HP-3 ==== This is a serious bug in the Operating system which I described in the If assigning a normally shifted key then the corresponding shift-hold key does ignore its standard-function (if any) and runs the same program as the assigned key. The only way out of the dilemma at present is this: when assigning a shifted key and one wants the corresponding shift-hold key to preserve its function (toggling R~/R= in the example of rightshift ENTER) then the only possibility is to reassign the rightshift-hold key with its own standard-function. Somehow strange, isn't it? This means in your example: You have to assign RS-hold ENTER with its own standard function which is just a simple flag toggling, namely :: TakeOver 105 DUP SysITE ClrSysFlag SetSysFlag ; Hope this helps Wolfgang PS. To assign a key with directly using the standard assignment of the ENTER key is dangerous because it contains some unsupported pointers which may move in the next ROM upgrade. There is a simple way out of the problem described in detail in Keyman.htm. Instead of recalling the standard assignment to the stack, simply put the key-number in the stack, i.e. 105.3 in the example. Then the command IfL takes care of the problem: It uses only the *actual* standard assignment, similar to KEYEVAL but IfL is faster. This procedure garantees correct execution in all ROMs. ==== thank's a lot, works perfect. dietmar > This is a serious bug in the Operating system which I described in the > > If assigning a normally shifted key then the corresponding shift-hold > key does ignore its standard-function (if any) and runs the same program > as the assigned key. > > The only way out of the dilemma at present is this: when assigning a > shifted key and one wants the corresponding shift-hold key to preserve > its function (toggling R~/R= in the example of rightshift ENTER) then > the only possibility is to reassign the rightshift-hold key with its own > standard-function. Somehow strange, isn't it? > > This means in your example: You have to assign RS-hold ENTER with its > own standard function which is just a simple flag toggling, namely > :: TakeOver 105 DUP SysITE ClrSysFlag SetSysFlag ; > > Hope this helps > Wolfgang > > PS. To assign a key with directly using the standard assignment of the > ENTER key is dangerous because it contains some unsupported pointers > which may move in the next ROM upgrade. There is a simple way out of the > problem described in detail in Keyman.htm. Instead of recalling the > standard assignment to the stack, simply put the key-number in the > stack, i.e. 105.3 in the example. Then the command IfL takes care of the > problem: It uses only the *actual* standard assignment, similar to > KEYEVAL but IfL is faster. This procedure garantees correct execution in > all ROMs. ==== I purchased an hp49g+ from Singapore, serial No:CN33109123, but the connectivity program Conn4x is not able to locate the calculator. The connect using box identifies the calculator: HP9xg+ once you have plugged it in to the USB port, then you are instructed to press right red button and right arrow on the calculator, and the calculator displays Awaiting Server Cmd. On the computer you get Looking for calculator then an error message of Unable to open communications to HPx9G+ Any help would be appreciated. Andrew Buckwell ==== The key activation time is too long for me, causing entry errors. I seem to recall that it is possible to modify it, but can't find that info now that I need it. ==== > The key activation time is too long for me, causing entry errors. I > seem to recall that it is possible to modify it, but can't find that > info now that I need it. What I'm looking for is an anti-key bounce setting adjustment. ==== > > The key activation time is too long for me, causing entry errors. I > seem to recall that it is possible to modify it, but can't find that > info now that I need it. > What I'm looking for is an anti-key bounce setting adjustment. ******************************************************* > differently. Especially with a faster processor, it might miss > contacts > > With an ARM, keyboard scanning and anti-bouncing is done by hardware. > Long time is gone where you had to scan the keyboard by software to see > which key is pressed > ******************************************************* I have a spcial collectors item for sale: the impossible has happened: key [ 1 ] produces >10% of time 11 How much this is worth? 11911 Euros? NOTE: This must unique calc, since this should NOT happen ==== >I have a spcial collectors item for sale: >the impossible has happened: key [ 1 ] produces >10% of time 11 >How much this is worth? >11911 Euros? >NOTE: This must unique calc, since this should NOT happen > I have one that's even more unique: In addition to the 'one' bug it has a very long keytime on the Y^X-key.... sometimes 1 second...... then it registers...... Arnold S. ==== Im trying to learn Assembly for the HP-48. I read Introduction to Saturn Assembly Language by Gilbert and Rechlin. It is a good introduction but it doesnt go much further. I looked on hpcalc but I couldnt find any English tutorials that went past that. The tutorial explains how to read and write to addresses in memory but how do I allocate space for my own use? Are there any tutrorials on graphics? Ive seen lists of entry points and their names but no explanations. How do I know what parameters they require and where to put them? Basically, whats the best way to continue my Assembly education? ==== > Basically, whats the best way to continue my Assembly education? Most newer tutorials are for the 49, but you'll probably learn a lot from them anyway. Try Pivo's example programs: http://www.hpcalc.org/details.php?id=5007 And of course, search c.s.hp48 for mini challenges done in assembly! MC entries are especially instructive. > Ive seen lists of entry points and their names but no explanations. > How do I know what parameters they require and where to put them? You probably want to have Carsten's entry database handy in one of its forms: http://zon.astro.uva.nl/~dominik/hpcalc/entries/ If the entry you're looking for is not in there, you can try a Google groups search on c.s.hp48 or ask for it in a new thread; if that fails too, you may have to do it the hard way, i.e. disassemble the entry and figure out the arguments from the code... > The tutorial explains how to read and write to addresses in memory > but how do I allocate space for my own use? There are quite a few ways to do it. In the cases where you know how big your object needs to be, it is easier (and shorter) to do the allocation from SysRPL, which entirely avoids any GARBAGE trouble. Something along the lines of :: NULL$ #xxxxx EXPAND CODE A=DAT1 A * Do something; A[A] holds the new object's address ENDCODE ; should work. If you want to just