== > place the library on the stack, then type the port number you wish to > install it to between 0-2 (i always use port 0). then press sto. Do > a on-c combination to reset the calc, and your set! If the lib is a non-self-attaching one you have to attach it to a directory, too. -- Ralf Kleineisel ==== As usual, see the FAQ on www.hpcalc.org. An alternative would be to read the manual;-) \Aaron Toponce\ schrieb im Newsbeitrag I got HP 49G I downloaded few libraries. I transferred them via cable. \ I can > see them on calculator but I don't know how to run them. Please help... Daniel place the library on the stack, then type the port number you wish to > install it to between 0-2 (i always use port 0). then press sto. Do > a on-c combination to reset the calc, and your set! ==== Nothing compares to the HP Voyager 10C Series. RPN mode; one machine for each usage; perfect ergonomics; almost impossible to destroy; batteries \ last forever; accurate, beautiful and light. What do you need in one of those modern, full of useless complicated functions, multi-colored large \ keyboards (\where the hell is the + key ?!\) with manuals as large as a phonebook ? HP made a critical error when they stopped the Voyagers. Who's the stupid build again these legendary machines. They can do it : the 12C (financial) is still built, because it is officially agreed by the NYSE. So HP still owns the technology, and still have software, keys, front plates, boxes and so on...They'd sell the whole production in one month only ! And today, try to find an RPN model that exactly suits your needs... Regis 20020913162056.19385.00002087@mb-ff.aol.com... > if your looking for a comparable replacement, consider the 32sII. you \ will be > very pleased. be sure to understand http://www.anti-matrix.net ==== Yeah, they could have kept at least one out of the series in production. They were certainly well designed. Maybe that was part of the problem -- \ not enough repeat sales. If they did bring back the 11C or 15C, they could just make it available on the hpshopping web site. No marketing required. Plenty of professional \ folks would buy it. I'm fairly comfortable with RPN and algebraic, and I think the best way to convince people that RPN is worth a look is too show how painful it can be to fix a problem with unbalanced parenthesis on an algebraic calculator, especially on those long expressions where the problem cannot be viewed without scrolling the entry. > Nothing compares to the HP Voyager 10C Series. RPN mode; one machine for > each usage; perfect ergonomics; almost impossible to destroy; batteries last > forever; accurate, beautiful and light. What do you need in one of those > modern, full of useless complicated functions, multi-colored large keyboards > (\where the hell is the + key ?!\) with manuals as large as a phonebook \ ? HP made a critical error when they stopped the Voyagers. Who's the stupid > build again these legendary machines. They can do it : the 12C \ (financial) > is still built, because it is officially agreed by the NYSE. So HP still > owns the technology, and still have software, keys, front plates, boxes and > so on...They'd sell the whole production in one month only ! And today, try > to find an RPN model that exactly suits your needs... Regis 20020913162056.19385.00002087@mb-ff.aol.com... > if your looking for a comparable replacement, consider the 32sII. you will > be > very pleased. be sure to understand http://www.anti-matrix.net ==== The menu system one the 48/49 is a rather involved parts of the operating system. In contrast to key-customazibility which is quite easily realized with Keyman, customizability of menus (which mainly concerns the complex builtin menus) is much harder to realize. An essential step is the OT49-command LMN (\List Menu Names\) which has still be improved in the latest edition of OT49 on my site (not yet on hpcalc.org; a similar OT48 will appear soon). I remember, while programming various math problems in UsrRPL on the HP48 years ago, I wanted some change in the PLOT menu. But I could not get this and other menus to the stack, particularly if they contain submenus. To give you a feeling why this is useful, consider the following problem: JYA allowed only in ROM 19-6 direct access to the useful 63 MENU (it's now on leftshift-hold MODE). But the equally useful 110 MENU with its important commands PINIT etc is not yet directly available (or am I mistaken?). A a good place would be leftshift-hold 2, corresponding to the HP48. 110 MENU had been modified on the 49. Its first item PORTS has been removed because JYA decided to append the port access to the LIB menu (a really strange idea; moreover, this appending is not well programmed (ROMPTR A9 6F) and slows down the LIB key considerably if many libs live on the 49. It would be no problem for LIBman to restore this well-contrived 48-behaviour (together with a key assignment on leftshift-hold 2). Another idea is the following simple solution: Fill the gap at the end of 110 MENU with the PURGE command (hardly accessible in Intermediate entry mode on the 49) and assign this to leftshift-hold 2. For the time beeing, this is readily done with LMN. Assign to leftshift-hold 2 << 110 LMN OBJ-> DROP2 {PURGE} HEAD 6 ->LIST TMENU >> Process this with ->TO from Keyman, to make it work also in edit mode. Now leftshift-hold 2 shows the menu |PVARS| |LIBS| |DETACH| |ATTACH |PINIT| |PURGE| which is likewise useful to purge a lib from a port much faster than with the filer. Clearly, the best thing would be a return to the smart HP48 LIB menu organization with separate port entries on PORTS. I personally have these entries directly on 0, 1, 2 longhold :-) - PS 1. The above UsrRPL-program can easily reduced from 48 to 35 bytes by the command ->XU (to Extended UsrRPL) from OT49. It will then read as 110 MENU OBJ-> DROP2 ' PURGE 6 ->LIST TMENU PS 2. Note that the latest Keyman for the 48 and 49 aren't from Paulo Pinheiro as follows: \I'm really happy with this new version of Keyman, and I'm glad to see that HP49 owners are not the only ones to be able to use your good programs. I'm using it with MK2.30\ is a still unsolved problem with the new key-recorder on which I posted a couple of days before. ==== Does anybody know how to run the solver automatically. My example is I \ have an equation that I may want PROGRAMATICALLY solve for any one of the variables, given all of the others. I am able to invoke the solver (using \30 MENU\ but cannot find a way to automatically solve for one of the variables and return back, without any user interaction. Kevin ==== > I am able to invoke the solver (using 30 MENU) > but cannot automatically solve for one of the variables > and return back, without any user interaction. 'expression' 'name' guess(es) ROOT Example: 'EXP(X)-LN(X)=5.' 'X' 1. ROOT The result 1.71152201393 is both returned on the stack and stored in the named variable 'X' Note that the equation is supplied on the stack (reserved variable 'EQ' is not used). Any other variables in the equation must have predefined numeric values (units are permitted). \Guess(es)\ means either one numeric value, or a list of from one to three numeric values, which the solver will try first. A guess of 0. is equivalent to the list { 0. 1. } Menu 30 is basically just a convenient user interface for invoking the ROOT command; the expression is taken from the variable 'EQ' and the guess(es) are taken from the initial contents of the variable being solved for, or { 0. 1. } if the variable doesn't initially exist. ((o)) Best wishes from http://www.mum.edu . ==== > or a list of from one to three numeric values, > which the solver will try first. I knewer knew this? A list of guesses?.......that's odd. ==== >> or a list of from one to three numeric values, >> which the solver will try first. > >I knewer knew this? A list of guesses?.......that's odd. Not odd at all; in a physical world problem you are able to define a positive solution to an equation that might have several solutions. -- Sincerely, Richard M. Smith (509) 754-0259 rmsmith@pobox.REMOVE.com ==== > Not odd at all; in a physical world problem you are able to define a > positive solution to an equation that might have several solutions. I didn't mean that the feature was odd, I meant that it was odd that I didn't know of it. I have used HP calculators for many years, and as a hobby - hence, alot! I've also read most of what exist of HP calc litterature, and frequented this group since shortly after it was created - bulletin boards before \ that. I've never seen it mentioned even once. ==== Seen re entering multiple guesses: > I've never seen it mentioned even once. Entering one guess is mentioned in the 48 series users guides; entering multiple guesses is probably mentioned in the AUR, and in Donnelly's HP48 handbooks. Entering multiple guesses is also a very old HP numeric solver feature; I don't know whether it was in the HP71B (1984-1989, first calc using Saturn CPU), but it certainly was present in the HP18C (1986-1988 financial calc), and later in the HP17B[ii] and HP19B[ii] (later financial models), and I'd guess in various scientific models as well. In those menu-based numeric solvers, you could enter one guess by storing it into the variable to be solved for, and you could enter a second guess by storing the second guess into the same variable, just before requesting the numeric root. Apparently you had to wait for the HP48 (or 28S/C?) to be granted three guesses, as in all standard fairy tales. So, it's by now all ancient history ;-) ((o)) With best wishes from http://www.mum.edu . ==== > Entering one guess is mentioned in the 48 series users guides; > entering multiple guesses is probably mentioned in the AUR, > and in Donnelly's HP48 handbooks. The stack syntax of ROOT shows that one can use a list as guesses, but this list is not mentioned in the text at all. I hadn't given it much thought only seeing that stack syntax. > Entering multiple guesses is also a very old > HP numeric solver feature; I don't know whether > it was in the HP71B (1984-1989, first calc using Saturn CPU), > but it certainly was present in the HP18C (1986-1988 financial calc), > and later in the HP17B[ii] and HP19B[ii] (later financial models), > and I'd guess in various scientific models as well. I haven't used any of those calcs more than briefly. > Apparently you had to wait for the HP48 (or 28S/C?) > to be granted three guesses, as in all standard fairy tales. And the list is not explained in either of the HP48 manuals (S, G or AUR). \ I didn't look through Donnelly's books just now, but I trust You if You say it's in there. I would hardly call it a documented feature, if you have to go through Donnelly's books to find it ;-) ==== (but if you are curious enough to experiment, you will find that it can be from one to three). Donnelly's fine handbook illustrates a single guess without a list, and also two or three guesses in a list; meanwhile, Donnelly's smaller pocket reference book shows only a single guess, while Grapevine's pocket guide shows only a list of guesses :) Getting different (or only partial) information from different sources is a pervasive element in life experience; we may let it limit us, or we may explore and find out for ourselves. Mini-challenge for HP12C owners: There are two useful (and even obvious) commands which are even programmable, but which are found in no documentation that I have ever seen, from HP or other publishers; what are they? This illustrates, by the way, how an original author or architect may have implemented a truly complete vision, which subsequent documenters have always overlooked; consider the possibility that even the universe's author or architect might have implemented features which you can access, but which, because no one among its interpreters has yet told you or taught you, you may be missing out on. With best wishes from http://www.mum.edu . ==== My addition to the text below is: { 0. 1. } will search a ROOT _between_ the numbers. If there are multiple roots this may help you to select the interesting domain OR if you know that there surely is a root between the numbers the solver will also find it. a single number will have a \partner\ or \pare\ generated by the calculator close to users number. { .5 0. 1. } will search a ROOT between 0. 1. with a best guess of 0.5 (where to start the search) If you provide a good approx. the root will be found faster. The best guess may also have units attached to it. [ON] key press should give the current list of three numbers and you can start over. Pressing any other key while in the SOLVER will show the current two guesses in the status area. I tested this in my HP 48GX and in my HP 49G I get an Extremum...and that is another story which I hope that Nick will tell you! I am able to invoke the solver (using 30 MENU) > but cannot automatically solve for one of the variables > and return back, without any user interaction. 'expression' 'name' guess(es) ROOT Example: 'EXP(X)-LN(X)=5.' 'X' 1. ROOT The result 1.71152201393 is both returned on the stack > and stored in the named variable 'X' Note that the equation is supplied on the stack > (reserved variable 'EQ' is not used). Any other variables in the equation must have > predefined numeric values (units are permitted). \Guess(es)\ means either one numeric value, > or a list of from one to three numeric values, > which the solver will try first. A guess of 0. is equivalent to the list { 0. 1. } Menu 30 is basically just a convenient user interface for invoking > the ROOT command; the expression is taken from the variable 'EQ' > and the guess(es) are taken from the initial contents > of the variable being solved for, or { 0. 1. } > if the variable doesn't initially exist. > ((o)) Best wishes from http://www.mum.edu > . ==== A bit late because I was away last week, here are my observations: > My addition to the text below is: > { 0. 1. } will search a ROOT _between_ the numbers. > If there are multiple roots this may help you to select the > interesting domain OR if you know that there surely is > a root between the numbers the solver will also find it. a single number will have a \partner\ or \pare\ > generated by the calculator close to users number. { .5 0. 1. } will search a ROOT between 0. 1. > with a best guess of 0.5 (where to start the search) > If you provide a good approx. the root will be found faster. > The best guess may also have units attached to it. [ON] key press should give the current list of three numbers > and you can start over. > Pressing any other key while in the SOLVER > will show the current two guesses in the status area. > I tested this in my HP 48GX and in my HP 49G I get an Extremum...and that is another story > which I hope that Nick will tell you! > then solved for X. The HP49G almost immediatelly returned X:0. So far so good. Then Is stored 0. (the solution itself) in X and solved again for X. Result: X:0 . OK. I tried again storing .5 in X prior to solving for X. The returned solution is now not 0. but X: 3.41071649952E-6 . EXPR returns Expr:0. Understandable: Starting at .5 and variating X to lower values eventually comes to X=3.41071649952E-6 . Now, e^(3.41071649952E-6) evaluates to 1.00000341072 on the HP49G. e^(3.41071649952E-6)-3.41071649952E-6 evaluates to 1. due to roundoffs. And e^(3.41071649952E-6)-3.41071649952E-6-1 evaluates to 0. So the numeric solver, which also evaluates the function values for different values of X, just stops here. The reason for finding X:0. when we give an initial guess 0. or {0.5 0. 1.} for X , is that then the solver has a start or a \boundary\ value that equals the solution itself. If we solve again with an initial guess of {0.5 -.1 .8} , then the returned solution is X:(-2.29964292526E-6). (For the same reasons as above.) extremal value of 0. but that is OK, or did you mean something else Veli-Pekka? So (in this case) menu 30. seems to do its job OK, or Nick seems to be too blockie to understand what the problem is ;-) Greetings, Nick. I am able to invoke the solver (using 30 MENU) > but cannot automatically solve for one of the variables > and return back, without any user interaction. 'expression' 'name' guess(es) ROOT Example: 'EXP(X)-LN(X)=5.' 'X' 1. ROOT The result 1.71152201393 is both returned on the stack > and stored in the named variable 'X' Note that the equation is supplied on the stack > (reserved variable 'EQ' is not used). > > Any other variables in the equation must have > predefined numeric values (units are permitted). \Guess(es)\ means either one numeric value, > or a list of from one to three numeric values, > which the solver will try first. A guess of 0. is equivalent to the list { 0. 1. } Menu 30 is basically just a convenient user interface for invoking > the ROOT command; the expression is taken from the variable 'EQ' > and the guess(es) are taken from the initial contents > of the variable being solved for, or { 0. 1. } > if the variable doesn't initially exist. > ((o)) Best wishes from http://www.mum.edu > . ==== I'm hoping someone might be able to help me. I'm attempting to \ symbolically integrate Cos (ln x). What I get is: INT(COS(LN(Xt)),Xt,X) With my TI-89 I get x/2*cos(ln x) + x/2*(sin(ln x) which is the correct answer. Why won't the HP seemingly handle this or possibly what am I doing wrong? I put cos(ln x) into register y and x into register x then choose Risch. Help thanks ce ==== I would just love to tell you RTFM but there is none to read :-) The HP49G, unlike the TI89 auto-junk, needs a knowledgable user to master. Try integration by parts (IBP command) and then start complaining. !Demeter! ==== > >I'm hoping someone might be able to help me. I'm attempting to \ symbolically >integrate Cos (ln x). What I get is: INT(COS(LN(Xt)),Xt,X) > >With my TI-89 I get x/2*cos(ln x) + x/2*(sin(ln x) which is the correct >answer. > >Why won't the HP seemingly handle this or possibly what am I doing wrong? \ I >put cos(ln x) into register y and x into register x then choose Risch. >... One of the many reasons why some people prefer TI89 over the HP49 :-( One possible way to overcome this unfortunate for the HP49 situation: With INT(COS(LN(Xt)),Xt,X) still on the stack, hit 'Xt=EXP(U)' and then SUBST and after that EVAL, and you will have the same correct answer as the TI89 gives immediately. Hope that helps, ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ralf Fritzsch Bundesanstalt fuer Wasserbau Federal Waterways Engineering and Research Dienststelle Kueste Institute - Department Hamburg ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ==== c_elber@anonemoose.com says... > With INT(COS(LN(Xt)),Xt,X) still on the stack, hit 'Xt=EXP(U)' and then > SUBST and after that EVAL, and you will have the same correct answer as > the TI89 gives immediately. Ralf; this type of thing in the future I know what to do. Othertimes I've done integrations I've seen this. Will setting Xt=e to the U always work? What precisely is Xt? Why does the HP sub this in I've seen it do it in other integrals what does it mean? I've got Urroz's books now but don't see this (although between the two volumes there is a whole lotta ground to cover) \ if you know where it is in the Urroz books I'd be happy to read on it. Unfortunately attempting to learn the math AND the calc at the same time makes it pretty tough. Carmen ==== > With INT(COS(LN(Xt)),Xt,X) still on the stack, hit 'Xt=EXP(U)' and then > SUBST and after that EVAL, and you will have the same correct answer as > the TI89 gives immediately. Ralf; > this type of thing in the future I know what to do. Othertimes I've done > integrations I've seen this. Will setting Xt=e to the U always work? \ What > Carmen OK, this \trick\ is called substitution and allows you to move ahead with integration by parts (IBP). Note that you may write cos(ln(x))=cos(u) where u=lnx so that by raising both sides to the e power allows us to rewrite it as e^u=e^lnx=x and thus dx=e^u du. Now you can rewrite the original integrand as cos(ln(x))dx=e^u cos(u)du. Feed this stuff to level 2 and in level 1 give it the integral of e^u which is, again, e^u (even TI users know that, I think). Switch to complex mode and type IBP. Now switch to real mode and do INTVX. Finally add the result and you get the formula you so much desire :-) It is rather involved, I admit, but with an HP you can become better if you know where to start from although it won't teach you math! Do not forget to look IBP in the AUG for details. !Demeter! ==== is there a way to calculate the erfc function on hp49? And if soo, can it solve erfc(u)=0.0001 solve u. thanks in advance Martin ==== > is there a way to calculate the erfc function on hp49? And if soo, can it solve erfc(u)=0.0001 solve u. thanks in advance Martin So, with the definition of ERFC as: \\<< \\-> X \\<< 0. 0.5 X UTPN DUP + \\>> \\>> you can solve your problem: 'ERFC(u)=0.0001' 'u' 1.0 ROOT yields 2.75106390571 ==== thanks just what I was looking for > is there a way to calculate the erfc function on hp49? And if soo, can it solve erfc(u)=0.0001 solve u. thanks in advance Martin So, with the definition of ERFC as: > \\<< > \\-> X > \\<< 0. 0.5 X UTPN DUP + \\> \\> > you can solve your problem: 'ERFC(u)=0.0001' > 'u' > 1.0 > ROOT yields 2.75106390571 Werner ==== The Bessel library from hpcalc has many special functions, incl. one called ERF. Maybe you can use some of those functions? Gjermund ... > is there a way to calculate the erfc function on hp49? And if soo, can it solve erfc(u)=0.0001 solve u. thanks in advance Martin > ==== > is there a way to calculate the erfc function on hp49? And if soo, can it solve erfc(u)=0.0001 solve u. thanks in advance Martin ==== > is there a way to calculate the erfc function on hp49? > > And if soo, can it solve erfc(u)=0.0001 solve u. > > thanks in advance > > Martin > InverseErfc(x) = InverseErf(1-x) So if you have an InverseErf function... Let's see. According to http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Erfc.html, erfc(x) := a*INT(x,oo,exp(-t^2),t) with a = 2/SQRT(PI) According to the AUG, the 48/49 have a function UTPN defined as UTPN(m,v,x) := b*INT(x,oo,exp(-(t-m)^2/(2*v),t) with b = 1/SQRT(2*PI*v) So.. erfc(x) = 2*UTPN(0.,0.5,x) or @ERFC \\<< \\-> x \\<< 0. 