B23 ==== > can someone shortly explain the differences between these three Ccs? > I think a data sheet and a comparison of those ccs is available on www.hpcc.org ==== 48G: 32Kb 48G+: 128Kb 48GX: 128Kb + two eXpansion ports (up to 128Kb in the first, up to 4MB in the second) > can someone shortly explain the differences between these three Ccs? thanks! > ==== > Perhaps the situation is different in the US. My understanding, based > on what I have been told in Austria, is that copyright is something > that you own simply by virtue of having written the work. You do not > have to assert ownership as you state below in order for it to become > 'offici'. That's true in the US as well. However, in order to bring an infringement lawsuit, you must have registered the copyright. If you hadn't registered it promptly, you aren't elgible to recover actu damages, though statutory damages can be quite significant. > The (c) convention is purely that - a convention. Simply > omitting the (c) will not make it any the less yours nor will it low > someone else to somehow 'take over' ownership. Perhaps someone more > legly knowledgable can comment. In the US, the letter C in a circle, or the abbreviation Copr. can be used in place of the word copyright in a notice, but a letter C in parenthesis is not legly recognized as a copyright notice. IAN. More details can be obtained from the US Copyright Office, www.copyright.gov. ==== > The (c) lets people know that you want to retain rights. What you DO > NOT have to do in the US is register with the copyright office. Lets > take this example... I'm in a programming class and our assignment is to perform prime > factorization. l of our assignments are posted on the schools web > site for peer review. I come up with a unique way to perform this > task that is unique and vuable, but being a student I did not > reize it. Another student in another class looks at the site, sees > my work and decides to create a product using my software ... here is > what could happen... A) I did not put the (C) nor did I register with the copyright office. > ... While I might still own the rights to the software my not putting > the (c) may cause it to move in to the public domain. Fse. Since the US became signatory to the Berne convention (in 1986?), you automaticly own a copyright in any work you create whether you include a notice or not. The only way the work can enter the public domain is if you explicitly place it there, or the copyright term expires. > The other person > could rightly assume I didn't want anything to do with it and use it > to create a product. Another person can assume anything they want, but their assumption does not have any force of law. The absence of a copyright notice does NOT create any leg implication that the work is in the public domain. Note that a C in parenthesis is NOT considered a leg copyright notice in the US. The acceptable abreviations are a C in a circle, or Copr. ==== When I try to divide with my HP 49G, it just simplifies the question, (ie- 2/4 becomes 1/2) or it just leaves it the same. (like 17/51) I'd like it to give me the answer in decim form. Is there a setting or flag I change to fix this? ex. ==== Set the mode->CAS->approx to off (no check mark). Doing this will ways give you a decim vue. Or, you can press right shift-> Enter (Num) on the keypad to get the approximate decim vue after the exact vue has been cculated. JF > When I try to divide with my HP 49G, it just simplifies the question, (ie- > 2/4 becomes 1/2) or it just leaves it the same. (like 17/51) I'd like it to > give me the answer in decim form. Is there a setting or flag I change to > fix this? ex. ==== My approx didn't have a check mark in, but when Ichecked the box it did give Oh and I just reized that I made a mistake in my earlier post about 17/51 not being able to be simplified. oops... ex > Set the mode->CAS->approx to off (no check mark). Doing this will ways > give you a decim vue. Or, you can press right shift-> Enter (Num) on the > keypad to get the approximate decim vue after the exact vue has been > cculated. > JF When I try to divide with my HP 49G, it just simplifies the question, (ie- > 2/4 becomes 1/2) or it just leaves it the same. (like 17/51) I'd like it > to > give me the answer in decim form. Is there a setting or flag I change to > fix this? ex. ==== Sorry about that, I did mean to say turn approx mode on (check mark)! But, that's ok you got what I was saying anyways. JF > My approx didn't have a check mark in, but when Ichecked the box it did give > Oh and I just reized that I made a mistake in my earlier post about 17/51 > not being able to be simplified. oops... > ex Set the mode->CAS->approx to off (no check mark). Doing this will > ways > give you a decim vue. Or, you can press right shift-> Enter (Num) on > the > keypad to get the approximate decim vue after the exact vue has been > cculated. > JF When I try to divide with my HP 49G, it just simplifies the question, > (ie- > 2/4 becomes 1/2) or it just leaves it the same. (like 17/51) I'd like