HP-20 ==== I'm going to buy the 49G+ and I'd like to learn SysRPL. How much does the HP49G+ dialect differs from the one implemented in the HP49G? All the documents that I've found on the net are written for the latter model: can I use them effectively? -- Stefano Priore | Debian Woody 3.0r1 --------------------------------+-------------------------------- ==== > I'm going to buy the 49G+ and I'd like to learn SysRPL. How much does > the HP49G+ dialect differs from the one implemented in the HP49G? > > All the documents that I've found on the net are written for the latter > model: can I use them effectively? > >-- Stefano Priore | Debian Woody 3.0r1 >--------------------------------+-------------------------------- I don't know the answer to you question, I just want to test my new footnote. -- D - -- ` `^YWQQ#########Ax E --_--- - = - 'Y###########QQ& B T ':iuns=-- '9M###########$, I E - ` -`=4dQQQqn,_,,x, YM#########QA, A S =.,` - ->3M###Q##A##QU, `:4###########r N T `=:,.= - - =:!IX#Q#######Me= - =!=^?, Y#Q,,dWW####A=_ =`!%Q$AAo(` '1_ 3AH#########( -- VMNQ#Qb, - -|_=?M####QMMH B ----- -'=YY###A( -`;(`9#NM%TT>^` y --``=`- `'TYNQA=--:]i5VY'- ` -- `'=_:- - -`!T9b=--|?!^` - P - ---_=:>-_- -=T?: -=`--- h -- _-== I don't know the answer to you question, I just want to test my new > footnote. It gets mangled on my system with a variable spaced font. -- > D - -- ` `^YWQQ#########Ax > E --_--- - = - 'Y###########QQ& > B T ':iuns=-- '9M###########$, > I E - ` -`=4dQQQqn,_,,x, YM#########QA, > A S =.,` - ->3M###Q##A##QU, `:4###########r > N T `=:,.= - - =:!IX#Q#######Me= - = # I =_ W N ''` -----==|V4Q########MQH9H#NQQ#P` `?9###MY= > O G ---- -_=<}9M#######QYYYloTd8Q#F ~99Q%1' > O # ---- '_-==}XWMNQ###@- ``!N#&-.- `Y(:` > D - - `=--`=<4hCTYNQ#HHTi.__ `?Q###b_ ` > Y - '---`-=|+I;e_`?9UHq%T= ]W%H9@L - > # - -- -==!I|V9VI;,_ '?Axxx dQ#AMf= - > - -_=<|;lII>!=^?, Y#Q,,dWW####A=_ > =`!%Q$AAo(` '1_ 3AH#########( > -- VMNQ#Qb, - -|_=?M####QMMH B > ----- -'=YY###A( -`;(`9#NM%TT>^` y > --``=`- `'TYNQA=--:]i5VY'- ` > -- `'=_:- - -`!T9b=--|?!^` - P > - ---_=:>-_- -=T?: -=`--- h > -- _-== -----`-== ,__=--_'=== `x-======!}U8m1zil:====- - b > ``'==:}4#Q#UdmXY;i ==== --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > D - -- ` `^YWQQ#########Ax > E -- --- - = - 'Y###########QQ& > B T ':iuns=-- '9M###########$, > I E - ` -`=4dQQQqn, ,,x, YM#########QA, > A S =.,` - ->3M###Q##A##QU, `:4###########r > N T `=:,.= - - =:!IX#Q#######Me= - = # I = W N ''` -----==|V4Q########MQH9H#NQQ#P` `?9###MY= > O G ---- - =<}9M#######QYYYloTd8Q#F ~99Q%1' > O # ---- ' -==}XWMNQ###@- ``!N#&-.- `Y(:` > D - - `=--`=<4hCTYNQ#HHTi. `?Q###b ` > Y - '---`-=|+I;e `?9UHq%T= ]W%H9@L - > # - -- -==!I|V9VI;, '?Axxx dQ#AMf= - > - - =<|;lII>!=^?, Y#Q,,dWW####A= > =`!%Q$AAo(` '1 3AH#########( > -- VMNQ#Qb, - -| =?M####QMMH B > ----- -'=YY###A( -`;(`9#NM%TT>^` y > --``=`- `'TYNQA=--:]i5VY'- ` > -- `'= :- - -`!T9b=--|?!^` - P > - --- =:>- - -=T?: -=`--- h > -- -== -----`-== , =-- '=== `x-======!}U8m1zil:====- - b > ``'==:}4#Q#UdmXY;i footnote. > > It gets mangled on my system with a variable spaced font. > -- > D - -- ` `^YWQQ#########Ax > E -- --- - = - 'Y###########QQ& > B T ':iuns=-- '9M###########$, > I E - ` -`=4dQQQqn, ,,x, YM#########QA, > A S =.,` - ->3M###Q##A##QU, `:4###########r > N T `=:,.= - - =:!IX#Q#######Me= - = # I = W N ''` -----==|V4Q########MQH9H#NQQ#P` `?9###MY= > O G ---- - =<}9M#######QYYYloTd8Q#F ~99Q%1' > O # ---- ' -==}XWMNQ###@- ``!N#&-.- `Y(:` > D - - `=--`=<4hCTYNQ#HHTi. `?Q###b ` > Y - '---`-=|+I;e `?9UHq%T= ]W%H9@L - > # - -- -==!I|V9VI;, '?Axxx dQ#AMf= - > - - =<|;lII>!=^?, Y#Q,,dWW####A= > =`!%Q$AAo(` '1 3AH#########( > -- VMNQ#Qb, - -| =?M####QMMH B > ----- -'=YY###A( -`;(`9#NM%TT>^` y > --``=`- `'TYNQA=--:]i5VY'- ` > -- `'= :- - -`!T9b=--|?!^` - P > - --- =:>- - -=T?: -=`--- h > -- -== -----`-== , =-- '=== `x-======!}U8m1zil:====- - b > ``'==:}4#Q#UdmXY;i ==== Works fine on mine -- sure you didn't do anything in between calculations? Try it again. Matthew. F. G. > After the time wrap bug, I got an other one: > Just to play around with my new 49G+ I tryed the ALG mode and here we go > > :12+3 > 15 > :12+ANS(1) > Too Few Arguments > > The same works all right on my 49G (not +) > > Arnaud going back to RPN ==== > I just did exactly what you show below and it works fine. > ROM 1.22 :12 + 3 > 15 > :12+ANS(1) > 27 I got the second line by typing 12, +, LEFT SHIFT ANS, ENTER What did you type? Did the same ROM 1.22 :RCLF {# 3880038204000FF0h # 16000h # 8010012042000042h #0h} However after ON A F it is working as you said, it must be the flags Arnaud ==== >When a UserRPL program gets compiled, whether from pressing Enter in >the built-in editor or when transferring a text file from a PC, the >compiler could strip out each comment sequence and place it in an >array, in system memory somewhere, that is tied to that particular >program with an index for each comment string indicating its position >in the code. That way, there is no overhead during program execution, >just more overhead during the compile phase - and of course memory >overhead for the saved comments. Subsequently, when a program is decompiled during transfer back to the >PC or when it is opened with the 49's built-in editor, the decompiler >would place the comment sequences back into the displayed code at the >correct positions. Obviously, the compile and decompile would be >slowed by the need to take out and add in comments, but with a 75MHz >ARM at our disposal now, couldn't that be a relatively quick process? > I think that is very interesting since they're have been Smalltalk implementations that work exactly like this. Pete M. Wilson Gamewood, Inc. wilsonpm@gamewood.net ==== I'm a very beginning RPL programmer (actually, I don't even own an HP; i have EMU48). I am trying to make a program to find a string within a string, but I'm getting an error in my while loop, REPEAT: Undefined Name. What is the problem (code attached below)!? ----- << -> FIND INSTR 'INSTR' SIZE 'FIND' SIZE - 1 + -> MAXITER 'FIND' SIZE 1 - -> FINDSIZE 1 -> ITER 0 -> DONE 0 -> GOTONE << WHILE 'DONE != 1' REPEAT << INSTR ITER FINDSIZE + SUB << IF FIND == THEN 1 'DONE' STO 1 'GOTONE' STO END >> 'ITER' 1 + 'ITER' STO << IF 'ITER' 'MAXITER' > THEN 1 'DONE' STO END >> >> END >> << IF 'GOTONE' 1 == THEN 'ITER' 1 - ELSE 0 END >> ----- -MrM ==== > I'm a very beginning RPL programmer (actually, I don't even own an HP; i > have EMU48). > > I am trying to make a program to find a string within a string, but I'm > getting an error in my while loop, REPEAT: Undefined Name. What is the > problem (code attached below)!? > > ----- > > << > -> FIND INSTR 'INSTR' SIZE 'FIND' SIZE - > 1 + -> MAXITER 'FIND' SIZE 1 - -> FINDSIZE > 1 -> ITER 0 -> DONE 0 -> GOTONE > << > WHILE 'DONE != 1' > REPEAT > << > INSTR ITER FINDSIZE + SUB > << > IF FIND == > THEN 1 'DONE' STO > 1 'GOTONE' STO > END > > 'ITER' 1 + 'ITER' STO > << > IF 'ITER' 'MAXITER' THEN 1 'DONE' STO > END > > > END > > << > IF 'GOTONE' 1 == > THEN 'ITER' 1 - > ELSE 0 > END > > > ----- > > -MrM > > At the beginning of your program, the scope of your local variables, FIND and INSTR ends at the end of the following 'INSTR', so the following 'FIND is undefined. Similarly, your local variable MAXITER does not exist beyond the line it appears on. To get an extended scope for local variables, enclose the desired scope in << >> programming delimiters. The rules on local variables cite the scope as extending to the end of the following algebraic (expression enclosed in single quotes, ' ') or program (enclosed in matching program delimiters, << and >>). ==== > I'm a very beginning RPL programmer (actually, I don't even own an HP; i > have EMU48). I am trying to make a program to find a string within a string, but I'm > getting an error in my while loop, REPEAT: Undefined Name. What is the > problem (code attached below)!? Why not using the POS function ? anyway if you want to do it in rpl: << 1 -> S P p << WHILE p S SIZE + P SIZE <= P p S SIZE SUB S != AND REPEAT 1 'p' STO + END IF p S SIZE + P SIZE > THEN 0 ELSE p END >> should do the trick... ==== Ahh, thanks... I didn't realize that existed (as I said, i don't actually HAVE an hp yet!) -MrM I'm a very beginning RPL programmer (actually, I don't even own an HP; i > have EMU48). I am trying to make a program to find a string within a string, but I'm > getting an error in my while loop, REPEAT: Undefined Name. What is the > problem (code attached below)!? Why not using the POS function ? anyway if you want to do it in rpl: << > 1 -> S P p > << > WHILE > p S SIZE + P SIZE <= > P p S SIZE SUB S != AND > REPEAT > 1 'p' STO + > END > IF p S SIZE + P SIZE > THEN 0 ELSE p END should do the trick... > ==== Please note that != is the not-equal-to symbol! > WHILE 'DONE != 1' -MrM ==== there is a finance librabry from Andreas M.9aller ( http://www.hpcalc.org/details.php?id=4968 ). As you can see it is an updated version out for the HP49G. I'm looking for the older version for the HP48. Does anybody know (or have) the old version. Google always only shows the new version. Thomas ==== Is anyone working on the ROM package / KML Script for the HP 49+? Now that I have the handheld, I need a version for my PC's desktop as well! Chris ==== When trace is enabled in the graph view, how can I enter a specific value for X? -- Bill ==== Well, I am of the opposite opinion: I really like HP's latest: the 49G+. I've been using their calculators avidly since 1974. (Do the math on that!) I was totally in love with their calculators, culminating with the 48GX which I literally used as a PDA and a calculator while other folks were toying withy Palms (which I tried but never came to like). Unfortunately, I never really liked the 49G for all the reasons that so many people have uttered over the years. HP fixed the few problems with the 49 keyboard layouot, most notably the location of the ' symbol. The hard keys of the 49+ are a massive improvement--almost as good as the 48 series and the Voyagers. I love the 49+'s lighter feel, its the incredible speed, its huge amount of memory, the USB connector, the return of IR, and the larger high-contrast screen. HP even got the clear plastic right (non-glare matte). Before forming a final opinion, I'd like to see how all the paint holds up (keys and bezel), how the keys hold up (48's eventually get mushy), and how the filing system does with some inevitably huge objects that people will soon create. OK, bring on the flames... Chris ==== A few more points... The 49+ finally gets back to the classic leather case from HP. The powerful magnetic clasp on the case is great, better than Velcro, etc. (Luggage companies successfully use these magnetic clasps as well.) I never liked the lower quality ( rubber / leatherette / canvas ) cases that came with HP calculators starting in the 80's, and I never have been terribly fond of any of the recent, plastic, clam-shell designs. Shipped with the 49+ is an 865 page PDF user manual in the CD--where it belongs IMHO. The new, round, metallic arrow keys are simply brilliant. Worn arrow keys have been a complaint from gamers and graphics folks over the years, and HP responded well. My 256 MB SD card installed without a hitch. I remember paying major dollars for a custom-built 1 MB card for my 48GX. Now I have 256 of them for 1/10 