HP-17 ==== >> 1¡ But how much memory space does such an [ARM] instruction take ? >32 bits. Always. > Unless the processor is in Thumb[TM] mode, in which case it's 16 bits. Gee I hate being wrong! That's correct, thumb mode instruction are only 16 bits, but a lot more limited than their 32-bit counterpart... By comparison, Saturn instruction are between 8 bits (P=n) and 28 bits, not counting LA and LC which can go up to 84 bits. It would seem that Saturn wins the size contest, but ARM instructions can be more powerful and replace up to 3 Saturn instructions (test, operation, shift). The 'big' thing missing from the ARM is BCD calculations, but I guess in the grand scheme of things, BCD ops can easily be emulated and are not used that much in the HP, as shown by the overall speed increase in the 49g+. Gerald. ==== > > By comparison, Saturn instruction are between 8 bits (P=n) and 28 bits, not > counting LA and LC which can go up to 84 bits. It would seem that Saturn > wins the size contest, but ARM instructions can be more powerful and replace > up to 3 Saturn instructions (test, operation, shift). > The 'big' thing missing from the ARM is BCD calculations, but I guess in the > grand scheme of things, BCD ops can easily be emulated and are not used that > much in the HP, as shown by the overall speed increase in the 49g+. > > Gerald. I dont see what the big deal is with BCD not being native on ARM. Please remember that on the Saturn, although it could handle 64-bit BCD maths, this was one-cycle-per-nibble, e.g. a 64-bit add (16-nibbles) would take 16-cycles. On the ARM, this means that fantastic cpu savings can be accrued if the underlying ARM code is interpreted correctly - the emulator doesnt have to do nibble at a time. Given the performance of most emulators out there and that the HP49G+ is faster than any of them, they probably gained a lot by recoding certain key parts of the ROM and then made sure the rest of the emulator was as good as can be. They did a good job and no doubt more improvements will be in the pipeline. ==== > > I am glad that your cubic() function works on > the crapy TI. To tell you the truth the TI > conglomerate of toys needs the contribution of > fellows like yourself to make them useful ;-) > > !Demeter! > > Yep, just like the HP conglomerate of toys needs the contribution of > people like yourself to make them useful ;-) WoW! What an original reply!! T.I-->Trash Industry Just my opinions... (T.I sucks etc) ==== > T.I-->Trash Industry Well, let's just say that it was not TI that got a couple of kids off the street to slap together a duct-tape and chicken-wire contraption of a calculator called the HP49G, by gutting the achievements of a previous generation of real engineers who created the HP48 series, and gluing a half-baked joke of a CAS on top of what used to be a nice system, squeezing the whole package into a silly frozen-hamster butt blue box with blue key labels and rubber-duck keys, and an obsolete processor. It was not TI that then claimed that the thing is ten to a hundred times faster than the old machine, despite the fact that there is no difference in speed at all. It was not TI that consequently, and unsurprisingly, failed miserably in the market, since nobody but a dedicated pack of HP fanatics wanted a calculator that required mind-reading capabilities in order to figure out what it could do, and how that might be done. It is also not TI who then continued to try and hide the fact that they did not invest any resources in the continued development of their calculators for about 20 years now, and repackaged what did not work with the HP49G into a new box, this time in glorious gold, outfitted with a keyboard that is even worse than what they had before, with a flickering display for good measure. Oh sure, it comes with a new processor giving you a speed advantage of a factor of about two, so there is ome benefit. But what good does that do you if you continue to get wrong results because one of your key presses did not register thanks to the absolutely worst keyboard in the industry, or because you consequently slow down your typing in order to check that each digit that you type actually appears on the display? And it is not the TI users who continue to buy the garbage put out by HP as a calculator no matter how bad the hardware has become. Yes, HP calculators once used to be the best calculators in the world. That was a long, long time ago. Now, when I put my trusty old HP48SX side to side with an HP49G+, I might get tears in my eyes once I press their respective keys, and hear the cheap, clattering sound that the 49G+ makes, which may or may not result in the calculator registering a key press. If I buy any $5 calculator at the checkout isle of my grocery store I get a keyboard that is better than this. And if my students ask me what calculator I would recommend for them to buy, I have to direct them to a TI product, since HP does not sell any HP48 models anymore, and I simply cannot, with a good conscience, have them buy the kind of garbage they are trying to replace those with. That is sad, really sad. -- Helen. ==== While it's true that the keyboard is miserable (maybe even worse than the 49G), the increased speed, better display contrast, and the improved CAS documentation keep the 49G+ from being a complete loss. Tom ==== > T.I-->Trash Industry > > Well, let's just say that it was not TI that got a couple of kids off > the street to slap together a duct-tape and chicken-wire contraption > of a calculator called the HP49G,[...] Well, youll just have to admit... Even though on the outside the 49g is just plain crap, its got power, lots of it, and thats pretty much all i care for. > by gutting the achievements of a > previous generation of real engineers who created the HP48 series, and > gluing a half-baked joke of a CAS on top of what used to be a nice > system, squeezing the whole package into a silly frozen-hamster butt > blue box with blue key labels and rubber-duck keys, and an obsolete > processor. [...] I repeat the above > It was not TI that then claimed that the thing is ten to a > hundred times faster than the old machine, despite the fact that > there is no difference in speed at all. [...] Or so you say... 49g software improves quite a lot of speed. > It was not TI that > consequently, and unsurprisingly, failed miserably in the market, > since nobody but a dedicated pack of HP fanatics wanted a calculator > that required mind-reading capabilities in order to figure out what it > could do, and how that might be done. > SO your saying that any idiot