0.5 x UTPN DUP + \\>> \\>> Werner Huysegoms ==== << Just try to solve manually: Integrate(1/(1+a*cos(x)),dx) TI does it in 20 seconds. >> I need less than 3 minutes to find the antiderivatives and i find the result returns by the TI92+ almost unusable and only partially true. The TI92+ assumes that (a-1)/(a+1) is >0 when it can be negative,equal to 0 or undefined ! In case (a-1)/(a+1) is positive(a>1 or a<-1) the antiderivative is: 2*tanh^-1(sqrt((a-1)/(a+1))*tan(x/2))/sqrt((a-1)*(a+1))+Constant In case (1-a)/(a+1) is positive(a>-1 and a <1) then the antiderivative is: 2*tan^-1(sqrt((1-a)/(a+1))*tan(x/2))/sqrt((1-a)*(a+1))+Constant In case a=1: tan(x/2) In case a=-1: -1/tan(x/2) ==== << I've used (and use) both the Algebra FX 2.0 and the (very similar) 2.0 Plus, and I think you're being a little harsh. I should immediately confess that it's been years since I last used my TI-92 (and I never used it much then), and that I've never used a HP calculator (blushing with shame). That said, I've been quite pleased with FX 2.0/+. Although marketed as a high school companion, it has had no difficulty with college-level Calc 101 and I suspect it will find 102 less challenging than I will. It also kept me company during a very basic EE exam (AC ckts), and had no trouble there either. Its CAS (actually Saltire Software's CAS, http://www.saltire.com/) is extensive without being overwhelming, and it was fully debugged before it left the factory . >> Note that i have said that BESIDES THE CAS it belongs to the TI83+ category. Its memory management and its user language are as limited as the TI83+ ones. And its CAS behaves exactly like a TI83 Flash apps thus you can't use it in program or add new functions to it. And functions wise,its CAS absolutely can't compete with either the HP or the TI ones. Perhaps that Casio wanted to use the Dos version of Derive but was input because TI bought Soft Warehouse thus Casio had to find a less powerful CAS. If you are pleased with its CAS then it is good for you but i don't think that someone used to the TI or the HP CAS would be pleased with it. Btw,there is a third party CAS flash apps for the TI83+. It can't compete with the Algebra FX 2.0 CAS off course,but i think you must know that there is one availlable. << Richard Kanarek >> ==== > You are just bashing the HP 49G here. You might say that. I simply belive, that both calcs are equal. Jack ==== > You don't sell the product for the half original price in US, much \ cheaper > than the closes competitor (TI), just months after introduction to the \ market. > Besides only one of the big chains - Office Depot picked up this \ particular > HP model and dumped it half a year later despite they still sell cheaper \ HP > models. They still do sell TI's and never were forced to cut the price by \ half. > You are generalizing too fast I believe. OK, some resellers were not the right ones at the beginning of the 49 and they decided to cut the prices by 2 (which BTW shows that they have high margins on calculators). But the HP49 continued to be sold in 2000, 2001 and even this year from what I know (it becomes difficult to find 49 now, it might be a coincidence with the fact that there are fewer and fewer Saturn processors available). If it was a complete disaster then I'm sure that HP would have stopped the 49 (look: they did stop some calculators projects recently BTW like endeavour or calypso). > You don't need to be economic genius to know what it means. HP 49 > doesn't sale even when sold for half of what TI is selling and > this lack of sales simply ruined investment made to produce > this calculator. No, because the investment made were not comparable to the HP48 for example (as far as I know). That's partially the reason why first ROM releases were buggy (unlike the 48 ROMs where more time was available for the developpers): less time = more bugs = less money. I'm convinced that once you deduce all the costs of the 49, it remains profitable. ==== > You are generalizing too fast I believe. OK, some > resellers were not the right ones at the beginning of the 49 > and they decided to cut the prices by 2 (which BTW shows > that they have high margins on calculators). But the HP49 > continued to be sold in 2000, 2001 and even this year from > what I know (it becomes difficult to find 49 now, it might > be a coincidence with the fact that there are fewer and > fewer Saturn processors available). If it was a complete disaster > then I'm sure that HP would have stopped the 49 (look: they did > stop some calculators projects recently BTW like endeavour > or calypso). This is not generalizing. In US TI89 is available everywhere starting with general merchant chains like Wal-Mart or K-Mart and ending on the huge electronics, office and computer chains like Office Max, Best Buy, CompUsa etc. HP49 is and was nowhere there in any of those years with the exception of Office Depot. You can buy it now only online or through some of small specialized shops usually just next to the entire line of TI. The merchants who have choosen to sell it initially and later abandoned it with half-price sale did it clearly to dump the product that does not sell. Nobody puts on sale for half price product that fly off the shelves, even if it is in short supply. Quite contrary, the price of the product in hihg demand and short supply is usually much higher than the competitor. Also nobody keeps the product that does not sell on the shelves. Shelves space has it cost. When TI89 occupies shelves that means it does sell. On the other hand TI92 is usually hard to buy off the shelf because it sells slower than it's smaller sibling. If the reason for this was lack of Saturn CPU's, then HP simply mad a stupid decision to invest into the new calculator with the hardware that was just about to dissappear. The fact is, that lackluster sales of product for whatever reason are simply a loss of money. > No, because the investment made were not comparable to > the HP48 for example (as far as I know). HP48 line was selling everywhere for years. Even recently you still could buy HP48 but not HP49 in many shops in US. > That's partially the reason why > first ROM releases were buggy (unlike the 48 ROMs where more > time was available for the developpers): less time = more bugs > = less money. > I'm convinced that once you deduce all the costs of the 49, > it remains profitable. I don't belive it. HP had a reason to finish development of advanced calculator line altogether. They would not abandon it if they would have a profit. By the way. I was looking into the symbolic eignevalues that you advertised in the previous post. What I found, is that it only works for 2x2 matrix (which of course makes sense, because HP49 like TI89 is incapable of solving general 3rd and higher degrees polynominals). So what is the big deal about 2x2 eignevalues ? It is simple to solve even manually on paper. Unless I'm missing something, there is also a bug in the system. When you try to find eigenevalues (and vectors) when using integer or symbolic matrix with most flags set to \general, exact\ etc. HP instead giving you either error message or reverting itself into floating point, gives you empty list for EGVL or two empty lists in case of EGV instead. In a sense it is an error message but a strange one :-) I would rather see error or floating point approximation. Empty list is useless. Jack ==== I believe the comments below hit the nail on the head, with on revision. HP used the Saturn. They made a decision to drop calculator production/support. This killed off the need to continue making the saturn. Why did they kill off calculator production / support (including Xpander, etc.) ? Poor sales most likely. Why were sales poor? 1) Terrible marketing strategy (no best buy, no walmart, kill off Educalc and Handicalc, etc.) 2) Alienate your most loyal customer base (engineers, professionals, surveyors) by a) making a calculator in a nutty color, b) make keyboard poorly (rubber, not proper key travel, etc.), c) release calculator with numerous bugs that took over a year or two to get really stable, d) release with little to NO documentation. Note: MANY people didn't buy the 49G BECAUSE of this last item! 3) Try marketing to students without calculator being properly available (see #1) 4) Don't try to really sell the teachers on the calculator. Sigh. How can stupidity be this rampant? I'm a numbers guy in finance, not an engineer. Yet, I would have laid money that this strategy would have failed. Don't go blaming the finance profession for too much of a focus on the bottom line. Maybe some DUMB finance people, but not all. Why kill off expander, X25? Because the 49G didn't sell well. Very likely. \That last 49G project didn't sell well at all...we'd better kill off everything that division was working on...What? they have a product \ finished and ready to hit the 2 stores in the world we're selling all our \ electronics through? Don't care...cancel it!\ Guess we'll all just have to swallow our pride and try moving TI in the right direction if we want a true calculator. Sobbing, Gene -- * All opinions herein expressed are mine and * * mine alone. You may choose to ignore them * * but I own them. * > If the reason for this was lack of Saturn CPU's, then HP simply > mad a stupid decision to invest into the new calculator > with the hardware that was just about to dissappear. > The fact is, that lackluster sales of product for whatever > reason are simply a loss of money. ==== > Poor sales most likely. Why were sales poor? > The fact is that you don't know at all how many HP49 Avenard has posted some time ago that the HP49 was profitable, I wonder how you could have better information than he had. Ask yourself, how much HP49 should have been sold to make the 49 profitable? How much money does HP make when they sell an HP49 (hint: compare the 39/40G price to the 49G price and estimate the difference in hardware cost ROM vs flash ROM and 256K RAM vs 512k RAM)? Why did HP cancel Xpander and then start the Calypso project? OK, you might not like the 49, I think HP made an error not upgrading the Saturn and not keeping a 48-like keyboard (hardware speaking). But please don't speak so definitively about things you don't have information about. ==== Sales can be poor and yet each sale could be profitable. They are not mutually exclusive. I could make $100 per sale and if I only sold 2 units, I would have a profitable, poorly selling product. Granted, ACO's fixed costs were high enough that this would not be the case in the HP-49G's instance, but it illustrates that these two are not mutually exclusive. Businesses routinely kill products that make $$ but not enough $$ to warrant continuing. It's a matter of ROE. apparently understand managerial accounting and cost-volume-profit analysis fairly well (which is a good thing, considering I teach that at the university). Dr. Parisse, the HP-49G sold poorly. By the choices made for distribution, it was guaranteed to sell poorly. Selling something online and pretty much only at office depot in the US will do that to you. And, by the way, my comment on the buggy nature of the rom was to the decision for release when it was made, which as I understand it, was dictated. Gene -- * All opinions herein expressed are mine and * * mine alone. You may choose to ignore them * * but I own them. * > Poor sales most likely. Why were sales poor? > The fact is that you don't know at all how many HP49 > Avenard has posted some time ago that the HP49 was profitable, > I wonder how you could have better information than he had. > Ask yourself, how much HP49 should have been sold to make > the 49 profitable? How much money does HP make when they > sell an HP49 (hint: compare the 39/40G price to the 49G > price and estimate the difference in hardware cost > ROM vs flash ROM and 256K RAM vs 512k RAM)? Why did HP cancel > Xpander and then start the Calypso project? OK, you might not like the 49, I think HP made an error > not upgrading the Saturn and not keeping a 48-like keyboard > (hardware speaking). But please don't speak so definitively > about things you don't have information about. > ==== > apparently understand managerial accounting and cost-volume-profit \ analysis > fairly well (which is a good thing, considering I teach that at the > university). Dr. Parisse, the HP-49G sold poorly. By the choices made for \ distribution, > it was guaranteed to sell poorly. Selling something online and pretty \ much > only at office depot in the US will do that to you. And, by the way, my > comment on the buggy nature of the rom was to the decision for release \ when > it was made, which as I understand it, was dictated. Your answer remains vague. I'm asking you precise numbers. What would be the number of HP49 sold worldwide during 3 years that you would describe as poorly selling? I think it's purely subjective. What is objective is the question of profitability: multiply your evaluation of the number of this number by the profit by calc, substract investisment. You may teach economy, ok, you probably know a lot in this subject, but the equation for profitability is sufficiently simple that I can understand it as a poor mathematician. And right, it might be more profitable to make other products with higher profits, but I don't think that for example PC make more money than 49 for HP. ==== Again, profit per unit is rarely as important as total profits. As I said, suppose the final profit/contribution margin on an HP-49G were $100 each (which I obviously know would not be the case if you only made and sold 500 of these!). If the profit/contribution margin on a PC is only $50, which would you make, considering total sales of 500 HP-49Gs and 500,000 PCs? The answer is clear which one you should sell. It is quite easy to know that sales of the HP-49G were poor. 1) Not available easily to the general public and/or target market. 2) Only sold online and at 1 office store. 3) No advertising to speak of if at all. 4) Poor documentation 5) design despised by many many potential customers. I think things are quite clear. You never addressed the obvious nature of the paragraph below. I don't need actual numbers, which are proprietary of course, to know it sold poorly. If HP sold more of these than TI did the TI-89, then I would say it was a GOOD seller. It didn't of course. Gene -- * All opinions herein expressed are mine and * * mine alone. You may choose to ignore them * * but I own them. * > apparently understand managerial accounting and cost-volume-profit analysis > fairly well (which is a good thing, considering I teach that at the > university). Dr. Parisse, the HP-49G sold poorly. By the choices made for distribution, > it was guaranteed to sell poorly. Selling something online and pretty much > only at office depot in the US will do that to you. And, by the way, my > comment on the buggy nature of the rom was to the decision for release when > it was made, which as I understand it, was dictated. Your answer remains vague. I'm asking you precise numbers. > What would be the number of HP49 sold worldwide during 3 years > that you would describe as poorly selling? I think it's purely > subjective. What is objective is the question of profitability: > multiply your evaluation of the number of this number by the profit > by calc, substract investisment. You may teach economy, ok, you > probably know a lot in this subject, but the equation for > profitability is sufficiently simple that I can understand it > as a poor mathematician. And right, it might be more profitable > to make other products with higher profits, but I don't think > that for example PC make more money than 49 for HP. > ==== > Again, profit per unit is rarely as important as total profits. As I \ said, > suppose the final profit/contribution margin on an HP-49G were $100 each > (which I obviously know would not be the case if you only made and sold \ 500 > of these!). If the profit/contribution margin on a PC is only $50, which > would you make, considering total sales of 500 HP-49Gs and 500,000 PCs? \ The > answer is clear which one you should sell. > It's clear that the total profit is what counts (profit per calc*number of calc sold/investisment is probably another good indicator), as well as market penetration (for future products). I can't give a numbers of 49 sold, but you can be sure it's some order of magnitude more than 500:-) > It is quite easy to know that sales of the HP-49G were poor. > You can say what you want as soon as you don't define what poor means. Is it less than 1000? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? etc. Mathematicians like definitions:-) > 1) Not available easily to the general public and/or target market. > 2) Only sold online and at 1 office store. > 3) No advertising to speak of if at all. You are reasoning with US info on a worldwide distributed product. In France for example, the 49 was easy to get, not as easy as the TI89 but not far. > I think things are quite clear. You never addressed the obvious nature of > the paragraph below. I don't need actual numbers, which are proprietary \ of > course, to know it sold poorly. > If you don't know actual numbers, you just make hypothesis. I ask again the question: how much 49 do you estimate were sold by HP during the last 3 years? So that we can have a precise idea of what you call poor selling. > If HP sold more of these than TI did the TI-89, then I would say it was a > GOOD seller. It didn't of course. If your definition of not(poor selling) is (selling more than the TI89) then you can say the 49 sold poor. However I would not agree on the definition, since the 89 is (was) cheaper than the 49. ==== > Again, profit per unit is rarely as important as total profits. As I \ said, > suppose the final profit/contribution margin on an HP-49G were $100 \ each > (which I obviously know would not be the case if you only made and sold \ 500 > of these!). If the profit/contribution margin on a PC is only $50, \ which > would you make, considering total sales of 500 HP-49Gs and 500,000 PCs? \ The > answer is clear which one you should sell. > > It's clear that the total profit is what counts (profit per calc*number > of calc sold/investisment is probably another good indicator), > as well as market penetration (for future products). I can't give a > numbers of 49 sold, but you can be sure it's some order of magnitude > more than 500:-) > It is quite easy to know that sales of the HP-49G were poor. > > You can say what you want as soon as you don't define what poor > means. Is it less than 1000? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? etc. > Mathematicians like definitions:-) > 1) Not available easily to the general public and/or target market. > 2) Only sold online and at 1 office store. > 3) No advertising to speak of if at all. You are reasoning with US info on a worldwide distributed product. > In France for example, the 49 was easy to get, not as easy as the TI89 > but not far. > I think things are quite clear. You never addressed the obvious nature \ of > the paragraph below. I don't need actual numbers, which are proprietary \ of > course, to know it sold poorly. > > If you don't know actual numbers, you just make hypothesis. > I ask again the question: how much 49 do you estimate were sold > by HP during the last 3 years? So that we can have a precise idea > of what you call poor selling. > If HP sold more of these than TI did the TI-89, then I would say it was \ a > GOOD seller. It didn't of course. If your definition of not(poor selling) is (selling more than the TI89) > then you can say the 49 sold poor. However I would not agree on the > definition, since the 89 is (was) cheaper than the 49. I tend to disagree with the distribution ideas. I have checked around for a while on which HP to buy before I settled for the 49g. I checked prices, online, at Costco, and at my university bookstore. In the engineering program that I am in, any student who has been there for more than 3 years has an HP.