the price of one! What will I do with all this memory? I've lined up 9 HP calculators side-by-side as follows: 6S, 12C, 17B, 18C, 28C, 30S, 32S, 48GX, 49G, along with a Silver Edition TI-83 Plus (required by the school my kids attend). I must admit, in bright light, the 48GX is the most legible (equaled only by the 30S). But the 49G+ is pretty darn close. (The TI is the worst, there is no denying it.) With their newest calculators, HP has gone to brushed metallic backgrounds, which can indeed present a glare issue; however, the color scheme on the 49+ is both legible and professional. In poor lighting conditions, where the traditional black background calculators definitely get hard to see, the 49G+ wins hands down. (The 49G, with its blue metallic background, comes in second.) And finally, I am delighted to have EVAL right under my left thumb. I'm still looking for my first genuine HP 49G+ gripe (assuming the soft menu flicker gets a permanent fix). And no, I have nothing whatesoever to do with HP. Don't get any ideas... Chris > Well, I am of the opposite opinion: I really like HP's latest: the 49G+. > I've been using their calculators avidly since 1974. (Do the math on that!) > I was totally in love with their calculators, culminating with the 48GX > which I literally used as a PDA and a calculator while other folks were > toying withy Palms (which I tried but never came to like). Unfortunately, I > never really liked the 49G for all the reasons that so many people have > uttered over the years. HP fixed the few problems with the 49 keyboard layouot, most notably the > location of the ' symbol. The hard keys of the 49+ are a massive > improvement--almost as good as the 48 series and the Voyagers. I love the > 49+'s lighter feel, its the incredible speed, its huge amount of memory, the > USB connector, the return of IR, and the larger high-contrast screen. HP > even got the clear plastic right (non-glare matte). Before forming a final opinion, I'd like to see how all the paint holds up > (keys and bezel), how the keys hold up (48's eventually get mushy), and > how the filing system does with some inevitably huge objects that people > will soon create. OK, bring on the flames... Chris ==== He he he... ... the case is FAUX leather (still vinyl or some close polymeric relative, but boy, I like the smell better than that of a new car)! As to readability and contrast, ever see the HP-20S? Too bad it's algebraic; it's got that wonderfully compact and usable Pioneer form factor, it's in that handsome almost blackish dark brown, gold and blue shift keys... just like the 32SII, and fairly powerful for what, $25? But it's display is not composed of LCD pixels; it's the old fashioned (hand?) cut LCD segments, very nice to look at. But back to the topic- yep, the 49G+ display, though composed of pixels, is contrasty enough to comfortable reading. Of course a laser printed output is nicer than dot matrix one, but the dot matrix LCD display of my Casio fx-4200P is quite pleasant, though (fine dots)! > A few more points... > > > > The 49+ finally gets back to the classic leather case from HP. The powerful > magnetic clasp on the case is great, better than Velcro, etc. (Luggage > companies successfully use these magnetic clasps as well.) I never liked > the lower quality ( rubber / leatherette / canvas ) cases that came with HP > calculators starting in the 80's, and I never have been terribly fond of any > of the recent, plastic, clam-shell designs. > > > > Shipped with the 49+ is an 865 page PDF user manual in the CD--where it > belongs IMHO. > > > > The new, round, metallic arrow keys are simply brilliant. Worn arrow keys > have been a complaint from gamers and graphics folks over the years, and HP > responded well. > > > My 256 MB SD card installed without a hitch. I remember paying major > dollars for a custom-built 1 MB card for my 48GX. Now I have 256 of them > for 1/10 the price of one! What will I do with all this memory? > > > > I've lined up 9 HP calculators side-by-side as follows: 6S, 12C, 17B, 18C, > 28C, 30S, 32S, 48GX, 49G, along with a Silver Edition TI-83 Plus (required > by the school my kids attend). I must admit, in bright light, the 48GX is > the most legible (equaled only by the 30S). But the 49G+ is pretty darn > close. (The TI is the worst, there is no denying it.) With their newest > calculators, HP has gone to brushed metallic backgrounds, which can indeed > present a glare issue; however, the color scheme on the 49+ is both legible > and professional. In poor lighting conditions, where the traditional black > background calculators definitely get hard to see, the 49G+ wins hands down. > (The 49G, with its blue metallic background, comes in second.) > > > > And finally, I am delighted to have EVAL right under my left thumb. > > > > I'm still looking for my first genuine HP 49G+ gripe (assuming the soft menu > flicker gets a permanent fix). And no, I have nothing whatesoever to do > with HP. Don't get any ideas... > > > > Chris > > > > >>Well, I am of the opposite opinion: I really like HP's latest: the 49G+. >>I've been using their calculators avidly since 1974. (Do the math on > that!) > >>I was totally in love with their calculators, culminating with the 48GX >>which I literally used as a PDA and a calculator while other folks were >>toying withy Palms (which I tried but never came to like). Unfortunately, > I > >>never really liked the 49G for all the reasons that so many people have >>uttered over the years. >>HP fixed the few problems with the 49 keyboard layouot, most notably the >>location of the ' symbol. The hard keys of the 49+ are a massive >>improvement--almost as good as the 48 series and the Voyagers. I love the >>49+'s lighter feel, its the incredible speed, its huge amount of memory, > the > >>USB connector, the return of IR, and the larger high-contrast screen. HP >>even got the clear plastic right (non-glare matte). >>Before forming a final opinion, I'd like to see how all the paint holds up >>(keys and bezel), how the keys hold up (48's eventually get mushy), and >>how the filing system does with some inevitably huge objects that people >>will soon create. >>OK, bring on the flames... >>Chris > > ==== You do have some points. My 48G is hardly used and the keys are beginning to get just the slightest bit mushy (I got my 48G+ used, but that feels similar to the G). My 32SII does not feel nearly as nice as it used to when I first got it a couple of years back. Darn! That 34C still feels great... too bad it's gotten a little dotty. Yes, I do like the feel of the 49G+ keys, too. Slightly (or a lot, depending...) OT: I am typing using an old HP PC, but its HP keyboard was one of the mushy-feel style keys that all PCs come with these last many years. The PC itself is still okay, though obsolete, but the HP keyboard went bad a year or two ago. So I went down to my basement... and lo and behold was my old Leading Edge (processor by Daewoo) 286 clone! I am now using its keyboard on the HP PC... but it's the wonderful feeling old style clicky keyboard! It's soft, but firmer than most of today's and it clicks (electronic of course)! I hope this one never wears out; I don't know if I can ever get a clicky keyboard ever again! If new HP calcs came out with such a feel on their keyboards, complete with the slightly muted soft click,... oooh baby! > Well, I am of the opposite opinion: I really like HP's latest: the 49G+. > I've been using their calculators avidly since 1974. (Do the math on that!) > I was totally in love with their calculators, culminating with the 48GX > which I literally used as a PDA and a calculator while other folks were > toying withy Palms (which I tried but never came to like). Unfortunately, I > never really liked the 49G for all the reasons that so many people have > uttered over the years. > > HP fixed the few problems with the 49 keyboard layouot, most notably the > location of the ' symbol. The hard keys of the 49+ are a massive > improvement--almost as good as the 48 series and the Voyagers. I love the > 49+'s lighter feel, its the incredible speed, its huge amount of memory, the > USB connector, the return of IR, and the larger high-contrast screen. HP > even got the clear plastic right (non-glare matte). > > Before forming a final opinion, I'd like to see how all the paint holds up > (keys and bezel), how the keys hold up (48's eventually get mushy), and > how the filing system does with some inevitably huge objects that people > will soon create. > > OK, bring on the flames... > > Chris > > > ==== For a bunch of calculator nerds, you all sure do gripe a lot! > Yes, the batteries were installed when delivered - but the batteries > were ok. I did not need to use new ones. Today I tried out the USB interface under W2000 and this was also > a pain. I reinstalled the software and the driver from the disc several times > without success in connectiong to the HP. Actually after doing the installation with the newest software versions > from the net I finally was able to upgrade the ROM (but a simple connect > was still not possible). After upgrading to 1.22 I was able to connect to the HP from my laptop. I noticed some flickering of the LCD screen mostly on the lowest rows > of pixels - which is not a very good sign. I like this machine, but I get the following feeling: * the product is not ready and the technology is getting much more > complicated (USB) and this takes even more time to make it stable. * I was expecting much about the new IrDA, but no documentation, no > documentation about it ... * I really would like to use the HP to collect measure results from > external systems and I hope, that IrDA would be the best way, but > after doing some more research this area (IrDA) is very, very > unfinished. We will need many more updates to the software to get more out of this > machine. > Marten Tom Lake schrieb: >Probably with version 1.20 so your batteries are worn down before start. Get >a set of new batteries and upgrade it to version 1.22 would be my advice. > Were the batteries installed in yours when you received it? They weren't in > mine, they were next to the calc on the blister pack ==== What's the NG for? > For a bunch of calculator nerds, you all sure do gripe a lot! > > > > > > > >>Yes, the batteries were installed when delivered - but the batteries >>were ok. I did not need to use new ones. >>Today I tried out the USB interface under W2000 and this was also >>a pain. >>I reinstalled the software and the driver from the disc several times >>without success in connectiong to the HP. >>Actually after doing the installation with the newest software versions >>from the net I finally was able to upgrade the ROM (but a simple connect >>was still not possible). >>After upgrading to 1.22 I was able to connect to the HP from my laptop. >>I noticed some flickering of the LCD screen mostly on the lowest rows >>of pixels - which is not a very good sign. >>I like this machine, but I get the following feeling: >>* the product is not ready and the technology is getting much more >> complicated (USB) and this takes even more time to make it stable. >>* I was expecting much about the new IrDA, but no documentation, no >> documentation about it ... >>* I really would like to use the HP to collect measure results