modify an object from the user without changing its length, you can also do :: ( Check the object type ) TOTEMPOB CODE A=DAT1 A * Do something ENDCODE ; If you don't know the size beforehand, it's probably easier to just GARBAGE collect unconditionally before running your code so as to avoid problems. On the 49 you can then use the very nice entries MAKERAM$ and Shrink$ like this: :: GARBAGE CODE GOSBVL =SAVPTR GOSBVL =MAKERAM$ * Do something; keep track of the remaining memory in D[A], and move * the object pointer D0 along GOSBVL =Shrink$ GOVLNG =GPPushR0Lp ENDCODE ; As you probably guessed this is no good in an inner loop. (For a conditional but safe GC look in Pivo's examples mentioned above.) Furthermore MAKERAM$ is not an entry on the 48; you can copy it to your own code from the 49 ROM if you want, it looks like GOSBVL =ROOM C=C-CON A,16 GOC + C=C-CON A,5 GONC ++ + GOVLNG =GPMEMERR ++ RSTK=C GOSBVL =MAKE$N C=RSTK D=C A RTNCC (I'm probably violating 50 nibbles of HP's copyrights here.) There are more possibilities, but this should be enough for a start :D > Are there any tutrorials on graphics? I'm not good at graphics, you may want to wait (hope) for another answer. (Use the entries =D0->Row1 and =D0->Sft1 and write directly to the display GROB for a start.) Hope that helps! - Thomas -- foo and bar, respectively. ==== Anyone have any ideas on how to get a linux kernel booting on the new HP 49G+? It has a 75mhz ARM9 processor, should run some kind of distro. Action Items: 1) Drivers for the SD card to mount the OS from. 1) A boot loader to switch between the different OS's. ian ==== > Anyone have any ideas on how to get a linux kernel booting on the new HP 49G+? > It has a 75mhz ARM9 processor, should run some kind of distro. > > Action Items: > > 1) Drivers for the SD card to mount the OS from. > 1) A boot loader to switch between the different OS's. Why would you want to do such a thing? When I'm using a computer, I want a computer OS. But when I'm using a calculator, I want a calculator OS. I don't see it's free and it can be done as particularly compelling reasons, unless it offers advantages over the provided kernel OS (which I very much doubt). A bientot Paul -- Paul Floyd http://paulf.free.fr (for what it's worth) Surgery: ennobled Gerald. ==== >> Anyone have any ideas on how to get a linux kernel booting on the new HP >> 49G+? It has a 75mhz ARM9 processor, should run some kind of distro. > > I don't see it's free and it can be done as particularly compelling > reasons, unless it offers advantages over the provided kernel OS (which > I very much doubt). If you search your heart, you can probably find something you're passionate about that some people think is stupid. It's O.K. Live and let live. -- John Miller and type what you hear If you float on instinct alone, how can you calculate the buoyancy for the computed load? -Christopher Hodder-Williams ==== > Anyone have any ideas on how to get a linux kernel booting on the new HP 49G+? > It has a 75mhz ARM9 processor, should run some kind of distro. > > Action Items: > > 1) Drivers for the SD card to mount the OS from. > 1) A boot loader to switch between the different OS's. > > Why would you want to do such a thing? When I'm using a computer, I want > a computer OS. But when I'm using a calculator, I want a calculator OS. > > I don't see it's free and it can be done as particularly compelling > reasons, unless it offers advantages over the provided kernel OS (which > I very much doubt). > > A bientot > Paul Why differentiate between Calculator OS and Computer OS. Isn't one the subset of the other? ian ==== > > Anyone have any ideas on how to get a linux kernel booting on the new HP 49G+? > > It has a 75mhz ARM9 processor, should run some kind of distro. > > > > Action Items: > > > > 1) Drivers for the SD card to mount the OS from. > > 1) A boot loader to switch between the different OS's. > > Why would you want to do such a thing? When I'm using a computer, I want > a computer OS. But when I'm using a calculator, I want a calculator OS. > > I don't see it's free and it can be done as particularly compelling > reasons, unless it offers advantages over the provided kernel OS (which > I very much doubt). > > A bientot > Paul > > Why differentiate between Calculator OS and Computer OS. Isn't one the > subset of the other? Yes! ==== > > Why differentiate between Calculator OS and Computer OS. Isn't one the > subset of the other? Perhaps, in the sense that a few bricks are a subset of a house. I wouldn't want to live in a few bricks though. memory. How much memory would the 49+ have? Half a meg? Lets assume that you butchered the kernel, just leaving process control, memory management, I/O, interrupt handling and perhaps a network stack. No filesystem, no disk cache, maybe no module. Let's also assume that you stick to C. Even if you manage to squeeze it in, what's going to be left over? Not a lot. Perhaps it would be an interesting project, but why not try to do it on a platform with more oomph? A bientot Paul -- Paul Floyd http://paulf.free.fr (for what it's worth) Surgery: ennobled Gerald. ==== In Ian Henry Roessle > Anyone have any ideas on how to get a linux kernel booting on the new > HP 49G+? It has a 75mhz ARM9 processor, should run some kind of distro. Having ported linux on several devices I doubt the 512KB of SRAM will be sufficient enought to run linux. Usually a minimum of 4MB is required. ROM code has de be uncompressed before running. ==== I have a doubt about the declaraions of local subroutines in the wonderful Debug4x development system. Surfing throught google past posts I seen that for declaring a generic subroutine to be local in a source file (*.S) I should write: LOCAL MyRoutine LOCALNAME MyRoutine :: ... some code ... ; The automaticaly generated header file for my project haven't now the line: EXTERNAL MyRoutine and I think this is right, because I want MyRoutine to be visible only in its specific module. The project compiles well, but the program don't work on the emulator. When recalling such routine I receive either: - An Interrupted error message - A TTRM - A busy calculator for infinite time. :o) Adding break-points don't help me to understand what's wrong, because it seems the error happens before... I simply would like to call with the same name two routines in two modules (because they do similar work and I can simply see from the module name what are the routines for). Is there a way to do this? Thx to all. Kickaha ==== Is it a library you're compiling, if so its easy... If you want a 'private' procedure use NULLNAME ProcName :: ....code ; If you want it available - ie visible in menu bar and to other programs use xNAME ProcName :: code ......... ; If you're building a single program (to be downloaded as var) then these won't work. In that case