can use TI?? Learning to actually handle the 49g is not a walk in the park... but its benefits are amazing. OF course, its obvious that the largest market for calcs is the high school one (perhaps not the largest but a big one indeed) and (just my opinion), in the usa (prob biggest school market available), high school students are either nerds or the complete opposite. The none nerds will get and do whatever is easier, and TI being the case. Of course its also abvious that none nerds greatly outnumber nerds. TO this adds the trash industry's marketing which held on to this market. > It is also not TI who then continued to try and hide the fact that > they did not invest any resources in the continued development of > their calculators for about 20 years now, and repackaged what did not > work with the HP49G into a new box, this time in glorious gold, > outfitted with a keyboard that is even worse than what they had > before, with a flickering display for good measure. Oh sure, it comes > with a new processor giving you a speed advantage of a factor of about > two, so there is ome benefit. But what good does that do you if you > continue to get wrong results because one of your key presses did not > register thanks to the absolutely worst keyboard in the industry, or > because you consequently slow down your typing in order to check that > each digit that you type actually appears on the display? > On the other hand, with TI, the problem is after typing in the stuff. Come on, get real! If youd actually know about HPs and actually be able tu use one (i mean *really* learn to use one) the benfits would be WAY bigger then with the crappy TI (Total Incompetence). > And it is not the TI users who continue to buy the garbage put out by > HP as a calculator no matter how bad the hardware has become. > What about software?? No doubt that *owns* TI. Asking about hardware?? WAY more powerful the TI. Just open your eyes. [...]If I buy any $5 calculator at the checkout isle of my > grocery store I get a keyboard that is better than this. > Then buy it!! Im sure its better then those TIs. > And if my students ask me what calculator I would recommend for them > to buy, I have to direct them to a TI product, since HP does not sell > any HP48 models anymore, and I simply cannot, with a good conscience, > have them buy the kind of garbage they are trying to replace those > with. That is sad, really sad. > > -- Helen. Well Helen, what exactly do you teach?? Im sure TI will work for simple stuff. I agree with demeter! Bhuv and peeps like him must be rescued! Eddy...... ==== Once again, the zealous proponents of HP calculators, in their feelings of frustration relative to the HP 49G+ abysmal performance, have started a new round of TI bashing. It might be more productive if they stormed HP's corporate offices, dragged the responsible parties for this latest fiasco out, and had an old fashion necktie party. At least that would get the attention of their marketing department. ==== Speaking of the keybord: yesterday I had an interesting experience: First, I have to say, that I activated the Key Click because of the sometime-not-reacting keyboard. It is then easier to detect, weather a key klick was succesful or not. Yesterday I pressed the red shift key. The missing key click indicated, that the key press missed. At this time I hadn«t released the key, so I pressed harder without releasing, in fact so hard, I feared, the keyboard could break. No sucess. As this is one of the keys, which react normally quite good, I came to the idea, that the missing key press problem is not solely a matter of mechanic problems of the keyboard, but maybe of the saturn emulator software: I saw a similar problem on Power48 (for the one who didn«t know it: its a HP49/HP49 emulator for Clies and PalmOS 5 devices). If you activate the option Allow CPU doze on calculator shutdown Power 48 misses keypresses on the virtual keyboard too. According to the manual this option allows the PalmOS to set the CPU in the battery saving Doze Mode while the emulation runs. If this option is not active, the emulation uses all the time 100% processor power. Any ideas to this hypotheses? Mathias -- Mathias Habel mathias.habel_no-spam_@t-online.de Remove _no-spam_ before replying ==== I too have had the sensation that the calculator was missing keypresses. I can't prove it quantitatively, but keypresses seem to be missed more often when they are sharp and crisp than when they are slow and steady. Since mechanical contact should be made either way, it seems almost like a polling/interrupt issue. Since you managed to get a key constantly pressed without the calculator ever detecting it, the calculator must not be polling for depressed keys. Thus it seems to be using a keyboard interrupt, which is ocassionally missed. Likewise the screen flicker/non-constant flash of the : in the clock feels like a synchronization problem between a screen blank/refresh and the LCD hardware. Also, the GC earthquake looks like part of the screen memory wasn't properly transferred before the GC started. Just my 2 cents. The CPU dozing sounds to me like a plausible explanation; CPU doze is (on other architectures at least) usually handled by system interrupts. The doze interrupt handler may be disabling some interrupts or it may have some subtle one in a million bug which causes other interrupts (e.g. keyboard and LCD) to be lost. If so, hopefully they can get this hammered out for the next software update. Later, Daniel P.S. On another topic, I have occasionally had multiple keypresses occur. The first time I saw it happen was when pressing 4 and the calculator showed 44; one 4 upon key depression and the next upon release. In fact, I can press some keys and rock my finger ever-so-slightly back and forth to press a key multiple times. This, to me, was unexpected behavior. It does not seem to be much affected by the KEYTIME setting (which defaults to 0 on the 49G+). ==== hehe Don't be too harsh on our friend. After all, he is a rather intelligent TI user feeling discomfort and strain within the 'mentally challenged' crowd of the dark side that seeks desperately for a shelter within our sophisticated family group but often fails due to feelings of guilt for betrayal. I say we embrace this promising fellow and help him get rid of these pseudo-guilt emotions and help him rise above the emetic pulp of TI mob. Of course he will have to declare total and unconditional submission and allegiance to the Holy cause and values of this divine group. He will eventually become an obedient and humble servant to