from >> external systems and I hope, that IrDA would be the best way, but >> after doing some more research this area (IrDA) is very, very >> unfinished. >>We will need many more updates to the software to get more out of this >>machine. >>Marten >>Tom Lake schrieb: >>>>>>Probably with version 1.20 so your batteries are worn down before start. >>>>>Get >>>>>>a set of new batteries and upgrade it to version 1.22 would be my >>> advice. > >>>>Were the batteries installed in yours when you received it? They >> weren't in > >>>mine, they were next to the calc on the blister pack >>>>> > ==== Point taken!!! > What's the NG for? > For a bunch of calculator nerds, you all sure do gripe a lot! >Yes, the batteries were installed when delivered - but the batteries >>were ok. I did not need to use new ones. >>Today I tried out the USB interface under W2000 and this was also >>a pain. >>I reinstalled the software and the driver from the disc several times >>without success in connectiong to the HP. >>Actually after doing the installation with the newest software versions >>from the net I finally was able to upgrade the ROM (but a simple connect >>was still not possible). >>After upgrading to 1.22 I was able to connect to the HP from my laptop. >>I noticed some flickering of the LCD screen mostly on the lowest rows >>of pixels - which is not a very good sign. >>I like this machine, but I get the following feeling: >>* the product is not ready and the technology is getting much more >> complicated (USB) and this takes even more time to make it stable. >>* I was expecting much about the new IrDA, but no documentation, no >> documentation about it ... >>* I really would like to use the HP to collect measure results from >> external systems and I hope, that IrDA would be the best way, but >> after doing some more research this area (IrDA) is very, very >> unfinished. >>We will need many more updates to the software to get more out of this >>machine. >>Marten >>Tom Lake schrieb: >>>>>>Probably with version 1.20 so your batteries are worn down before start. >>>>>Get >>>>>>a set of new batteries and upgrade it to version 1.22 would be my >>> advice. >>>Were the batteries installed in yours when you received it? They >> weren't in >>mine, they were next to the calc on the blister pack >>>>> ==== Edward, I tried to respond earlier today and somehow, my reply bounced. Anyway, I just wanted to say the the deal you refer to is/was at MicroCenter (www.microcenter.com) and I believe it was still in force as of last week... but they do usually have a time limit on how long they run it. At the same time, I saw at Best Buy a sale for a Sony make of a 128 Mb SD card for $40. But their deals have a limited time also. But (if you're a member), Costco has a slightly more long term offering for a 256 Mb SD card, made by SanDisk, for around $65. I really hope you find the size you want at a good price. > >>Anyone looking for an SD card, see this thread at the Museum Forum: >>http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/hpmuseum/forum.cgi?read=45314 > now that the link expired, is the deal still good here? i thought it > ended on the 11th or something but i dont have the message anymore and > i think for that price its worth it =P (and i received my 49g+ since > then so i now have the use) > Ed Sutton > ==== HI Does anyone know where I can find information relating to how to use the HP 49G+ with the HP 82240B ir printer? I would like the printer to print in a sort of trace mode where it prints out my inputs, actions and results as I use the calculator. I would also be interested in what other print modes are available. I cant find any reference to printing to the 82240B in the manuals! Laurie ==== Sorry for my bad english. I am interested buying the hp49g+ calc but i got into the classic calculator site and saw that their price is equivalent to about 247$ u.s. this is insane ! I can get this product at smason cables for 180$u.s!! (include shipping) .dont you think that classic calc are too expensive ? just because they say they check every unit ? i dont really belive them, if you ask me... Classic calc - please reply. thanks, Idan ==== HI This is classic calculators in reply to your message. Sorry you dont believe me, I DO PERSONALLY check every 49G+ unit!! On what basis do you say you dont believe me?? So far no one who bought a 49G+ unit from us has told me they have received a faulty unit (except for one case were the batteries supplied were dead). Dont forget our price INCLUDES VAT, buy one from the usa and you will probably have to pay VAT on the import price (assuming your in the European Union), you may also have to pay import duty and what do you do if you receive a faulty unit from the USA?? Send it back to them?? what will that cost you in shipping, time, import/export taxes etc!! Dont forget we found a 10% failure rate in the units we checked UK prices for HP calculators have always been high compared to the USA, This is mostly because the price we buy at is much higher than the price US distributors can buy for. We always try and offer the cheapest price in the UK and the best service but we cant compete with US prices. We cant even BUY some HP calculators wholesale at the prices some companies offer them for in the USA retail! We try and offer an excellent service including someone on the telephone to talk to who knows about calculators and can give a sensible reponse to your questions, a fast repair or replacement for faulty items, general advise, honest dealing etc. This costs money but we do everything we can to keep our retail price as low as possible. In summary our price is not Insane its the best we can do Simple answer is if you want the cheapest possible price then buy from the USA. We try and offer a high quality service to UK and EU customers but if your dont want this then thats your choice. Classic Calculators www.classiccalculators.com Sorry for my bad english. I am interested buying the hp49g+ calc but i got into the classic > calculator site and saw that their price is equivalent to about 247$ > u.s. this is insane ! I can get this product at smason cables for > 180$u.s!! (include shipping) .dont you think that classic calc are too > expensive ? just because they say they check every unit ? i dont > really belive them, if you ask me... Classic calc - please reply. thanks, Idan ==== I live in the UK, if I order from outside of the EU, I will have to paid VAT for $60 so I am all right. What is more they had a special offer in October so that I got it cheaper. As for their testing I can't check it but I didn't have problems with my 49G nor my 49G+ I got from them. I am of the kind of people who are willing to pay a bit more for quality, to use trusted suppliers or support good local little businesses. Arnaud Sorry for my bad english. I am interested buying the hp49g+ calc but i got into the classic > calculator site and saw that their price is equivalent to about 247$ > u.s. this is insane ! I can get this product at smason cables for > 180$u.s!! (include shipping) .dont you think that classic calc are too > expensive ? just because they say they check every unit ? i dont > really belive them, if you ask me... Classic calc - please reply. thanks, Idan ==== We at classic calculators got 30 of these units a few days ago. After all > the issues I had read about I personally tested each and every unit before > sending them out to customers. We rejected 3 units out of the 30, 2 with > keyboard problems and one dead on arrival. All the units were upgraded to > Rom 1.22 before we sent them out. Haven't had any customer returns yet but > have had quite a few phone calls about various aspects of the calculator > (mostly user issues). One customer called with an apparently DOA calculator > but new batteries put this right. I think we may well ship all future > calculators out with Duracell batteries replacing the questionable ones in > the box. We are getting 30 Hp 17Bii units in next week (not the plus) Classic Calcualtors > www.classiccalculators.com > I am happy to read that, I wish hp did the same. I have been very happy with your service (twice now) and you can already count me in for the 33 when it comes out. I have been dreaming of it since I saw the first signs. I am not the financial type however. Arnaud ==== please store the following small UsrRPL program in 'D&T' on the HP49+. It is just a simple DATE&TIME displayer with autostart function. << DO DATE TIME TSTR 1. DISP IF KEY THEN DROP OFF END UNTIL 0. END >> If D&T is running and you press any key except CANCEL, the 49+ turns off. Turning ON, the DATE&TIME display continues *provided you are lucky*. I'm not talking on the unpleasant flickering in the DATE&TIME display. The problem is as follows: If you press a key for turning off the running time a bit too long, the next turn-on ends after 0.3 seconds and turns off by itself, over and over again... This is just the bug reported yesterday by Jim Chumbley in the thread Failure in the routine Noon. I answered that Noon is bug-free and isolated the OS-bug just in the above program. The key (not CANCEL) with which the turn-off is done may be completely arbitrary, even just a shift key. D&T runs well only if you hit a key staccato, like to turn on full light on a dimmer. The only way to get the 49+ to work is as follows. HOLD several keys and turn ON. After some tries at least the screen is ON, although completely frozen. This is the lock-up of which Jim and I were talking yesterday. The busy annunciator is running but no key is reacting, no warmstart, no TTRM possible. The only escape is a paperclip ... This is worse than all bugs reported hithertoo. We need a new ROM 1.23 i m m e d i a t e l y ! ! ! - Wolfgang PS. JYA refused to support the long-hold of Keyman which runs very stable on the 48/49. Instead he created his own fatal long-hold function in the 49+ :-) ==== > This is worse than all bugs reported hithertoo. It was already reported and discussed here three weeks ago. I mention this not to steal your thunder, but so that you can learn more about it, such as the single-keystroke method of recovering from it: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=87233f9e.0310170006.3e6d0f14%40posting. google.com&output=gplain -Joe- ==== > I'm not talking on the unpleasant flickering in the DATE&TIME display. > The problem is as follows: If you press a key for turning off the > running time a bit too long, the next turn-on ends after 0.3 seconds and > turns off by itself, over and over again... > I have noticed quite a few problems with keyboard support of programs that used to work on the 49G not +. I can't point out yet where they come from. It seems to me that the ROM is quite unstable. For instance I find a bug then ON-C the bug is still there. I save my flags ON-A-C restore the flags and the bug is gone. On the 49G not + on which I run my tests in parallel, it seems to be more stable, I seem to have killed TEVAL though. Arnaud ==== installed. Great ! My only *small* concern is that I don't know what really in the HP Calc word. Can somebody please point me to a site or at least a for, how to implement it - it is already done on my calc, so it is just in case - how to use it, etc ? Herve Paris, France ==== At the simplest level, MetaKernal is a replacement