I'd also be interested to find a way to declare procedures. Dave > I have a doubt about the declaraions of local subroutines in the wonderful > Debug4x development system. Surfing throught google past posts I seen that > for declaring a generic subroutine to be local in a source file (*.S) I > should write: > LOCAL MyRoutine > LOCALNAME MyRoutine > :: > ... some code ... > ; > > The automaticaly generated header file for my project haven't now the line: > EXTERNAL MyRoutine > and I think this is right, because I want MyRoutine to be visible only in > its specific module. > The project compiles well, but the program don't work on the emulator. When > recalling such routine I receive either: > - An Interrupted error message > - A TTRM > - A busy calculator for infinite time. :o) > > Adding break-points don't help me to understand what's wrong, because it > seems the error happens before... > I simply would like to call with the same name two routines in two modules > (because they do similar work and I can simply see from the module name what > are the routines for). Is there a way to do this? > > Thx to all. > Kickaha > > ==== > Is it a library you're compiling, if so its easy... First thank-you for your time... Yes it's a library I'm compiling, but I think I have not explained well what I'm trying to do. I know about the difference between NULLNAME and x/sNAME words in RPLCOMP to make visible and unvisible entries in libraries. What I was talking about is something that relates with variables scope! I try to re-explain it better. Suppose I have a project in Debug4x. This project is made out by two source files: FIRST.s and SECOND.s In the FIRST.s file I defined the procedures MyRoutine1 and MyRoutine2 In the SECOND.s module I have the procedures MyRoutine1 (AGAIN!) and MyRoutine3. The subroutines MyRoutine1 are actually different in FIRST.s and SECOND.s modules. I choosed to gave them the same name because they handle similar situations. Clearly, to avoid errors, I want that MyRoutine1 defined in FIRST.s could be called only from subroutines in FIRST.s module (MyRoutine2 in the example). And the same should be done with MyRoutine1 defined in SECOND.s, which I want to be visible only from MyRoutine3. I wasn't able to use LOCALNAME and LOCAL words to solve this, because I had the strange errors I reported in my previous post. > If you're building a single program (to be downloaded as var) then these > won't work. > In that case I'd also be interested to find a way to declare procedures. As I've tried to explain above that's not my situation. Anymore, have you thinked that you can hide some variables (see Sysrpl Programming 2nd edition on hpcalc.org or surf trought the past posts on google's groups) and that these variabled can contain programs that you don't want to be visible? Maybe this is interesting fro you. Kickaha ==== Sorry Kickaha it. I can't help at all here cos I've never tried it. All I can suggest is change one of the proc. names - but as that was the reason for the first post I'd better shut up:-) Dave > Is it a library you're compiling, if so its easy... > First thank-you for your time... > > Yes it's a library I'm compiling, but I think I have not explained well what > I'm trying to do. > I know about the difference between NULLNAME and x/sNAME words in RPLCOMP to > make visible and unvisible entries in libraries. > What I was talking about is something that relates with variables scope! > I try to re-explain it better. > Suppose I have a project in Debug4x. This project is made out by two source > files: > FIRST.s and SECOND.s > In the FIRST.s file I defined the procedures MyRoutine1 and MyRoutine2 > In the SECOND.s module I have the procedures MyRoutine1 (AGAIN!) and > MyRoutine3. > The subroutines MyRoutine1 are actually different in FIRST.s and SECOND.s > modules. I choosed to gave them the same name because they handle similar > situations. Clearly, to avoid errors, I want that MyRoutine1 defined in > FIRST.s could be called only from subroutines in FIRST.s module (MyRoutine2 > in the example). And the same should be done with MyRoutine1 defined in > SECOND.s, which I want to be visible only from MyRoutine3. > > I wasn't able to use LOCALNAME and LOCAL words to solve this, because I had > the strange errors I reported in my previous post. > > If you're building a single program (to be downloaded as var) then these > won't work. > In that case I'd also be interested to find a way to declare procedures. > As I've tried to explain above that's not my situation. Anymore, have you > thinked that you can hide some variables (see Sysrpl Programming 2nd edition > on hpcalc.org or surf trought the past posts on google's groups) and that > these variabled can contain programs that you don't want to be visible? > Maybe this is interesting fro you. > > Kickaha > > ==== Dave h ha scritto nel messaggio > Sorry Kickaha > > Read your post too fast. In my defence it was LATE (in Denmark) when I > it. ...(SNIP)... only one that answered my question (which seems to be not of great interest as mosts I do on the ng :oD). Kickaha ==== Twice now my hp49g+ seems to have locked up while I was in the middle of programming. The display just freezes as is. Nothing apart from a paper clip reset seems to make it recover. ON C and ON D do cause a faint shadowy flicker to the right. Has anybody else come across this? Also - only with alkaline batteries in I saw twice in about 2 hours a column of pixels about 1cm wide to the right all light up then vanish again. This has not happened with NiMH batteries. I do have the clock showing. The lockups have only happened in PRG mode - actually both times after doing about 30 minutes of work, unsaved. I'll turn the clock off and see how it goes. Also, I'll save work more often ;-) - Tony ==== > > Twice now my hp49g+ seems to have locked up while I was in the > middle of programming. The display just freezes as is. Nothing > apart from a paper clip reset seems to make it recover. ON C > and ON D do cause a faint shadowy flicker to the right. Has > anybody else come across this? > > Also - only with alkaline batteries in I saw twice in about 2 > hours a column of pixels about 1cm wide to the right all light > up then vanish again. This has not happened with NiMH > batteries. Yes, it happend to me two times, i was working in the stack and the column suddenly apear and vanish.(i have the original panasonics). > I do have the clock showing. The lockups have only happened in > PRG mode - actually both times after doing about 30 minutes > of work, unsaved. I'll turn the clock off and see how it goes. > Also, I'll save work more often ;-) Still no lockup for me. Paul E. ==== -=[ Fri, 3.10.03 10:33 a.m. +1200 (NZT) ]=- in message ID <8f5fc505.0310020558.2ea7e220@posting.google.com> : [...] > Yes, it happend to me two times, i was working in the > stack and the column suddenly apear and vanish.