OUR needs. hehe ;-) !Demeter! ==== - I ==== > what kind of level of complaining do we need > to obtain in order for HP to address the lcd > flickering problem some of us are having ... > > You can solve the problem yourself by turning off the on-screen clock. > That'll also make your batteries last a lot longer. > > -Joe- i turned my clock off and it stopped blinking. then i pressed -> + EQW, and it starting blinking again. only faster. gc ==== > You can solve the problem yourself by turning off the on-screen clock. > That'll also make your batteries last a lot longer. > > -Joe- If only it were that simple. I have rom 1.22 and the flicker is present regardless of the clock. One very odd thing to note while we're on the topic of the clock: the colon which separates hours and minutes doesn't blink at any regular rate - on mine it will be off for over a second, on for a split second, off for a split second, on again for over a second etc... I think this might be related to the flicker at the bottom of the screen, but it's hard to look at the top and bottom at the same time. ==== > You can solve the problem yourself by > turning off the on-screen clock. > If only it were that simple. I have rom > 1.22 and the flicker is present > regardless of the clock. When there is no blinking cursor (whether due to a command line, editing something, using the EquationWriter, displaying an input form, etc) and when the clock is off (whether displayed or not), there should be no flicker. When any of the above are happening, then the blinking cursor causes a rather annoying flicker, and I'll guess that's what you're referring to. > One very odd thing to note while we're on > the topic of the clock: the colon which > separates hours and minutes doesn't blink > at any regular rate ... Right; this was discussed here a while back. That's just how it is. Solution: Turn off the clock! It eats batteries! -Joe- ==== Joe, Does the clock on the 48 eat batteries also? >>>You can solve the problem yourself by >>>turning off the on-screen clock. >>> > >>If only it were that simple. I have rom >>1.22 and the flicker is present >>regardless of the clock. >> > > When there is no blinking cursor (whether due to a command line, > editing something, using the EquationWriter, displaying an input form, > etc) and when the clock is off (whether displayed or not), there > should be no flicker. > > When any of the above are happening, then the blinking cursor causes a > rather annoying flicker, and I'll guess that's what you're referring > to. > > >>One very odd thing to note while we're on >>the topic of the clock: the colon which >>separates hours and minutes doesn't blink >>at any regular rate ... >> > > Right; this was discussed here a while back. That's just how it is. > Solution: Turn off the clock! It eats batteries! > > -Joe- > ==== > >> >> Actually, you need to remember that NAND flash is not a perfect >> technology, >> so ever if the chips are 128MB, some sectors are kept on the side for >> future >> use, in order to replace defective sector and the like... >> for example, you know that the FAT is written often, and flash has a >> limited >> number of erase/write cycles, well if you dig in the controler, you >> will see >> that the FAT is relocated regullary in the physical memory (but not the >> logical)... > > > Ok, I can see the wisdom of that. > >> it's a little bit like hard drive that have banks of sectors on the side >> that they use to replace defective sectors (or sector that they can >> predicts >> are getting in bad shape)... > > > Yes, if they're going to relocate the FATs, then they're going to have > to make sure that some sectors are reserved for the relocation as well > as spares to replace bad sectors, and for that matter somewhere to keep > track of all this indirection. > > I remember floppies (non-DOS) that had spare tracks, and of course a > variety of methods have been used to work around the defects in HDs. > >> a SD card (or CF) is MUCH more complex that just some linear memory :-) clusters that are marked as free in the FAT, and leaves them marked as free. If I write to either of these clusters, then it gets copied to some other cluster. Trying to follow what's going on is sort of like playing a shell game. -- James ==== I made tests using the address 00128 for the vbl of the hp49G+. I found that it indicated wierd measures, that's why it was impossible for me to have greyscales pictures on my calculator. I would like to have the real specifications of the screen of the Hp49G+, and the ram i/o associated. I also tried to do it making my own interupt handler, it didn't work. I also would like to know how to control the header bar ( which address ?) and if it was possible. thanks ( JYA and CdB :) ==== > I made tests using the address 00128 for the vbl of the hp49G+. > I found that it indicated wierd measures, that's why it was impossible for > me to have greyscales pictures on my calculator. > I would like to have the real specifications of the screen of the Hp49G+, > and the ram i/o associated. > I also tried to do it making my own interupt handler, it didn't work. The adress of the user-defined interupt handler has indeed changed. Ask Samuel (samuel dot thibault at fnac dot net) where he has found it, since the 49g+ version of Usinagaz uses also a user-defined interupt handler. Yoann. ==== I am just going to throw this into the ring for comment. Having read all the comments about the new HP calculators, I ask the following questions. 1. Is HP going even more proprietary than it has in the past i.e during the days of the HP41 series? HP-IL etc. The kulge with the cable for the 48gII. One now can not just build their own ant longer. Are they going to come out with an expensive HP only accessory to accomplish what is missing? 