(or so it seems). There is a younger crowd with TI's, but the students who came before ti flooded the market with math calculators use the calculator that seemingly was designed for engineering, The HP. My 49g only cost 90.00 new and was from an actual store (with a concrete foundation and everything :). I dont know how much of a profit hp made off of my sale, but I do know that if students know what to look for, they will find the HP, and be thankful. ==== > Sales can be poor and yet each sale could be profitable. They are not > mutually exclusive. I could make $100 per sale and if I only sold 2 units, I seriously doubt. Single die to make small plastic part can cost around $30,000 US or better depending on the part complexity and size. When the product fails, the die is generally useless and discarded. You do the math, how many units you have to sell with what profit just to return tooling investment. You still need to buy a machine for plastic injection if you continue to make the old product (HP48 next to the new one 49). Machine can easily cost million but I admit, is cheaper to sale it or use for something else when product fails. Jack ==== profitable and still be a very poor seller. Gene -- * All opinions herein expressed are mine and * * mine alone. You may choose to ignore them * * but I own them. * > Sales can be poor and yet each sale could be profitable. They are not > mutually exclusive. I could make $100 per sale and if I only sold 2 units, I seriously doubt. Single die to make small plastic part can cost around > $30,000 US or better depending on the part complexity and size. > When the product fails, the die is generally useless and discarded. > You do the math, how many units you have to sell with what > profit just to return tooling investment. You still need to buy a > machine for plastic injection if you continue to make the old > product (HP48 next to the new one 49). Machine can easily > cost million but I admit, is cheaper to sale it or use for > something else when product fails. Jack ==== > profitable and still be a very poor seller. Gene I work for the mass manufacturer. The poor seller is rarely profitable (altough possible - I agree). The life in a competing market is not as easy as many think. When you plan a production of the new product the first thing you need is an initial investment into the product development and manufacturing plants. This investment is huge and from the economical standpoint practically constant, independent from future product sales etc. Assuming of course, that you plan particular features, software etc. to be built in. You can decrease or incerease this initial cost by playing with amount of featrues etc. but when the poduct idea is fixed, the development cost become pretty much fixed too. Of course you need to calculate this cost into the product price or your business looses money. You do by dividing initial cost by number of untis you plan to manufacture for the entire life of the product. \ Notice, that you still assume here several years of production. What happens, if your product flops long before you planned to regain the initial investment ? You were selling units assuming much longer production, and now market forces you to shut down production, because nobody wants your product. This is disaster from the investment cost standpointand you end up with massive loss. Even when you notice slow sales early enough and recalculate initial cost, it either reduces profit or raises price of the product. The less \ untis sold, the higher cost. On top of fixed cost, once you start production, the product has a piece manufacturing cost. This cost many consider constant per produced unit, but it is rarely such. The less efficient production is (slow assembly line built for much higher troughput due to the slow sales) the higher unit manufacturing cost. That is of course the effect that many plant and administative costs are fixed and almost independent from number of units made per shift. If you have a slow seller you either have to slow down assembly line or retool line from time to time (costly) to produce something else instead which adds to the unit cost. You could in theory store unwanted product in a warehouse, but it is very costly also. Assume now, that those two costs with the much decreased from initial assumption lifetime of the product are not giving you proft at all. and with such dissapointing flop it is probably a money looser for HP. Jack ==== > In my opinion HP49 was planned for much beeter market penetration > and with such dissapointing flop it is probably a money looser for HP. This is wrong. I agree with your description of a profitable product but not on the last sentence: the 49 was not a money looser for HP. ==== > In my opinion HP49 was planned for much beeter market penetration > and with such dissapointing flop it is probably a money looser for HP. This is wrong. I agree with your description of a profitable product > but not on the last sentence: the 49 was not a money looser for HP. I think that the internal information cannot be given here, but perhaps it's just the numbers that cannot be given away. Yes, ACO & 49 has been profitable. Was it enough? Say this aload in a whispering devilish voice: We - HP beancounter$ - want more and faaa$ter profit$!! (So that top management can cash in options - from the stockholders pocket - njarh njarh njarh !!! ) Were the calcs the HP main strategic product? Educational products eg. basic school calculators is the area that was lost to the TI, but not the high math or engineering. So what to expect in the future? We (the users) will remain hopeful/doubtful... Veli-Pekka PS: Marchel's description was something I wanted to read all along so that people would know the basics behind manifacturing. ==== > Sales can be poor and yet each sale could be profitable. They are not > mutually exclusive. I could make $100 per sale and if I only sold 2 units, I would have a > profitable, poorly selling product. Granted, ACO's fixed costs were high > enough that this would not be the case in the HP-49G's instance, but it > illustrates that these two are not mutually exclusive. Businesses routinely > kill products that make $$ but not enough $$ to warrant continuing. It's \ a > matter of ROE. X ROE? The initial costs for factories in Indonesia and Chine must have been more than 100$. What about tooling, testing, etc. A rhetoric question: are you nuts??? Get real or get lost!!! >:-( ==== Veli, I was speaking hypothetically, I promise. I just meant that even if I could make $100 per unit, I'd have a profitable product but a very poorly selling one if I only sold 2 units. You're quite correct that I'd actually have quite a bit of startup costs. The earlier comment had been that the \HP-49G was profitable\ and that seemed intended to deny my comment that it \sold poorly\. The two are not incompatible. Gene -- * All opinions herein expressed are mine and * * mine alone. You may choose to ignore them * * but I own them. * > Sales can be poor and yet each sale could be profitable. They are not > mutually exclusive. I could make $100 per sale and if I only sold 2 units, I would have a > profitable, poorly selling product. Granted, ACO's fixed costs were \ high > enough that this would not be the case in the HP-49G's instance, but it > illustrates that these two are not mutually exclusive. Businesses > routinely > kill products that make $$ but not enough $$ to warrant continuing. \ It's a > matter of ROE. > X > ROE? > The initial costs for factories in Indonesia and Chine must have > been more than 100$. What about tooling, testing, etc. > A rhetoric question: are you nuts??? > Get real or get lost!!! >:-( ==== Sorry about my harsh comment! I regret it. That was not a good manner to express my thoughts although it quite frankly expressed my feelings. Nice to notice that your answer is still polite. AND now I understand what you meant. Veli-Pekka > Veli, I was speaking hypothetically, I promise. I just meant that even if I > could make $100 per unit, I'd have a profitable product but a very poorly > selling one if I only sold 2 units. You're quite correct that I'd actually have quite a bit of startup costs. The earlier comment had been that the \HP-49G was profitable\ and that > seemed intended to deny my comment that it \sold poorly\. The two are \ not > incompatible. Gene -- > * All opinions herein expressed are mine and * > * mine alone. You may choose to ignore them * > * but I own them. * X ==== No big deal. Any harshness I express is directed at the seeming stupidity I have seen demonstrated by HP on more than one occasion. And, it is always a good idea to not reply in harshness, particularly when there is a language difference between two speakers. Imagine if countries would do that! :-) Gene -- * All opinions herein expressed are mine and * * mine alone. You may choose to ignore them * * but I own them. * Sorry about my harsh comment! I regret it. > That was not a good manner to express my thoughts > although it quite frankly expressed my feelings. > Nice to notice that your answer is still polite. > AND > now I understand what you meant. Veli-Pekka Veli, I was speaking hypothetically, I promise. I just meant that even if > I > could make $100 per unit, I'd have a profitable product but a very poorly > selling one if I only sold 2 units. You're quite correct that I'd actually have quite a bit of startup costs. The earlier comment had been that the \HP-49G was profitable\ and \ that > seemed intended to deny my comment that it \sold poorly\. The two are not > incompatible. Gene -- > * All opinions herein expressed are mine and * > * mine alone. You may choose to ignore them * > * but I own them. * > X ==== I don't agree with you on the fact that the rom was buggy... I thought it was simply only much faster and much better than the 48G's one... Julien. amqbqm$huf2@eccws12.dearborn.ford.com... > Sales can be poor and yet each sale could be profitable. They are not > mutually exclusive. I could make $100 per sale and if I only sold 2 units, I would have a > profitable, poorly selling product. Granted, ACO's fixed costs were high > enough that this would not be the case in the HP-49G's instance, but it > illustrates that these two are not mutually exclusive. Businesses routinely > kill products that make $$ but not enough $$ to warrant continuing. It's \ a > matter of ROE. apparently understand managerial accounting and cost-volume-profit analysis > fairly well (which is a good thing, considering I teach that at the > university). Dr. Parisse, the HP-49G sold poorly. By the choices made for \ distribution, > it was guaranteed to sell poorly. Selling something online and pretty \ much > only at office depot in the US will do that to you. And, by the way, my > comment on the buggy nature of the rom was to the decision for release when > it was made, which as I understand it, was dictated. Gene -- > * All opinions herein expressed are mine and * > * mine alone. You may choose to ignore them * > * but I own them. * > Poor sales most likely. Why were sales poor? > The fact is that you don't know at all how many HP49 > Avenard has posted some time ago that the HP49 was profitable, > I wonder how you could have better information than he had. > Ask yourself, how much HP49 should have been sold to make > the 49 profitable? How much money does HP make when they > sell an HP49 (hint: compare the 39/40G price to the 49G > price and estimate the difference in hardware cost > ROM vs flash ROM and 256K RAM vs 512k RAM)? Why did HP cancel > Xpander and then start the Calypso project? OK, you might not like the 49, I think HP made an error > not upgrading the Saturn and not keeping a 48-like keyboard > (hardware speaking). But please don't speak so definitively > about things you don't have information about. > ==== > This is not generalizing. In US TI89 is available everywhere > starting with general merchant chains like Wal-Mart or K-Mart > and ending on the huge electronics, office and computer chains > like Office Max, Best Buy, CompUsa etc. HP49 is and was > nowhere there in any of those years with the exception of > Office Depot. You can buy it now only online or through some > of small specialized shops usually just next to the entire line > of TI. > When I say you are generalizing too fast, I meant also that you should not restrict HP activities to the US. The situation in the US as far as I understand it is worse than in other countries since TI has a quasi-monopoly. It was therefore much more difficult for the 49 to be purchased against a TI calc. If the reason for this was lack of Saturn CPU's, then HP simply > mad a stupid decision to invest into the new calculator > with the hardware that was just about to dissappear. When I spoke of lack of Saturn CPU's I was referring to the current situation, not for the 3 previous years. The fact is that in France for example, the HP49 was sold in the Fnac at the initial price during the last 3 years, but not this year. HP48 line was selling everywhere for years. Even recently > you still could buy HP48 but not HP49 in many shops in US. > It just demonstrate my point: it is very hard to compete against a monopoly like TI. The HP48 does not sell in the same market, it is an RPN-only calculator. If you don't need an integrated CAS, the 48 is a good buy since the keyboard hardware is much better than the 49. I don't belive it. HP had a reason to finish development of > advanced calculator line altogether. They would not abandon it > if they would have a profit. > The reason is not the HP4x supposed lack of profit. Why did HP stop Xpander? It had nothing in common with the HP49. Since you don't agree, I would be curious to know what is your estimate of worldwide sold HP49? How much do you think the development of the 49 did cost? How much calc do you think HP should have sold to get back their money? > By the way. I was looking into the symbolic eignevalues that > you advertised in the previous post. What I found, is that it only > works for 2x2 matrix (which of course makes sense, because > HP49 like TI89 is incapable of solving general 3rd and higher degrees > polynominals). So what is the big deal about 2x2 eignevalues ? > It is simple to solve even manually on paper. Your conclusion is wrong. There are many matrices with size greater than 2x2 that can be solved symbolically especially in the textbook problems but also for problems with symmetries. For example [[1,1,a],[1,a,1],[a,1,1]] that becomes harder to solve by hand than a 2x2 matrix (which is not that easy, try to solve a random 2x2 matrix by hand, you will certainly get sqrt and solving linear system with sqrt is error-prone) > Unless I'm missing something, there is also a bug in the system. > When you try to find eigenevalues (and vectors) when using integer > or symbolic matrix with most flags set to \general, exact\ etc. > HP instead giving you either error message or reverting itself into > floating point, gives you empty list for EGVL or two empty lists in case > of EGV instead. In a sense it is an error message but a > strange one :-) I would rather see error or floating point > approximation. Empty list is useless. > Give an example please. Once you understand that the problem is to factor the char. polynomial, if you enter say a random 3x3 matrix (with integer coeffs), then the char polynomial is not factored symbolically and the calc switches to numerical factorization if your flag configuration allows it, otherwise you get empty list since no exact eigenvalue was found. ==== When I say you are generalizing too fast, I meant also that > you should not restrict HP activities to the US. The situation > in the US as far as I understand it is worse than in other > countries since TI has a quasi-monopoly. It was therefore much > more difficult for the 49 to be purchased against a TI calc. TI \monopoly\ was prior to HP48GX nonexistent. It was HP that had monopoly for high end calculators in US for years and TI managed to beat them only recently. Don't tell me, that HP coudn't do the same. They simply lack the good product to do so. > When I spoke of lack of Saturn CPU's I was referring to the > current situation, not for the 3 previous years. The fact is > that in France for example, the HP49 was sold in the Fnac > at the initial price during the last 3 years, but not this > year. When my company starts a product, it signs contract with componenet manufacturers that requires them to provide parts for the entire predicted volume and product lifetime including spare parts after production ends for the next years to support the product. HP is a serious company that knows how to run production business. > HP48 line was selling everywhere for years. Even recently > you still could buy HP48 but not HP49 in many shops in US. > It just demonstrate my point: it is very hard to compete > against a monopoly like TI. The HP48 does not sell in the > same market, it is an RPN-only calculator. If you don't > need an integrated CAS, the 48 is a good buy since the keyboard > hardware is much better than the 49. As far as hardware goes it is true, but HP48 was using the same Saturn that you claim HP49 was a culprit of 49 demise. That does not add up. > I don't belive it. HP had a reason to finish development of > advanced calculator line altogether. They would not abandon it > if they would have a profit. > The reason is not the HP4x supposed lack of profit. Why > did HP stop Xpander? It had nothing in common with the HP49. > Since you don't agree, I would be curious to know what is your > estimate of worldwide sold HP49? How much do you think the > development of the 49 did cost? How much calc do you think > HP should have sold to get back their money? I don't work for HP financial departamet and those numbers are company secret even for most of the people involved in the product development. I would guess that since HP48GX was a miniscule improvement of HP48SX (just different color of keyboard keys and higher clock of CPU), and HP49 has more software, and different box and different keyboard that HP49 must have been investment several times of that of SX to GX switch and comparable to the 28 to 48 line switch, where hardware format and software was significantly changed. Assuming this, 48 line that was selling for 8 years is much more successfull than 2-3 year demise of 49. > By the way. I was looking into the symbolic eignevalues that > you advertised in the previous post. What I found, is that it only > works for 2x2 matrix (which of course makes sense, because > HP49 like TI89 is incapable of solving general 3rd and higher degrees > polynominals). So what is the big deal about 2x2 eignevalues ? > It is simple to solve even manually on paper. Your conclusion is wrong. There are many matrices with size greater > than 2x2 that can be solved symbolically especially in > the textbook problems but also for problems with symmetries. > For example [[1,1,a],[1,a,1],[a,1,1]] that becomes harder to > solve by hand than a 2x2 matrix (which is not that easy, try > to solve a random 2x2 matrix by hand, you will certainly get > sqrt and solving linear system with sqrt is error-prone) So what ? I can still solve it relatively easily at the 2x2 level or write TI Basic or simple RPN to do that. You did a great work, but what big deal is it if it only works with special cases ? Unless my flags are set wrong or HP49 is faulty, the several I did tried failed to solve. See example below. > Give an example please. > Once you understand that the problem is to factor the char. polynomial, > if you enter say a random 3x3 matrix (with integer coeffs), then > the char polynomial is not factored symbolically and the calc > switches to numerical factorization if your flag configuration > allows it, otherwise you get empty list since no exact eigenvalue > was found. For example (notice, that it is not symbolic, but integer): | 1 1 2 | | 2 3 3 | | 4 4 6 | EGVL returns { } EGV returns { } { } Flags are: { #18204010FF0h #0h #1000420A000009h #0h } What am I doing wrong ? Jack ==== << > When I say you are generalizing too fast, I meant also that > you should not restrict HP activities to the US. The situation > in the US as far as I understand it is worse than in other > countries since TI has a quasi-monopoly. It was therefore much > more difficult for the 49 to be purchased against a TI calc. TI \monopoly\ was prior to HP48GX nonexistent. It was HP that had monopoly for high end calculators in US for years and TI managed to beat them only recently. Don't tell me, that HP coudn't do the same. They simply lack the good product to do so. >> HP48 doesn't have a monopoly on the market TI is actually king of. TI and Casio have litteraly create student calculators market as HP was focusing on engineering and college/engineering students market. << > When I spoke of lack of Saturn CPU's I was referring to the > current situation, not for the 3 previous years. The fact is > that in France for example, the HP49 was sold in the Fnac > at the initial price during the last 3 years, but not this > year. When my company starts a product, it signs contract with componenet manufacturers that requires them to provide parts for the entire predicted volume and product lifetime including spare parts after production ends for the next years to support the product. HP is a serious company that knows how to run production business. >> HP is perhaps a serious company but their short term profit policy push them to do some rather stupid errors and take some all but serious decisions. Like pushing its engineers to use archaic hardware just to reduce developpement cost. << > I don't belive it. HP had a reason to finish development of > advanced calculator line altogether. They would not abandon it > if they would have a profit. > The reason is not the HP4x supposed lack of profit. Why > did HP stop Xpander? It had nothing in common with the HP49. > Since you don't agree, I would be curious to know what is your > estimate of worldwide sold HP49? How much do you think the > development of the 49 did cost? How much calc do you think > HP should have sold to get back their money? I don't work for HP financial departamet and those numbers are company secret even for most of the people involved in the product development. I would guess that since HP48GX was a miniscule improvement of HP48SX (just different color of keyboard keys and higher clock of CPU), and HP49 has more software, and different box and different keyboard that HP49 must have been investment several times of that of SX to GX switch and comparable to the 28 to 48 line switch, where hardware format and software was significantly changed. Assuming this, 48 line that was selling for 8 years is much more successfull than 2-3 year demise of 49. >> Do you really think that if HP ACO had the ressources and the time,the designers of the HP48GX had,the HP49G would have: -The same CPU has the HP48G -The crappy keyboard -A software that buggy at release(although less than the first version of TI92 software) -Such a poor documentation ? So no the HP48G to HP49G switch has nothing comparable with any previous HP switch line. ==== > As far as hardware goes it is true, but HP48 was using the same > Saturn that you claim HP49 was a culprit of 49 demise. > That does not add up. > The 49 speed is the same as the 48 6 years ago, during that time TI introduced the 92 and the 89. I believe this is the main reason why it could not really break the TI monopoly. I don't work for HP financial departamet and those numbers are > company secret even for most of the people involved in the > product development. I would guess that since HP48GX was > a miniscule improvement of HP48SX (just different color of > keyboard keys and higher clock of CPU), and HP49 has > more software, and different box and different keyboard > that HP49 must have been investment several times of that > of SX to GX switch and comparable to the 28 to 48 line switch, > where hardware format and software was significantly changed. > Assuming this, 48 line that was selling for 8 years is much more > successfull than 2-3 year demise of 49. > The investment for the 49 is certainly not higher than the switch from 48SX to GX. The CPU had been overclocked which costs probably as much as say the switch from ROM to flash and the development team worked during a longer period. > So what ? I can still solve it relatively easily at the 2x2 level > or write TI Basic or simple RPN to do that. > You did a great work, but what big deal is it if it only works > with special cases ? Unless my flags are set wrong or HP49 is faulty, > the several I did tried failed to solve. See example below. > Of course if you try a random matrix you will get a characteristic polynomial which is irreducible over the integers. But as I said in my previous post, all exercices students will have to solve will be factorizable therefore the 49 will be a great help to check their answer. I did not say you can't do it in TI Basic, but covering all cases (non diagonalizable matrices) is not that simple to program. The situation is exactly the same as for integration: if you take a random function, it does not have a closed form antiderivative. Yet it is expected from CAS that they can solve all special cases that you see all the time. | 1 1 2 | > | 2 3 3 | > | 4 4 6 | EGVL returns { } > EGV returns { } { } Flags are: { #18204010FF0h #0h #1000420A000009h #0h } What am I doing wrong ? Nothing, the char polynomial is irreducible. Go pick up any textbook in linear algebra if you want to pick up examples that will be solved by the 49. ==== > As far as hardware goes it is true, but HP48 was using the same > Saturn that you claim HP49 was a culprit of 49 demise. > That does not add up. > The 49 speed is the same as the 48 6 years > ago, during that time TI introduced the 92 and the 89. > I believe this is the main reason why it could not > really break the TI monopoly. You misunderstood me. I agree, that the poor hardware choice of HP49 was a big mistake. What I was trying to say, is that you claimed shortage of Saturn CPU as a cause of bad HP49 sales. I question, why HP was still producing and selling older HP48 model in US that was using the same limited supply of the Saturn CPUs badly needed by the new HP49 ? Maybe it was the case, that HP48 despite higher manufacturing costs and lower piece price was selling better than HP49 ? > The investment for the 49 is certainly not higher than the > switch from 48SX to GX. The CPU had been overclocked which > costs probably as much as say the switch from ROM to flash > and the development team worked during a longer period. I'm not sure I undestand why is so. The switch from 48SX to 48GX required just higher clock for CPU which 5 years from the introduction of SX model was probably very simple with never, faster parts on the market. The software update was extremally limited. It DID NOT reqired new tooling for the keyboard, and any of the hardware inside. The colors in the keys probably didn't even need new painting machine. 