(i have the > original panasonics). That's it exactly. I only saw it with the panasonics in - for a couple of hours while the niMH were being recharged ;-) The sudden on-off nature of the phenomenon made me think it was CPU clock related. But I haven't seen it at all with NiMH in. Strange, as I am using it a lot. Interesting - the alkalines probably do supply current at a higher voltage than the NiMH. It only happened 2 times here too. Maybe it only happens twice then ;-) > Still no lockup for me. Great! It hasn't happened here again either. I now have the clock off. Also I still use the supplied ROM - must download the latest. -- Tony Hutchins Wellington New Zealand #68 Apathy Error: Don't Bother Striking Any Key. ==== Does anybody know if one is available on the net somewhere? TIA ==== (I designed one of the first floppy controllers, long before there were one-chip solutions, and needed to verify my CRC circuitry). - Dennis Brothers > Does anybody know if one is available on the net somewhere? TIA > ==== my belt in order to move forward with the rest of my Modbus project. something that works now, with the help of a lot of internet research, some helpful step by step examples, and my trusty HP reference manuals. At least, I can come up with the same CRC results as the examples I found! No guarantee on it being 100% just yet, though. I'll gain confidence on that when it communicates reliably with my RTU's. -Dale- > >(I designed one of the first floppy controllers, long before there were >one-chip solutions, and needed to verify my CRC circuitry). > > - Dennis Brothers > >> Does anybody know if one is available on the net somewhere? TIA >> > ==== I have just bought a used 48G+ (to learn from and play with until I can get a 49G+), but it didn't come with a manual. Is it possible to download the manual somewhere? I have found a scanned version on http://www.hpcalc.org/details.php?id=3937 but would prefer a real pdf if available. -- /Jesper ==== I think this manual available at HPCALC.org is the only one available, and it is huge due of the pages be scaned. The size of this manual, about 12 MB, make hard any other site to store it. For example, my site Area48.com is about 8.6 MB, including stuff about HP48 and HP49. Manual hosted in HPCALC.org is an artisan work made by a person at spenses of hours and hours scanning more than 600 pages. As far I know there is not an oficial HP48 manual for download. Use and study this one you have downloaded. We have no other choice. CMarangon > get a 49G+), but it didn't come with a manual. Is it possible to > download the manual somewhere? I have found a scanned version on > http://www.hpcalc.org/details.php?id=3937 but would prefer a real pdf > if available. ==== Not quite calculator related this time - so if it doesn't interest you, please ignore, and apologies in advance if I have ruffled any feathers ... Recently I was confronted with the following matrix challenge problem (all suggestions welcome): Given the 2x2 matrix: M= [[a b][c d]] and the following product of 2x2 matrices: N= [[Rx 0][0 Ry]] * [[cosA -sinA][sinA cosA]] * [[1 0][Sx 1]] * [[1 Sy][0 1]] then, if: M= N, ... determine { Rx, Ry, A, Sx, Sy } assuming { a, b, c, d } are known. Manfred. PS. The reader might readily note that: Ry= (ad-bc)/Rx PPS. I'm off for the next couple of weeks, so I won't be connected to this NG until then, but I hope the above exposition of the problem is altogether clear. ==== Confronted by whom, your maths teacher? Dave > > Not quite calculator related this time - so if it doesn't interest > you, please ignore, and apologies in advance if I have ruffled any > feathers ... > > Recently I was confronted with the following matrix challenge problem > (all suggestions welcome): > > > Given the 2x2 matrix: > > M= [[a b][c d]] > > and the following product of 2x2 matrices: > > N= [[Rx 0][0 Ry]] * [[cosA -sinA][sinA cosA]] * [[1 0][Sx 1]] * [[1 > Sy][0 1]] > > > then, if: M= N, > > ... determine { Rx, Ry, A, Sx, Sy } assuming { a, b, c, d } are > known. > > > > Manfred. > > > PS. The reader might readily note that: Ry= (ad-bc)/Rx > > PPS. I'm off for the next couple of weeks, so I won't be connected to > this NG until then, but I hope the above exposition of the problem is > altogether clear. ==== Manfred, first of all it would appear that this problem has no unique solution. The requirement M=N only gives 4 equations with 2x2 matrices, and you have 5 unknowns! Secondly the problem appears at first sight to be connected to the Singular Value Decomposition which certainly the 48G has as a matrix function. In the case of a 2x2 matrix, SVD reduces M to a product in the form [[cosA -sinA][sinA cosA]] * [[SV1 0][0 SV2]] * [[cosB -sinB][sinB cosB]] note that this has only 4 unknowns A, B, SV1 and SV2 For a geometric interpretation M * [[cos(theta)] [sin(theta)]] is, in general, an ellipse. SV1 and SV2 are the lengths of the semi axes and A is the angle between the major axis and horizontal. B determines the position on the ellipse of the point theta = 0. Hope this helps you! David Loomes > > Not quite calculator related this time - so if it doesn't interest > you, please ignore, and apologies in advance if I have ruffled any > feathers ... > > Recently I was confronted with the following matrix challenge problem > (all suggestions welcome): > > > Given the 2x2 matrix: > > M= [[a b][c d]] > > and the following product of 2x2 matrices: > > N= [[Rx 0][0 Ry]] * [[cosA -sinA][sinA cosA]] * [[1 0][Sx 1]] * [[1 > Sy][0 1]] > > > then, if: M= N, > > ... determine { Rx, Ry, A, Sx, Sy } assuming { a, b, c, d } are > known. > > > > Manfred. > > > PS. The reader might readily note that: Ry= (ad-bc)/Rx > > PPS. I'm off for the next couple of weeks, so I won't be connected to > this NG until then, but I hope the above exposition of the problem is > altogether clear. ==== I'm looking for an easier way to start entering number in the next row. Can't explain this by words, so i try with an example: I want to write a matrix like this: | 1 2 3 | | 4 5 6 | So I enter the matrix writer and starts typing: [1] [ENTER] [2] [ENTER] [3] [ENTER] [ARROW DOWN] [RIGHT SHIFT] [ARROW LEFT] Continues typing 4 5 and 6 [ENTER] [ENTER]. Question: Is there an simpler way to jump from cell containing 3 to cell containing 4 ? Another question: When entering a matrix like: | 1 | Is there a method to type this, takes less efford than using | 2 | matrix writer? I know i can type it like [[1] [2] [3]], but it's so clumsy. | 3 | I have the newest patch, 19-6. ==== <-- Snip everything --> One question left that i forgot: Is it any way to make the hp49g showing numbers like 123 456 789 instead of 123456789 ? ==== [[1 2 3 Enter TRN ? > >Another question: > When entering a matrix like: >| 1 | Is there