for the HP48, adding some extra functionality and speed. For a full explanation, see http://www.hpcalc.org/details.php?id=214 > installed. Great ! My only *small* concern is that I don't know what really > in the HP Calc word. Can somebody please point me to a site or at least a > for, how to implement it - it is already done on my calc, so it is just in > case - how to use it, etc ? ==== The manual is on www.hpcalc.org with some programs to work with it. http://www.hpcalc.org/details.php?id=214 Arnaud ==== Got it, it's great ! Herve > The manual is on www.hpcalc.org with some programs to work with it. > http://www.hpcalc.org/details.php?id=214 Arnaud ==== You need the TGV library. (http://www.hpcalc.org/details.php?id=133) > It works great!!! Bye ==== I have been looping a few programs with TEVAL and on both my 49G and 49g+. Obviously, the g+ is faster, even on :: VERYSLOW ; But the stats showed me that the variance of timings was about 10 times bigger on the g+ And by the way, if you try to import a table from the stack to single var stats input form using the HIST key and echo ENTER, the table does not appear but is there anyway. Arnaud ==== > I have been looping a few programs with TEVAL and on both my 49G and 49g+. > Obviously, the g+ is faster, even on :: VERYSLOW ; > But the stats showed me that the variance of timings was about 10 times > bigger on the g+ > And by the way, if you try to import a table from the stack to single var > stats input form using the HIST key and echo ENTER, the table does not > appear but is there anyway. > > Arnaud > > I have noo ideer what you are talking about: TEVAL? VARYSLOW? -- ( new footnote test ) THE- =XQ#############################8##W#################VY^'- S H '3W#############################W###########DAQQ#@Y?^ n E ]UW#######################################M%QW@` u #AQWQ$, ?4SMQ#####################################HXMM~ s ??YMMM##>-=?mMQ###################################MKXYQ#> | ^YXY==<|nAUQ##Q####Q@M#######MQ##############MR11XQ#L- -_-- s -,,-`=iI*>!3VSWM#####Q##M######Q############@MD#VVuQQ#Gn,- -,.xs:<-m }$H&a^`4t`=!YIUHMQW######M##H################Q#WAQ#######$m$ddIdH!!=-a `dQ#?` .dQ==>?iI193H9M###@HQX9HRM###############Q#########Q##WPqdIY--k ,#@= @##b='=|V*=x9Q@MH8XW%S43VUQ##########Q#############@M@8sX%T>=`=a _]W$_- `####k=:<:?1zVSUSYV2t%313dAM########################dWX1z:=^=`==| I==xY49UM################@9#Q@~=-` ` a `GY##NQ$aaQ#==s?H114+1*-:=!Y4Q@WQWQ#########MMK!!'` _-`=-=B e '9##Q######Y>=:>{34HqY3!=*==>3K9#Q#N#####Q#Q#M9*^` ._,===-:=- y l `YHQ####9~` ^==TT3HSUoI:I<:)T9XQ#H@AMQ####D#h!=` -,nl|Il:=:= - | f '!????` `-`''=- --````- o e r ``=_-=:*IsY1Y8dVqs|?V1I=Y!<===`-`-- `- h # o - ^=:'!:iY%9QP3G}T!x7:|===.`= `-- - - --_.b # :`-``==:=+=xhz|(:i!`''-'==-'- - - --_.,;aQ## ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ==== ----- Original Message ----- -- ( new footnote test ) This looks like ascii art but as I don't read in monospace font it does not make any sence to me Arnaud ==== > -- ( new footnote test ) If you really must do such nonsense, at least use a proper sigdash (two dashes followed by a single space character, *and nothing else* on a single line) above it. -- James ==== > > > -- ( new footnote test ) > > If you really must do such nonsense, at least use a proper sigdash (two > dashes followed by a single space character, *and nothing else* on a > single line) above it. > OK! How do you rate this? -- --!?MD##Q#################################Q#8OUUYI+!:==- - =:<|3UQQWWDWQ########Q#Q#QQQ###QQ########QQQQQ0X%1I>!:=`--- - }Xn<|YYHHO8WQMQQ####QQMWWM8WHHHH8DQ#QQQ###QQQHMUV1+)::===-- - - ,V ?3M%i_`=!TYYHHX999Y9YV3V1TTT!I1UOMHH9PYY?~^'^^:=== ----- -=T` `''`=-- `--`':!'==='```''^`'''^'' - ```==_-- -` - - - ---`-===-- ` - - ` ` - --,;xnli=`- .,;si_ ``` - -inqWWUV*=- - .,.,_ -- }UQMOG,- - -;wUUWW88Q%{=-- -114Xl -;s, -.X8Q#Q8QGsi=-- - - - xXMQQQWDQWA%*`- - n1VYm =IUUnx-- - -._==.=JAQ####WDW#Amx=`=,,,,_-.,xxWWWQ#QQQQQQXY_- - `^ ;T` -THUDUAQUAVV4mXnndWQ#####Q#QQQQWAqx3X8QUOAQWWQDWQQQ#W8WUT=` - - ,d=x !T9WQDWWWQWW#QU9QQ#############WD#WQQ8Q#Q#####DDQQ8DX1T'`- |!` M `!3UWQQ####QDWQ######QQQHVVHXH88QQ#########QOV1I|:=`-- `` B o '|%W8Q####QQQ######Q#UUXnoUsYHWQ######QQ##QOX1:==--- - - y r `!UWQQ###Q####QQ##QDWDQQWQH!}MQ#########QWXV:=`_`- - - . p `T9DQQQHHH888WWMOUOQWM8WQ%>;8ODQ####Q#WDDXl==``- - -- - HP h !XODQOx-`YVVY~`'^^~^'`}MWQQ#####QQMXl|=_-- - - -- - Eh e YUDQW0T- - -UWDQ#####QQQ8%1>=`- - ---'`- Ro u !YOQWH%_- ---.;;dOQQQQ####QQQKYI+=-- - --_`- 0o s =|99V!= - --==:|1VXOWQQWNQQQQQQ8XxT:`- - '---- - !h ? =_?:!:==-- -- -::>T134%USWU88V9XWXXV%T``- -----` - #b # I `= ` ==== that the difference can be seen? I agree that the built-in minifont is fugly. But you can easily > change it! One can try to improve the 49-minifont with the library Fontman below. > Pressing the command MiniF shortly views the current minitfont, pressing > a bit longer edits it for modification. Modifying the minifont is not as easy as one might think. One has only 3 > pixel for the width and this causes a problem for M and W. > Theoretically, one may use 4 pixels, but then some menu names may not > display 5 letters throughout as they do currently. One may critizise the 49/49+ in several points. But its minifont is as > perfect as it could be if mixing menu names in upper and lower case. > IMHO a definite plus of the 49/49+ over the 48. For this comfort one has > to pay with some difficulty in distinguishing M and H. All minifont > problems could be solved if the 49+ screen were made broader. But then > the many problems in backward compatibility would be completely > unsolvable. - Wolfgang > http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/~raut/WR49/index.htm#Science I'd rather have four legible charachters than five that aren't, but I see your point. Everytine I look at MEM I see HEH. Too bad it can't auto ==== I don't see HEH when I want to press the MEM softkey... on my calc there is on pixel difference between the Ms and the Hs... Martin > ... am I the only one a little peeved that > the menu key Ms look like Hs unless > they're both displayed simultaneously so > that the difference can be seen? > I agree that the built-in minifont is fugly. But you can easily > change it! One can try to improve the 49-minifont with the library Fontman below. > Pressing the command MiniF shortly views the current minitfont, pressing > a bit longer edits it for modification. Modifying the minifont is not as easy as one might think. One has only 3 > pixel for the width and this causes a problem for M and W. > Theoretically, one may use 4 pixels, but then some menu names may not > display 5 letters throughout as they do currently. One may critizise the 49/49+ in several points. But its minifont is as > perfect as it could be if mixing menu names in upper and lower case. > IMHO a definite plus of the 49/49+ over the 48. For this comfort one has > to pay with some difficulty in distinguishing M and H. All minifont > problems could be solved if the 49+ screen were made broader. But then > the many problems in backward compatibility would be completely > unsolvable. - Wolfgang > http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/~raut/WR49/index.htm#Science I'd rather have four legible charachters than five that aren't, but I see > your point. Everytine I look at MEM I see HEH. Too bad it can't auto ==== > ... All minifont > problems could be solved if the 49+ screen were made broader. But then > the many problems in backward compatibility would be completely > unsolvable. Assuming that there is work being done to make the 49+ use the full vertical space in applications correctly, I would hope they are working to make the code either handle the screen dimensions dynamically, or make the software easier to modify to new screen dimensions in the future. Seems many people noticed the new screen size issues mainly when trying to hide display settings, but it is present in other applications too. It'll be very nice when the system fully supports the use of the screen size; In the meantime, its quite ammusing to watch what data gets written up there in some apps, and when that info changes. Such as when graphing, traching through an undefined range gives that message in the header area, but doesn't go away until something else is written. It's an annoyance AND a feature! ^_^ If work is being done to make use of the screen now that the previous hardware has been lifted, it would be nice to see that horizontal resolution can be enhanced too on future machines. Hopefully the new hardware won't lead to the hp49g becoming entirely unsupported/unupdated from here out. Ed Sutton ==== http://h20015.www2.hp.com/en/taskPageSelect.jhtml?reg=&plc=&lc=en&cc=us&prod Id=hp33sscien370806&pagetype=manual&docparent=manual Mads ==== The manual is a one-to-one mapping from the 32sII manual, with an additional Appendix C - ALG: Summary on the algebraic mode. The 33s will have 1) 31k user memory vs. 384 bytes in the 32sII 2) letter+4 program line labels (A0001 vs. A01) 3) Algebraic mode and algebraic programs 4) 2-line display (X and Y of stack, much more in algebraic mode) 5) cursor keys to navigate menus The programming model remains variables/labels A-Z and index i, so the increase in memory doesn't help much if you exhaust the label or variable space. The algebraic mode may expand the user base for this type of programmable scientific calculator. The complex number model remains the same as that in the 32sII, i.e. X contains real and Y contains imaginary. It needs all 4 stack levels to add two complex numbers. No 15c-like complex numbers. The algebraic complex number mode looks interesting. -Leif ==== > The 33s will have [...] 