49 model requires completely new tools for all plastic and rubber parts, so tooling investment was significant. Painting on the rubber is a different process than on the plastic, so the painting machines changed. The hardware changed from IR port to flash memory, so there was some electronic work involved. The software was significantly more updated between 48GX to 49G than from 48SX to 48GX. And also the fact remains that HP48GX replaced 48SX where 49G was produced parallel with 48GX almost to date which means, you needed new plant space. I don't buy argument, that 49G was made on a shoestring budget. Not at least in comparison to the 48SX to GX switch. Maybe the team was, but manufacturing investment was still significant. The biggest irony of it is, that most of the dedicated HP users would like the old 48 box and keyboard over the \new\ and \improved\ HP49. > Of course if you try a random matrix you will get a characteristic > polynomial which is irreducible over the integers. > But as I said in my previous post, all exercices students > will have to solve will be factorizable therefore the 49 > will be a great help to check their answer. I did not say > you can't do it in TI Basic, but covering all cases (non > diagonalizable matrices) is not that simple to program. > The situation is exactly the same as for integration: if you > take a random function, it does not have a closed form antiderivative. > Yet it is expected from CAS that they can solve all special cases > that you see all the time. For the student standpoint yes, but why then LU factorization is not educational and does not require exact math is beyond me. > | 1 1 2 | > | 2 3 3 | > | 4 4 6 | EGVL returns { } > EGV returns { } { } Flags are: { #18204010FF0h #0h #1000420A000009h #0h } What am I doing wrong ? Nothing, the char polynomial is irreducible. > Go pick up any textbook in linear algebra if you want to pick up > examples that will be solved by the 49. I think, you misunderstood my point. I know, that neither TI nor HP can solve general third or higher degree polynominal and this matrix requires such capability. What I'm questioning, is that HP49 returns empty list instead of either error message or reverting to numerical solver. I consider such answer as a bug, because the answer in fact exists, but algorithm just cannot find it. If I would use such command in the program I would assume, that the command would return either valid answer or throw exception. But EGVL or EGV does neither. It returns to the stack invalid unexpected answer instead. That is inconsistent with HP filosophy of \consistent user interface\. Jack ==== Of course, the point below is one I'm not sure this new group at HP will think about. After all, the 49G group was fairly well-versed in the HP user community, yet they were unable to stop the physical redesign that so many long-time users found horrible. Why should a new group with little or no connection to HP calculator users fair any better? Remember, there was a great deal of debate for weeks on usenet about \ whether the 49G was a prank or real. How should HP have intepreted that...\People think our new flagship model is a joke?\ not alone. Does HP get one last chance or ? Gene -- * All opinions herein expressed are mine and * * mine alone. You may choose to ignore them * * but I own them. * >The biggest irony of it is, that most of the dedicated > HP users would like the old 48 box and keyboard over the \new\ > and \improved\ HP49. ==== > Remember, there was a great deal of debate for weeks on usenet > about whether the 49G was a prank or real. > How should HP have intepreted that.. > \People think our new flagship model is a joke?\ This was in part fostered by a sort of joker outside of HP who independently \announced\ it on his own, one midnight, not even as part of the French calculator group to whom it was first shown on the *next* evening by HP. It was also around April :-) Avoid major announcements on April 1, especially; that's the date that inaugurated a newspaper in the USA, a newspaper called \The Daily Column,\ which put the U.S. President/VP team of Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) and Hubert Humphrey (HHH) in color on its front and back pages, and headlined \Don't count LBJ out on Viet and election.\ The big joke was, that even as the delivery trucks were unloading those newspapers in the pre-dawn, all over New York City, for first-day readers to buy later in morning, LBJ had already been on TV, announcing that he wouldn't run. HP's announcements were also very inauspiciously handled, directed only to France, and sort of like a Tupperware party, rather than like a fully professional formal product announcement. So it looked like a bunch of clowns having a party joke, and the look of the first product photos blended in well enough with that same idea, much as it still looks to me (but \cool\ I'm not :) ******* !Flash! See the !NEW!HP68! (just announced at HPCC) at: http://209.197.117.170/item/product2.htm (already available, USD $399) First customer's review: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3CAADB55.56D6E622%40magic-ring.net . ==== > You misunderstood me. I agree, that the poor hardware choice > of HP49 was a big mistake. What I was trying to say, is > that you claimed shortage of Saturn CPU as a cause of > bad HP49 sales. Then you misunderstood me. I was just saying that it is difficult to find 49 *this* year, and it might be related to shortage of saturn CPU (it's just an hypothesis, I don't have precise info). > I question, why HP was still producing and selling > older HP48 model in US that was using the same limited supply > of the Saturn CPUs badly needed by the new HP49 ? > Maybe it was the case, that HP48 despite higher manufacturing > costs and lower piece price was selling better than HP49 ? > I don't know, but here in France it was easier to find a 49 than a 48. I guess HP dispatched the 48 depending on the demand, the fact that CAS are allowed in examination in France and not in all US exams (one reason why the 40 is sold in France and the 39 in the US) which make the 49 more attractive. I'm not sure I undestand why is so. The switch from 48SX to 48GX > required just higher clock for CPU which 5 years from the > introduction of SX model was probably very simple with never, > faster parts on the market. The software update was extremally > limited. It DID NOT reqired new tooling for the keyboard, and any > of the hardware inside. The colors in the keys probably didn't even > need new painting machine. > I believe you underestimate the cost of a CPU upgrade. And the software did really improve between the SX and GX, the G ROM is twice the size of the S ROM. Of course writing the +256K of the G is not the same as writing the 256K of the S but the S is not the first calc of the series, it is also a followup of the 28. > 49 model requires completely new tools for all plastic and rubber > parts, so tooling investment was significant. Painting on the rubber > is a different process than on the plastic, so the painting machines > changed. The hardware changed from IR port to flash memory, > so there was some electronic work involved. The software was > significantly more updated between 48GX to 49G than from 48SX > to 48GX. And also the fact remains that HP48GX replaced 48SX > where 49G was produced parallel with 48GX almost to date > which means, you needed new plant space. > I don't buy argument, that 49G was made on a shoestring budget. > Not at least in comparison to the 48SX to GX switch. Then you are simply wrong. Just consider that the 49 project was around 1 year, and it was in parallel to Xpander. For the student standpoint yes, but why then LU factorization > is not educational and does not require exact math is beyond me. > I don't know how linear algebra is teached elsewhere, but here in France we teach matrix inversion or linear system solving without LU. LU requires a higher level of Gauss-Jordan pivot mastering, including the notion of good pivot choice and the corresponding permutation (PA=LU). It was first introduced to solve numeric problems because it was more efficient than matrix inversion, but this efficiency has a price which is added complexity (try for example to program rref and compare with LU). >>Nothing, the char polynomial is irreducible. >>Go pick up any textbook in linear algebra if you want to pick up >>examples that will be solved by the 49. > I think, you misunderstood my point. I know, that neither TI nor HP > can solve general third or higher degree polynominal and > this matrix requires such capability. What I'm questioning, is that > HP49 returns empty list instead of either error message or reverting > to numerical solver. I consider such answer as a bug, because the > answer in fact exists, but algorithm just cannot find it. If I would use > such command in the program I would assume, that the command > would return either valid answer or throw exception. But EGVL > or EGV does neither. It returns to the stack invalid unexpected answer > instead. That is inconsistent with HP filosophy of \consistent user > interface\. This is your opinion, my opinion is that EGV/EGVL should return the list of eigenvectors/eigenvalues that were found. The reason is that for some matrices, the char. polynomial will have some eigenvalues that can be found exactly and some not. If I decide to return an error I will not return the set of eigenv. found which is not optimal. This is not inconsistent since the user can check the size of the matrix or vector returned and make his own test in a program if he requires all eigenvalues to be found. I find myself easier to check sizes than catching errors. ==== I believe you underestimate the cost of a CPU upgrade. Was the CPU completely new with completely new assembler or just faster ? > And the software did really improve between the SX and GX, the G ROM is > twice the size of the S ROM. Of course writing the +256K of the G is not > the same as writing the 256K of the S but the S is not the first > calc of the series, it is also a followup of the 28. I owned 28S, 48S, 48G and 49G. In my opinion the least improved switch was from 48S to 48G no matter how much larger ROM was. > significantly more updated between 48GX to 49G than from 48SX > to 48GX. And also the fact remains that HP48GX replaced 48SX > where 49G was produced parallel with 48GX almost to date > which means, you needed new plant space. > I don't buy argument, that 49G was made on a shoestring budget. > Not at least in comparison to the 48SX to GX switch. > Then you are simply wrong. Just consider that the 49 project was > around 1 year, and it was in parallel to Xpander. Most automotive manufacturers build completely new vehicle model within a year including tooling of the plants. Iy the switch from 48 to 49 required a year, than probably switch from 48S to 48G required about a month. Jack ==== Was the CPU completely new with completely new assembler or just faster ? > I'm not the best to answer this question. The CPU was faster but they also had to handle covered ROM access. > It is just an opinion of the user. Exactly what so much better is between > G model and S model ? A little bit nicer interface and engineering \ library > that eats tons of ROM but itself is not that great anyway. > Hmmm, I think there are a lot of numerical instructions (mainly in linear algebra but also PROOT) that were implemented between S and G. If you look at the development environment that was available around year 90 (e.g. no emulator), I would certainly not describe the task as a 1 month task because it would require more now! > Iy the switch from 48 to 49 required a year, than probably > switch from 48S to 48G required about a month. ==== It is just an opinion of the user. Exactly what so much better is \ between > G model and S model ? A little bit nicer interface and engineering \ library > that eats tons of ROM but itself is not that great anyway. > Hmmm, I think there are a lot of numerical instructions (mainly in > linear algebra but also PROOT) that were implemented between S and G. > If you look at the development environment that was available around > year 90 (e.g. no emulator), I would certainly not describe the task as > a 1 month task because it would require more now! any change. The same applies to the most of the algebra, math and even engineering library which was always available for S model as an card extension anyway. Adding couple of numerical algorithms even over the period of a several years doesn't seem and manufacturing standpoint the changes were minimal or none. Jack ==== Seen: > shortage of saturn CPU What an excellent opportunity! Since the HP49 runs vastly faster on an emulator these days, could any existing Saturn emulator be run on a low-power modern CPU, and then the emulator be hidden inside the original calc case? If speed was the main factor that stifled sales of the 49, then sales of this souped-up speed demon ought to skyrocket! ((o)) . ==== I don't suppose anyone has any pictures of one do they? ==== Please send me a manual of HP 15C. Andy.- ==== > Please send me a manual of HP 15C. It's on CD1 at http://www.hpmuseum.org/cd/cddesc.htm Send Dave US$15 plus postage and you'll get it, along with lots more (e.g. the HP15C Advanced Functions handbook); ordering info is near the bottom of the page. Of course, manuals are cheaper by the carload ($35 for the entire collection of 5 cds, which you'll never finish reading :) ((o)) . ==== \Andy\ schrieb im Newsbeitrag > Please send me a manual of HP 15C. > Please take a look at the classified ads section on www.hpmuseum.org Raymond Reply-To: \Andy\ ==== Raymond: I thank your answer but it doesn't serve me: I live in Chile and it is very difficult to obtain those CD's. The idea was to obtain a basic guide of the HP 15C... Greetings, Andy. \Raymond Hellstern\ escribi\.97 en el \ mensaje > \Andy\ schrieb im Newsbeitrag > Please send me a manual of HP 15C. Please take a look at the classified ads section on www.hpmuseum.org Raymond ==== > Raymond: > I thank your answer but it doesn't serve me: I live in Chile and it is \ very > difficult to obtain those CD's. > The idea was to obtain a basic guide of the HP 15C... How is it any harder to receive CDs in Chile than to receive books? Reply-To: \Andy\ ==== Eric: I don't understand your question... In any event already I have the Owner's Handbook (November 1985) of the HP 15C, Greetings, Andy. ------------ \Eric Smith\ escribi\.97 en el mensaje > Raymond: > I thank your answer but it doesn't serve me: I live in Chile and it is very > difficult to obtain those CD's. > The idea was to obtain a basic guide of the HP 15C... How is it any harder to receive CDs in Chile than to receive books? ==== Why would obtaining a physical guide be any easier than a CD rom? I don't understand that. I must be missing something. Gene -- * All opinions herein expressed are mine and * * mine alone. You may choose to ignore them * * but I own them. * > Raymond: > I thank your answer but it doesn't serve me: I live in Chile and it is very > difficult to obtain those CD's. > The idea was to obtain a basic guide of the HP 15C... > Greetings, > Andy. \Raymond Hellstern\ escribi\.97 en el \ mensaje > \Andy\ schrieb im Newsbeitrag > Please send me a manual of HP 15C. Please take a look at the classified ads section on www.hpmuseum.org Raymond ==== don't. For instance what do the HP-1x series use in them? Are they Saturn based? -- john R. Latala jrlatala@golden.net ==== > don't. For instance what do the HP-1x series use in them? Are they Saturn > based? The Voyager series (HP-10C, -11C, -12C, -15C, and -16C) use the \Nut\ processor that was first used in the HP-41C (\Coconut\). For many years the Voyagers used the same actual processor die (but in a QFP package rather than a DIP). Later cost-reduced versions of the 12C have integrated more functions onto fewer chips, resulting in a single-chip version, but the CPU still has the same architecture. The HP-71B, clamshell, Pioneer, and graphing calculators use variants of Saturn. The HP 10BII uses a Mitsubishi processor that is a 6502-derivative. I have no idea what sort of processor is used in the HP 6S, 6S Solar, and 30S. They were not designed by HP. ==== >don't. For instance what do the HP-1x series use in them? Are they Saturn >based? The HP-71B was the first calculator to use the Saturn. Everything after it made use of the Saturn except the HP-1x series and some of the newest algebraic models. ( HP-10BII I believe employs some type of microcontroller to emulate the old Saturn chip that the 10B used to use. I don't what the 30S and the 6S use ) The HP-1x series used a derivative of the HP-41 \NUT\ processor. See http://www.hpmuseum.org/tech10.htm . ----------------------------------------------------------------------------\ --- Jonathan Busby - before replying. ==== In message , Jonathan Busby >The HP-71B was the first calculator to use the Saturn. Everything after >it made use of the Saturn except the HP-1x series and some of the >newest algebraic models. ( HP-10BII I believe employs some type of >microcontroller to emulate the old Saturn chip that the 10B used to >use. I don't what the 30S and the 6S use ) The HP10BII uses a 6502 core. No emulation - the math routines were re-written in C just for it. This fact brought to you courtesy of the HPCC Conference in London, 21-22 September 2002. -- Bruce Horrocks Hampshire England bh@granby.demon.co.uk ==== On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 22:30:15 +0100, Bruce Horrocks >In message , Jonathan Busby >>The HP-71B was the first calculator to use the Saturn. Everything after >>it made use of the Saturn except the HP-1x series and some of the >>newest algebraic models. ( HP-10BII I believe employs some type of >>microcontroller to emulate the old Saturn chip that the 10B used to >>use. I don't what the 30S and the 6S use ) > >The HP10BII uses a 6502 core. No emulation - the math routines were >re-written in C just for it. > >This fact brought to you courtesy of the HPCC Conference in London, >21-22 September 2002. > Hmmm... I guess I was remembering wrong. (that's a surprise ;) So the correct term should be \simulate\? (at least for the math routines) For the rest, I don't know if the 10BII resembles the 10B, just with \prettier\ packaging. Maybe someone that has used it can chime in. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------\ --- Jonathan Busby - before replying. ==== > Hmmm... I guess I was remembering wrong. (that's a surprise ;) So the > correct term should be \simulate\? (at least for the math routines) No, it's not simulating anything either. The code has been carefully written from scratch to produce the same numeric results. In other words, it's new code implementing the same algorithms. ==== On 27 Sep 2002 17:44:38 -0700, Eric Smith >> Hmmm... I guess I was remembering wrong. (that's a surprise ;) So the >> correct term should be \simulate\? (at least for the math routines) > >No, it's not simulating anything either. The code has been carefully >written from scratch to produce the same numeric results. In other >words, it's new code implementing the same algorithms. > But this is the definition of \simulate\. ;) To rephrase the second part of my question I was wondering if the user interface has also been rewritten to produce similar behavior. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------\ --- Jonathan Busby - before replying. ==== before we're getting too off-topic: Consider the 'HP-41CV Emulator Card' for the HP-48 as a simulation, in contrast to the program from HrastProgrammer which is an emulation. The HP/Zengrange card just simulates to be something like an HP-41, HrastProgrammer's software emulates the HP-41 hardware in software, so the original ROM images can be used. Raymond \Jonathan Busby\ schrieb im Newsbeitrag > On 27 Sep 2002 17:44:38 -0700, Eric Smith > Hmmm... I guess I was remembering wrong. (that's a surprise ;) So the >> correct term should be \simulate\? (at least for the math routines) >No, it's not simulating anything either. The code has been carefully > >written from scratch to produce the same numeric results. In other > >words, it's new code implementing the same algorithms. > But this is the definition of \simulate\. ;) To rephrase the second part of my question I was wondering if the user > interface has also been rewritten to produce similar behavior. > \ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Jonathan Busby - before replying. > ==== On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 21:47:00 +0200, \Raymond Hellstern\ > >before we're getting too off-topic: > >Consider the 'HP-41CV Emulator Card' for the HP-48 as a simulation, >in contrast to the program from HrastProgrammer which is an emulation. > >The HP/Zengrange card just simulates to be something like an HP-41, >HrastProgrammer's software emulates the HP-41 hardware in software, >so the original ROM images can be used. >Raymond These are exactly the definitions I was thinking of when I used \emulate\ and \simulate\ . There are a multitude of software projects that describe themselves as \emulators\ and conform to the definition of something that replicates the external and *internal* behavior of some architecture by accepting the same data/programs and producing the same results. ( see http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=emulate ) I can also think of many instances where the word \simulation\ is applied to something that replicates the external ( ie. interface ) behavior of something to a close degree but operates differently internally. Some examples are a flight simulator, a mechanical arcade machine simulator, a HDL test bench program with behavioral simulation of say memory chips , and the list goes on. This would fit with my usage of \simulate\ to describe the 10BII math functions because of the fact that they have the same external behavior as the 10B functions but on a low level they operate differently internally. Of course, there are also many counterexamples to the above. I think it's just a matter of personal preference and is also dependent on what context you're working in. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------\ --- Jonathan Busby - before replying. ==== > I think > it's just a matter of personal preference and is also dependent on > what context you're working in. Yes. And in the context of computers, the engineers who developed the System/360 at IBM *invented* emulation and defined what it means. I have never seen any historical record of the word emulate being used in any reference to computers prior to 1964, though certainly the word existed with non-computer-specific meaning before that. Unless there's a very good reason for it, why should we abuse the term to mean something else? That can only lead to confusion. ==== > Consider the 'HP-41CV Emulator Card' for the HP-48 as a simulation, > in contrast to the program from HrastProgrammer which is an emulation. The HP/Zengrange card just simulates to be something like an HP-41, > HrastProgrammer's software emulates the HP-41 hardware in software, > so the original ROM images can be used. Except that \emulation\ was defined by its inventors at IBM to mean simulation with hardware and/or microcode assistance. HrastProgrammer's software simulates the 41 hardware at a low level, but it doesn't have any special hardware or microcode assistance, so it is not emulation. _IBM's Early Computers_, Charles J. Bashe et al _IBM's 360 and Early 370 Systems_, Emerson W. Pugh et al _Building IBM: Shaping an Industry and its Technology, Emerson W. Pugh _IBM Dictionary of Computing_, George McDaniel ==== \Eric Smith\ schrieb im Newsbeitrag > Consider the 'HP-41CV Emulator Card' for the HP-48 as a simulation, > in contrast to the program from HrastProgrammer which is an emulation. The HP/Zengrange card just simulates to be something like an HP-41, > HrastProgrammer's software emulates the HP-41 hardware in software, > so the original ROM images can be used. Except that \emulation\ was defined by its inventors at IBM to mean > simulation with hardware and/or microcode assistance. HrastProgrammer's > software simulates the 41 hardware at a low level, but it doesn't have > any special hardware or microcode assistance, so it is not emulation. > It was defined by people at IBM for their type of emulation, where is the problem that other people may have redefined the meaning? Take, for example, any terminal emulator program for a PC. None of those can rely on a real terminal hardware, but I never heard someone talk about those programs as simulators. Take Emu48: It uses the original ROM images, so it can be considered as emulation. Even the HP/Zengrange product I mentioned in my earlier post used 'Emulator' as part of the official HP product name, which I consider wrong. It doesn't matter if it's tied to hardware, like the 8086 emulation in a Pentium processor, or in software, like Emu48 (or nearly any other emulator out there) It's just an other abstraction layer. It seems that the words 'simulation' and 'emulation' and their meaning can be interpreted somehow;-) If there is enough interest, you could ask the author of Emu48 and the \ other guys about their understanding regarding this topic. However, I don't care too much about the difference. Raymond ==== > Except that \emulation\ was defined by its inventors at IBM to mean > simulation with hardware and/or microcode assistance. HrastProgrammer's > software simulates the 41 hardware at a low level, but it doesn't have > any special hardware or microcode assistance, so it is not emulation. > It was defined by people at IBM for their type of emulation, > where is the problem that other people may have redefined the meaning? It was defined by people at IBM for a new form of computer simulation that involved hardware or microcode assistance. As the inventors of this technique, they certainly have some priority in terms of defining what the word means in this field. Certainly the word \emulate\ existed \ before 1964, but not with any meaning particularly significant to computers. If the \other people\ you refer to have actually invented something new, then by all means they should get to name it. But they haven't. They're just trying to change the definition of a word for no good reason. Given that there is a perfectly good word (\simulate\) to describe software that makes one computer execute software for another *without* special microcode and hardware, using the word \emulate\ to mean the same thing does not provide any benefit. It is useful to have two words that describe the same process with or without the hardware/microcode assistance; making one of those words refer to both just confuses the issue. > Take, for example, any terminal emulator program for a PC. > None of those can rely on a real terminal hardware, > but I never heard someone talk about those programs as simulators. True. I'm not sure how that terminology came into place. But it is a different situation than making one computer execute instructions written for another. > Take Emu48: It uses the original ROM images, > so it can be considered as emulation. Emu48 does a darned good job of simulating the HP 48 hardware, and running the ROMs. But calling it an emulator does not change its nature, nor does it clarify anything. There is a distinction between instruction-level simulation and high-level functional simulation, but this is completely orthogonal to the distinction between simulation and emulation. If we use your definitions of simulate and emulate, it would suggest that a terminal emulator should really be called a terminal simulator, since it doesn't run the ROM code of the original terminal. > If I write some software for the HP-48, I can test the *actual* binary \ for > the real machine in Emu48. > Emu48 runs exactly the same binary as the real hardware. If it were a simulation, I would have to write maybe similar, but > *different* code for it. > That's exactly what distinguishes an emulation from a simulation. No, it's not. I cited some authoritative references for the definition of emulation. Can you cite some for your definition? ==== To make it short: Even IBM talks of 'Terminal Emulation' when they talk about software for a specific machine (e.g. PC) to do as if it were another. http://www.networking.ibm.com/525/525files.html and many many other places. So if even the inventors use the word 'emulation' for software alone w/o hardware/microcode support, Emu48 is an emulator. The text behind the following link http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=emulate is printed below (after the '>'): >Computer Science. >To imitate the function of (another system), > Yes >as by modifications to hardware or software > Yes. Note *or software* >that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, > Yes >execute the same programs, > Yes >and achieve the same results as the imitated system. > Yes According to the above definition Emu48 is an emulator. Period. Raymond ==== X > Take Emu48: It uses the original ROM images, > so it can be considered as emulation. Emu48 does a darned good job of simulating the HP 48 hardware, and \ running > the ROMs. But calling it an emulator does not change its nature, nor \ does > it clarify anything. X I still prefer to use the word \emulation\ here, since the hardware is also simulated, not just the software eg. userlanguage & interface. So I disagree with Eric (for the first time :) It's time to change the old IBM definition!! Veli-Pekka PS: Is firmware the ROM of a calc or the microcode in the CPU ??? ~( :-o) ==== The great and momentous \Simulation\ vs. \Emulation\ debate rages on! Prior competing definitions and historical references omitted, but just to add some more chaos to the above: http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=simulate http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=emulate http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=presently \When I use a word,\ Humpty-Dumpty said, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less\ - Lewis Carroll, \Through the Looking Glass...\ (1872) \And I am right, and you are right, and all is right as right can be\ - W. S. Gilbert (\The Mikado\) . ==== The great and momentous \Simulation\ vs. \Emulation\ debate rages on! Prior competing definitions and historical references omitted, but just to add some more chaos to the above: http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=simulate http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=emulate http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=presently \When I use a word,\ Humpty-Dumpty said, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less\ - Lewis Carroll, \Through the Looking Glass...\ (1872) \And I am right, and you are right, and all is right as right can be\ - W. S. Gilbert (\The Mikado\) . ==== > No, it's not simulating anything either. The code has been carefully > written from scratch to produce the same numeric results. In other > words, it's new code implementing the same algorithms. > But this is the definition of \simulate\. ;) simulate (v.t. [imp. & p.p. Simulated; p. pr. & vb. n. Simulating] To assume the mere appearance of, without the reality; to assume the signs or indications of, flasely; to counterfeit; to feign. -- Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary If I buy a 2002 Mazda to replace my 1992 model, it will still get me to and from work just fine. But I don't claim that the 2002 model simulates the 1992 model. The 10BII has genuine math routines. They don't simulate anything. ==== On 27 Sep 2002 19:16:13 -0700, Eric Smith >> No, it's not simulating anything either. The code has been carefully >> written from scratch to produce the same numeric results. In other >> words, it's new code implementing the same algorithms. > But this is the definition of \simulate\. ;) > >simulate (v.t. [imp. & p.p. Simulated; p. pr. & vb. n. Simulating] To >assume the mere appearance of, without the reality; to assume the signs >or indications of, flasely; to counterfeit; to feign. > -- Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary > >If I buy a 2002 Mazda to replace my 1992 model, it will still get me >to and from work just fine. But I don't claim that the 2002 model >simulates the 1992 model. > >The 10BII has genuine math routines. They don't simulate anything. I think I know the definition of a common English word - I've been speaking the language for 22 years. Perhaps you need to work out some personal issues since you feel the need to patronize people over extremely trivial matters. If you want to nitpick, then consulting http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=simulate gives a definition which reads : \ 1. a. To have or take on the appearance, form, or sound of; imitate. b. To make in imitation of or as a substitute for. 2. To make a pretense of; feign: simulate interest. 3. To create a representation or model of (a physical system or particular situation, for example). \ So, you are saying the following sentence is semantically incorrect ? : \The new math functions take on the behavior of the old ones while being different internally.\ Replace \take on\ with \simulate\. I think if you browse google you'll find thousands of sentences that fit with this usage. Wow. I thought I had finished English class a long time ago. And of all places, I'm relearning the joy of this great language right here. Let me ask you a question. Do you point out subtle differences in your interpretation of word semantics with *everyone* you talk to, or do you just do it here? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------\ --- Jonathan Busby - before replying. ==== > Do you point out subtle differences in your interpretation of word > semantics with *everyone* you talk to, or do you just do it here? No. Having published five simulators as free software (GPL), and having contributed code to a simulator that tens of thousands of people use (maybe more), I think I have some idea as to what the term means. I'll concede that other people might be more expert in this area than I am. You can obviously choose to use whatever definition for \simulate\ you like, but I don't know anyone else who would view a piece of code rewritten to run natively on a different processor to be a simulation. That's certainly not common usage in the industry. More typically that might be referred to as \porting,\ although that term can also be used in reference to making relatively small changes to source code written in a high level language for use on a different platform. Another sure way to start an argument is to bring up the difference between \simulate\ and \emulate\; nearly everyone uses the latter when they mean the former. ==== On 27 Sep 2002 20:56:37 -0700, Eric Smith >Another sure way to start an argument is to bring up the difference >between \simulate\ and \emulate\; nearly everyone uses the latter when >they mean the former. So if I said \The new math functions emulate the behavior of the old ones\ then would you be happy? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------\ --- Jonathan Busby - before replying. ==== > Another sure way to start an argument is to bring up the difference > between \simulate\ and \emulate\; nearly everyone uses the latter \ when > they mean the former. > So if I said \The new math functions emulate the behavior of the old > ones\ then would you be happy? Not especially. The term \emulate\ as applied to computers was first \ used for publication by IBM in 1964. They defined emulation as the use of one processor or system to simulate another through the use of hardware and/or microcode assistance. Specifically, various IBM 360 models offered \ optional emulation features which included extended microcode to allow the processor to run code for older IBM computers, such as the 1401 and 7090. In more recent years, the most common form of emulation is the In Circuit Emulator (ICE), a tool commonly used for embedded system development. I think the most appropriate terms to describe what the software engineers \ did to produce the HP 10BII firmware are \port\ (as mentioned in my last \ posting) or \reimplement\. ==== On 27 Sep 2002 22:50:15 -0700, Eric Smith >> Another sure way to start an argument is to bring up the difference >> between \simulate\ and \emulate\; nearly everyone uses the latter \ when >> they mean the former. > So if I said \The new math functions emulate the behavior of the old >> ones\ then would you be happy? > >Not especially. The term \emulate\ as applied to computers was first \ used >for publication by IBM in 1964. They defined emulation as the use of one >processor or system to simulate another through the use of hardware and/or >microcode assistance. Specifically, various IBM 360 models offered \ optional >emulation features which included extended microcode to allow the \ processor >to run code for older IBM computers, such as the 1401 and 7090. > >In more recent years, the most common form of emulation is the In Circuit >Emulator (ICE), a tool commonly used for embedded system development. > >I think the most appropriate terms to describe what the software engineers \ did >to produce the HP 10BII firmware are \port\ (as mentioned in my last \ posting) >or \reimplement\. Since I don't want this to draw on forever I'll just state that I don't agree and leave it at that. But perhaps if we use a more neutral synonym we can satisfy everyone's need for verbal perfection. \The new math functions [blank] the behavior of the old ones.\ [blank] = imitate|copy|mirror|reflect|reproduce|match|parallel Take your pick ;) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------\ --- Jonathan Busby - before replying. ==== \Jonathan Busby\ schrieb im Newsbeitrag > I > >don't. For instance what do the HP-1x series use in them? Are they \ Saturn > >based? > The HP-71B was the first calculator to use the Saturn. Everything > after it made use of the Saturn except the HP-1x series and some of > the newest algebraic models. ( HP-10BII I believe employs some type of > microcontroller to emulate the old Saturn chip that the 10B used to > use. I don't what the 30S and the 6S use ) The Bert, Lewis, Clarke and Yorke are special chips having a Saturn kernel. The following list may be incompleted, because I made it from my mind. - Saturn HP71B, HP18C, HP28C - 1LU7 Bert HP10B, HP20S - Lewis HP17B, 17BII, 19B, 19BII, 27S, 28S, 42S - Clarke HP48S, HP48SX - Yorke HP38G, HP39G, HP40G, HP48G, HP48G+, HP48GX, HP49G All other HP calculators don't use a Saturn processor kernel and that are \ of course much more that I listed above. Christoph ==== On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 01:14:34 +0200, \Christoph Giesselink\ >The Bert, Lewis, Clarke and Yorke are special chips having a Saturn \ kernel. >The following list may be incompleted, because I made it from my mind. - Saturn >HP71B, HP18C, HP28C - 1LU7 Bert >HP10B, HP20S - Lewis >HP17B, 17BII, 19B, 19BII, 27S, 28S, 42S - Clarke >HP48S, HP48SX - Yorke >HP38G, HP39G, HP40G, HP48G, HP48G+, HP48GX, HP49G >All other HP calculators don't use a Saturn processor kernel and that are \ of >course much more that I listed above. > >Christoph > There's also the Saca (Sacajawea) chip which is used by the 14B, 22S, 32S, and 32SII . (if my sources are correct) According to the same sources, the Saca is basically just a Bert but with more RAM and ROM ( 16 KB and 512 KB respectively ) and with a one line alphanumeric display controller instead of a 7 segment one. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------\ --- Jonathan Busby - before replying. ==== \Jonathan Busby\ schrieb im Newsbeitrag There's also the Saca (Sacajawea) chip which is used by the 14B, 22S, > 32S, and 32SII . (if my sources are correct) According to the same > sources, the Saca is basically just a Bert but with more RAM and ROM ( > 16 KB and 512 KB respectively ) and with a one line alphanumeric > display controller instead of a 7 segment one. Are you sure that this is correct? The Lewis doc say in chapter 6: \The chip has a 5th configuration register that is unused in the LEWIS \ chip. It will be used for RAM configuration on the SACJAWEA chip.\ The Bert doc says nothing about the Saca chip. But you're absolutely right in the case that there's a chip missing between the Bert and Clarke \powered\ machines. Christoph ==== On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 00:22:50 +0200, \Christoph Giesselink\ >\Jonathan Busby\ schrieb im Newsbeitrag >> There's also the Saca (Sacajawea) chip which is used by the 14B, 22S, >> 32S, and 32SII . (if my sources are correct) According to the same >> sources, the Saca is basically just a Bert but with more RAM and ROM ( >> 16 KB and 512 KB respectively ) and with a one line alphanumeric >> display controller instead of a 7 segment one. > >Are you sure that this is correct? The Lewis doc say in chapter 6: \The chip has a 5th configuration register that is unused in the LEWIS \ chip. >It will be used for RAM configuration on the SACJAWEA chip.\ > >The Bert doc says nothing about the Saca chip. > >But you're absolutely right in the case that there's a chip missing \ between >the Bert and Clarke \powered\ machines. > >Christoph > The RAM/ROM sizes are wrong due to a typo. I corrected myself here : http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ba2apu89lrv46v4tm8ifpees1162pl7fcb%404a\ x.com It should be 512 bytes of RAM and 16 KB of ROM. These numbers are from Craig A. Finseth's HPDATABase and Marc Staps book \Codenames of HP Handheld Calculators and PDAs: facts and speculations\ (in this particular book he states that this information was obtained from Dennis York, former manager of the Handheld Products Division in Corvallis, 1989) I'm sure there is a Sacajawae (1LE2) chip from the fact that there would be a missing Saturn chip otherwise and various trusted sources mention it. (including ones other than those mentioned) The statement \the Saca is basically just a Bert\ may be incorrect if the Bert uses a different version of the processor core or is substantially different from the Lewis in other respects. (other than the display controller and RAM/ROM sizes) If that's the case then maybe it should read \the Saca is basically just a Lewis but with a 1 line alphanumeric display controller instead of a 2x16 character dot matrix display one\ . ----------------------------------------------------------------------------\ --- Jonathan Busby - before replying. ==== On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 20:37:37 -0500, Jonathan Busby >There's also the Saca (Sacajawea) chip which is used by the 14B, 22S, >32S, and 32SII . (if my sources are correct) According to the same >sources, the Saca is basically just a Bert but with more RAM and ROM ( >16 KB and 512 KB respectively ) and with a one line alphanumeric >display controller instead of a 7 segment one. Well, I tried to cancel that message but no luck. My fingers are getting ahead of me again. ;) That should be 512 *bytes* of RAM and 16 KB of ROM. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------\ --- Jonathan Busby - before replying. ==== http://www.hpmuseum.org/saturn.htm http://www.hpmuseum.org/techcpu.htm ((o)) . ==== I was looking through my HP museum CDROMS and ended up looking at some of the HP71 documentation. Has somebody written an HP71 emulator? One patterned along the same lines of Warren Furlow's Virtual-41 would be quite slick. I like the way V41 uses a picture of a real 41 as the user interface. Very nice job. -- john R. Latala jrlatala@golden.net ==== schrieb im Newsbeitrag > I was looking through my HP museum CDROMS and ended up looking at some of > the HP71 documentation. Has somebody written an HP71 emulator? > J-F Garnier published a HP71B emulator at http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/2000/. But the emulator is _without_ the ROM images (copyright reasons). So please don't ask the \ author or any other for them. It's your job to get them from your own HP71. Christoph ==== It was written: > J-F Garnier published an HP71B emulator at > http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/2000/ > But the emulator is _without_ the ROM images (copyright reasons). > So please don't ask the author or any other for them. > It's your job to get them from your own HP71. Isn't that curious, given what is said at http://www.hpmuseum.org/hp71.htm \An Open Architecture with Documentation: The HP-71B was designed as an open machine. HP made available detailed documentation which described OS information (including full source code), file formats, how to create BASIC extensions, etc.\ Considering that ROMs are now freely published (made somewhat necessary for flash updates), and considering also the success which JYA had in convincing HP to allow publication of old roms (even for the HP48GX, which you can now download with permission from your favorite HP calc site), it might be possible to go further and get others freed from bondage -- if, that is, you can find anyone left at HP who has the faintest idea of what has transpired before. JYA, is that person who issued the permission letter for HP48 still around, or anyone else who can make any further decisions, or who can figure out that it would be mighty difficult for this monumental step to impact sales (or is another Basic calc in the works -- the HP89/92, perhaps?) Oh, well. ((o)) . ==== I enter a stress tensor equation (3X3) 76.6 12.4 0 12.4 0 0 0 0 0 I type EGV to get the eigen vector and eigen values. It returns the correct eigen values of: 78.6 -1.96 0 My problem is that the eigen vectors it returns are \wrong\. The x,y,z component satisfy the following: x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = 1 (based on vector math and stress analysis) since it's suppose to return a unit vector describing the principal axis. There seems to be a roundoff error in numbers close to 1. Here is what the calc returns (I'm in STD and not FIX of course): 1.00 -0.158 0 0.158 1.00 0 0.00 0.00 1 Here is what I find by hand: 0.987 0.128 0 0.159 -0.992 0 0.00 0.00 1 What's the problem?? Is this a purist mathematics issue or is the calc wrong?? Thanx all Steph ==== > I enter a stress tensor equation (3X3) 76.6 12.4 0 > 12.4 0 0 > 0 0 0 I type EGV to get the eigen vector and eigen values. It returns the \ correct > eigen values of: 78.6 > -1.96 > 0 My problem is that the eigen vectors it returns are \wrong\. The x,y,z > component satisfy the following: x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = 1 (based on vector \ math > and stress analysis) since it's suppose to return a unit vector \ describing > the principal axis. There seems to be a roundoff error in numbers close \ to > 1. Here is what the calc returns (I'm in STD and not FIX of course): 1.00 -0.158 0 > 0.158 1.00 0 > 0.00 0.00 1 Here is what I find by hand: 0.987 0.128 0 > 0.159 -0.992 0 > 0.00 0.00 1 What's the problem?? Is this a purist mathematics issue or is the calc > wrong?? Thanx all Steph EGV return eigenvectors scaled so that the largest component equals 1. Eigenvectors are determined relative to a constant; if e is an eigenvector, then so is k*e, with k real. The 'normalized' eigenvectors (norm = 1) are: 0.98777 -0.15592 0.00000 0.15592 0.98777 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 1.00000 so your second eigenvector is wrong, or a typo. Werner Huysegoms ==== , > I enter a stress tensor equation (3X3) 76.6 12.4 0 > 12.4 0 0 > 0 0 0 I type EGV to get the eigen vector and eigen values. It returns the \ correct > eigen values of: 78.6 > -1.96 > 0 My problem is that the eigen vectors it returns are \wrong\. The x,y,z > component satisfy the following: x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = 1 (based on vector \ math > and stress analysis) since it's suppose to return a unit vector \ describing > the principal axis. There seems to be a roundoff error in numbers close \ to > 1. Here is what the calc returns (I'm in STD and not FIX of course): 1.00 -0.158 0 > 0.158 1.00 0 > 0.00 0.00 1 Here is what I find by hand: 0.987 0.128 0 > 0.159 -0.992 0 > 0.00 0.00 1 What's the problem?? Is this a purist mathematics issue or is the calc > wrong?? Thanx all Steph For simplicity in internal calculation, the HP49 returns eigenvectors with each having coordinate equal to 1. In general, these eigenvectors will not be normalized (will not have length 1) but they will be pointing in the correct directions. If you want normalized eigenvectors, you must divide each by its length. When you do that in this case, you will find that the result matches what you found by hand. If this normalizing of the columns of a matrix is something you will be wanting to do frequently, you should write a program to do it. If you are going to need this done ==== I have some problems with the following Matrix: - - | 0 1 -1 | | -2 3 -1 | | -1 1 1 | - - When trying ro calculate the Eigenvectors (EGV-Command) of this Matrix with my HP49G (V1.19-6) I get the Message: \EGV Error - Matrix not diagonizable\ But the same task is no problem for my HP48 (Metakernel, Erable and Alg48 installed). Has anyone an idea why this happens to be an error on the HP49G? Any help wold be appreciated! Greetings Bernd ==== <3d934e75$0$30462$91cee783@newsreader02.highway.telekom.at>, I have some problems with the following Matrix: > - - > | 0 1 -1 | > | -2 3 -1 | > | -1 1 1 | > - - When trying ro calculate the Eigenvectors (EGV-Command) of this Matrix \ with > my HP49G (V1.19-6) I get the Message: \EGV Error - Matrix not diagonizable\ But the same task is no problem for my HP48 > (Metakernel, Erable and Alg48 installed). Has anyone an idea why this happens to be an error on the HP49G? > Any help wold be appreciated! > Greetings > Bernd > If you are in approximate mode when you enter the matrix and use the EGV command, everything works fine. But doing it all in exact mode, I received the same error message you received. If you need exactness, try doing it approximately and then using the XQ or ->Q command. Sometimes this gives correct exact results. ==== If you are in approximate mode when you enter the matrix and use the > EGV command, everything works fine. > No, it does not work fine. It just looks like. As I said, you will get two vectors for the eigenspace 1 which are colinear, and that's bad. The reason is that the matrix is *not* diagonalizable. This is BTW another reason to have symbolic diagonalization. ==== So the HP 49G CAS is even better than Mable in this particular case?! If you are in approximate mode when you enter the matrix and use the > EGV command, everything works fine. > No, it does not work fine. It just looks like. > As I said, you will get two vectors > for the eigenspace 1 which are colinear, and that's bad. > The reason is that the matrix is *not* diagonalizable. This > is BTW another reason to have symbolic diagonalization. > ==== > If you need exactness, try doing it approximately and then using the > XQ or ->Q command. Sometimes this gives correct exact results. I can't think of a case where you need (or would want!) exact eigenvectors? As Bernard Parisse says, the input matrix isn't diagonizable, so another approach has to be chosen. ==== > I can't think of a case where you need (or would want!) exact \ eigenvectors? As Bernard Parisse says, the input matrix isn't diagonizable, so another > approach has to be chosen. According to Bernard \exact\ eigenvectors are very usefull and \exact\ LU matrix decomposition is not. He did not elaborated why. Jack ==== > I can't think of a case where you need (or would want!) exact \ eigenvectors? As Bernard Parisse says, the input matrix isn't diagonizable, so \ another > approach has to be chosen. According to Bernard \exact\ eigenvectors are very usefull and > \exact\ LU matrix decomposition is not. He did not elaborated why. I'll offer an example for exact eigenvectors: to find a closed form for raising a matrix to the \n\th power. If you can write M = Q^-1 L Q, then M^n = Q^-1 L^n Q, which can give you an explicit formula in terms of n. Scott -- Scott Hemphill hemphill@alumni.caltech.edu \This isn't flying. This is falling, with style.\ -- Buzz Lightyear ==== I have some problems with the following Matrix: > - - > | 0 1 -1 | > | -2 3 -1 | > | -1 1 1 | > - - When trying ro calculate the Eigenvectors (EGV-Command) of this Matrix \ with > my HP49G (V1.19-6) I get the Message: \EGV Error - Matrix not diagonizable\ But the same task is no problem for my HP48 > (Metakernel, Erable and Alg48 installed). Has anyone an idea why this happens to be an error on the HP49G? > Any help wold be appreciated! Your matrix is indeed not diagonalizable. The eigenvalue 1 has multiplicity 2 but eigenspace of dim 1. Try JORDAN to get a characteristic vector corresponding to 1. On the 48, whatever you install, EGV is the numeric EGV instruction which in this case can not return a completely meaningfull answer (you can get the same answer converting your matrix to numeric on the 49, the two first columns are the same up to numeric accuracy). ==== \parisse\ schrieb im Newsbeitrag I have some problems with the following Matrix: > - - > | 0 1 -1 | > | -2 3 -1 | > | -1 1 1 | > - - When trying ro calculate the Eigenvectors (EGV-Command) of this Matrix with > my HP49G (V1.19-6) I get the Message: \EGV Error - Matrix not diagonizable\ But the same task is no problem for my HP48 > (Metakernel, Erable and Alg48 installed). Has anyone an idea why this happens to be an error on the HP49G? > Any help wold be appreciated! Your matrix is indeed not diagonalizable. The eigenvalue 1 > has multiplicity 2 but eigenspace of dim 1. Try JORDAN > to get a characteristic vector corresponding to 1. > On the 48, whatever you install, EGV is the numeric EGV instruction > which in this case can not return a completely meaningfull answer > (you can get the same answer converting your matrix to numeric on the > 49, the two first columns are the same up to numeric accuracy). > But I have another question concerning this topic! When I use Maple 6.0 to calculate the eigenvecs and values I get correct ( I mean not approximate) answers, the same that I get when I calculate by hand. Do you know which way the eigenvectors are calculated on the HP49G ? Why is there a difference between the JORDAN Command and the EGV-Command ? Greetings Bernd ==== i don't think you will find that. you could find some info here (if you \ are lucky): > http://www.idc.com/ > they have put out some PDA numbers, but that is not what you asked: http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jhtml?containerId=pr2002_09_06_153434 http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0209/11.pda.php > I hope I am in the correct user group. I apologize in advance if I am > not. Looking for any information on the scientific calculator market > as a whole, specifically current sales growth for 2002 and projected ==== here are some PDA recent market predictions: http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/f_headline.cgi?bw.090902/222520318 ==== they are available on Ebay Bob ==== I just got my hp49G and I'm wondering if there is a quick way to convert \ the HP49G-to-HP49G cable into a HP49G-to-PC one without cutting the cable (like a simple extenstion)? I've searched the archives (google) but could a methode that involved cutting thanks for any help ==== > I just got my hp49G and I'm wondering if there is a quick way to convert \ the > HP49G-to-HP49G cable into a HP49G-to-PC one without cutting the cable \ (like > a simple extenstion)? I've searched the archives (google) but could a > methode that involved cutting thanks for any help Hay shen, I got some telephone wire (4 wires inside, single strand per color) and added a 9 pin serial to one side. Not all of the pins will be while the serial has 9. Then I just stuck the wire into the proper holes in one of the sides of 49Gö49G cable. Look at hpcalc.org \ for pin assignments. Then just rap with some electrical tape. It's that easy. Hay, and make sure you double check the pins. It's better to check twice or even three times than burning out your 49. Don't really know if it will burn, but I would hate to find out. Jorge Gonzalez ==== > I just got my hp49G and I'm wondering if there is a quick way to \ convert the > HP49G-to-HP49G cable into a HP49G-to-PC one without cutting the cable (like > a simple extenstion)? I've searched the archives (google) but could a > methode that involved cutting thanks for any help Hay shen, > I got some telephone wire (4 wires inside, single strand per color) > and added a 9 pin serial to one side. Not all of the pins will be > while the serial has 9. Then I just stuck the wire into the proper > holes in one of the sides of 49G-49G cable. Look at hpcalc.org for > pin assignments. Then just rap with some electrical tape. It's that easy. Hay, and make sure you double check the pins. It's better to check > twice or even three times than burning out your 49. Don't really know > if it will burn, but I would hate to find out. I'm finally going to split my 49g-49g cable into to and plug an db9 connector to each side (male and female). I'm just wondering since the PC port is 12 volts and my 49g is 3 volts (2 AAA 1.5v + 1 AAA bats) isn't this asking for trouble ? I've seen a tutorial on hpcalc concerning this method but I have my doubts hmmm... ==== > the PC port is 12 volts and my 49g is 3 volts [?] > isn't this asking for trouble ? If you mean for standard RS-232 serial port data transfer, the calc has its own internal power supply, generating the voltages it really needs, and the PC's serial data lines (RX,TX), as well as the calc's, are all within standard RS-232 specs, so these calcs have been successfully interfacing with PCs (and Macs) for data transfer for something like 15 years thus far. Except for the first year's production run of HP49s, which got the circuit wrong, and might even short themselves out if anything conductive bumps into the calc's connector pins. -[]- . ==== If you mean for standard RS-232 serial port data transfer, > the calc has its own internal power supply, generating the > voltages it really needs, and the PC's serial data lines (RX,TX), > as well as the calc's, are all within standard RS-232 specs, > so these calcs have been successfully interfacing with PCs > (and Macs) for data transfer for something like 15 years thus far. Except for the first year's production run of HP49s, > which got the circuit wrong, and might even short themselves out > if anything conductive bumps into the calc's connector pins. > those buggy first year releases? ==== just give it a try (I don't know any other way to tell if the calc is buggy)... I have a 49 with a quite low serial no (ID93100023) and I haven't got any problems with transferring programs or updating the ROM. Martin shen schrieb: >If you mean for standard RS-232 serial port data transfer, >>the calc has its own internal power supply, generating the >>voltages it really needs, and the PC's serial data lines (RX,TX), >>as well as the calc's, are all within standard RS-232 specs, >>so these calcs have been successfully interfacing with PCs >>(and Macs) for data transfer for something like 15 years thus far. >>Except for the first year's production run of HP49s, >>which got the circuit wrong, and might even short themselves out >>if anything conductive bumps into the calc's connector pins. >> those buggy first year releases? ==== On my 48GX's Symbolic key is an item \Isolate a variable\. Does anyone know where this form went on the 49? I know you can achieve the same thing by using the ISOLV function, but I don't know why the form is Steve Reply-To: \G Savage\ ==== Try << 93 MENU >> you can assign this to a USR key. Many of the 48 menus still exist in the 49... you just have a to dig a little bit for them. Greg S. > On my 48GX's Symbolic key is an item \Isolate a variable\. Does anyone > know where this form went on the 49? I know you can achieve the same > thing by using the ISOLV function, but I don't know why the form is Steve ==== Well, 93 MENU looks like it shows the 48's Symbolic top level menu in soft keys (rather odd since I have flag 117 set to Choose boxes). Then if a soft key is selected (e.g. \ISOL\) rather than bring up the old form for Isolate a variable, ISOL is executed against the stack. I Steve > Try << 93 MENU >> you can assign this to a USR key. Many of the 48 menus still exist in \ the > 49... you just have a to dig a little bit for them. Greg S. ==== If flag -117 is clear, it comes up as choose box item number 2 when you \ press LS 7. Is that what you are looking for? Dennis ==== No. What I'm looking for is the form similar to RS 7, Solve equation... on the 49g, only for \Isolate a variable\. It's basically a form for entering an expression, the variable you want to solve for, the result (symbolic or numeric), and a checkbox to determine if you want to get the principal solution only. A work around is to use the stack and the ISOL function. BTW, in my original post I meant to say the \ISOL\ function. Steve > If flag -117 is clear, it comes up as choose box item number 2 when you \ press > LS 7. Is that what you are looking for? Dennis ==== Today I am using algebra and pre-calculus on the HP 48 G/G X. by Dan Coffin I noticed it has a niceset of HP programs in the back of book. Are these available in electronic form anywhere so I might download them from my computer into my calculator? I have other similar books. I'm just wondering if there is repository somewhere of this kind of material ?It would be helpful mmstat ==== In conjunction with Handheld and Portable Computer Club's Twentieth Anniversary HP conference held in London on 21-22 September, a CD containing scanned issues of the first twenty years (1982-2001) of their publication, Datafile, were distributed to all attendees. For anyone else interested in obtaining this disk, check out http://www.magpage.com/~jakes/ppccdrom.htm on the web. Jake Schwartz ==== This is a truly great resource. I have already enjoyed going through just some of this material. If you enjoy HP calculators, you should get a copy of this. THank you Jake for taking the time to provide this information. You're a champ. Gene In conjunction with Handheld and Portable Computer Club's Twentieth > Anniversary HP conference held in London on 21-22 September, a CD > containing scanned issues of the first twenty years (1982-2001) of their > publication, Datafile, were distributed to all attendees. For anyone > else interested in obtaining this disk, check out > http://www.magpage.com/~jakes/ppccdrom.htm on the web. Jake Schwartz > ==== 2) Can anybody explain me the instruction \GOSUB _PC=C\. There isn't a subrutine in the code whit that name. I don't have some entry points in my extable like memerrS, AccessVars and AccessModuleInfo. Where can I find a more complete extable (www.hpcalc.org???). 3) Where can I find information about \access methods\. 4) Forgive about my English. Alejandro Henao Loaiza. [ahl] > Here is the code for the PVARS function. It returns the amount of free > memory and the list of variable. You should be able to modify it to \ return > only the free space quite easely. > xNAME PVARS > ( % --> {..