a method to type this, takes less efford than using >| 2 | matrix writer? I know i can type it like [[1] [2] [3]], but it's so >clumsy. >| 3 | > >I have the newest patch, 19-6. > Pete M. Wilson Gamewood, Inc. wilsonpm@gamewood.net ==== [MODE] Number Format CHOOSe Fix & desired number of decimals, say 2 123456789. will show as 123,456,789.00 > <-- Snip everything --> > > One question left that i forgot: > > Is it any way to make the hp49g showing numbers like > 123 456 789 instead of 123456789 ? > > ==== Well, I usually find that entering matrices in the command line is a little faster than in the Equation Writer. For example, entering your matrix will go like: [[1 space 2 space 3 right-arrow 4 space 5 space 6 Enter This will produce the 2 x 3 matrix you wanted. The right-arrow after the third element in the first row will move the cursor out of the first row, after which the number of columns in the matrix will be determined and you won't need to key in additional ] delimiters. Hope this helps. J. Lopez > I'm looking for an easier way to start entering number in the next row. > Can't explain this by words, so i try with an example: > > I want to write a matrix like this: > | 1 2 3 | > | 4 5 6 | > > So I enter the matrix writer and starts typing: > [1] [ENTER] [2] [ENTER] [3] [ENTER] > [ARROW DOWN] [RIGHT SHIFT] [ARROW LEFT] > Continues typing 4 5 and 6 [ENTER] [ENTER]. > Question: Is there an simpler way to jump from cell containing 3 to cell > containing 4 ? > > Another question: > When entering a matrix like: > | 1 | Is there a method to type this, takes less efford than using > | 2 | matrix writer? I know i can type it like [[1] [2] [3]], but it's so > clumsy. > | 3 | > > I have the newest patch, 19-6. > > ==== > So I enter the matrix writer and starts typing: > [1] [ENTER] [2] [ENTER] [3] [ENTER] I think you might be able to skip the last [ENTER]. Well, at least with EQW on the TI-68k, you can. > Another question: > When entering a matrix like: > | 1 | Is there a method to type this, takes less efford than using > | 2 | matrix writer? I know i can type it like [[1] [2] [3]], but it's so > clumsy. > | 3 | [1;2;3] on the TI-68k. -- Bhuvanesh ==== J.Lopez skrev i melding > Well, I usually find that entering matrices in the command line is a > little faster than in the Equation Writer. For example, entering your > matrix will go like: > [[1 space 2 space 3 right-arrow 4 space 5 space 6 Enter > This will produce the 2 x 3 matrix you wanted. The right-arrow after > the third element in the first row will move the cursor out of the first > row, after which the number of columns in the matrix will be determined > and you won't need to key in additional ] delimiters. > > Hope this helps. > > J. Lopez Ok. And further, i found out that entering a matrix like: |1 2| You can type: |3 4| [[1 2] [3 4] 5 6] |5 6| Can skip the last row. Yea, it's a little more easy to skip the last pairs of []. But this won't work: [[1 2] 3 4 5 6] ==== Veli-Pekka Nousiainen skrev i melding > [MODE] Number Format CHOOSe Fix & desired number of decimals, say 2 > 123456789. will show as 123,456,789.00 > <-- Snip everything --> > > One question left that i forgot: > > Is it any way to make the hp49g showing numbers like > 123 456 789 instead of 123456789 ? > wathever value i choose. Is there any posibility to get the HP shows all the figures after comma if there is many, and shows no .00 if the number is an integer ? ==== > But this won't work: > [[1 2] 3 4 5 6] I don't have my calc to hand, but I do remember this trick: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1050661f.0210110555.50cce544%40posting. google.com -- ==== Pete M. Wilson skrev i melding > [[1 2 3 Enter TRN > ? > > >Another question: > When entering a matrix like: >| 1 | Is there a method to type this, takes less efford than using >| 2 | matrix writer? I know i can type it like [[1] [2] [3]], but it's so >clumsy. >| 3 | > >I have the newest patch, 19-6. > > > > Pete M. Wilson > Gamewood, Inc. > wilsonpm@gamewood.net ==== on my 49G ROM Ver. 1.19-5 the key sequence: [[1 2] 3 4 5 6] works. Martin > > J.Lopez skrev i melding > Well, I usually find that entering matrices in the command line is a > little faster than in the Equation Writer. For example, entering your > matrix will go like: > [[1 space 2 space 3 right-arrow 4 space 5 space 6 Enter > This will produce the 2 x 3 matrix you wanted. The right-arrow after > the third element in the first row will move the cursor out of the first > row, after which the number of columns in the matrix will be determined > and you won't need to key in additional ] delimiters. > > Hope this helps. > > J. Lopez > > Ok. And further, i found out that entering a matrix like: > |1 2| You can type: > |3 4| [[1 2] [3 4] 5 6] > |5 6| Can skip the last row. > Yea, it's a little more easy to skip the last pairs of []. > > > But this won't work: > [[1 2] 3 4 5 6] > > ==== > J.Lopez skrev i melding > Well, I usually find that entering matrices in the command line is a > little faster than in the Equation Writer. For example, entering your > matrix will go like: > [[1 space 2 space 3 right-arrow 4 space 5 space 6 Enter > This will produce the 2 x 3 matrix you wanted. The right-arrow after > the third element in the first row will move the cursor out of the first > row, after which the number of columns in the matrix will be determined > and you won't need to key in additional ] delimiters. > > Hope this helps. > > J. Lopez > > Ok. And further, i found out that entering a matrix like: > |1 2| You can type: > |3 4| [[1 2] [3 4] 5 6] > |5 6| Can skip the last row. > Yea, it's a little more easy to skip the last pairs of []. > > > But this won't work: > [[1 2] 3 4 5 6] Hmmmm. I don't have my 49 with me right now, but I think it should work. Maybe you've gotta leave the last ] delimiter out? I mean, like [[1 2] 3 4 5 6 Enter Doesn't this work? J. Lopez ==== > Ok. And further, i found out that entering a matrix like: > |1 2| You can type: > |3 4| [[1 2] [3 4] 5 6] > |5 6| Can skip the last row. > Yea, it's a little more easy to skip the last pairs of []. > But this won't work: > [[1 2] 3 4 5 6] However, I don't see what's so bad about using the Matrix Editor. Once you've entered the first row and positioned the cursor correctly on the second row, you can enter all the rest of the numbers separated by ENTER or in groups separated with spaces and an occasional ENTER, and they all end up in the right places. For instance: 1 2 ENTER DOWN RS LEFT 3 ENTER 4 ENTER 5 6 ENTER 7 8 9 ENTER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ENTER produces: | 1 2| | 3 4| | 5 6| | 7 8| | 9 10| |11 12| |13 14| |15 16| I like the flexibility of being able to enter the numbers separately or in arbitrary groups, without looking at the screen, and knowing they will end up in the correct spots in the