6) 40 physics constants! Missed this one the first time around. No more hunting down Halliday & Resnick or a CRC manual for the muon magnetic moment or the proton Compton wavelength. -Leif ==== > http://h20015.www2.hp.com/en/taskPageSelect.jhtml?reg=&plc=&lc=en&cc=us&prod Id=hp33sscien370806&pagetype=manual&docparent=manual Mads > Arnaud ==== Around here, at least at this time of year, I can easily solve the flicker just by using the calculator out in the cold. That makes the LCD sort of long-persistence. -- James ==== This trick only seems to work when the calculator is set to Print via wire, not via IR. You can switch to print via wire by setting system flag -34. (-34 SF) This flag setting may be why it works for some but not for others... Mike Mander > Since this issue rates fairly high on the 49G+ Concerns radar > screen, I thought a new thread might be warranted as a helpful > workaround for the those of us who are afflicted with the flickering > LCD syndrome. > > This fix came from Shinsuke in his response to the thread 49G+ > Questions at the Museum of HP Calculators (the thread starts at: > http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/hpmuseum/forum.cgi?read=45540) > > Shinsuke's post said: A solution to the flickering is [Press ON plus > up-arrow]. Ed Look mentioned this key-sequence is the Print LCD > function. > > It really does seem to solve the issue, that is until the calculator's > power is cycled, then you must repeat the sequence. Inserting this > sequence into an autoexec-type program on power-up would be a nice way > to automate the process. > > The real hope, since we can now feel pretty confident it's a software > issue, is (if HP hasn't already determined what's causing the > flickering) that this will provide a clue that points HP toward the > real problem, and ultimately an updated ROM that fixes the flickering > permanently (including Joe Horn's LCD storming-pixel display :-). > > Matt ==== Hey, Matt! It wasn't me who said it was the print LCD command! I'm not that smart nor experienced; it was TOM LAKE. To him belongs the credit. But if this is true and the fears of others are true that this eats battery power, it may not be such a great workaround. I'd still hold out for the ROM upgrade fix to that. But I think the flicker is a very, very, minor issue (until such as time might return as when I'm using the 49G+ a 3 or 4 AM and have to be up by 6 or 7 AM). I haven't used mine *extensively* (whatever that means) yet, but really, I'm happy with it at this point. > Since this issue rates fairly high on the 49G+ Concerns radar > screen, I thought a new thread might be warranted as a helpful > workaround for the those of us who are afflicted with the flickering > LCD syndrome. > > This fix came from Shinsuke in his response to the thread 49G+ > Questions at the Museum of HP Calculators (the thread starts at: > http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/hpmuseum/forum.cgi?read=45540) > > Shinsuke's post said: A solution to the flickering is [Press ON plus > up-arrow]. Ed Look mentioned this key-sequence is the Print LCD > function. > > It really does seem to solve the issue, that is until the calculator's > power is cycled, then you must repeat the sequence. Inserting this > sequence into an autoexec-type program on power-up would be a nice way > to automate the process. > > The real hope, since we can now feel pretty confident it's a software > issue, is (if HP hasn't already determined what's causing the > flickering) that this will provide a clue that points HP toward the > real problem, and ultimately an updated ROM that fixes the flickering > permanently (including Joe Horn's LCD storming-pixel display :-). > > Matt > ==== > Since this issue rates fairly high on the 49G+ Concerns radar > screen, I thought a new thread might be warranted as a helpful > workaround for the those of us who are afflicted with the flickering > LCD syndrome. > > This fix came from Shinsuke in his response to the thread 49G+ > Questions at the Museum of HP Calculators (the thread starts at: > http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/hpmuseum/forum.cgi?read=45540) > > Shinsuke's post said: A solution to the flickering is [Press ON plus > up-arrow]. Ed Look mentioned this key-sequence is the Print LCD > function. > > It really does seem to solve the issue, that is until the calculator's > power is cycled, then you must repeat the sequence. Inserting this > sequence into an autoexec-type program on power-up would be a nice way > to automate the process. > > The real hope, since we can now feel pretty confident it's a software > issue, is (if HP hasn't already determined what's causing the > flickering) that this will provide a clue that points HP toward the > real problem, and ultimately an updated ROM that fixes the flickering > permanently (including Joe Horn's LCD storming-pixel display :-). > > Matt does the Print LCD function eat batteries or degrade calculation performance? just wondering... // gc ==== Shinsuke's post said: A solution to the flickering is [Press ON plus > up-arrow]. It works! As far as I can see flickering is totally gone after ON+UpArrow, even in edit mode, even with the clock activated. This must be a great hint for developers. Also, the colon in the clock seems to blink regularly after ON+UpArrow. Indeed. ==== This fix came from Shinsuke in his response to the thread 49G+ >Questions at the Museum of HP Calculators (the thread starts at: >http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/hpmuseum/forum.cgi?read=45540) Shinsuke's post said: A solution to the flickering is [Press ON plus >up-arrow]. Ed Look mentioned this key-sequence is the Print LCD >function. It really does seem to solve the issue, that is until the calculator's >power is cycled, then you must repeat the sequence. Inserting this >sequence into an autoexec-type program on power-up would be a nice way >to automate the process. > Try waiting a few seconds and you will discover the flicker returns - this command is the PRLCD which prints the LCD and without a printer attached freezes all display updates - notice the flashing colon stops as well... Pete M. Wilson Gamewood, Inc. wilsonpm@gamewood.net ==== > This fix came from Shinsuke in his response to the thread 49G+ >Questions at the Museum of HP Calculators (the thread starts at: >http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/hpmuseum/forum.cgi?read=45540) Shinsuke's post said: A solution to the flickering is [Press ON plus >up-arrow]. Ed Look mentioned this key-sequence is the Print LCD >function. It really does seem to solve the issue, that is until the calculator's >power is cycled, then you must repeat the sequence. Inserting this >sequence into an autoexec-type program on power-up would be a nice way >to automate the process. > Try waiting a few seconds and you will discover the flicker returns - > this command is the PRLCD which prints the LCD and without a printer > attached freezes all display updates - notice the flashing colon stops > as well... I was skeptical too at first, but much to my surprise this trick actually does work - but only if you have set the 49g+ to print via wire (-34 SF) and not via IR. When you print screen via IR, the calculator pauses and the LCD transfer indicator (or whatever it's called) comes on for a while on the LCD and everything stops - including the flashing colon. But set flag -34 and do the same and you will see a brief flash of the transfer indicator after which the flickering bottom pixel rows stop and the clock colon blinks evenly! But only until the next power cycle... So indeed, it does seem as though the flickering pixels are not strictly caused by the hardware and might be solvable in a future firmware update. Currently I have ROM v1.22. Not knowing the hardware and never even having printed from a 48/49 series HP, I have no suggestions as to what is going on here, however this clue certainly might help the developers track down a solution to this behavior - assuming they haven't already done so... > > Pete M. Wilson > Gamewood, Inc. > wilsonpm@gamewood.net Mike Mander ==== Are you sure it doesn't work?? It sure seems to work on mine (Serial# CN3330...., upgraded from 1.19 to 1.22). The clock keeps on ticking and the soft menu line becomes rock-solid. Chris >This fix came from Shinsuke in his response to the thread 49G+ >Questions at the Museum of HP Calculators (the thread starts at: >http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/hpmuseum/forum.cgi?read=45540) Shinsuke's post said: A solution to the flickering is [Press ON plus >up-arrow]. Ed Look mentioned this key-sequence is the Print LCD >function. It really does seem to solve the issue, that is until the calculator's >power is cycled, then you must repeat the sequence. Inserting this >sequence into an autoexec-type program on power-up would be a nice way >to automate the process. > Try waiting a few seconds and you will discover the flicker returns - > this command is the PRLCD which prints the LCD and without a printer > attached freezes all display updates - notice the flashing colon stops > as well... Pete M. Wilson > Gamewood, Inc. > wilsonpm@gamewood.net ==== Here is my theory about why this supposedly works, based upon my playing with the 49G+'s I/O (this may be total nonsense :-) When you try to send a screenshot, the 49G+ sends the raw data from the screen, then waits for a response from the PC. You can see this by hooking the G+ up to hyperterminal via IrDA. Take a screenshot and hyperterminal shows lots of data. Then, try ABCDEF XMIT. It doesn't work - at least for a while. This suggests the I/O is waiting for a reply to the screenshot from the PC. Now if you try and take a screenshot away from the PC, this resonse never comes. However the calc can't enter low power mode until it gets the response. So the flicker doesn't show up, at least not for a while, but batteries drain faster. just my guess, Al ==== > Here is my theory about why this supposedly works, based upon my playing > with the 49G+'s I/O (this may be total nonsense :-) > > When you try to send a screenshot, the 49G+ sends the raw data from the > screen, then waits for a response from the PC. You can see this by > hooking the G+ up to hyperterminal via IrDA. Take a screenshot and > hyperterminal shows lots of data. Then, try ABCDEF XMIT. It doesn't > work - at least for a while. This suggests the I/O is waiting for a > reply to the screenshot from the PC. > > Now if you try and take a screenshot away from the PC, this resonse > never comes. However the calc can't enter low power mode until it gets > the response. So the flicker doesn't show up, at least not for a while, > but batteries drain faster. > > just my guess, > > Al I really hope someone can confirm the speculation about battery usage and low power mode because this method really solves the flickering screen problem. If the heavier battery usage is only when the calc is on and not when it's off, then it might be OK, since I turn off the calc when not in use anyways. In any case, using this method, I came up with a program to automatically run the print screen command when the calc turns on. Assign the following program to the off command -- which is key 101.3: << OFF PR1 >> I noticed that PR1, PRST, and PRSTC all seem to activate the infared print function like ON-UP does (maybe). However, unlike what happens when you execute those 3 commands, I noticed when you press ON-UP and upon releasing ON, the transfer annunciator blinks for a split second, but not turned on and pause (like when you select print display in I/O functions)--whereas the transfer annunciator doesn't blink when you execute those 3 commands. So I was able to put the equivalent of ON-UP in a user program and assign it to the OFF key so the program would run every time the calc is turned on. Dave ==== While not an hp48 programming expert, this program should do what you asked, returning the solved points as (x,y) pairs in a list. Using the following variables: YP : << 2 * >> @ function to use Y0 : 1 @ initial value XI : 0 @ initial x XF : 1 @ final x N : 10 @ number of steps DX : @ automatically calculated CALC : << XF XI - N / 'DX' STO XI Y0 R->C LASTARG 1 N FOR H OVER DX + SWAP ROT YP DX * + R->C LASTARG NEXT DROP2 N ->LIST > I have not written an iterative program in over 10 years therefore I > am having difficulty constructing a loop structure to calculate the > Euler method. I know there are many Euler programs available. That > is not what I what to do. I would like to learn how to program again. > > I have constructed an Euler iterative solution in a spreadsheet so I > can calculate the solution. > I need help understanding how to construct iterative loops for the > hp48. > > The Euler method for an initial value problem is the following. > Let y'=f(x,y); with initial conditions y(a)=b > I will construct an easy example for calculation purposes > Example: > > Let y'=2*x ; and y(0)=1 iterate for 10 steps let n=10 so h=1/n or > 0.1 > > In the spreadsheet I constructed the following table > > n h x y y' y + h*(y') = ynew > 1 0.1 0 1 2*0=0 = 0 1 = 0.1*(0) = 1 > 2 0.1 0.1 1 2*0.1 = 0.2 1 + 0.1*(0.2) = 1.02 > 3 0.1 0.2 1.02 2*0.2 = 0.4 1.02 + 0.1*(0.4) =1.06 > 4....... > > x is incremented by adding h + previous x until n =10 > eventually I would like to be able to input different increments of h > and different functions without having to change the program. > > what is the best loop structure to use? what is the syntax? > so far my attemps have failed. ==== The original Panasonic batteries that came in the bubble pack lasted 15 days. I'm now curious what others are getting for battery life. I'm a part time student taking two classes and using the calculator for homework and exams, so I use it almost daily. Although not necessary, I used to put a new set of batteries in the 49G at the start of every semester. Going to try some Rayovac batteries and see if they will last to the end of the semester. danny ==== > The original Panasonic batteries that came in the bubble pack lasted 15 > days. > > I'm now curious what others are getting for battery life. > > danny Gene: Battery life appears to be much better with ROM 1.22 If you're still using ROM 1.20, upgrade soon and you should notice better battery life. Gene ==== > The original Panasonic batteries that came in the > bubble pack lasted 15 days. Do you have ROM version 1.22? It makes batts last longer than 1.20 did. -Joe- ==== I've had mine for about a month of fairly heavy use and the original batteries are still working fine. I suspect you need to upgrade your ROM to version 1.22. The life problem seems to have been fixed in that ROM. John > The original Panasonic batteries that came in the bubble pack lasted 15 > days. I'm now curious what others are getting for battery life. I'm a part time student taking two classes and using the calculator for > homework and exams, so I use it almost daily. Although not necessary, I used to put a new set of batteries in the 49G at > the start of every semester. Going to try some Rayovac batteries and see if they will last to the end of > the semester. danny ==== In mod2, the tunnel becomes smaller and smaller. My top score in Hard mod 2 is 1214 > http://www.hp-sources.com/hp49plus/Softs49Gplus/TronGR11.zip > What is the difference between Mode 1 and Mode 2? Matthew F. G. > ==== I'm trying to learn RPN operating mode: and, when I try to compute this integral, calculator asks to switch to complex mode, that it's not needed: in the EQW there's no need to switch, and the computation is done with real numbers. I've just tried, and the computation is done in real mode if the operating mode is algebraic, instead of RPN. I'd like to know if your calculator has this 'problem', too. Why the CAS needs complex switching, in RPN mode (and not in algebraic mode or in equation writer?) Daniele ==== I've turned calculator off and on again, and now in RPN mode it does not ask anymore to switch... I did not change any flag. MMmmm, I really don't know what's happened. Daniele ==== > Then, when I try to derive this function that I've obtained with the > DERVX command, if I use this function after using of INTVX without > leaving the equation writer, I obtain again X*ASIN(X); but if I put > the result in the stack, and then I use DERVX, I obtain another > solution: > > -ASIN(X)*SIN(2*ASIN(X))*SQRT(-(X^2-1)))/(2*((X+1)*(X-1))) > > In this case, I can't simplify it to X*ASIN(X), and I' like to know if > there's some way to simplify this formula in the original form. > > > Daniele That's really odd. I get ASIN(X)*X doing just what you describe. In Equationwriter, I typed: INTVX(X*ASIN(X)) Got a result. Pressed SIMP (which is needed to get the result you showed with it divided by 4. If you don't press SIMP, you get an expression of 1/8 times SIN (2*ASIN(X)..... not the one over 4. Pressed ENTER to place the result on the stack. Shows as '((2*X^2-1)*ASIN(X)+X*SQRT(-(X^2-1)))/4' Pressed Leftshift CALC 1 ENTER 3 ENTER (to do DERVX) and got 'ASIN(X)*X' CAS Mode settings: Rigorous Simp Non-rational Exact Mode. 'X' as the independent variable. Gene ==== > I've a little problem(?) with the CAS of HP 49G+ (ROM version 1.22): I've got the same version. > when I try to obtain the indefinite integral of x*asin(x) I write: > INTVX(X*ASIN(X)) > And then I evaluate it (in the Equation Writer). After the computation > I obtain > ((2*x^2-1)*ASIN(X)+X*SQRT(-(X^2-1)))/4 Are you evaluating it at all on the homescreen? Did you evaluate it or did you simplify it in the equation writer? > that's the right solution (if I copied it in the right way...). > Then, when I try to derive this function that I've obtained with the > DERVX command, if I use this function after using of INTVX without > leaving the equation writer, I obtain again X*ASIN(X); but if I put > the result in the stack, and then I use DERVX, I obtain another > solution: > > -ASIN(X)*SIN(2*ASIN(X))*SQRT(-(X^2-1)))/(2*((X+1)*(X-1))) -(ASIN... missed a parenthesis if I'm not mistaken, but otherwise seems right. Despite wether in EQW or on the homescreen, I get the following results: DERVX(SIMPLIFY(INTVX(X*ASIN(X))))=X*ASIN(X) DERVX(INTVX(X*ASIN(X)))=-(ASIN(X)*SIN(2*ASIN(X))*sqrt(-(X^2-1)))/(2*((X+1)*( X-1))) > In this case, I can't simplify it to X*ASIN(X), and I' like to know if > there's some way to simplify this formula in the original form. The added step of simplifying the expression before differentiating changes what is returned by the CAS. Depending on what route is taken to evaluate a problem, equivilant solutions can be found, despite that they may appear very much different. You're welcome, Ed Sutton ==== >> Then, when I try to derive this function that I've obtained with the >> DERVX command, if I use this function after using of INTVX without >> leaving the equation writer, I obtain again X*ASIN(X); but if I put >> the result in the stack, and then I use DERVX, I obtain another >> solution: >> >> -ASIN(X)*SIN(2*ASIN(X))*SQRT(-(X^2-1)))/(2*((X+1)*(X-1))) >> >> In this case, I can't simplify it to X*ASIN(X), and I' like to know if >> there's some way to simplify this formula in the original form. >> >> >> Daniele Try TEXPAND TEXPAND does not work, I obtain another formula, but not X*ASIN(X). Daniele ==== where can i buy a good HP49g+ in the USA? ==== > where can i buy a good HP49g+ in the USA? In a bookstore. -- THE- =XQ#############################8##W#################VY^'- M H '3W#############################W###########DAQQ#@Y?^ o E ]UW#######################################M%QW@` r #AQWQ$, ?4SMQ#####################################HXMM~ p ??YMMM##>-=?mMQ###################################MKXYQ#> h ^YXY==<|nAUQ##Q####Q@M#######MQ##############MR11XQ#L- -_-- e -,,-`=iI*>!3VSWM#####Q##M######Q############@MD#VVuQQ#Gn,- -,.xs:<-u }$H&a^`4t`=!YIUHMQW######M##H################Q#WAQ#######$m$ddIdH!!=-s `dQ#?` .dQ==>?iI193H9M###@HQX9HRM###############Q#########Q##WPqdIY--? ,#@= @##b='=|V*=x9Q@MH8XW%S43VUQ##########Q#############@M@8sX%T>=`=# _]W$_- `####k=:<:?1zVSUSYV2t%313dAM########################dWX1z:=^=`== I==xY49UM################@9#Q@~=-` ` `GY##NQ$aaQ#==s?H114+1*-:=!Y4Q@WQWQ#########MMK!!'` _-`=-=B e '9##Q######Y>=:>{34HqY3!=*==>3K9#Q#N#####Q#Q#M9*^` ._,===-:=- y l `YHQ####9~` ^==TT3HSUoI:I<:)T9XQ#H@AMQ####D#h!=` -,nl|Il:=:= - | f '!????` `-`''=- --````- o e r ``=_-=:*IsY1Y8dVqs|?V1I=Y!<===`-`-- `- h # o - ^=:'!:iY%9QP3G}T!x7:|===.`= `-- - - --_.b # :`-``==:=+=xhz|(:i!`''-'==-'- - - --_.,;aQ## ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ==== >> where can i buy a good HP49g+ in the USA? In a bookstore. -- > THE- =XQ#############################8##W#################VY^'- M snipped exceedingly large sig > Not that I particularly care since I use cablemodem, but your sig is probably annoyingly large and definitely violates usenet protocol. You minute of dial-up access. Best, -Al -- ~/.signature ==== > > >>>where can i buy a good HP49g+ in the USA? >>In a bookstore. >>-- >>THE- =XQ#############################8##W#################VY^'- M > > snipped exceedingly large sig > > > Not that I particularly care since I use cablemodem, but your sig is > probably annoyingly large and definitely violates usenet protocol. You > minute of dial-up access. > > Best, > -Al Bull shit, pleas address me to any usenet regulation sites! My tag take 1826 bytes, that are not much more than your lovely 131x84 grob's. And take about 1/5 second on a simple win-dialup-modem, to download. And are probably about 50 times smaller than any jpg's in same size! (A typical 131x84 Grob is 1438 bytes) Live with IT! ==== Read the RFC 1855 http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html If you include a signature keep it short. Rule of thumb is no longer than 4 lines. Remember that many people pay for connectivity by the minute, and the longer your message is, the more they pay. Of course, Usenet netiquette is not enforceable, but cooperation is very much appreciated. - Enrique > Bull shit, pleas address me to any usenet regulation sites! boundary=----=_NextPart_000_0053_01C3A5EA.8B4CC3A0 ==== --------------------------------------------------------------------- I've been experiencing similar problems. I went to the HP webpage and got the latest versions of Conn4x and USB drivers, re-installed them (after cleanly uninstalling the old ones); and I still get this strange behavior where sometimes the connection is seen, and sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it works just fine, other times the drivers aren't even seen by the system (Win98SE). I plugged in another device using the same USB cable and the system recognized it just fine, so cable itself is fine. As I have posted on another thread, I've been experiencing strange problems with the Conn4x interface to where it corrupts files to a some degree. I have never experienced this this behavior before with all the other interfaces I have used including everything from Kermit on my old SX to the interface kit that came with the 49G. I just think that the Conn4x program is a piece of crap and I would happily give up of the tremendous speed (and battery consumption?) for reliability, stability, and an eloquent and intuitive interface. And besides, the size of the files being transferred to/from a calculator are so small compared to the world of computers in general, that if it took an extra minute or so to transfer something; would it really matter? Greg S I thought I had installed it, but I had just downloaded it without updating the old driver. So, I just did. However, It seems that the cable is defective. I I mess with it a little before connecting it, it detects fine. I'll replace it as sonn as I find one. Toby Did you download the latest greatest USB driver? If so, have you rwmoved and reinstalled them? It was working fine, but now Windows does not recognize it. I rebooted, calc and PC, many (...many...) times... Any sugestions? Toby By the way, it's a 49G+ ==== --------------------------------------------------------------------- I just obtained a new cable, but, before trying it out I use the old one and it was working fine. Could it be the crappy batteries that came with the calc? I guess more money will get me closer to the answer. Toby