2. The fact that the 49G+ can only be a USB client and not a USB server that according to some knowledgeable people who contribute to the discussions on this group, the hardware is available to have two USB ports on the calculator. Again is an expensive HP only accessory in the wings that allows two way USB communications for the 49G+?. Harold A. Climer Dept.Of Physics,Geology,and Astronomy University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Chattanooga TN USA 37403 ==== > 1. Is HP going even more proprietary than it > has in the past i.e during the days of the > HP41 series? HP-IL etc. In my personal opinion, no, and in fact quite the opposite. Back then, almost everything was proprietary; now we have lots of industry standard and off-the-shelf partsm e.g. the ARM9 CPU, a USB port, SD memory cards, and more-easily obtained batteries. Nothing to sneeze at! > The kulge with the cable for the 48gII. One > now can not just build their own ant longer. Why not? > Are they going to come out with an expensive HP > only accessory to accomplish what is missing? Are you referring to the overhead-projector LCD panel, which requires the same 10-pin serial port that is in the 38G, 39G, 40G and 49G? > 2. The fact that the 49G+ can only be a USB > client and not a USB server ... Same as your digital camera, MP3 player, and most other USB devices, right? The reason that USB was included was to let the user upload and download to/from a computer. All you need for that is Xmodem Server mode. Making the 49g+ a USB controller would have taken more hardware & software than could fit into the projected price point. How much extra would you be willing to pay for the 49g+ to be capable of being a USB controller? Even more importantly, can you guarantee that all other hp49g+ buyers would be happy to pay the same higher price that you're eager to pay? Anyhow, it won't be long before somebody develops a cable that plugs into the SD card slot and connects to external devices. That's also industry standard, and capable of robust I/O. > is an expensive HP only accessory in the wings > that allows two way USB communications for the > 49G+?. It's already capable of that. Being only a USB client makes it already capable of 2-way communication... also knows as I/O. -Joe- longer be my opinion by time you read it, so don't let it get your panties in a bunch. ==== I see things in a slightly less pessimistic light. Instead of these being malicious defects, I think they were engineering/marketing tradeoffs. Here are my speculations. 48GII: For some reason HP felt it was better to put the CMOS/TTL/whatever <-> RS232 conversion circuitry in the cable instead of the calculator. Since RS232 operates at a higher voltage than the calculator, battery savings can be achieved by powering this circuitry from the host. For 99% of the population (e.g. those who use the supplied cable), the location of the conversion circuitry has absolutely no effect on the end user. Calculator to calculator connections may be able to bypass the RS232 voltage levels entirely. I also suspect that the conversion circuitry is at a moderately high risk of damage due to incorrect voltages; it is easier to replace a fried cable than a fried calculator. 49G+: Another USB port would probably have increased the cost with negligible benefit to the end user. In fact, 2 USB connectors (or 1 multiplexed connector) would probably confuse the user. Anyway, why would people on the field want to connect two calculators with a USB cable instead of IR? A major complaint about the 49G was the requirement for the (TI style) cable connection. If you're only using USB when connecting to a host computer, then you don't need host capabilities on the calculator. In short, engineering explanations provide the same results as paranoia, but also provide reasons of why this way. A mostly satisfied (and still happy) 49G+ user, Daniel Herring ==== > > I see things in a slightly less pessimistic light. Instead of these > being malicious defects, I think they were engineering/marketing tradeoffs. Instead of malicious defects, I see them as engineering/marketing mistakes. But I do applaud using the widely available SD card. Remember what the expansion cards for the previous 48 series calculators cost? And even though I don't like the USB on the 49g+, at least the cable is industry standard. > Here are my speculations. > > 48GII: > For some reason HP felt it was better to put the CMOS/TTL/whatever > <-> RS232 conversion circuitry in the cable instead of the calculator. > Since RS232 operates at a higher voltage than the calculator, battery > savings can be achieved by powering this circuitry from the host. Actually, on the previous calculators, outgoing RS-232 signals are at a low voltage level. Only the incoming signals are level-converted, and I don't see that it would have to put any extra load on the battery. The outgoing signal levels may be questionable, but they seem to work quite well. Why change something that works so well? > For > 99% of the population (e.g. those who use the supplied cable), the > location of the conversion circuitry has absolutely no effect on the end > user. As long as the device that they're connecting to can supply the power. That's ok if you're connecting to a PC, but for many other devices.... But the 48gII doesn't have all that much memory, and isn't expandable, so might not be very suitable for some applications anyway. > Calculator to calculator connections may be able to bypass the RS232 > voltage levels entirely. I also suspect that the conversion circuitry > is at a moderately high risk of damage due to incorrect voltages; it is > easier to replace a fried cable than a fried calculator. Maybe so, but for the user, buying an HP proprietary cable may be more expensive than you expect. > 49G+: > Another USB port would probably have increased the cost with > negligible benefit to the end user. Probably true, as the end user would no doubt need to install a special driver on the 49g+ host to go with whichever device he wanted to connect. Who wants to write a driver, specifically to be installed on a 49g+ host, for whichever devices he wants to connect to? > In fact, 2 USB connectors (or 1 > multiplexed connector) would probably confuse the user. Remember that the users of these advanced calculators may be a bit more technically competent than those who have a problem figuring out how to connect their VCR to their TV. I expect that even the GameBoy crowd could cope with two different connectors. > Anyway, why > would people on the field want to connect two calculators with a USB > cable instead of IR? For connecting two calculators, IR may be ok. *If* it actually works. I notice that the signal to the 82240 printers is much weaker than it is in the previous calculators, and I haven't figured out a way to communicate with a 48SX or 48GX in Serial IR mode. Does anyone know whether the IrDA on the 49g+ actually works? But I think that what people in the field really want a cable for is connecting to other devices, which may not have any sort of IR capability at all. An RS-232 cable, that is, *not* a USB cable! > A major complaint about the 49G was the > requirement for the (TI style) cable connection. Needing a different cable than I use for the 48 series might be a minor nuisance, but major complaint? Where did you see that? If I simply use the supplied