it > to > give me the answer in decim form. Is there a setting or flag I change > to > fix this? ex. ==== Another way to do it is to type one of your numbers with a decim after it, the result will be displayed in decim form. So instead of saying 2/4, which will be 1/2, you can say 2./4 which will give you .5. -- ==== many years ago, when the G series came out, > we had a solution for this. > Please take a look at the sources of RPL48, > by Detlef Mueller and Hellstern (me;-), > available at hpcc. > Hope this helps. > Yes, this is excellent. Your ENTRIES.H is how l entry lists should look! There is both a distinct name and a comment for each entry which is different between S and G. Unfortunately, many more unsupported entries have come into use and though they may be cled stable, that usuly means stable in the G series. There rely needs to be four designations: Supported, unsupported-stable (across _l_ revisions A-R), moved (supply both addresses with different names, like your list), and G-only (with a naming convention that makes this clear). This should have been done as lists were compiled, when the job would have been easy. Now I guess it will take someone who cares to go back and check. Whew; this doesn't sound fun. Well, I'm going to start keeping track as I try to make programs work on the S. If anyone knows ready yea or nay for any of the unsupported but stable entries working on S, feel free to let me know :) [k_d_nelson@yahoo.com, the my-deja address is gone now, of course.] Karl. ==== >Speaking of optomizations... I hate to give Hp people fodder, but some of the code that is used in >the AMS is absolute junk. I've been coding and reverse engineering >parts of it for a couple years. Speaking of Hp people... You hate this, however you are still reading around. This Hp people must be rely good... Jorge M. Venzani ==== the whole concept of using the CAS becomes questionable. If we do l > by hand again, just to check the correctness of the results, then what > did we buy the machine for? Imagine what would happen if you had to Imagine what will happen if there were no people checking the CAS > results -- Imagine? Why imagine? I have the re result of not testing, the HP49G, in my hands every day ;-) > Those, who do check the results are cled testers -- and most people > in this group cannot be cled just bare users of HP ccs. So, am I to believe that I was doing beta-testing, gamma-testing, delta-testing,.... omega-testing for HP l these years? ;-) Nick. ==== >If the software of the TIs would be optimized in a comparable degree >to the software of the HP49, then the TIs would rely blow the doors >off l competition. If software optimization is approx. the same, >then it is the hardware that decides about performance, even if this >group doesn't want to hear this. As the time passes by the software of >the TIs will be optimized, and I guess that the TIs still have much >much optimization potenti, while the HP49G represents more or less >the endth degree of any tricks that you can find in order to increase >its performance. So the future, as it looks today, doesn't belong to >the archaic HP49G and its peontologic processor. Both the saturn and the 68000 were developed in the late seventies, > both were first deployed round 1979. In this terms they have both the > same peontologic age..;) Yep, but the 68000 is a more powerful peontologic processor. I can't think that a Mac could be developed that has a Saturn processor. > I personly think, that the TiOS software *is* optimized, but not to > an extend found in the HP49G. It may be optimized but still has much much unsused room for further optimization. > Where do you nowadays find an OS (even > in embedded hardware) which only uses 70 to 150K of RAM (seems to > depend on the actu hardware, my Voyage 200 has only ca 109000 bytes > free, whereas an TI89 should have 188K free), when started? But > compare it to an HP49G, which uses only 3K ram after warmboot. You see what I mean? The HP49G is ready most at the end of l possible speed-ups. The TI ccs with their 68000 have still much room for improvement, which makes me think that they will become performance monsters when this room will be used. > After l, the HP is optimized in such an extrem way, because its the > only chance to compete with the better hardware of the Ti68ks. IÇm > sure, Ti will never optimize TiOS so much, because the corresponding > development cost are just to high. Oh, I think TI *will* do. They have the market, they have the product. The next step will be to enhance the ready existing products, as they did when they made the step from the TI92+ to the Voyage 200. > If Ti feel the necessarity of > making an faster cc, the will mainly use an faster coldfire or > dragonbl cpu core. Maybe they will port their TiOS or AMS to a fast > Risc-CPU, which should be much easier then porting SysRPL because of > the much more convention OS design of TiOS. Which in this case would mean that the HP49G would for sure look how the TIs pass it by at light speed. Nick. ==== > Those, who