I've been experiencing similar problems. I went to the HP webpage and got the latest versions of Conn4x and USB drivers, re-installed them (after cleanly uninstalling the old ones); and I still get this strange behavior where sometimes the connection is seen, and sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it works just fine, other times the drivers aren't even seen by the system (Win98SE). I plugged in another device using the same USB cable and the system recognized it just fine, so cable itself is fine. As I have posted on another thread, I've been experiencing strange problems with the Conn4x interface to where it corrupts files to a some degree. I have never experienced this this behavior before with all the other interfaces I have used including everything from Kermit on my old SX to the interface kit that came with the 49G. I just think that the Conn4x program is a piece of crap and I would happily give up of the tremendous speed (and battery consumption?) for reliability, stability, and an eloquent and intuitive interface. And besides, the size of the files being transferred to/from a calculator are so small compared to the world of computers in general, that if it took an extra minute or so to transfer something; would it really matter? Greg S I thought I had installed it, but I had just downloaded it without updating the old driver. So, I just did. However, It seems that the cable is defective. I I mess with it a little before connecting it, it detects fine. I'll replace it as sonn as I find one. Toby Did you download the latest greatest USB driver? If so, have you rwmoved and reinstalled them? It was working fine, but now Windows does not recognize it. I rebooted, calc and PC, many (...many...) times... Any sugestions? Toby By the way, it's a 49G+ boundary=----=_NextPart_000_0021_01C3A60C.689F6200 ==== --------------------------------------------------------------------- It could be, but... In my case, the first time when I had the USB/Conn4x interface working I was able to flash the ROM (1.20 -> 1.22) using the original batteries. Shortly thereafter, the calculator was working fine but there did not seem to be enough juice to run the USB communications (the low batteries/alarm ((.)) icon would show). Since then, I put industrial grade batteries I got at work but am still experiencing the intermittent interface problems. Right now I am planning on using the machine normally (most of the stuff I need on the calculator has been uploaded) and just wait a see what kind of battery life to expect. In the mean time, I'll wait for a Conn4x/USB upgrade. Greg I just obtained a new cable, but, before trying it out I use the old one and it was working fine. Could it be the crappy batteries that came with the calc? I guess more money will get me closer to the answer. Toby I've been experiencing similar problems. I went to the HP webpage and got the latest versions of Conn4x and USB drivers, re-installed them (after cleanly uninstalling the old ones); and I still get this strange behavior where sometimes the connection is seen, and sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it works just fine, other times the drivers aren't even seen by the system (Win98SE). I plugged in another device using the same USB cable and the system recognized it just fine, so cable itself is fine. As I have posted on another thread, I've been experiencing strange problems with the Conn4x interface to where it corrupts files to a some degree. I have never experienced this this behavior before with all the other interfaces I have used including everything from Kermit on my old SX to the interface kit that came with the 49G. I just think that the Conn4x program is a piece of crap and I would happily give up of the tremendous speed (and battery consumption?) for reliability, stability, and an eloquent and intuitive interface. And besides, the size of the files being transferred to/from a calculator are so small compared to the world of computers in general, that if it took an extra minute or so to transfer something; would it really matter? Greg S I thought I had installed it, but I had just downloaded it without updating the old driver. So, I just did. However, It seems that the cable is defective. I I mess with it a little before connecting it, it detects fine. I'll replace it as sonn as I find one. Toby Did you download the latest greatest USB driver? If so, have you rwmoved and reinstalled them? It was working fine, but now Windows does not recognize it. I rebooted, calc and PC, many (...many...) times... Any sugestions? Toby By the way, it's a 49G+ ==== I just counted the keys on my hp48 calculator, and gues what. It's 48 keys! Are there any hp32 calculator? -- D#O%VV#1I++IVVVV%!11>=)):=:)lIl:=:1l|:!+!:======'---- ###QWOQV1l+IT13VV)11*=+I>. .,AQK)!s;,==-- - -,aA:=- - -- 8Il4Q###K3%#%( - #####Q#Q###QQD{I- =]###QWWOOU%l+-- =]##0:=`- --: #XXd##Q#QQQQU{=_-###########Q##QQx-}W#########DX0+'` ,QAWQHT!= -_= #######QQ#Q8Q#QGq###########QQQMQT=]9##########KY!=` =#HHHQ1_`- - `^= ###########W###DU###########DQ#Q#l']D#########C++''-==#V4Q#1-- - ########MMMQ###Q#####Q######QQ###1=]#######QDWC3%I++!!99H9H:- - --.; #YT4#Q#UWMW#QQ@99##############AWn%XUQQ##KV99V13V!==--`-`=_- - ,jdQHH V_+48%###Q##Q@F==Q########MMQ###Q#HX9WUQ#KVYYY~`= =}axii;x: -,a#V98Wml %-;48V#HMQ#HYT'`-######M@VYYHH@X9YYT?YY99CT|!=`.: =4QUI14A!--,d#9qd##H| QoQWD0#WW##8i=.;xQ8DQ##UC>++0UAGxxi==__;4WQ8WD{:' -]WQA##QW:i}W#MQ#QAAUI Q##Q#QH#QWWQA%14U####Q##QG%!UWRHW#Ubx;=148XUHU%)+-=]QQ9Ud@9n;Z9HO99VY?' 9HMNQ#W##QQQ#CT3OHQQQQ###8V:OMAWOH99VT=148%VY?T!:--]99T9YY!YT!??YT^'` _`!!?Y!YY9YYYT=?Y999Y9Y?~'``^^!!^'``` -````- - - ======----__-- -- - ------- --'='- ===_---- ---- - - - -- - - :_'==='--==-=_---- -- ---- -_--__- '`''=`_-- - - - - - - - - - - sii=:=:=======`--------'---_'---_---:+T:====------------ -- -- - W%%UUX1nnnnx;;;xxiiii,i;i>=i:====--- It's 48 keys! Are there any hp32 calculator? 1) Learn to count, there are 49 keys on a HP48. 2) for what your posts have been worth, I'd say it's safe for you to stop now. 3) Please. > -- > D#O%VV#1I++IVVVV%!11>=)):=:)lIl:=:1l|:!+!:======'---- > ###QWOQV1l+IT13VV)11*=+I> HHHHVVYY!:=====:!'^!:=^!==:!==!!:====`=`` - - - > =='''==--- - - - - - - -----_-- - > - - - - - - - > -.xxi,_ --,inVs,; -- .u,- --- -,i.- - > . -=4QVMNAAu_- -uqUUHHHMQ#Wk)>. .,AQK)!s;,==-- - -,aA:=- - -- > 8Il4Q###K3%#%( - #####Q#Q###QQD{I- =]###QWWOOU%l+-- =]##0:=`- --: > #XXd##Q#QQQQU{=_-###########Q##QQx-}W#########DX0+'` ,QAWQHT!= -_= > #######QQ#Q8Q#QGq###########QQQMQT=]9##########KY!=` =#HHHQ1_`- - `^= > ###########W###DU###########DQ#Q#l']D#########C++''-==#V4Q#1-- - > ########MMMQ###Q#####Q######QQ###1=]#######QDWC3%I++!!99H9H:- - --.; > #YT4#Q#UWMW#QQ@99##############AWn%XUQQ##KV99V13V!==--`-`=_- - ,jdQHH > V_+48%###Q##Q@F==Q########MMQ###Q#HX9WUQ#KVYYY~`= =}axii;x: -,a#V98Wml > %-;48V#HMQ#HYT'`-######M@VYYHH@X9YYT?YY99CT|!=`.: =4QUI14A!--,d#9qd##H| > QoQWD0#WW##8i=.;xQ8DQ##UC>++0UAGxxi==__;4WQ8WD{:' -]WQA##QW:i}W#MQ#QAAUI > Q##Q#QH#QWWQA%14U####Q##QG%!UWRHW#Ubx;=148XUHU%)+-=]QQ9Ud@9n;Z9HO99VY?' > 9HMNQ#W##QQQ#CT3OHQQQQ###8V:OMAWOH99VT=148%VY?T!:--]99T9YY!YT!??YT^'` > _`!!?Y!YY9YYYT=?Y999Y9Y?~'``^^!!^'``` -````- - - > ======----__-- -- - ------- --'='- ===_---- ---- - - - -- - - > :_'==='--==-=_---- -- ---- -_--__- '`''=`_-- - - - - - - - - - - > sii=:=:=======`--------'---_'---_---:+T:====------------ -- -- - > W%%UUX1nnnnx;;;xxiiii,i;i>=i:====--- ==== > >>I just counted the keys on my hp48 calculator, and gues what. >>It's 48 keys! >>Are there any hp32 calculator? > > > 1) Learn to count, there are 49 keys on a HP48. > 2) for what your posts have been worth, I'd say it's safe for you to stop > now. > 3) Please. > > One word: BUT ==== > Ill give you an example. Lets say > X^2+2*v/3x+3 > FACTOR > > Exact mode: (X+v/3)^2 > Aprox Mode: (X+1.7320..,)^2 > Auto Mode: ???????????????????????? > > I don't know what you were doing, but I get the same result as for > exact mode. The HP, on the other hand, will not factor your expression > at all when in approximate mode. My point exactly. No, what you say is not true. I got the answer shown in approx mode. Whats my point?? You have no idea what you say, and only reply to points that you *think* you can prove wrong. > > My point is that its easy to get undesired answers. So, auto mode isnt > a must IMO. > > The only point of your example that I can see is that it is easy to > get undesired answers if you do not have any clue at all of what it > is you are doing. > Well, thats another thing i wanted to mention. Some people might say your rude. What i say is that your just a bitter old hag. Get Real! Your the one that doesnt know what you say. I think that you just assume things (with no foundation) in most cases. Of course very few of your points do make sense, all your chatering has gone no where. Now, when you actually learn to use 49g series calcs and know something about the subject, as well as changing your attitude (my recomendation: get a therapist and a life) then perhaps it would be nice to discuss with you. I think it's time for me to filter some messages. It's really a pity that you believe you have The Knowledge, in a domain where you have not proven to have it. Parisse said it that way, ill say it this way: Im out of here... Im sorry Helen, but I cant waste any more time argueing with you, cause you just suck. Arrogant physics teacher that teaches math to physicists and speaks without knowing what she says. Look at what Parisse said... you think you have knowledge in a domain where you have not proven to have it. I actually think it has been proven that you DONT have it. Cya! ---end of topic for me... ==== > But, when i speak of power, what i mean is how well the language fits > the hardware. Ill explain; Even though c++ (for example) is a very > nice language that can solve tons and problems and do many many many > things, if used in a regular calculator i assume that due to limited > RAM and processing capabilities, it would not be to efficient. > > Right. And the TIGCC team has made it clear that they are not going to > even try to support C++ programming (because of extremely bloated > code, among other things). To start, i never mentioned C or TI programing (Because im not to wel informed about TI capabilities and stuff... i mean ive tried it, didnt like it and didnt look at much). C++ Was just an example i gave. > > > One can optimize C code as well... Imagine if RPL code is optimized... ==== >>I don't consider your comparison to be correct, because the >>game does not interfer with the rest of the applications. > > > I agree, it would be really nice if the CAS did not interfere with the > rest of the calculator system... > I don't see how it could not (with CAS relevant settings of course but the CAS does not modify any non CAS flags), it's completely embedded in the OS. >>The CAS answer after the CAS command that switched the mode >>will be used in another command or displayed so that the user >>will read it and it has a meaning depending on this flag. > > > Let's cut through your obfuscation, why don't we? Here's an example: I > am in numeric results mode, but for some reason I want to know what > the integral of > sin(x) is, a result which I may use later in order to obtain some > numeric results. So, in order to do the integration, the