} ) > :: > CK1&Dispatch > real :: COERCE DUP #2 #>case SETPORTNOTAV FLASHPTR XEQBVARS UNCOERCE \ %8 > %* ; > ; > ********************************************************** > * This is the Vars command. > * the only difference with the RPL command is taht this one > * takes a SB instead of a real. > * This command is based on the AccessVars entry of the > * access methodes. > ********************************************************** > NAMELESS XEQBVARS > ASSEMBLEM > $(5) \(*)+5\ > SAVE GOSBVL GARBAGECOL LOAD > D-5.A SKNC { *.ins GOVLNG =memerrS } % Get the whole \ memory > C=D.A C+C.A C+C.A C+D.A RSTK=C GOSBVL MAKE$N C=RSTK B=C.A > GOSBVL D1=DSKTOP GOSBVL POP# CD0EX D1=C % the the port \ SB > A-1.A GOC .P0 % Port0? > A-1.A GOC .P1 % Port1? > A=0.A R1=A.A % R1: free \ memory > / 16 > LC(5) ACCESSBank0 D=C.A C=0.S % for the 16 \ banks > do > { > C=D.A P==AccessVars C=D.A GOSUB _PC=C *.ins2 GOC .ins % list vars > P==AccessModuleInfo C=D.A GOSUB _PC=C % get module \ info > (to compute free mem ) > C=A.A ASR.W ASR.W ASR.W ASR.W ASR.W C+A.A CSR.A A=R1.A A+C.A R1=A.A % \ add > the module free meme to the total free mem > D+11.A C+1.S UPNC % Next access > routine > } > C=R1.A % Ca: Free \ memory > GOTO .End *.P0 > P==AccessVars GOSBVL ACCESSRAM0 *.ins3 GOC .ins2 LC FFFFF % port 0 > GOTO .End *.P1 > P==AccessVars GOSBVL ACCESSERAM1 GOC .ins2 LC 7FFFB C-A.A CSR.A R1=C.A % > port 1 > P==AccessVars GOSBVL ACCESSERAM2 GOC .ins3 LC 7FFFB C-A.A A=R1.A CSR.A \ C+A.A *.End > R2=C.A % Save free mem in R2 > CD1EX D0=C GOSBVL Shrink$ % release some memory > A=R0.A D1=A D0=A % ready to transfor this > string in a list! > LC(5)DOLIST DAT1=C.A D1+5 % list prolog > D0+5 C=DAT0.A C-5.A D0+5 GOSBVL MOVEDOWN % shift all data by 5 > nibbles > LC(5)SEMI DAT1=C.A % write ending semi > A=R2.A A+1.A SKNC { GOSBVL ROOM CSR.A R2=C.A } % get the free mem > LOAD A=R0.A DAT1=A.A A=R2.A GOSBVL PUSH#ALOOP % and push the whole \ thing > on the stack > !RPL ==== Alejandro Henao Loaiza schreef: > 2) Can anybody explain me the instruction \GOSUB _PC=C\. There isn't a > subrutine in the code whit that name. the access routine needs a return address and with a gosub you provide this a piece from the code C=D A GOSUB _PC=C C=A A there should be a subroutine in your program called _PC=C (in the Vars command it is not present but it is in the ROM) your _PC=C subroutine is very simple: *_PC=C PC=C if you want to know more you could take a look at example 9.2 from \HP49 Assembly Language Examples\ http://www.hpcalc.org/details.php?id=5007 > I don't have some entry points in my extable like memerrS, > AccessVars and AccessModuleInfo. These are aliasses for 1, 8 and 14 IIRC -- This message was written with 100% recycled electrons Pivo ==== On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 10:48:56 +0200, Peter Geelhoed >> I don't have some entry points in my extable like memerrS, >> AccessVars and AccessModuleInfo. > >These are aliasses for 1, 8 and 14 IIRC Slight correction: I decompiled PVARS and compared it to Cyrille's source to check the above values. I think the correct ones are memerrS = #39E3 AccessVars = 14 AccessModuleInfo = 8 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------\ --- Jonathan Busby - before replying. Reply-To: nickek@algonet.se ==== I tried to solve the system of equations x+y=1 x/a - y/b = 0 but the matrice editor in the \solve lin sys\ menu does not accept symbols \ (here: a and b), just values. I want to edit the matrices in *any* such editor (elements symbolic or numeric), put them on the stack or variables, and solve the system with a command. Is there any program which is able to handle such a thing? tia Nikodemus Reply-To: nickek@algonet.se ==== Sorry! I found the command \REF\. That made the thing! /Nikodemus > I tried to solve the system of equations > x+y=1 > x/a - y/b = 0 > but the matrice editor in the \solve lin sys\ menu does not accept \ symbols > (here: a and b), just values. I want to edit the matrices in *any* such > editor (elements symbolic or numeric), put them on the stack or \ variables, > and solve the system with a command. Is there any program which is able \ to > handle such a thing? tia Nikodemus ==== Unlike many (most?) of the people in this group, first HP calc I've got was HP49G. Yes, I've been impressed by its power and all, but I haven't got enough attitude to use it extensively. Why? Because of it's unclear documentation, and lack of ... like, feeling. Well, you know what I mean :) Yestureday I've got my 48GX. And I truly _loved_ it from the first sight. People were right -- it's keys are smooth and the big ENTER is just in the place where it should be. Documentation is really good, though the print quality is less than that of 49G's :) Another disappointment was that 49G's cable doesn't fit 48 one -- I have to make an international order to get the cable now, along with the RAM card, perhaps. Anyway, I must say that I will use 48GX -- it's a great calc! And if it won't get the needed job done -- I'll take a 49G, but only after 48 :) -- \\ ==== There should be an adaptor to make the 49 cable fit the 48. (A small black plastic block.) Mine got one. Perhaps they are saving money. ed Unlike many (most?) of the people in this group, first HP calc > I've got was HP49G. Yes, I've been impressed by its power and all, > but I haven't got enough attitude to use it extensively. Why? > Because of it's unclear documentation, and lack of ... like, feeling. > Well, you know what I mean :) > Yestureday I've got my 48GX. And I truly _loved_ it from the first > sight. People were right -- it's keys are smooth and the big ENTER > is just in the place where it should be. > Documentation is really good, though the print quality is less than > that of 49G's :) > Another disappointment was that 49G's cable doesn't fit 48 one -- > I have to make an international order to get the cable now, along with > the RAM card, perhaps. Anyway, I must say that I will use 48GX -- it's a great calc! > And if it won't get the needed job done -- I'll take a 49G, but only > after 48 :) -- > \\ ==== > There should be an adaptor to make the 49 cable fit the 48. (A small \ black > plastic block.) > Mine got one. Perhaps they are saving money. Hm. No, it wasn't there :( -- \\ ==== > There should be an adaptor to make the 49 cable fit the 48. (A small \ black > plastic block.) > Mine got one. Perhaps they are saving money. Hm. No, it wasn't there :( An adapter, 10-pin male to fit the calc-to-calc cable to 4-pin female to fit any 48-series calculator, should've been in the package that your 49G came in. This adapter also fits the 49G 10-pin to DB9 serial cable, and it works fine for any 48-series calculator. -- James ==== > Hm. No, it wasn't there :( An adapter, 10-pin male to fit the calc-to-calc cable to 4-pin female to > fit any 48-series calculator, should've been in the package that your > 49G came in. This adapter also fits the 49G 10-pin to DB9 serial cable, > and it works fine for any 48-series calculator. Ah! Now I've found it. Silly me has been looking for it in 48 package :) for 49G cable should be in 49G box :) -- \\ ==== Bad luck Wartan. Must cost them about 50c but you will have to pay a few dollars and lot of time to get one. Standards are sliding at HP. > There should be an adaptor to make the 49 cable fit the 48. (A small black > plastic block.) > Mine got one. Perhaps they are saving money. Hm. No, it wasn't there :( -- > \\ ==== Buy the cards and if you install MK and Erable and Alg48 you'll get a very good \almost 49\ ==== hi, i'm looking for two second hand books by Gilberto Urroz: - ANALYTICAL and NUMERICAL METHODS WITH THE HP 48 G/G+/GX PROGRAMMABLE CALCULATOR; - HP 48 G/G+/GX Applications in HYDRAULICS. Euro area is preferred. TIA Acrux, Italy ==== I'd say that you might have damaged battery contacts inside the calculator. You say that you scrapped the contacts. In my experience that will only aggravate the problem as the contacts are very delicate. If what I suspect is indeed the problem they aren't too hard to repair, but it takes a good temperature-controlled soldering iron and a steady hand (and, in my case, a very good magnifier). I can usually repair them, but the cost to ship to the colonies and back might be prohibitive. Help (please) On Sunday my HP41CX stopped working - the display no longer comes on when \ I > press the ON key. I have tested the batteries and battery holder from \ the > non-working calculator in my other, working 41CX, so I know that they are > OK. The things I have tried since Sunday, to no avail, are: 1. Installed new batteries > 2. Checked voltage across batteries when in the battery holder to make > sure > 3. Gently scraped the contacts inside the battery compartment - there \ was > some oxidisation on a couple of the contacts > 4. Swapped battery holders with the working HP41CX The calculator was fine until I removed the battery pack on Sunday after \ I > got a low battery level warning \BAT\ on the (now non-working) HP-41CX. > Since then nothing I have done will make the calculator turn on. Is there anything else that should be part of a routine check ? ==== > I'd say that you might have damaged battery contacts inside the > calculator. You say that you scrapped the contacts. In my experience > that will only aggravate the problem as the contacts are very delicate. If what I suspect is indeed the problem they aren't too hard to repair, > but it takes a good temperature-controlled soldering iron and a steady > hand (and, in my case, a very good magnifier). You could use conductive silver ink to repair the contacts if they're not too far gone. First make sure the contacts are as clean as possible,but don't use anything abrasive to clean them. Just alcohol, or maybe a chemical contact cleaner but be careful because I don't know if that will react with the plastic film. Once the contacts are clean, mix the silver ink really well, the more you mix it the better, and apply it sparingly on just the parts that really need it. Allow a good long time for it to dry, I would say overnight, then put the batteries in and see what you \ have. Good luck! Steve > I can usually repair them, but the cost to ship to the colonies and back > might be prohibitive. > Help (please) > > On Sunday my HP41CX stopped working - the display no longer comes on \ when I > press the ON key. I have tested the batteries and battery holder from \ the > non-working calculator in my other, working 41CX, so I know that they \ are > OK. The things I have tried since Sunday, to no avail, are: > > 1. Installed new batteries > 2. Checked voltage across batteries when in the battery holder to \ make > sure > 3. Gently scraped the contacts inside the battery compartment - there \ was > some oxidisation on a couple of the contacts > 4. Swapped battery holders with the working HP41CX > > The calculator was fine until I removed the battery pack on Sunday after \ I > got a low battery level warning \BAT\ on the (now non-working) \ HP-41CX. > Since then nothing I have done will make the calculator turn on. > > Is there anything else that should be part of a routine check ? > > Mark. ==== Nuevo explorador de archivos para la hp48 Un gran librer\.92a para la hp48. Me gustar\.92a que alg\.9cn d\.92a \ FILERhp49 sea similar a FILERhp48 Tienes alguna pregunta? Alguna sugerencia para el programa? Encontraste un Bug que se me escap\.97? Raoolio@yahoo.com Ra\.9cl del Cid L\.97pez No tienes una hp48real descarga emu48 con mejores im\.87genes para la emulaci\.97n en: www.geocities.com/jaimezacalcs/hp/pc/skinhp3-4x.htm www.geocities.com/hp4x www.geocities.com/jaimezacalcs ==== > Nuevo explorador de archivos para la hp48 Un gran librer\.92a para la hp48. Me gustar\.92a que alg\.9cn d\.92a \ FILERhp49 sea > similar a FILERhp48 ==== Translated of Spanish to English with \Power translator v7.0\ Pardon for incorrect syntax New browser of files for the hp48 in: www.geocities.com/jaimezacalcs/hp/filerhp48.zip A great library for the hp48. I would like that some day FILERhp49 is similar to FILERhp48 Jaime Fernando Meza Do you have some question? Some suggestion for the program? Did a Bug that I was escaped find? Raoolio@yahoo.com Ra\.9cl del Cid L\.97pez You don't have a hp48real it discharges emu48 with better images for the \ emulation in: www.geocities.com/jaimezacalcs/hp/pc/skinhp3-4x.htm www.geocities.com/hp4x www.geocities.com/jaimezacalcs How do I put new Music in to my calculator? ==== My 15C is doing something strange. When I try to store into memory (for example- sto 4), I get an Error 3. I can only store when I use sto 1. Every other memory gives Error 3. Anyone know why. I can't find my manual. Chris ==== > My 15C is doing something strange. When I try to store into memory (for > example- sto 4), I get an Error 3. I can only store when I use sto 1. > Every other memory gives Error 3. Anyone know why. I can't find my manual. > Error 3: Improper Register Number or Matrix element Storage register named is nonexistent or matrix element indicated is nonexistent. -- Mike Ker Wildwood Systems Group Fredericton, New Brunswick CANADA Reply to: mker at nbnet dot nb dot ca ==== \Chris Briskorn\ escribi\.97 en el \ mensaje > My 15C is doing something strange. When I try to store into memory (for > example- sto 4), I get an Error 3. I can only store when I use sto 1. > Every other memory gives Error 3. It seems you have not the R4 assigned as register for storing but program memory... RI, RO and R1 are ever for storing. How much do you want? I have a total of 9 registers for storing: RI and R0 to R8: this lets me \ use ststistic (R2-R7 needed) and use R8 for euro converting :-) For this configuration I did \8 DIM (i)\ If you need, for instance, use for storing till register no. 15, do the next: 15 DIM (i) (For sto/rcl in R12, do STO .2 or RCL .2) ==== \R Lion\ escribi\.97 en el mensaje I have a total of 9 registers for storing: RI and R0 to R8... ... so I have a total of 10 registers for storing. ==== I have an HP 11C and the guidebook says for that error: \Named storage register currently converted to program memory, or nonexistent storage register. HTH > My 15C is doing something strange. When I try to store into memory (for > example- sto 4), I get an Error 3. I can only store when I use sto 1. > Every other memory gives Error 3. Anyone know why. I can't find my manual. Chris ==== What is the maximum memory HP 48GX can have? How would one go about 1. obtaining the memory cards/hardware necessary to upgrade? 2. obtaining information about how to upgrade? thanks. louis ==== >What is the maximum memory HP 48GX can have? How would one go about 1. obtaining the memory cards/hardware necessary to upgrade? 2. obtaining information about how to upgrade? > >thanks. > >louis of error in the GX addressing the last two banks of a 4 Mb card, the klotz cards permit bank substitution of the last 2 ports. Unfortunately, the \ extra logic comes at a price since the 4M card is more than twice the cost of a \ 2M card. I bought the 2M, and it is more than enough. To upgrade, buy one 128k card for port 1, and 1 ?M card for port 2. Plug \ them into the appropriate ports with the power off. Turn on the calc, and you \ are all set. PINIT seems not to be necessary as each card has been formatted when tested \ at the factory. Hope this helps. Bill Bill alternate E-dress wtstorey@ieee.org.no.spam.please (Use the obvious) ==== HP sells 1MB, max is 4MB, but some last ports have difficulties in access.Anyway 3,5MB is a lot, too. Remember that a port is only 128KB > What is the maximum memory HP 48GX can have? How would one go about 1. obtaining the memory cards/hardware necessary to upgrade? 2. obtaining information about how to upgrade? thanks. louis ==== > What is the maximum memory HP 48GX can have? How would one go about 1. obtaining the memory cards/hardware necessary to upgrade? 2. obtaining information about how to upgrade? > 1) http://uuhome.de/oklotz/index_e.html 2) http://uuhome.de/oklotz/hp2048ae.pdf ==== I want to convert from rectangular to polar on the 49G. I have tried to do this using the vector notation on the calculator, but when I go to convert the vector (polar) back to its components it flips back to rectangular. I want to do this using a program, so there must be a function to do so. MC ==== You know the math, you can program the functions yourself. It is also possible to use SysRPL and dig the old functions from the ROM (The HP 28 had these functions) BUT Currently the POLAR RECT is a display-only automatic conversion. [MODE] Coord will let you choose it or you can use RECT POLAR keywords also you can change the flags directly, if you wish. The internal representation is always rectangular. You can input in either rectangular or polar and the display will show it in your currently selected format. I hope this helped a little. Veli-Pekka > I want to convert from rectangular to polar on the 49G. I have tried to \ do > this using the vector notation on the calculator, but when I go to \ convert > the vector (polar) back to its components it flips back to rectangular. I > want to do this using a program, so there must be a function to do so. > MC ==== I've found some situations in integrations when you get the same answer \ back as the original problem except the HP surrounds it by INT(fx(Xt), Xt, X). Why does the HP do this and what does it mean? I received the info on how to handle this in one specific problem but don't understand what it means \ or why it does it so I can generalize the information. Carmen ==== > I've found some situations in integrations when you get the same answer \ back > as the original problem except the HP surrounds it by INT(fx(Xt), Xt, X). > Why does the HP do this and what does it mean? I received the info on \ how > to handle this in one specific problem but don't understand what it means \ or > why it does it so I can generalize the information. > Carmen The usual indefinite integral operation is to take a function f(x) and return a function (unique up to additive constant), say g(x), whose derivative is the original function. Thus the result must itself be a function of the original variable. But to specify the function to be integrated in the HP , one must specify a variable and a formula for the result bsed on that variable x -> f(x). The f(Xt) *and* Xt are needed to determine the integrand function, Xt -> f(Xt), and the X is needed as argument of the function resulting from the integration. For a given function f(X), 'INT(f(Xt),Xt,X)' represents a function of X but different from f(X). Note that expressions like 'INT(X^2,X,X)' giving 'X^3/3' and 'INT(X^2,X,2)' giving '8/3' evaluate as expected, but 'INT(X^2,2,2)' gives an error message, since there is no *variable* of integration. Expressions like 'INT(SIN(Xt),Xt,ARCCOS(1/2))' and 'INT(Xt^3,Xt,2)' now have perfectly legitimate meanings. ==== Virgil that's what I don't understand. When I put in a function f of x Why does the 49 return f of Xt? It makes no sense to me. If I try integrating what it returns to me I get \ f of Xtt? I do know what indefinate integration it but I can't understand \ what the HP 49 is doing here. It behavior seems arcane in many circumstances. Carmen I've found some situations in integrations when you get the same answer back > as the original problem except the HP surrounds it by INT(fx(Xt), Xt, X). > Why does the HP do this and what does it mean? I received the info on how > to handle this in one specific problem but don't understand what it means or > why it does it so I can generalize the information. > Carmen The usual indefinite integral operation is to take a function f(x) > and return a function (unique up to additive constant), say g(x), > whose derivative is the original function. Thus the result must > itself be a function of the original variable. But to specify the > function to be integrated in the HP , one must specify a variable > and a formula for the result bsed on that variable x -> f(x). The f(Xt) *and* Xt are needed to determine the integrand function, > Xt -> f(Xt), and the X is needed as argument of the function > resulting from the integration. For a given function f(X), 'INT(f(Xt),Xt,X)' represents a function > of X but different from f(X). > Note that expressions like 'INT(X^2,X,X)' giving 'X^3/3' and > 'INT(X^2,X,2)' giving '8/3' evaluate as expected, but > 'INT(X^2,2,2)' gives an error message, since there is no *variable* > of integration. Expressions like 'INT(SIN(Xt),Xt,ARCCOS(1/2))' and 'INT(Xt^3,Xt,2)' > now have perfectly legitimate meanings. ==== > Virgil that's what I don't understand. When I put in a function f of x Why > does the 49 return f of Xt? Because it doesn't know how to intgrate the function you gave it. ==== Bless you steen and virgil! I understand! That is the obvious but I wasn't sure and assuming has caused so many problems in the past I didn't want to. So I have to manipulate the equation in whatever many ways to find an expression it does know how to integrate! Carmen > Virgil that's what I don't understand. When I put in a function f of x > Why > does the 49 return f of Xt? Because it doesn't know how to intgrate the function you gave it. ==== > Virgil that's what I don't understand. When I put in a function f of x \ Why > does the 49 return f of Xt? If you put 'F(X)' on the stack an use the INTVX command you will get 'INT(F(Xt),Xt,X)'. The 'Xt' is what is called a dummy variable, meaning that replacing it by any other variable not already in the expression does not change the meaning or value of the expression. Thus 'INT(F(Xt),Xt,X)' and 'INT(F(Y),Y,X)' and 'INT(F(q),q,X)' all mean the same thing. Good mathematical practice says that dummy variables should not be the same as actual variables. Since the X in 'INT(F(Xt),Xt,X)' is an actual variable, one should avoid 'INT(F(X),X,X), even though the HP49 can deal with it correctly. 'HP does this by appending a \t\ to whatever actual variable is used when required to invent a dummy variable. ==== I was looking around, checking out what's being sold these days, when I ran across this auction: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1383400767 It looks like a regular 11C but the gold key functions are completely different! The \FURLONGS\, \TIME\ and \LENGHTS\ functions are \ particularly fascinating. Was this a custom unit with built-in programs for \ handicapping horse races? (I know nothing about horse racing or betting.) Anyone know anything about this one??? - Michael -- Remove \No Spam Please\ from return address. ==== answered that he didn't know he had a \strange\ 11C, and put it off the \ site this morning... RC \Michael F. Coyle\ a \.8ecrit dans le \ message > I was looking around, checking out what's being sold these days, when I ran > across this auction: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1383400767 It looks like a regular 11C but the gold key functions are completely > different! The \FURLONGS\, \TIME\ and \LENGHTS\ functions are particularly > fascinating. Was this a custom unit with built-in programs for handicapping > horse races? (I know nothing about horse racing or betting.) Anyone know anything about this one??? - Michael > -- > Remove \No Spam Please\ from return address. ==== \Michael F. Coyle\ escribi\.97 en el \ mensaje http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1383400767 Anyone know anything about this one??? > The seller has no idea (and no docs) about this \no standard\ hp 11c... ==== This looks like a bastardized 11C more than anything else. I wonder if the bidders even realize it's not a standard 11C. I certainly would not want \ it. > I was looking around, checking out what's being sold these days, when I ran > across this auction: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1383400767 It looks like a regular 11C but the gold key functions are completely > different! The \FURLONGS\, \TIME\ and \LENGHTS\ functions are particularly > fascinating. Was this a custom unit with built-in programs for handicapping > horse races? (I know nothing about horse racing or betting.) Anyone know anything about this one??? - Michael > -- > Remove \No Spam Please\ from return address. ==== It looks like a special purpose keyboard overlay glued above the original one. Maybe for a game program for 2 players. Raymond \Michael F. Coyle\ schrieb im Newsbeitrag > I was looking around, checking out what's being sold these days, when I ran > across this auction: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1383400767 It looks like a regular 11C but the gold key functions are completely > different! The \FURLONGS\, \TIME\ and \LENGHTS\ functions are particularly > fascinating. Was this a custom unit with built-in programs for handicapping > horse races? (I know nothing about horse racing or betting.) Anyone know anything about this one??? - Michael > -- > Remove \No Spam Please\ from return address. ==== As long as there is support the currnet calculators will be current. If it breaks you can get it fixed or get a new one. Who cares if the rom updates are 2 years old. The ROMS are updated to get rid of bugs. no more bugs ... no more updates. Newer is not better all the time. I still wish the 41 series was in production. I still think that was my favorite calulator - inspite of some relliability issues. If somone gave me an 49 in highschool I'd be jazzed ('course back then I used a slide rule). Heck if somone gave me one now I'd be. Heck it's the brother of your girlfriend. The little snot should be happy you gave him anything! As long as you can get your calc replaced/repaired by HP it's no DINO. Even then ... after that it's no dino as long as it keeps working! On 21 Sep 2002 10:14:33 -0700, jrand@aculink.net (J.C. Randerson) >I bought an HP49 for the younger brother of my girlfriend to replace a >TI. He was thrilled and instantly proud of it. I spent time giving him >a crash course in the machine, and how to do the ROM updates. A bright >young guy, he noticed that the ROM updates were almost 2 years old. He >asked \aren't there any newer ones?