do check the results are cled testers -- and most people > in this group cannot be cled just bare users of HP ccs. So, am I to believe that I was doing beta-testing, gamma-testing, > delta-testing,.... omega-testing for HP l these years? ;-) Well, there are no bug-free products. If you haven't noticed them in TI, then you seem to be using your HP49G more ;) -- Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are. ==== > I have an HP 28s and i sold it. What answer are you expecting? ==== > I have an HP 28s and i sold it. What answer are you expecting? Poor guy :) -- Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are. ==== > I have an HP 28s and i sold it. Just for clarification, you said that you sold an HP 28s, which means you don't have one. If you are selling it, which I'm assuming you are, shouldn't be and I'm selling it instead of the above latter? Just trying to help out. -- ==== my question is the next: i'm tryging do an Input (USER-RPL), it helped with tempor menu (TMENU) > and i want can it to cancel or to acept the entry with one key of said menu > as choice the ENTER o the CANCEL key of the HP48GX. > does it posible with something LIBEV O SYSEV? > is it necesary SYSRPL lenguage ? thanks on the hand... If I got you right, you want to make menu that contains the keys OK and CANCEL , and use it while the cculator is suspended at the INPUT command. You want to be able to enter or cancel INPUT by using menu keys of a custom menu, right? Nick. ==== > On the HP49G, how do you graph and display the inverse function of an > equation? > ie. replacing X with Y, or f^-1(x) Is there a command such as finverse? About graphing the inverse function: One solution would be indeed to exchange Y<->X. Example: You have the function Y=X^2. If you setup the independend and dependend variables by entering X INDEP Y DEPND, then you get the graph of the function. If you do Y INDEP X DEPND, then you get the graph of the inverse. But then you still don't have the g. form of the inverse. So we come to your second question, about a command like finverse. In the above example of Y=X^2, you simply solve for X and so you get { X=-SQRT(Y) X=SQRT(Y) } (which ready shows that the inverse is not a function but a relation.) Nick. ==== > In the 20 essenti things to know about the 49G, It tks about > changing > the Keytime. I have two questions about this: First, what is the default > setting? And secondly, Could someone explain how to change the setting a > little clearer? I believe it says to type in the number you want the > Keytime > to be set to ie> 300 and then you would type in 300->KEYTIME and push > enter. > This won't seem to work for me in gebraic or RPN. Maybe there's > somewhere > else you do this? > Well, it works perfectly for me. What makes you think it doesn't? You can check if it works, by doing what you described above, that is > by entering 300 ->KEYTIME and then using the command KEYTIME-> which > should return the same number like that you used (300). Notice that there is no space between the character -> and the rest > of the command ->KEYTIME. (It isn't STO). You can get the character > -> on the cammnd line by pressing the keys [pha], then > [red-shift], then [0]. > Nick. I see my problem now, I was putting in a minus sign and a greater-than sign > ex. So it was ex, sorry for the misunderstanding. Glad to hear that it worked, and hey! guess what my mistake was when I was supposed to enter the character -> for the first time in my life ;-) Nick. ==== > Having taken a look at the two new HP49G cculators I tried > (both dead-on-arriv and now returned), there are some pretty > noticable differences between the way HP makes its cculators now > and the way it used to... Actuly some of this impression is fse, > as may surface below. I have to admit that most of my impressions were based the HP35 (which I had) and HP45 (which friends had). There was a problem with the early 35's keyboards, which was contact bounce. We assumed that it was just because they were new and they were just teething problems. My 35 still works though, and its pi key still bounces occasionly. I've not kept up-to-date with the majority of models that have come out since then, or their problems. > The overl impression I got was cheap, cheap, cheap. About as cheap as TI? Then they should be about the same, > though some say that HP is still better. I wasn't comparing with any other brand, but that doesn't mean there weren't problems with others. > But are there not changing expectations in today's > consumer society that to some degree prompt l this? Some years ago, when Western Electric manufactured most of the > telephones in the USA, I heard them criticized for making them > *too*well* -- they were practicly indestructable, > but people now expect everything either to soon become obsolete > or to be anyway to some extent throw away and buy another, and > they seem to shop more on price, when it comes to that trade-off; > it's what drives the consumption-oriented economy, in which > cheap stuff prevails, and thoughts of