adapter, the 49G cables work perfectly well with the 48 series. > If you're only using > USB when connecting to a host computer, then you don't need host > capabilities on the calculator. Absolutely true, but what if you want to connect to anything else? RS-232 works quite well on the older 48 series calculators, but it's missing on the 49g+ (and crippled on the 49G and 48gII). > In short, engineering explanations provide the same results as paranoia, > but also provide reasons of why this way. > > A mostly satisfied (and still happy) 49G+ user, Well, I didn't seriously expect the 49g+ to be what I'd use for real work, it was easy enough to guess what the documentation would be like, and I knew that it couldn't communicate with the 49G. My major complaints are the keyboard that misses keypresses even worse that the 49G does, the weak IR to the printer, and not being able to communicate directly with the 48 series calculators. I expect that most of my other complaints with the 49g+ could be corrected by a ROM upgrade, if HP cares enough to continue supporting it. -- James ==== Many people in the field would want to connect RS232 devices to: Data acquisition systems HMI equipment Remote control systems PLC's Radio equipment Scada systems and on and on ... Why would they want to do that? Because many of us would like to use I/O data as process parameters for calculated decision making. You might think that a laptop or desktop computer would do the job, but the foot print for those type of devices is impractical for field useage. The calculator makes life much better when, say, it's -10 degrees with a cold blowing 20 mph wind and your natual gas flow computers indicate field maintenance is required to shut in a high volume pipeline's electrically operated valves when the pressure changes to some determined value. (Just as an example). So, I would like to have some means to move data through the USB port to an RS 232 interface of any design and I bet there are plenty of other existing and potential customers who would also. > >49G+: > Another USB port would probably have increased the cost with negligible >benefit to the end user. In fact, 2 USB connectors (or 1 multiplexed >connector) would probably confuse the user. Anyway, why would people on >the field want to connect two calculators with a USB cable instead of >IR? A major complaint about the 49G was the requirement for the (TI >style) cable connection. If you're only using USB when connecting to a >host computer, then you don't need host capabilities on the calculator. > >In short, engineering explanations provide the same results as paranoia, >but also provide reasons of why this way. > >A mostly satisfied (and still happy) 49G+ user, >Daniel Herring ==== D Herring replied: > > I see things in a slightly less pessimistic light. Instead of these > being malicious defects, I think they were engineering/marketing tradeoffs. > > Here are my speculations. > > 48GII: > For some reason HP felt it was better to put the CMOS/TTL/whatever > <-> RS232 conversion circuitry in the cable instead of the calculator. > Since RS232 operates at a higher voltage than the calculator, battery > savings can be achieved by powering this circuitry from the host. For > 99% of the population (e.g. those who use the supplied cable), the > location of the conversion circuitry has absolutely no effect on the end > user. Interestingly, there have been several post *by* end users who could not get the RS232 to work. Typically the complaints you see are just the tip of the iceberg. > Calculator to calculator connections may be able to bypass the RS232 > voltage levels entirely. I do not recall that they are supported for the 49G+, I suspect the same is true for the 48GII. You could upgrade the calc OS from another calculator on the 48 series, a very handy feature IMHO. Several have posted of missing this feature as well. > I also suspect that the conversion circuitry > is at a moderately high risk of damage due to incorrect voltages; it is > easier to replace a fried cable than a fried calculator. I really doubt you're going to get enough voltage from one HP49G+ to fry another, methinks your risk assessment is out of the ballpark. > 49G+: > Another USB port would probably have increased the cost with > negligible benefit to the end user. In fact, 2 USB connectors (or 1 > multiplexed connector) would probably confuse the user. Yes, the engineering community is hopelessly confused by such things, it a damn shame they cannot be more like the women on TV who can do anything. > Anyway, why > would people on the field want to connect two calculators with a USB > cable instead of IR? Since the 49G+ does not support IR connections, it would seem the only option. The 49G also lacks IR, but it includes a cable to connect two 49G's or a 49G and 48X. > A major complaint about the 49G was the > requirement for the (TI style) cable connection. Interestingly, I've not heard this. A quick deja search of this group failed to find a single complaint. Where does this come from? > If you're only using > USB when connecting to a host computer, then you don't need host > capabilities on the calculator. And that is the complaint, users don't only connect to a host computer, and this connection does not work reliably or on all computers, which is another complaint. > In short, engineering explanations provide the same results as paranoia, > but also provide reasons of why this way. When it was explained why the 49G had no IR, that was an engineering explanation, the Saturn has only one hi-power pin and that was needed for writing to the flash ram. What you posted does not seem to be an engineering explanation as far as I can tell. > A mostly satisfied (and still happy) 49G+ user, Me, I'm gonna wait a bit. Rich > Daniel Herring ==== > When I format my 128MB SD card using the card reader, Norton Disk Doctor > tells me that everything's ok (though fewer sectors than I expected). > But when I format the SD card using the 49g+ (ROM 1.22), NDD notifies me > of an Error on drive F: -- Invalid Disk Table in Boot Record, and > gives me a chance to correct it if I really want to. Ok, the card seems > to work just fine whether I have Norton correct the problem or not, so > no big deal. > > Looking into this a bit deeper, it seems the the first sector of the FAT > is sector 3, instead of the expected sector 1 (sector numbering starts > with sector 0, the boot sector). So it seems that the boot record is > reserving 3 sectors? Looking at the SD card with a disk/sector editor, I > find that the boot record really does reserve 3 