matrix. -- Wayne Brown | When your tail's in a crack, you improvise fwbrown@bellsouth.net | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give | your pelt to the trapper. e^(i*pi) = -1 -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, Silverlock ==== > J.Lopez skrev i melding > > Well, I usually find that entering matrices in the command line is a > > little faster than in the Equation Writer. For example, entering your > > matrix will go like: > > [[1 space 2 space 3 right-arrow 4 space 5 space 6 Enter > > This will produce the 2 x 3 matrix you wanted. The right-arrow after > > the third element in the first row will move the cursor out of the first > > row, after which the number of columns in the matrix will be determined > > and you won't need to key in additional ] delimiters. > > > > Hope this helps. > > > > J. Lopez > > Ok. And further, i found out that entering a matrix like: > |1 2| You can type: > |3 4| [[1 2] [3 4] 5 6] > |5 6| Can skip the last row. > Yea, it's a little more easy to skip the last pairs of []. > > > But this won't work: > [[1 2] 3 4 5 6] > > Hmmmm. I don't have my 49 with me right now, but I think it should > work. Maybe you've gotta leave the last ] delimiter out? I mean, > like > > [[1 2] 3 4 5 6 Enter > > Doesn't this work? > > > J. Lopez Was watching and couldn't help but to answer ... yes, it works on my old 48gx (which is the one I have in hand). You can write [[5 6] 7 8 9 0 and it will go correctly as a n by 2 matrix ==== Wayne Brown skrev i melding <-- Snips --> > 1 2 ENTER > DOWN > RS LEFT > 3 ENTER > 4 ENTER > 5 6 ENTER > 7 8 9 ENTER > 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ENTER > > produces: > > | 1 2| > | 3 4| > | 5 6| > | 7 8| > | 9 10| > |11 12| > |13 14| > |15 16| > But why isn't there as simply as in MS excel, You can write like this: [1] [Tab] [2] [Enter] [3] [Tab] [4] [Enter] [5] [Tab] [6] [Enter] [7] [Tab] [8] [Enter] ....... Where you have one button to jump to the next cell, and another (enter) to jump to the first cell on the row below? I simply don't like to push the arrow-buttons so many times, specially when it's only small matrices i would write. A simplier way than yours, that means i wanna skip the Down + RS_Left. <-- more snipps --> ==== Now i had changed some flags (unfornately i can't remember exactly what flags), but now it seems to work also for me. Don't know why it didn't work at the first time. Geir Klemetsen skrev i melding > I'm looking for an easier way to start entering number in the next row. > Can't explain this by words, so i try with an example: > > I want to write a matrix like this: > | 1 2 3 | > | 4 5 6 | > > So I enter the matrix writer and starts typing: > [1] [ENTER] [2] [ENTER] [3] [ENTER] > [ARROW DOWN] [RIGHT SHIFT] [ARROW LEFT] > Continues typing 4 5 and 6 [ENTER] [ENTER]. > Question: Is there an simpler way to jump from cell containing 3 to cell > containing 4 ? > > Another question: > When entering a matrix like: > | 1 | Is there a method to type this, takes less efford than using > | 2 | matrix writer? I know i can type it like [[1] [2] [3]], but it's so > clumsy. > | 3 | > > I have the newest patch, 19-6. ==== > But why isn't there as simply as in MS excel, You can write like this: > [1] [Tab] [2] [Enter] [3] [Tab] [4] [Enter] [5] [Tab] [6] [Enter] [7] [Tab] > [8] [Enter] ....... > Where you have one button to jump to the next cell, and another (enter) to > jump to the first cell on the row below? I simply don't like to push the > arrow-buttons so many times, specially when it's only small matrices i would > write. A simplier way than yours, that means i wanna skip the Down + > RS_Left. Well, I never use Excel unless I absolutely can't avoid it, so I don't know the keyboard shortcuts; I just use the arrow keys or the mouse to go to whatever cell I need. In the Matrix Editor, you only have to do the Down + RS_Left *once* and then it automatically skips to the first column for every row after that. It would bother me if I had to do it for *every* row, but once per matrix doesn't bother me at all. Actually, I only used RS_Left in my example because you mentioned it in yours; in my own use of the editor I would do Down Left Left Left Left ... etc. however many times needed to get to the first column. I guess everyone has their own favorite ways of doing things. -- Wayne Brown | When your tail's in a crack, you improvise fwbrown@bellsouth.net | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give | your pelt to the trapper. e^(i*pi) = -1 -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, Silverlock ==== You don't even need the 'RS Left arrow'. For a 3 x 3 matrix for example simple press: 1 ENTER 2 ENTER 3 ENTER down arrow 4 ENTER 5 ENTER 6 ENTER 7 ENTER 8 ENTER 9 ENTER ENTER and that's it. The last ENTER places the matrix on the stack. rdb. In the Matrix Editor, you only have > to do the Down + RS_Left *once* and then it automatically skips to the ==== > You don't even need the 'RS Left arrow'. For a 3 x 3 matrix for > example simple press: > 1 ENTER 2 ENTER 3 ENTER down arrow 4 ENTER 5 ENTER 6 ENTER 7 ENTER 8 > ENTER 9 ENTER ENTER and that's it. The last ENTER places the matrix on > the stack. down arrow in your example leaves you in the 4th cell of the 2nd row. (MK changes the way the down arrow key works in the Matrix Editor.) same way. -- Wayne Brown | When your tail's in a crack, you improvise fwbrown@bellsouth.net | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give | your pelt to the trapper. e^(i*pi) = -1 -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, Silverlock ==== r. d. b?rtschiger. skrev i melding > You don't even need the 'RS Left arrow'. For a 3 x 3 matrix for > example simple press: > > 1 ENTER 2 ENTER 3 ENTER down arrow 4 ENTER 5 ENTER 6 ENTER 7 ENTER 8 > ENTER 9 ENTER ENTER and that's it. The last ENTER places the matrix on > the stack. > > rdb. Completely disagree here. If i follow yours example i would get a matrix like: | 1 2 3 0 | | 0 0 0 4 | | 5 6 7 8 | | 9 0 0 0 | > In the Matrix Editor, you only have > to do the Down + RS_Left *once* and then it automatically skips to the ==== You are correct. I didn't realize that the procedure had been changed rdb. ==== Can the new Hp 49g+ support any size of secure digital card? 64mb, 128mb, 512mb? or there is any limitation in memory card size supported by the calc. -------------- ÀÎÅÍ.b3[CapitalYAc ute] Ä«¸®.bdº¸[P aragraph] KORNET ------------- ==== 2GB > Can the new Hp 49g+ support any size of secure digital card? 64mb, 128mb, 512mb? or there is any limitation in memory card size supported by the calc. > > > > -------------- Ëë.81êÒ[NonBreakingSpac e] ÄÇü¨¸.bcü.a6 KORNET ------------- > ==== 2 GB, but the FAT16 file system only supports 64K clusters. This means that the minimum file size on such a card will be 32K. You will probably run out of