longer time sces > and the glob world quity of life ahead are less important. [r-> [OFF] OK (not that I agree with the throw-away philosohpy) -- but it still would be nice if the 49Gs worked the day you bought them. Geoff -- Geoff Turner spamxtraktor@yahoo.com (NO SPAM) ==== I'd rely appreciate it if someone could lend their advice/opinion to my situation here. My apologies if some/l of these questions have ready been answered on the newsgroup - I am unfamiliar with the group here so I thought I'd just try. Ignore at will :) I know nothing about graphic cculators [besides what I've read in the last few days] and very, very little about cculators in gener. Furthermore, I know very little math. On a good day I can juggle but, admittedly, well... that's juggling. As is: graphic cculators are entirely unheard of for high-school students in my country. 2 line displays get side looks. This month I begin my fin year of high school and [as per the subject line], am looking to purchase a high-end graphic cculator. I won't be using it very much at school (if at l) for various reasons - my intent is to use the thing as an aid to studying and, simply, as a useful tool to own. Besides my gener lack of skill, I do have an interest in math; perhaps enough to see me studying it further after this year. Basicly my interest has been in 3 specific models: the 40G; 48G+; 49G; [$100, $139, $186 respectively as the best prices I am able to obtain locly]. I have downloaded and browsed the manus and emulators available. Of these, I found the 40G the most immediately attractive. The CAS feature I found remarkable - (specificly the input model) and the interface I found absolutely simple to get around with. The 49G (in gebraic mode), so - a good bit more effort, but still relatively easy to learn manuly. The 48G+ I am finding rather taxing - both interface wise as well as the RPN system [though I haven't honestly focused on understanding it yet]. l of these cculators are exceedingly pricy for my budget; specificly the 49G [which I would like to avoid if possible, based on this reasoning]. The idea would be for me to purchase one and only one cculator for use for my fin year and for any university math degree I may undertake [preferably the one cculator for the entire course]. I understand the 40G is insufficient for further forms of study? Again - being only in high-school at the moment - I wouldn't have any idea exactly what this cculator would still need to certify it for such study. Exactly what advanced functions does one need? My interests are purely mathematic - neither engineering nor science. hpcc.org has, as I can see it, many downloadable applications and such. Would the instlation of some of these be sufficient? Lastly concerning the 40G: apparently the cculator makes use of rubber buttons? The thought seems very off-putting to me. Has anyone experienced any problems with these? On to the 48G+ which is, likely, my only other re choice (factoring in the price). Some questions: I see there is no built-in CAS mode. Is this instlable in any way? How well might an instled version work? This is the largest feature (that I am aware of) that I would be losing by choosing this model, correct? Regarding the RPN: Looking for a simple, honest opinion. With the refined forms of gebraic entry available on modern day cculators (40G, for example) - is RPN rely still viable? Is it still an improvement? I don't fully understand the system - but one thing makes me uneasy. I am quite used to filling in an expression on gebraic cculators. Cculating the expression; then going back to edit an operator; or a number - and compare the results. I get the impression that going back to edit anything is impossible or difficult? Is the 48G+ (or the 48G+ with added free software) superior in every way to the 40G? Is it entirely sufficient for university study? Are there any large problems or issues I should know about? Last, (sml) question: is the 48G+ generly bundled with a datink cable? Having to buy one won't make me l too much pleased :) eshylay ==== yea, but maybe some people happen to use it (and i use it sometimes). > and if you got a bussines or a very curious girlfriend, then you may > want to throw dirt some day. but i seriously doubt anybody need this > unless they are in trouble. > the best there is 'eraser' (for windoz): > http://www.tolvanen.com/eraser/ > it so happens to be free :) choose the gutmann method (Peter > Gutmann), which is default http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/sec96/full_papers/gut m ann/ Even better: Don't use M$ ;-) > Nick. ==== > Hmm, I suspect that the 89 does neithers cculates with infinite > precision, nor instantly as my 92+ fails to do either! I doubt that the S&E 600-ST actuly cculates with infinite precision either. ==== < or N[Pi,100] in Mathematica? No, not arbitrary precision, only infinite precision (exact numbers like pi^2). Of course any cc with symbolic capabilities has that. (As long as we don't approximate pi^2 with a number.) I just thought that perhaps the advanced