sectors. NDD's > correction doesn't mess with this. > > The physical description of the disk, 63 sectors per track and 255 > heads, is a bit unusual, but that's not surprising, considering that the > disk is really flash memory. It turns out that allowing NDD to > correct the error changes this to 32 sectors per track and 64 heads. > My guess is that these are merely dummy values, never actually used for > anything although NDD notices that they're unusual. I'm not sure why, but the way I've got it formatted now, NDD thinks that this isn't a physical disk, so doesn't pay any attention to the drive geometry. No error even with 63 sectors/track and 255 heads. > Sector 0 looks like an otherwise typical boot record. Sectors 1 and 2 > look like the beginning of a FAT; whatever was there before I used the > 49g+ to format it is still there. The first FAT begins with sector 3. > > As the 49g+'s format doesn't change anything in the reserved sectors 1 > and 2, my guess is that the 49g+ doesn't actually use them for anything. > > By the way, the 49g+'s format doesn't write anything to the data area > of the card, just the system area. Whatever was in the data area is > still there. For that matter, the Windows 98SE format doesn't write anything to the data area either. > Why would the boot record ever reserve 3 sectors? I know that it can > reserve more sectors, I suppose as many as a 2 byte hex number would > allow, up to 255 sectors, but I don't believe that I've ever seen a boot > record that reserves more than the single sector for itself. > > For my card, it makes no practical difference. Formatted in the card > reader from MS-Windows, it has 2 sectors left over at the end that don't > make up a full cluster, so are unusable. Formatted on the 49g+, it has 2 > reserved sectors that I can't use, but no unusable sectors left over at > the end. > > But I expect that on other cards, reserving 2 sectors may make a > difference of 1 or 2 clusters unavailable for use, so it may be > worthwhile to change the 49g+'s format so that it reserves only the 1 > sector for the boot record. > > But for all I know, perhaps the development team really does have > something in mind for those two reserved sectors, to be added later. If > so, then when it takes effect, the card will have to be formatted on the > 49g+, not with other ordinary methods of formatting it. By tinkering with the number of sectors, I find that where the Windows format reserves only the 1 sector for the boot record and may leave some surplus sectors at the end, the 49g+ format adds the same number of sectors as reserved, and never leaves any surplus sectors at the end. I don't see any particular advantage to either way of doing it, but there are a lot of things that I don't know. -- James ==== > Given that my freshly formatted 128MB SD card has 61351 free clusters of > 2KB each, and what's more Norton Disk Doctor says that it has 125646848 > bytes available, I expect 122702KB to be free on it. Why does the filer > show me only 122698KB on the card? What happened to the other 4KB? Ok, I think I see now. The card itself seems to use 2 clusters for its own purposes. So the 49g+'s filer is correct, it's reporting how much it can actually use. I've got it up to 246016 sectors: 4 reserved (boot record + 3 that wouldn't make a full cluster), 240 in each FAT, 32 for the root directory, and the remaining 245500 in 61375 clusters of 4 sectors each, of which 2 clusters seem to be used by the card itself, leaving 61373 clusters available, so the filer reports 122746KB. It seems to work fine for now; I hope I didn't set a booby trap for myself with my tinkering. -- James ==== James, thank you for this public service. In all seriousness, one of these nights at 2 or 3 AM I will stare at the numbers and ask myself, where's my other few kb? And then I (hope I) will remember this! > > > Given that my freshly formatted 128MB SD card has 61351 free clusters of > > 2KB each, and what's more Norton Disk Doctor says that it has 125646848 > > bytes available, I expect 122702KB to be free on it. Why does the filer > > show me only 122698KB on the card? What happened to the other 4KB? > > Ok, I think I see now. The card itself seems to use 2 clusters for its > own purposes. So the 49g+'s filer is correct, it's reporting how much it > can actually use. > > I've got it up to 246016 sectors: 4 reserved (boot record + 3 that > wouldn't make a full cluster), 240 in each FAT, 32 for the root > directory, and the remaining 245500 in 61375 clusters of 4 sectors each, > of which 2 clusters seem to be used by the card itself, leaving 61373 > clusters available, so the filer reports 122746KB. It seems to work fine > for now; I hope I didn't set a booby trap for myself with my tinkering. > ==== > Is there a way to slow down the hp49g+ to macth the 49G's speed, give or > take? this would be useful for programs that are made for the 49's > speed. I'm not sure if there are any interrupt handlers which could be > used to perform an arbitrary calculation, just to slow the calc down > some, while a program is running. Any ideas? > -demosthenes I would like to know how to do this too. I was trying to play pacman on the 49G+, but it runs way too fast for any person to possibly play it. ==== Sure just add delay loops. >> Is there a way to slow down the hp49g+ to macth the 49G's speed, give or >> take? this would be useful for programs that are made for the 49's >> speed. I'm not sure if there are any interrupt handlers which could be >> used to perform an arbitrary calculation, just to slow the calc down >> some, while a program is running. Any ideas? >> -demosthenes > >I would like to know how to do this too. I was trying to play pacman >on the 49G+, but it runs way too fast for any person to possibly play >it. ==== Wow! Slowing down the hp49g+! What a world, some months ago people was asking about how to speed up hp49g... :-) I love this crazy world, --- J.Manrique L.97pez de la Fuente Users Club from Gij.97n 1077 HPCC Member ==== I was wondering, does HP sell the rubber feet on the botton of the 48GX. i doubt it becuase HP has begun to pretend that its old products do not exist. Where else coudl i get these from? ==== > I was wondering, does HP sell the rubber feet on the botton of the > 48GX. i doubt it becuase HP has begun to pretend that its old > products do not exist. Where else coudl i get these from? I had lost one foot to one of my 48sx's several years ago. So, I look another one out and realized it was just a piece of neoprene. I went to a local supply store that sold custom O-ring and make custom