\ I answered no, and briefly >explained what I knew about HP's calculator division problems. He then >said \this machine is dead in its tracks, huh?\ He was then visibly >depressed, as if his great new gift was now a tarnished cast-off. >There was little I could say, except that I found the HP49 of great >value in my engineering studies, and it would surely help him in high >school. As I drove home, it made me wonder the same thing: is the HP49 >truely dead in its tracks, are HP calcs all dinosaurs, relics of a by >gone era? > >J.C. Randerson >Pueblo, Colorado ==== > He asked \aren't there any newer ones?\ I answered no, and briefly > explained what I knew about HP's calculator division problems. > He then said \this machine is dead in its tracks, huh?\ > He was then visibly depressed, as if his great new gift > was now a tarnished cast-off. > There was little I could say, except that I found the HP49 > of great value in my engineering studies, > and it would surely help him in high school. > As I drove home, it made me wonder the same thing: > is the HP49 truly dead in its tracks, are HP calcs all dinosaurs, > relics of a bygone era? The HP48GX hasn't been updated since 1993, the HP12C (still > selling widely) not since before anyone ever heard of the internet, > and it seems that very few of the lesser, ordinary calculators > of all manufacturers have changed a bit in far longer than that, > yet they still seem to be sold to people who find them very useful. Paper, pencils and ink, the most archaic of scholarly tools, > are still more helpful (and cheaper) than any calculator in many cases, > and the most powerful of all analytical tools apparently hasn't > undergone hardware or firmware changes in all of recorded > human history, which makes me wonder how your girlfriend's young > brother can stand to still be using only his own utterly outmoded brain. > With best wishes from http://www.mum.edu If someone had given me a new 49g, even if the last rom update was 11 months ago, disappointment wouldnt have been my reaction. Inversly, if the young lad is so disappointed, slap him with an old ti 81 and tell him to have fun with it. There is wisdom in the passage about not casting your pearls before swine. ==== Given a simple equation like NEW=OLD*(1.+CHG/100.)^PD when I use ISOL to solve for CHG I get On the 48gx CHG=((NEW/OLD)^INV(PD)-1)*100 On the 49g CHG=100.*EXP(-Ln(OLD/NEW)/PD)-100. Both of these yield the same result, I'm just wondering why they use different approaches. Also, the 49g gives me the error \ISOL Error: Non unary operator\ if I have Approx checked in the CAS Modes. If I uncheck it (turn approx. mode off) then execute ISOL, the 49g prompts me to turn Approx. mode on. If I choose YES, it works (returns the expression above). If I try it again (without unchecking Approx mode), it fails with the Non unary operator error. To get it to work again I have to turn off Approx mode, and let it prompt me to turn it on again. Very weird, eh? Am I doing something wrong, or is there a problem with ISOL on the 49g? Steve ==== > Am I doing something wrong, or is there a problem with ISOL on the > 49g? The HP49G is not backward compatible with the HP48 series. Even though some commands accidently share names on the two calculators, their do not work alike. ==== > Am I doing something wrong, or is there a problem with ISOL on the > 49g? > The HP49G is not backward compatible with the HP48 series. Even though \ some > commands accidently share names on the two calculators, their do not work > alike. This also concerns a lot of SysRPL-commands. For instance, the basic commands XYGROBDISP and INNERCOMP. The latter doesn't crash or error anymore but yields the count ONE for *any* non-composite object (somtimes useful). The former distroys the display in suspended state or if directly executed, provided the inserted grob is too large. In the whole, even experts have problems in porting complex SysRPL-programs from or to a HP48 :-) - ==== Just thought I'd let you know how I 'improved' my Urroz books. After I got them I've been using them a lot with the Calculator. Unfortunately they don't stay open so I had to hold them open with one hand. Working the calc with one hand and holding a book didn't really work so I finally stretched them open and the glue from the spine released and pages started falling \ out ;/ This wasn't good at all so I took them to Kinko's had the spine cut off and the books coil bound. They now lay perfectly flat without an extra hand \ and I can even fold them back on themselves perfectly! This was great and cost less than 10 bucks a volume! Really terrific, except for the first volume they cut a little too close, but they will be buying me a new one of those! So if you are having trouble juggling the Urroz books (or any book for that matter), this might work for you! Carmen ==== I'm looking for HP-10C and HP-15C owner's manual (in english or, \ preferably, RC ==== LONGFLOAT v. 2.0 beta I've made a multiple precision library for HP49 with + - * / sqrt y^x exp ln sin cos tan asin acos atan sinh cosh tanh and some auxiliary functions for both real and complex input. The precision is set in local/global variable DIGITS. Results should be accurate within +/- 1 in last digit. Integers, longfloats and long complex may generally be mixed. The library is to a great extent based on modified algorithms of ZMLIB ( a fortran package for multiple precision). I have done some testing, but could really need some more beta-testers, since this kind of library should be extensively tested. Those who are interested and have time to help please let me know. Gjermund Skailand Things not working: automatic list processing ( but DOLIST/DOSUBS ok) error messages ok but give e.g. XLIB 688 69 Error: Bad argument type ( I haven't really understood how Werner Huysegoms fixed this in his library ;-( Some timings (depends on actual numbers): DIGITS=100, x=sqrt(pi) sqrt(x) 0.65 sec. ln(x) 12 sec. exp(x) 5.3 sec sin(x) 5 sec ( sin(asin(sqrt(2.)/2))^6- 0.125 = ~2.E-100 15.0sec z = (123456789 , 0.123456789 ) sqrt(z) 2 sec ln(z) 15.8 sec exp (ln(z)) - z = ~ (-3.E-91, 4.E-96) 24.5sec atan(z) 7.0 sec DIGITS = 1000, pi precomputed Sqrt(pi) 28 sec pi - (sqrt(pi)^2) ~ 1E-998 57.7 sec Integers: x = 2^330 y = 2^3330 Zsqrt( x ) -> TRUE .34 sec in exaxt mode Zsqrt( x ) -> FALSE .31 sec in approx mode Zsqrt( y ) -> TRUE 11.4 sec in exaxt mode Zsqrt( y ) -> FALSE 7.5 sec in approx mode Let n = Zsqrt(m) EXACT mode: always returns n such that n^2 <= m< (n+1)^2 . Also flag= 1 if m=n^2t. (In accordance with JMH's specifications ;-) Approx mode: returns n such that ABS(m-n^2) is minimum and regardless of result also return flag=0. PS Some constants, ln(2), ln(10) have been hardcoded with 130 digits, if greater precision are required than about 110 digits, these constants will be recalculated and running time will be thus be significantly greater... ==== > automatic list processing ( but DOLIST/DOSUBS ok) > error messages ok but give e.g. XLIB 688 69 Error: Bad argument type > ( I haven't really understood how Werner Huysegoms fixed this in his > library ;-( If you mean the messages, that's the easy part? Just make sure every command in your lib starts with :: CK0, CK1&Dispatch, CK2&Dispatch .. CK5&Dispatch. Then, when an error occurs and you do eg #68801 ERROROUT, the message will show up with the command name prepended. The Automatic List processing is a bit more difficult, especially since our friends at ACO had changed it, and made a slight error IMHO. (I mean the {1 2 } 3 * -> {3. 6.} part) I have chosen to correct that behaviour in my lib, rather than make the same error. How does it work.. (from memory, so probably not 100% foolproof:-) - in the 48GX, the development team changed the code of the CK&DISPATCH1 routine so that if there was no match, the argument(s) were re-examined to see if either one was a list, and if so, executed the command for every pair of arguments in the list(s). - in the '49, a new object type is introduced: Long Integer. To avoid having to rewrite the dispatching of every command, ACO chose to change the definition of CK&DISPATCH1 again: if no match was found, and the input was a Long Integer, convert the integer to a real and try again. That way, every command that accepted numeric input now accepted the new Long Integers, too (think of IF THEN ELSE END, WHILE REPEAT etc). The trouble is, they put this test *before* the Automatic List Processing Test, instead of after. Automatic List Processing is not recursive, there's a flag controlling whether you're already in ALP mode or not, so they could just as easily have added the Integer-Real conversion test *after* the ALP test, fixing the above problem. It's what I do in my routines. I think some problem remained even with my routines, but I don't remember any more what it was.. You can try it with Mul in my lib: it works as expected { 1 2 } 3 Mul -> { 3 6 } 3 {1 2} Mul -> idem { 2 3 } {3 4} Mul -> {6 12} DIGITS = 1000, pi precomputed > Sqrt(pi) 28 sec > pi - (sqrt(pi)^2) ~ 1E-998 57.7 sec > Gjermund, there seems to be some margin for improvement here. When I calculate Pi to 1000 digits, and then perform \\<< DUP Sqrt DUP Mul Sub \\>> it takes 28 seconds (<13 for the sqrt), and the result is 0. (the largest error to be expected here is 1.e-999, because both the calculation of Pi, the sqrt, mul and sub guarantee max accuracy.) I always wanted to obtain DIGITS precision. If you specified DIGITS to be 100., then requested VPI, it would return the value of PI rouned to 100. DIGITS. If you set DIGITS to 12., it would return the exact same values as with the built-in reals. That's probably why I never got round to implementing the trig functions ;-)) But Pi calculation (the basis for the trigs) is quite fast. ==== > I think you're missing the point. No, *you're* missing the point. I know it can be done - I know it can be > done a zillion ways on the HP49G, but that was not the point. The point \ is > that QUAD does not behave like on the HP48G series, which was the intent \ of > the former HP49G programmers. That's the point, and with all these \ commands > trying to emulate the HP48G, they simply shouldn't, as half-emulation is > much much worse than no emulation at all. I know QUAD can solve a quadratic, it simply does not return the same \ result > as on the HP48G. I don't care if the output is mathematically correct, \ it's > not the same as on the HP48G. That's the sole purpose of QUAD, to deliver > the exact same result as on the HP48G - not to imitate the HP49G SOLVE > command. That's my point. > same *names* like on the HP48 but behave, well, almost(?) like on the HP48. It is superfluous and inellegant to have them when they don't guarantee backwards compatibility but are just \side offsprings\ of other commands. In this particular case, SOLVE would be completelly sufficient. Greetings, Nick. ==== ISOL is another command which could have been very useful if left as it was on the HP48; since the new 49G SOLVE command seems to include the ISOL function, I don't see why there was any need to modify the original ISOL command, but it was modified anyway, and old programs which used ISOL to rearrange equations and solve quickly may therefore not be portable to the 49G (one example was my triangle solver TRI1, which I did finally port, but runs at only 1/16 the original speed, solely because of what happened to ISOL). The multiple equation solver (MES), which is really only a *numeric* solver, also got changed into the \CAS category\ some while back, which caused it to fail in many cases (especially for the entire original HP48G equation library), but in 1.19-6 the MES was changed back and now works again. I think that there could have been far greater compatibility if certain design elements (for ALG mode) hadn't been adopted, and if various original 48G commands hadn't been changed to \CAS commands\ when there was no need to, because the CAS, in most cases, has its own new commands anyway. There was also a tendency to introduce functions which were not careful to affect only variables in the current directory, and leave higher directories alone; there still exists a significant flaw in that the CAS can't function if some variable name exists in memory (that's why it asks you to delete it, and won't proceed if you don't), and if you have that same name existing in two directories (say both HOME and another directory that you're currently using), then these commands can't work at all. The CAS also assumes that every CAS command uses VX, but they don't (some use a variable named on level 1 instead, and others don't need any variable to be deleted), which leads to other problems like that above. ACO must have rushed this along too fast for a complete and thorough job to be done, and now that they have also killed the project entirely, it's unlikely that these things will ever be straightened out. So the 49G does a lot, but it wasn't as well executed as HP projects used to be in all past history. I wonder whether this finds a parallel or not in regard to the rest of HP's products? ((o)) . ==== > ACO must have rushed this along too fast for a complete > and thorough job to be done, and now that they have > also killed the project entirely, it's unlikely > that these things will ever be straightened out. Exactly. ==== > Is it possible to do this in hp49g ? > 1. Conformal Transformation of regions Well, if you mean that the HP49G should check if the mapping is conformal, then you have to program a little. If you mean just showing what the mapping lloks like, then you have the plot type GRIDMAP, which will draw what the transformation looks like. > 2. Calculate Function Series where the function is defined from C-->C The command SERIES does this in case of an explicitely defined function like Z-->e^Z . If you have something else (parametric functions etc), then you must convert it to its explicit form (if possible). Greetings, Nick. ==== I've some experience in softkeys menus in RPL What I want now is get from the ROM of my 48GX the program that creates the stat menu 96, for modifying it, and assign the new menu to the key LS 5. The standard assignament of this key is: :: MenuMaker ROMPTR A9 60 DoMenuKey ; What must I do for recovering the original program menu from the ROM? ==== Beta in my GX, and I have a couple of questions. First, the Erable documentation refers several times to a \Beginners' Menu\ that should appear when the PRG key is pressed. I always get the standard 48 PRG menu from that key, regardless of whether it's in USER mode or not. However, the Erable main menu *does* come up when I press MTH. Second, without Erable installed, pressing Right-Shift MEMORY brings up the MK Filer, but after installing Erable, this key sequence reverts to the regular 48 Memory display. Can anyone tell me why either (or both) of these things are happening, and if there's a way to fix them? ==== > Hmmm, the HP49G is *not* a simple push-button-get-answer-calc. ...... \ snip Neither is the TI-89. You can program the TI-89 as well. Because my understanding of the TI89 is quite limited and only based on what I read on this newsgroup and in its (very nice) manual, I have one question: Can the TI89 be programmed to find for example the already mentioned (and also snipped ;-)) generating functions of sequences? Or anything else that lies \totally outside\ the domain of mathematics which its built-in commands cover? How could that be done? Is the command set of the TI89 capable of doing this? > Further it's > documented by the manufacturer so you have a chance of actually adopting \ it. Yep, that's completely right. The TI89 *is* documented, while this can't be said for \other\ machines ;-) > Putting out this type of complicated machinery and then requiring people \ to > hunt down obscure documentation (how readily available is Urroz's \ material) > and you can see there are great obstacles to adoption of this hardware. \ HP > admitted it by cancelling production. This was the most sophisticated of > it's machine's but it did the poorest. Sophisticated? Well, I would rather say complex, but for sophisticated I would expect some things to be considerably better. But it doesn't do poor, if \doing poor\ means what problems it can solve. Quite the contrary, it does very good, but only if one had 1000000 years time to play with it and learn its tricky behaviors. > It was also the poorest documented, > coincidence, possibly but I'd be willing to bet it wasn't. You can't \ hand > this out, say guess how to use it and expect people to adopt it, when \ there > is a cheaper, more accessible, better hardware product out there. So it is. Not many people will buy a product only to find out, that its usage has to be learned by gathering information bit by bit from newsgroups. > Will this calculator do great things? I don't know but the fact I have to > pay 60 bucks for some documentation to figure out if it will is angering. Oh yes, it is very much so! That's why I make the marathons ;-) > Further when you can get exact integrals on the plot, symbolic \ integration > by simply omitting the bounds and other simple accessible functions, on \ the > 89, it's hard to adopt a deliberately obfuscated piece of machinery. \ Will > it do these things? Maybe, but you have to program them. This type of interactive operations are limited on the HP49G compared to the TI89. The HP49G puts more weight on the algebraic manipulation. Find some special points of a function, solutions, extrema, whatsoever, symbolically or numerically, and then use them as integration limits in the functions provided for integration. > I'm a software engineer by profession, to design a program for something \ you > have to have a better understanding than the rank beginner (assuming you > actually want your program to do what you say it will do). Not only this. For mathematics software you also must have good understanding of the underlying mathematics. This seems to frustrate many students because they must master maths stuff that they didn't yet take (and perhaps they'll never do, because they don't need that directly). > Anyway to have > to understand these functions to the level of being able to design \ programs > for them sort of puts the cart before the horse doesn't it? Exactly. Very nice metaphor, thanks for telling :-) And so wwe come in front of the question: How much math knowledge is required for programming the HP49G? Even further, how much math should one learn? The answer is: Learn as much as you can. It helps and not only for programming the HP49G or any other machine. But most of the world nowadays preferes to gather knowledge about the color of the new shoes of some celebrity and other useless stuff, instead of focusing on the queen of all sciences. Have anybody wondered why \A beautiful mind\ was such a success? Why has almost nobody knew about nash prior to the movie? ;-) > You are taking > the class to understand these algorithms but you have to program a > calculator to do them, that requires a complete understanding of the > algorithms you are attempting to learn. Oh no! If you carefully track your path through the jungle of mathematics you can achieve a situation where (more or less) the new stuff bases on the already learned stuff. > You can't really argue that HP > isn't targetting the academic market because that's why they removed the > beloved equation library from it isn't it, or is it? Did I say that? > That seems to be > another problem with this calc they didn't define the target market. Yes, something like that. To me it seems that HP just thought that the whole market will (must?) buy the HP49G. This was a failure if we consider how big and this market is and how big the differences between its sub groups are. > Anyway I believe in HP calcs. I'm an older person and have owned them \ for > years and years. I purchased this calc based upon my experience with my > 48GX, and all my older ones. Suffice to say the last TI I owned was the \ SR > 56 before the 89 came out. I didn't adopt it lightly but only when my \ 48GX > wouldn't do the job quickly enough. Anyway I will learn this calc and use it. But I won't pretend it's \ something > it isn't. What is it? And what is it not? I think it is a quite complex and quirky but also very flexible machine, that allows to program it to do what you want it to do. Sometimes I get the impression that the HP-users, especially the older ones (like me, that is ;-)) expect the time to stop somewhere at the HP41 or the HP48. But this will never work. A calculator that is mainly for carrying some operations with numbers and perhaps a bit of symbolic manipulations is something completely different to a CAS-calculator. The known simplicity *will* vanish when we move from number crunchers to CAS-machines. Anyway, as said before, I also find many things on the HP49G quite \unexpected\, but for the time being we have nothing else than finding such things and trying to work around them using real existing means. Anyway, still dreaming of the HP58. Greetings, Nick. ==== while version 12.2002 of Filer1/2 for the 49 was What is new? Now one can easily do ARCHIVE or RESTORE to or from an arbitrary port with a choose box for these commands on a key which is active only if the filer scans a port. Hence, one may keep 3 different backups of the HOME dir (which includes key assignments, alarms etc) in the 3 ports, all under the same port-name HDir. Equal names do not matter since one can RESTORE only from a definite port. This command errors if there is no HDir in the scanned port. Clearly, somebody who often risks a crash can use his favourite expanded filer after a crash only if it is stored in port 2, say, not only key-assigned. The Ar/Rs choose box was checked thoroughly, it is 99% error-proof. I would like to know how 49-users are pleased with the new filer. And I would also appreciate if people working simultaneously with the 48 and 49 would compare the best 48-filer with Filer1 or Filer2. The size-aspect should also count, I need 1.5 KB only :-) Have fun - ftp://ftp.math.fu-berlin.de/pub/usr/raut/HP49/tools ==== Anyone got them? I'm too lazy to write one from scratch :( -- \\