TIs have so arbitrary precision built-in. Nick. ==== > Hey, check out http://www.concise.co.jp/eng0731/top_eng.html >> They don't make that particular slide rule anymore, but they're >> still in business making rules! :-) > Mike (a recent and happy Concise customer!) >I'm very happy with mine. They sure are! For others wondering what we're tking about, Concise is willing to put logos on slide rules for bulk orders. A group of us who are slide rule enthusiasts (hey, stop laughing) recently had an order filled with our logo & the rules are great. And as someone pointed out on that list, slide rule cculations are performed much like RPN. Maybe we should l get a Concise rule with an HP-50 logo on it! It might be the last new RPN HP we see. Poor attempt at humor there... >It's interesting that we're discussing slide rules in comp.sys.hp48 >today, and RPN cculators on sliderule@yahoogroups.com. :-) If irony like this keeps up we could end the year with politicians who care about the masses, and see world peace. Ok, I'm getting a little carried away. :-) Back to our regularly scheduled HP programming now. Mike ==== > Hmm, I suspect that the 89 does neithers cculates with infinite > precision, nor instantly as my 92+ fails to do either! I doubt that the S&E 600-ST actuly cculates with infinite precision > either. Ah, well, yes it does, it's just the manufacturers didn't put l the markings on the sces. :-) My point was (is?) that the norm digit cculator that we are l so familiar with has a fixed resolution (probably more correct than to tk about precision?) of, say, 15 digits whilst the slide rule in gener is an anogue device. Mind you, a strong magnifying glass would be needed to read sces with _l_ the sce markings on them! ttfn WigglePig ==== > Changing another unused byte(s) to get the correct CRC is quite impossible, Why is it quite impossible? In a block of data, a change to a bit in any position (byte and bit) has a predictable effect on the bits of the CRC. While it may not be the case that a single byte change can be found to get the desired CRC, it is most certainly possible to find a sml number of changes to unused bytes to obtain any desired CRC. ==== > Why is it quite impossible? In a block of data, a change to a bit in > any position (byte and bit) has a predictable effect on the bits of the > CRC. While it may not be the case that a single byte change can be > found to get the desired CRC, it is most certainly possible to find a > sml number of changes to unused bytes to obtain any desired CRC. The idea of a CRC is that it is impossible and not just *quite* impossible to get the same CRC for a block when changing only one byte in it ==== Does anyone have for se, or know of someone who might have a copy that they are willing to sell, of Volume II of HP 48 Insights, a book published in the early '90s by William C. Wickes? I have Volume I but can't locate Volume II. ==== There is much documentation at http://www.hpcc.org/hp49/docs/misc/. Just browse the above page and you'll find what you need. Nick. > Where are the HP 49G guides available? Not at the link given in the manu > that comes with it. though I haven't rely looked either... ;) > ex Could anyone let me know whether offici pdf copies of the HP48G > Series User Guide and HP48G Series Advanced User Reference from HP > are available for download anywhere? HP Support does not provide them > and Google searches have been unsuccessful. (Note: The HP49G guides > are available.) I do have Eric Rechlin's HpCc.org scanned pdf copy of the HP48G > Series User Guide (which is much appreciated). However, the HP48G > Advanced User Reference does not appear to be available for download > in either offici or unoffici form anywhere. > Rodney ==== It would be a tragedy indeed should we see this come to pass. The efficiency, and easiness of use make RPN superior to gebraic input most of the time. I could not see myself be forced to buy an gebraic cculator when RPN is possible... if HP abadons it, there must be someone who will rise and adopt it. How will I teach my kids RPN if there won't be anything to use out there? Horrid thoughts... -- ==== I happened to find this site: http://www.office1000.com/discount/cculator-handheld.html They seem to offer the 32SII for $60.97 and the HP 49G for $186.47. I don't know anything about this company and I didn't inquire to see if those items where actuly in stock, but the top of the web page says that the price list is for items they have available. I have been using HP ccs since the early 1990s. I currently have a HP48G and a HP49G and I love them both. I've started going back to college and my teachers insist on everyone using the TI83. I bought one and took it back the same day. I would have a meltdown trying to take an exam with that thing. You're right, once you go RPN it's hard to go back. Unfortunately, if no one picks up the bl that HP has dropped we will have to resort to running RPN emulators on PDAs :-( Dave When looking at the latest HP cculators, I noticed that RPN is going > to be abandonned? (I