clusters long before you actually fill the SD card with data. You will probably be able to store more on 2 256 MB cards than 1 2 GB card. ==== In Veli-Pekka Nousiainen > 2GB Have you actually *tried* using a 2GB SD card in the HP49G+ before posting this? or as usual you're just posting for the sake of it? ==== > In Veli-Pekka Nousiainen > 2GB > > Have you actually *tried* using a 2GB SD card in the HP49G+ before > posting this? or as usual you're just posting for the sake of it? > That is the FAT16 limit in DOS and in DOS I have tried that to the Max, which is 2GB - theoretically and practically. This I have noticed is the Compact Flash Card limit. FAT32 will get us to the 128GB (or is it 134GB in decimal) That is used in the new 4GB Compact Flash cards. AND NO, I have not tested the HP 49G+ with a 2GB and bigger SD as they do not exist (the SD cards) yet. and that it may not apply to the 49G+ as is (limit is lower?) Theoretical maximum limit of FAT16 is still 2GB. Veli-Pekka Nousiainen ==== It is a common misconception that the FAT16 file system tops out at 2GB. Its limit is actually 4GB, but for legacy compatibility reasons caused by signed 32 bit numbers, Microsoft dissallowed the creation of >2GB partitions with the fdisk.exe tool of DOS and Win9x. Other tools, such as the disk manager of NT based OSes can create the larger 4GB partitions. FAT32 does not top out at 128GB. It supports volumes up to 2 terrabytes. Any premature limitations people have are caused by other factors, such as an outdated BIOS. Howard Henry Schlunder > That is the FAT16 limit in DOS and in DOS I have tried that > to the Max, which is 2GB - theoretically and practically. > This I have noticed is the Compact Flash Card limit. > FAT32 will get us to the 128GB (or is it 134GB in decimal) > That is used in the new 4GB Compact Flash cards. > AND > NO, I have not tested the HP 49G+ with a 2GB and bigger SD > as they do not exist (the SD cards) yet. > > and that it may not apply to the 49G+ as is (limit is lower?) > Theoretical maximum limit of FAT16 is still 2GB. > Veli-Pekka Nousiainen ==== > It is a common misconception that the FAT16 file system tops out at 2GB. > Its limit is actually 4GB, but for legacy compatibility reasons caused by > signed 32 bit numbers, Microsoft dissallowed the creation of >2GB partitions > with the fdisk.exe tool of DOS and Win9x. Other tools, such as the disk > manager of NT based OSes can create the larger 4GB partitions. I know, but then it is not totally compatible anymore. NT supports 64K cluster size on FAT16, but everything is else is just 2GB/32K clusters, so... > FAT32 does not top out at 128GB. It supports volumes up to 2 terrabytes. > Any premature limitations people have are caused by other factors, such as > an outdated BIOS. Right, but... You have to go to 48-bit addressing mode in order to exceed the 128GB limit. That is not standard FAT32 and thus not totally compatible, but since it takes years for the Flash to go that high (2010?) then maybe everything with old bios is dead and gone anyway. Today, if you want total co-operation, you stick with 128GB (and 2GB) You could always use more HD's in a RAID or more SD cards (which have not yet reached any limit) AND The Filer in the + has been (ROM 1.20-.22) real slow on Port 3. I wish the Type ID could be switched off (default) to on by the user so that standard display on a huge card could go faaaast. Maybe even a semi-auto mode, where you first get the files and then an interruptiple - by user keying in stuff - (and automatically go on where it left when kb is idle again) back-ground process would finally bring up the file types. You get both the speed and types identified !!! PS: The connection software is much faster on showing the RAM, but no Ports available...or am I mistaken?! ==== Actually, you can have hard drive of any size in fat16. the 2GB limit under dos is because in a 16bit OS, with memory region limited to 64KB, the maximum sector size is 64KB, but for historical reasons, and because there is some extra data that need to be transmited, it has been limited in DOS to 32KB. and as you can have 65536 sectors, this gives you a max managable partition size of 2GB. now, FAT file format does NOT force you to limit your sector size to 32KB, and windows NT (3.51 and 4 at least) will happily format partitions of ANY size in FAT 16 (I use to have a 8GB drive in FAT). > In Veli-Pekka Nousiainen > > 2GB > > Have you actually *tried* using a 2GB SD card in the HP49G+ before > posting this? or as usual you're just posting for the sake of it? > > That is the FAT16 limit in DOS and in DOS I have tried that > to the Max, which is 2GB - theoretically and practically. > This I have noticed is the Compact Flash Card limit. > FAT32 will get us to the 128GB (or is it 134GB in decimal) > That is used in the new 4GB Compact Flash cards. > AND > NO, I have not tested the HP 49G+ with a 2GB and bigger SD > as they do not exist (the SD cards) yet. > > and that it may not apply to the 49G+ as is (limit is lower?) > Theoretical maximum limit of FAT16 is still 2GB. > Veli-Pekka Nousiainen > > ==== > > Actually, you can have hard drive of any size in fat16. > > the 2GB limit under dos is because in a 16bit OS, with memory region limited > to 64KB, the maximum sector size is 64KB, but for historical reasons, and > because there is some extra data that need to be transmited, it has been > limited in DOS to 32KB. and as you can have 65536 sectors, this gives you a > max managable partition size of 2GB. > now, FAT file format does NOT force you to limit your sector size to 32KB, > and windows NT (3.51 and 4 at least) will happily format partitions of ANY > size in FAT 16 (I use to have a 8GB drive in FAT). > Is it safe for me to format my DOS drive to use 64KB sectors and go 4GB. I would very much like to do this (for backup on Win98/DOS purposes) AND Can I do the same with a CF 4GB card? (Backing up the DOS 4GB HD partition) ==== > > Actually, you can have hard drive of any size in fat16. > > the 2GB limit under dos is because in a 16bit OS, with memory region > limited > to 64KB, the maximum sector size is 64KB, but for historical reasons, and > because there is some extra data that need to be transmited, it has been > limited in DOS to 32KB. and as you can have 65536 sectors, this gives you > a > max managable partition size of 2GB. > now, FAT file format does NOT force you to limit your sector size to 32KB, > and windows NT (3.51 and 4 at least) will happily format partitions of ANY > size in FAT 16 (I use to have a 8GB drive in FAT). > > Is it safe for me to format my DOS drive to use 64KB sectors and go 4GB. > I would very much like to do this (for backup on Win98/DOS purposes) > AND > Can I do the same with a CF 4GB card? (Backing up the DOS 4GB HD partition) OK - this time I *did* test the 