gaskets (sheet materal). Therefore you need to get a small piece of neoprene gasket material and an exacto type knife. Mine works great and I forgot that I had made the foot until you post. ==== Forgive my penchant for kitschy kludge, but maybe you can try almost any rubber feet for electronic cases, like from Radio Shack or the like. Then mark off accurately and carefully the dimensions of the rounded rectangular holes for the feet on the 48G series cases on the replacement (bigger) rubber feet. Then very, very carefully use an X-Acto knife or similar blade to cut them to the proper size and shape. I realize the holes are on the edge of the bottom of the case and that may make marking off its dimensions a little more confusing. Hopefully, you wont care if the homemade replacements don't look as pretty, so long as they work. > I was wondering, does HP sell the rubber feet on the botton of the > 48GX. i doubt it becuase HP has begun to pretend that its old > products do not exist. Where else coudl i get these from? > ==== Betreff: Re: DisplayOff command on the 49+ I like MIG (thanks to Miguell), and it would be a pity, in case polyphonic music would run worse on the HP49G+. On the HP49G polyphonic music is very impressive, much more than the build in beep. I prefer to be waked up by a melody and the display disturbes the sound on HP49G, so DispOff is a must. There are a lot of little treasures on hpcalc.org where people spend a lot of time to program these art works. I have expected, that the HP49G+ would become better in terms of sound. Maybe two tone generators :-) This would enable the user to progamm an adressbook with phone numbers and use the calculator as a dialer (discussed several times in this NG :-) > DispOff was used as a very dirty trick to have a slight speed gain. > This will have no effect whatsoever on the 49G+ I thougt DispOff has an effect on battery drain? It is maybe more important for the less consuming HP49G (relativ drain due to the display). > Hence, he simply killed the supported pointer DispOff. Thus, nearly the > entire section SOUND on hpcalc.org is unusable on the 49+. Are JYA and > CdB really that unmusical? Did they never realize that DispOff didn't > serve speed-up but improving the sound quality? MIG-performances are in > asm and speed doesn't play any role. Only sound quality is what counts. > Interesting which other supported SysRPL or asm pointers they killed. > Backward-compatibility? Forget about it! I assume, the developer are musical but have had not enough time And they have never tried to get rid of interuptions when using MIG-music-pieces :-) best wishes Heiko ==== > JKH confirmed that the Display-off command (dashed D in OT49+) does not > work on the 49+ anymore. It contains the following ASM-code: > GOSBVL SAVPTR > GOSBVL DispOff > GOVLNG GETPTRLOOP > > > > DispOff was used as a very dirty trick to have a slight speed gain. > This will have no effect whatsoever on the 49G+ > > Hence, he simply killed the supported pointer DispOff. Thus, nearly the > entire section SOUND on hpcalc.org is unusable on the 49+. Are JYA and > CdB really that unmusical? Did they never realize that DispOff didn't > serve speed-up but improving the sound quality? MIG-performances are in > asm and speed doesn't play any role. Only sound quality is what counts. > Interesting which other supported SysRPL or asm pointers they killed. > Backward-compatibility? Forget about it! > > - Wolfgang Wolfgang, I am not interested in starting a flame thread here, but I felt that I just had to comment on this. This really sounds like whining to me... really, do the vast majority of users (even readers of this list) really give a damn about using a calculator to play music? Let's get a little perspective here! I have been using HP calculators since the HP-25, with every virtually model between then and now. I'm fairly proficient at programming, including SysRPL but I use my calculators for crunching numbers. For work. Each successive machine has brought new advantages and without doubt usual gripes about the keyboard etc., a vast improvement and now the 49+ is my main device and damn good one too. Over the years I've been a constant reader of this group (with occasional posts) and I've been absolutely thrilled with the ingenious software from you and others. It all goes to make the devices more and more useful and comprehensive. provide this group with valuable information well beyond what we could reasonably expect. They (ACO) also produced a machine (the 49) that was a true step forward, despite its foibles. I work in a design and manufacturing environment and I understand the challenges (read restraints) that are enforced by the bean counters and marketers; I face the same issues. If there was more financial backing, more development time, more resources for mechanicals etc., you might have had the long touted and awaited HP58. The reality is that HP, like most companies today, look long and hard at development cost versus market and payback potential, and with the increasing shift toward software solutions (on a Pocket PC, for example) my opinion is that we are very lucky to even have the new 49+. I was able to port my software (all SysRPL) to the 49+ flawlessly. I suspect that most programs that are used for work purposes will also follow this example. That, to me, is backward compatibility. As for the rest· take heed of your own last statement: Forget about it! ==== > this really sounds like whining to me... I'm not whining for me but maybe for all those excellent programmers like Miguel Cuadrado, Detlev M.9fller and many others whose achievments had been ignored by the metakernel people from the very beginning. > ... really, do the vast majority of users (even readers of this list) > really give a damn about using a calculator to play music? Let's get a > little perspective here! If you never used the DispOff in very long-lasting programs on the 48/49 then I do not really believe in proficiency of your programming. I'm not talking on music here! On the 48/49 the DisplayOff is undoubtly a very useful option. OK, for number crunching it isn't needed :-) You didn't understand me. If the 49+ developers make whole sections of hpcalc.org unusable on the 49+, it is their business. It is also their business if they release a semi-manufactured product. The real problem is that advanced programming needs a reliable framework granted by the OS. JYA and CdB simply killed a *supported* pointer without any announcement and any need. Did the Corvallis team ever do something similar? - Wolfgang PS. I released today