was looking at HP's website and noticed that the > HP49 and the HP32 are discontinued?) > I sincerely hope not... If I would be obliged to use an gebraic > cc. again it would be like driving a car with 5 gears reverse and > one forward. > I wonder if any other brand offers RPN ccs? > I use my HP48G and GX every day, but for the ordinary +-*/ operations > it is sometimes a bit too complicated. (Not to me, but other people in > our company) > Did the HP32 have multiple stacklines? I'm just truying to find a > solution for the future to secure the usage of RPN ccs. > The only problem with RPN is, that once tried and mastered, there is > no turn back... RPN is just too easy to use. > Many people who use RPN now in our company have re problems using an > gebraic cc again. ==== > I happened to find this site: http://www.office1000.com/discount/cculator-handheld.htm == ==== Search for HP32sii thought it is currently out of stock. > I happened to find this site: http://www.office1000.com/discount/cculator-handheld.html > Great. As soon as you post this, they take it off the website :-( ==== I guess it's time to start searching the garage ses and pawn shops. > Search for HP32sii thought it is currently out of stock. I happened to find this site: http://www.office1000.com/discount/cculator-handheld.html ==== ASCII and Unicode are character encodings. A character encoding says which characters correspond to which bit strings; a font is a description of how to render characters graphicly. The HP 48 uses something passably close to the ISO 8859-1 character encoding. I would guess the HP 49 does too. -- http://jcomm.uoregon.edu/~stevev Little things break, circuitry burns / Time flies while my little world turns Every day comes, every day goes / 100 years and nobody shows -- Happy Rhodes ==== The former is more standard. Most, if not l, computer gebra systems use it, and that's the evuation rule I was taught in college, too. To specify a particular order of evuation, you can use parentheses, as shown above. -- Bhuvanesh ==== There are certain conventions in math, in exponenti function, exeptionly, right bracketing is the gener convention. That is, '3^2^3' should be read as '3^(2^3)' as on the HP49. But clearly, this deviation from the 48 standard should have been clearly documented at various places. Why right-bracketing for exponents? Because '(3^2)^3' cries for immediate simplification to '3^6'. And please observe that in elementary and advanced mathematic textbook the rule '(a^b)^c = a^bc is never written without brackets on the left hand side. I believe that the Corvlis people didn't yet think on combining the 48 with a CAS. Thus, they consequently applied RPN notation so where it contradicts convention. - Wolfgang ==== There are certain conventions in math, in exponenti function, exeptionly, right bracketing is the gener convention. That is, '3^2^3' should be read as '3^(2^3)' as on the HP49. But clearly, this deviation from the 48 standard should have been clearly documented at various places, at least in various ACO postings tking about backward compatibility (which is unreistic :-) Why right-bracketing for exponents? Because '(3^2)^3' cries for immediate simplification to '3^6'. And please observe that in elementary and advanced mathematic textbook the rule '(a^b)^c = a^bc is never written without brackets on the left hand side. I believe that the Corvlis people didn't yet think on combining the 48 with a CAS. Thus, they consequently applied RPN notation so where it contradicts some tradition convention. - Wolfgang ==== I've MK instled in my 48 and AGROB for MK (http://www.hpcc.org/hp48/apps/mk/agrob4mk.zip), one of the best grob scrollers (from JAVA): If I use the EQW for writing the expression, AGROB shows me it in pretty print without brackets, exactly as the MK or 49 stack. EV gives 6561. If I use only the 48 keying ' for writing in the edit line, the MK stack shows the same than before, but AGROB shows me the expression left bracketed. EV gives 729. The good thing of l this, is that AGROB let me see what is *rely* happening ==== mentioned backward compatibility. JYA seemed to have assumed that everybody had the MK :-) MK stuff seems indeed to be backward compatible. But is this the right platform if one speaks of backward compatibility of the 48G and the 49G? - Wolfgang ==== mentioned backward compatibility. JYA seemed to have assumed that most people had the MK :-) But is MK the right platform if one speaks of backward compatibility of the 48G and the 49G? - Wolfgang ==== Certainly not. MK48 or MK49 might run as the origin 48 when possible (I think it is, in this case) ==== ...but you are right: backward compatibility IS, or is no backward compatibilty. ==== It is more or less obvious by now that backward compatibilty - except for the most simple UsrRPL programs - is not granted. With SysRPL there are seemingly less problems, though some basic commands (e.g. XYDGROBDISP) behave differently. a way out. Before porting a UserRPL program set flag -53, edit and recompile the program which (hopefully) sets l brackets properly :-) - Wolfgang ==== I just ran that expression through Maple - it doesn't even try to pass judgement on it. When it is entered, exactly as 3^2^3; it complains about expected semicolons. Haven't tried any other CAS's though. -Mike ==== It is more or less obvious by now that backward compatibilty - except for the most simple UsrRPL programs - is not granted. With SysRPL there are seemingly less problems, though some basic commands (e.g. XYDGROBDISP) behave differently. a way out. Before porting a UserRPL program set flag -53 on the sending machine which (hopefully) sets l brackets properly :-) - Wolfgang ==== Truss49 in the conversion done by Edwin Cordoba presents an error upon drawing the truss upon seeming is the only error because the results are performed correctly. It fits to clear up that changing the system of coordinates to a right system the truss draws correctly but the results are incorrect. Errors that Truss48 does not present. The question is if this error to be corrected by ain soon. Greetings. V.92ctor Moctezuma Hdez. By my race spoke the spirit (I sit down the lack of clarity but my native language is Spanish) ==== I will see what can be done about that. Caspar Note that the origin Truss48 is bugfree, it is just the port that is bugged. ==== Does anybody know something about Mika Heiskannen? What is he doing or if he is still making programs for HP ccs? I have tried to enter in his web page, but It is closed. thanks Akula ==== My Emu48 1.31 with HP49 ROM is behaving VERY BADLY. it crashes while instling libraries(they work on my re 49G), compiling system-rpl, and even using the filer. it started since I instled windows 98. on windows 95 it didn't happen. why? is that a emulator bug? my computer is a pentium 200, 32 mb ram, 1.6 gb hd, on-board HSP modem, etc... Karma Policer Bother, said Pooh, as his HP41 displayed MEMORY LOST. ==== I'm starting to program in SYS-RPL. I like to decompile built-in commands and many times I find something like this ptr 1AC93 . To decompile this I use the rclx command of the HACK library. I type #1AC93h on the stack and then run rclx and DIS. But sometimes I get something like this: Romptr AB 6D nad I don't know how to acces to this pointer. Anyone knows? Akula ==== I recently bought an HP 39G thinking it would have more than enough of what I need. I was looking in particular for good solid matrix operations, and the cculator seems to deliver. Everything seems fine, except that the cculator does not have base conversions??? What the hell? How much would you miss not having base conversions and binary/hex/oct operations if you are a software developer? (I guess it depends what kind of software developer, let's say you might do some somewhat low level stuff every now and then). Shl I return this and get an HP48xx? (I see JAndR still has the HP 48G+ for about $99). I am so shocked to see HP is kind of letting go of the cculator market or so it seems. The 49G is no longer on their website as it was previously... I wonder what's up with them. - Raist ==== If you go to my website at http://www.hphomeview.com and look on my Misc aplets page you'll find a new aplet (well a library actuly) cled Library L1540. This adds a whole heap of commands to the 39G which, amongst other things, do conversions. ==== Look, Thierry Morissette , said Karma Policer, and typed: LOL! HP49G = 100% discontinued? -- Karma Policer - Brazil ==== When I do an ON+A+F(F1+F6) it fls into the diagnostics loop (ON+F). The A(F1) key works normly. Why? ------------ Karma Policer Pentium 233 32 MB RAM 2 GB Hard Drive ==== John H Meyers used to swear: Actuly I use it. It's good to develope a (commerci) anti-piracy method for HP49 programs. You develope a program for an given 49, it will run only on the model. One thing that is so easy on HP is so hard on the PC. Why? =D -- THIS TAGLINE HAS BEEN UNREGISTERED FOR 36 DAYS- by TAG-PICK beta - picking from a 150000 lines file. ==== Is there a source for this program other than the ftp address above, since I cannot connect with that address. ==== A while back in comp.lang.scheme there was some thread about self-evuating evuators (in other words, interpreters for a language written in that language itself) in which someone posted this rather odd-looking evuator for his self-invented programming language Joy. I looked up his web page on the topic: http://www.latrobe.edu.au/philosophy/phimvt/joy.html and it turns out Joy is a stack-based language conceptuly similar to RPL in many ways, though with a rather more theoretic bent. I haven't rely had time to play with it but the introductory materi is intriguing. Those of you with a computer science background may find the theoretic papers there kind of interesting too. I asked the author if he had ever heard of RPL before, and he said he hadn't. -- Steve VanDevender I ride the big iron http://jcomm.uoregon.edu/~stevev Little things break, circuitry burns / Time flies while my little world turns Every day comes, every day goes / 100 years and nobody shows -- Happy Rhodes