CAS switches > the flag, finds the result, and switches the flag back. Would you like > to explain to me what would, or even could, be wrong with that result? > Or, in what way the interpretation or meaning of that result would > depend on any sort of flag setting? > In approx mode, factorization is not done the same way as in exact mode since multiplicities of roots can not be detected because gcd of polynomials require exact data. Since factorization is required as soon as you integrate any rational fraction, the approx/exact flag has an influence on the antiderivative research. For sin(x) it would not change the answer, but as explained before, I can't do a checking for each particular argument. > By the way, believe it or not, a TI89 will give you a result for your > symbolic integral even if you switch it from automatic to numeric > mode. How about that? > > And don't get me started on the kind of nonsense that happens on the > HP if you select complex mode. I'll give you a hint: If I select > complex mode, I might indicate that I _allow for_ complex results. It > does _not_ mean that I want the CAS to take great pains in order to > produce a complex result even if a much simpler real result is > available. So let me show you that complex mode is not restricted to the fact that the answer has some i inside. Consider the antiderivative of 1/x, in real mode it is returned as ln(abs(x)) as every student learns. But this answer is wrong if x might be complex, ln(x) is the right answer in C. Another example is sqrt(z^2)=|z| in real mode, but that's also wrong in complex mode. In complex mode, you will get z*sign(re(z)). Your comparison with the TI CAS is not correct, because the TI CAS was not really designed to handle complex in a mathematically satisfactory way. I don't have a TI at hand, but my recollection is that the TI CAS does not compute correctly gcd of polynomials with complex coefficients (expand something like ((x+2+i)*(x-1+2*i))^2*(x+3+5*i)) and try to factor it back) or that it is not possible to do partial fraction decomposition over C. Please note that (even adding the fact that the TI89 does not provide the simplest polynomial arithmetic routine to the user), I don't consider this as a sign that the TI CAS is a total mess unsuitable to do any math and it's the fault of the designers. Perhaps they decided to do so to have something easier. > Again, that is something that all professional CAS, > including the one on the TI calculators, seem to understand. On the > HP, on the other hand, you have to be careful to try and always stay > in real mode, if you want to avoid getting silly complex results even > for things as straightforward as the integral of x*cos(x), say. And > god help me if I happen to stumble upon a calculation where the CAS > decides it needs to switch to complex mode, and I forget to switch > back to real mode before trying to find a simple antiderivative... > > In short, the HP CAS is a mess, and essentially unsuitable for any > market that one might target with such a device. > > I might add that I used to think that much of the fault for that lies > with the poor overall management of the HP49G project, but you are > telling me in no unclear words that a good part of this mess is in > fact intentional, and by design. > I think it's time for me to filter some messages. It's really a pity that you believe you have The Knowledge, in a domain where you have not proven to have it. adieu ==== > In approx mode, factorization is not done the same way as in > exact mode since multiplicities of roots can not be detected > because gcd of polynomials require exact data. Since factorization > is required as soon as you integrate any rational fraction, > the approx/exact flag has an influence on the antiderivative > research. For sin(x) it would not change the answer, but > as explained before, I can't do a checking for each particular > argument. You seem to be curiously unable to grasp the point I am making, judging from the way you bob and weave around the issue: The above has nothing at all to do with what I was asking for. I was asking you if you could demonstrate how a silent mode switch and restore would lead to a wrong result, or a result that might be interpreted wrongly. Seeing how you are going to great lengths to avoid answering that question, I must assume that you agree that no such problem exists. Yet you refuse to say so. Why is that? Otherwise, as far as the general wisdom of CAS modes is concerned, I maintain that this is a terrible kludge, and I repeat that no professional CAS makes use of this idea, for good reasons. In the case of distingusihing between complex and real variables, what is typically done is to allow the user to declare certain variables as real/complex. Switching to a real mode, or complex mode, that assumes that all variables are real/complex is helpful only in a very restricted set of situations. > So let me show you that complex mode is not restricted to the > fact that the answer has some i inside. Please, spare me. You can believe me that I have _some_ understanding of the requisite mathematics. > Your comparison with the TI CAS is not correct, because > the TI CAS was not really designed to handle complex in a > mathematically satisfactory way. I don't know if that is true. For example, the TIs treat the cases of the integral of 1/x just fine. On the other hand, even in complex mode the TI gives sqrt(z)=|z|. That is an obvious bug, and a serious one at that. TI should fix that, immediately. > I don't have a TI at hand, but my recollection is that the TI CAS does > not compute correctly gcd of polynomials with complex coefficients > (expand something like ((x+2+i)*(x-1+2*i))^2*(x+3+5*i)) and try > to factor it back) That works perfectly fine on my TI. > or that it is not possible to do partial fraction > decomposition over C. I don't really know. I don't usually do CA on calculators, and I don't use TI calculators, except in order to try out your examples in this thread ;-) > Please note that (even adding the fact that the TI89 > does not provide the simplest polynomial arithmetic routine > to the user), I don't consider this as a sign that > the TI CAS is a total mess unsuitable to do any math and it's > the fault of the designers. You may notice that I did not say that the HP CAS is unsuitable to do any math and it's the fault of the designers; you might want to make a habit out of reading more closely other people's arguments. What I am saying is that the designers of the TI CAS quite obviously invested a lot more effort into considering the useability of their system than what was done on HP's side. > Perhaps they decided to do so to have something easier. Most likely, yes (of course, the above square-root bug is something else; that's just plain wrong). > I think it's time for me to filter some messages. [Shrug...] That is your prerogative, of course. -- Helen. ==== > I don't know if that is true. For example, the TIs treat the cases of > the integral of 1/x just fine. On the other hand, even in complex mode > the TI gives sqrt(z)=|z|. That is an obvious bug, and a serious one at > that. TI should fix that, immediately. That is not a bug, as far as I know. The variable should be specified to be complex by appending an underscore. sqrt(z_^2) correctly remains unevaluated. In my opinion, it should have been exactly the opposite: variables should be assumed to be complex unless specified to be real. -- Bhuvanesh ==== >What Mr. Parisse is saying: Option 1 - If solving a problem requires a mode shift, then error out & >say the problem can't be solved in the current mode - rely on the user >to change to mode manually & resolve the problem & then do whatever >he/she wants to then. Option 2 - Offer to change the mode - realizing that the answer will >be in that mode - AND leave the mode as changed - otherwise the >answer may not be valid in the starting mode. For example - complex >vs. real or approx. answer vs. exact answer. I think, instead, that in many cases is a useful thing that the calculator does not reset flags that it has changed to perform an operation. In this way, it's possible to have some problem, for me. For example, I need to create an operation (like SOLVE) that needs complex mode on, while I'm using the real mode, Naturally, the calculator ask for the switching, and then he completes the operation. But, after this, it may cause some problem setting the flag to real mode again: this because probably now I've a complex result, and now I need the complex mode to continue to work... For example, if I find roots of X^2+1=0 when I'm in the real mode, the calculator asks for the switching, and then it gives results, that are -i and i: after this, what's the sense of returning in real mode? If I want to use these values, I must to remain in complex mode. In this case, the changing of the flag is a good thing, for me, because, if the calculator returns to the real mode, I must to switch every time I use these results, and it's annoying. Daniele ==== I have written a game for the 49g+, this is one of my first programs in SysRpl, I know the code could be better but it works fine. www.geocities.com/jorgecevallosm/crash1.1.zip Please read the help file included in the zip. Jorge Cevallos M. ==== > > Just checked out your calculator comparison page. In equations 1-4, I > can confirm the results you got with the HP-49G emulator, but luckily > the real HP-49G that I own gives essentially identical and correct > results like the 49g+. The emulator is clearly screwed up in these > cases! > > > To Mike & Daniel: > Strange that this gratuitous comment has been left unchallenged for so > long. > I'd check the emulator's ROM version (VERSION) and flag settings > (RCLF) if I were you.. > The emulator *runs the same ROM* and will therefore show the exact > same results > under the exact same conditions, period. If it's not the case, then > *you* > have screwed up. Yes, you are right - I screwed up. Apparently I had the emulator in degrees mode and the real 49G in radians - oops. This accounted for the differences in the numerical results of the integrals on Daniel's page. I've been too busy to try all the integrals or plotting examples, but I imagine I will see similar results. Therefore, I retract my statement that the ...emulator is screwed up results. I now have faith in the emulator again. :-) > Werner > he made me save so far. Mike Mander ==== > I like the custom menu feature (which is why > I can't believe that it's shifted on the new > calc) ... Assign it to a primary key, and it'll no longer be shifted. > ... and I'd like to include an entry for the > HP Solver ... display the little tab above the > entry in the menu. Is there any way to get it > to show up? There are lots of ways, some more mysterious than others. Here's a simple one that takes minimal monkey business. Do the following exactly as shown (49G or 49g+ only!!!): SOLVR #2E1EBh SYSEVAL This will create a little folder icon with the word SOLVR in it. Leave it on level 1 of the stack. Now edit your custom menu, delete SOLVR, leave the cursor right there, and press HIST, ECHO, ENTER, ENTER. This replaces the string version of SOLVR with the graphic version, complete with the little tab you wanted. Cool, huh? Hope this helps! -Joe-