new versions of OT49. One for the 49 with ROM 19-6. In the other two (for the 49 and for the 49+) the former DispOff command has been replaced by a command called info. It informs on size and CRC of *any* object in level 1, similar to the INFO from the interactive stack. But there is no need anymore to enter the interactive stack. http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/~raut/WR49/index.htm#General ==== > OS. JYA and CdB simply killed a *supported* pointer without any > announcement and any need. Did the Corvallis team ever do something > similar? Did the Corvallis team ever port the OS cross-platform? Did HP provide better support for the Corvallis team? All gripes aside, I find the 49G+ to be a better calculator at a better price. Yeah, I'm bitter that someone stole my 48 last year and the 49G+ doean't have as good a keyboard or manual as the 48 did. However, I was having a hard time deciding between the 49G or another 48 (and hoping and waiting for something better). For me, the 49G+ is that something better. I suspect that, within the 49G+ framework, programs will have a reliable framework. Considering its a whole other architecture and the only similarity between the 49G and the 49G+ is at software level, I'm impressed by how close they came. Especially since everyone thought the HP calculator division was dead. Sincerely, Daniel Herring ==== I hope you feel better now about the whining ... but a lot of us industrial / commercial types aren't able to port our software as easily as you make it seem. I doubt that *you* could, either, (at least at this point). For example, please tell me how you would port *rs-232* based software over to the 49+ flawlessly! I'd even settle for a few minor flaws! Backward compatibility in this case? (Forget about it!) Maybe music is a small niche interest; but you gotta love the innovation and detail of the engineering that permitted such versatility - - at least historically. -Dale- > >I was able to port my software (all SysRPL) to the 49+ flawlessly. I >suspect that most programs that are used for work purposes will also >follow this example. That, to me, is backward compatibility. As for >the rest· take heed of your own last statement: Forget about it! ==== I went to Fry's this morning, and sure enough, they are sitting there with the calculators on the isle behind the cordless phones. I have been a long time 48GX user. After setting the soft menus and a couple other display items, the thing feels a lot more like the 48GX from a usability standpoint. However, many of the keys are changed around. The thing feels more like a cheap remote control than it does an HP calculator though. The increased speed on the UI is nice, and being able to port programs over the SD card is a plus. I really hope that HP improves the feel on the next version, if there is one. This one just feels cheap. ==== > >> >>Could someone post 49G and 49G+ timings for this (or whatever the >>fastest method for different ranges is)? I'd like to compare them with >>those of my 68k FibNum function. >> >>n Time (s) Result >>---------------------------- >>13 0.26 Exact >>113 1 Exact >>1113 12.2 Exact >>1113. 0.74 Approximate >>4444. 0.21 Approximate >> >>Bhuvanesh. > > Using matrix power method for exact and sqrt(5) for approximate, on > 49g+ > > n Time (s) Result > ---------------------------- > 13 0.2129 Exact > 113 0.4075 Exact > 1113 1.9919 Exact > 1113. 0.0898 Approximate > 4444. 0.0903 Approximate > > Same on 49G > > n Time (s) Result > ---------------------------- > 13 0.6907 Exact > 113 1.2448 Exact > 1113 4.4794 Exact > 1113. 0.3137 Approximate > 4444. 0.3130 Approximate > > Using non-recursive loop for both on 49g+ > > n Time (s) Result > ---------------------------- > 13 0.1216 Exact > 113 0.5227 Exact > 1113 5.4762 Exact > 1113. 5.4861 Approximate > 4444. 26.3077 Approximate > > > Pete M. Wilson > Gamewood, Inc. > wilsonpm@gamewood.net Using this program from telchar on a HP49G : Ç R->B { OVER #36h < { DROP 1.61803398875 SWAP B->R ^ .27639320225 * DUP 0. RND R->I SWAP 1.61803398875 * 0. RND R->I } { OVER SR SWAP DUP EVAL + LASTARG SQ SWAP SQ 4. ROLL #1h AND #1h SAME { ROT SQ DUP ROT - UNROT + } { SWAP OVER + ROT SQ ROT - } IFTE } IFTE } DUP EVAL NIP È which use Fibonacci(n) = ((1+sqrt(5))/2)^n/sqrt(5), rounded to the nearest integer for n<54 and fibo(2n-1)= fibo(n-1)Ó+fibo(n)Ó fibo(2n)= 2*fibo(n-1)*fibo(n)+fibo(n)Ó for n>53 to have a total precision with big integrer. (more precision on this program on http://www.hp-sources.com/defis/res3.asp (in french) ) n Time (s) Result ---------------------------- 13 0.0905 Exact 113 0.2177 Exact 1113 1.2275 Exact 4444 12.737 Exact 15000 137.12 Exact ! for interest, fib(15000) is just 3135 numbers long ... HPSB ==== > > On page 549 of the HP48SX Owner's Manual, Volume II there is > a nice little recursive program, called FIB1, for calculating > the nth Fibonacci number: > > << ->n 'IFTE(n<=1,n,FIB1(n-1)+FIN1(n-2)' >> > > 13 FIB1 gives 233. > This takes 34 seconds on the HP48SX. > > In approx mode: > On the HP49G it takes 309 seconds!!! > On the hp49g+ it takes 71 seconds. > > Does anyone know why this is so much faster on the HP48SX? > Is there a way to speed it up on the 49G/g+ ? > > - Tony > Look at http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bnni5p%2412i47o%241%40ID-79865.news.uni -berlin.de http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bnr7f0%2414rul1%241%40ID-79865.news.uni -berlin.de -- ===================================== Alex Vinokur http://mathforum.org/library/view/10978.html ===================================== ==== I'm having a big problem with my hp48. Some keyes (A,B,MTH,PRG,',Sto,SIN,COS,ENTER) work no more. Sometimes when i press them they work, but when i really need them, they don't work. I've read some old posts, but it doesn't seem to be this proglem. Did anybody have this kind of problem ? ==== > >I'm having a big problem with my hp48. >Some keyes (A,B,MTH,PRG,',Sto,SIN,COS,ENTER) work no more. > >Sometimes when i press them they work, but when i really >need them, they don't work. > > >I've read some old posts, but it doesn't seem to be this >proglem. > >Did anybody have this kind of problem ? Never buy version 1.0.... It will be a good calculator year from now. A.L. ==== >I'm having a big problem with my hp48. >Some keyes (A,B,MTH,PRG,',Sto,SIN,COS,ENTER) work no more. >Did anybody have this kind of problem ? > > Never buy version 1.0.... It will be a good calculator year from > now. What are you talking about? The 48 has been around for a long time. He's not talking about the 49 g+. Tom Lake