4GB/64K on my PC It works OK from another boot HD, BUT I had to use that another HD to bring my PC back to life since it refused to boot from a DOS partition of 4GB/64K So much for the compatibility. I stick to 2GB/32K for a while and let others to fool around. Now I know why JYA/Cyrille wants me to test before posting here: they want me to taste all the bitterness of testing... (-; Well, maybe not. Perhaps I should always test. PS: I lost a good part of a working day with this adventure... PPS: You better stick to max 2GB also... ************************************************ PPPS: Maybe later on we will have FAT32 It would be really nice to have long name support right now! ************************************************ ==== > > Veli-Pekka Nousiainen skrev i melding > [MODE] Number Format CHOOSe Fix & desired number of decimals, say 2 > 123456789. will show as 123,456,789.00 > > <-- Snip everything --> > > > > One question left that i forgot: > > > > Is it any way to make the hp49g showing numbers like > > 123 456 789 instead of 123456789 ? > > > > wathever value i choose. Is there any posibility to get the HP shows all the > figures after comma if there is many, and shows no .00 if the number is an > integer ? Yes, at least with Vectored Enter. You could check the decimals being zero and supress them. ************ Mini Challange! - Three separate classes: A) pure UserRPL B) SysRPL (+ A) C) ML [+ B] (+ A) Write the fastest routine to suppress trailing zeroes. You may use Vectored Enter, FIX, manipulate the flags via CF/SF/STOF OR even hack the memory (B|C). Using SYSEVAL, LIBEVAL, FLASHEVAL or similar methods/tools in Class A) UserRPL - is forbitten! ==== > Dear all. > > For the past few weeks I've received several inquiries for why my web site > was not accessible anymore. > > Well believe it or not my university closed my account due to copyright > infringements after they received a request from HP to close my web site > (they didn't like that I used their logo and distribute the 1.19-5 ROM). Nice to see HP has lawyers working on calculators but no engineers. That pretty much sums up the piss poor state of HP these days. So sad; it was such a great company. ==== >>Well believe it or not my university closed my account due to copyright >>infringements after they received a request from HP to close my web site > > Nice to see HP has lawyers working on calculators but no > engineers. That pretty much sums up the piss poor state of HP these days. > So sad; it was such a great company. That's the case with nearly ALL US companies; HP is just a pioneer in that regard. See, the spirit of innovation still lives at HP. ==== > >> Dear all. >> >> For the past few weeks I've received several inquiries for why my web site >> was not accessible anymore. >> >> Well believe it or not my university closed my account due to copyright >> infringements after they received a request from HP to close my web site >> (they didn't like that I used their logo and distribute the 1.19-5 ROM). > >Nice to see HP has lawyers working on calculators but no >engineers. That pretty much sums up the piss poor state of HP these days. >So sad; it was such a great company. Well that shows what a bunch of A**holes are running HP now,but of course we all knew that anyway. (As quoted by Marty McFly in BTTFP3) I guess one could say more A**holey than ever. Harold A. Climer Dept.Of Physics, Geology, and Astronomy U.T Chattanooga Chattanooga TN USA ==== > >> >>> Dear all. >>> >>> For the past few weeks I've received several inquiries for why my web site >>> was not accessible anymore. >>> >>> Well believe it or not my university closed my account due to copyright >>> infringements after they received a request from HP to close my web site >>> (they didn't like that I used their logo and distribute the 1.19-5 ROM). >> >>Nice to see HP has lawyers working on calculators but no >>engineers. That pretty much sums up the piss poor state of HP these days. >>So sad; it was such a great company. >Well that shows what a bunch of A**holes are running HP now,but of >course we all knew that anyway. (As quoted by Marty McFly in BTTFP3) >I guess one could say more A**holey than ever. > >Harold A. Climer >Dept.Of Physics, Geology, and Astronomy >U.T Chattanooga >Chattanooga TN USA I hope they do not try to shut down Eric's site. Harold A. Climer Dept.Of Physics, Geology, and Astronomy U.T Chattanooga Chattanooga TN USA ==== Avenard was. I suppose they are uneasy about what he has experienced and what he can come up with in the future. Still, too bad. They've got to realize that like fan mods to cult or stagnant PC games, sites like Mr. Avenard's and others ADD VALUE TO their past products, and burnish their reputations, thus supporting future products. There is a somewhat niche space PC game, called Starfleet Command and while I think it was well implemented and still quite fun to play, the average gamer seems to have an attention span of the time it would take an electron to smash into the nucleus in the Bohr atom. They grew bored but due to fan mods and improvements, they appear to be still hooked on it. It has also produced some brand loyal fans, just as most of us here are concerning HP calculators. My first intro to anything HP were their research equipment, even basic power supplies and oscilloscopes. They were rock solid, took a beating, and always did the job (well). Well, that did it for me. I hope their newer stuff won't shake me of such loyalty. > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>>Dear all. >>>> >>>>For the past few weeks I've received several inquiries for why my web site >>>>was not accessible anymore. >>>> >>>>Well believe it or not my university closed my account due to copyright >>>>infringements after they received a request from HP to close my web site >>>>(they didn't like that I used their logo and distribute the 1.19-5 ROM). >>>> >>>Nice to see HP has lawyers working on calculators but no >>>engineers. That pretty much sums up the piss poor state of HP these days. >>>So sad; it was such a great company. >>> >>Well that shows what a bunch of A**holes are running HP now,but of >>course we all knew that anyway. (As quoted by Marty McFly in BTTFP3) >>I guess one could say more A**holey than ever. >> >>Harold A. Climer >>Dept.Of Physics, Geology, and Astronomy >>U.T Chattanooga >>Chattanooga TN USA >> > I hope they do not try to shut down Eric's site. > Harold A. Climer > Dept.Of Physics, Geology, and Astronomy > U.T Chattanooga > Chattanooga TN USA > ==== As requested by Raymond Hellstern in a former discussion, I converted my web Navigator for the HP48 (G series). I hope more people will be able to test it, either with an HP connected to a phone modem, or to a PC which assumes the connection to Internet... Please go to : http://www.hp-sources.com/navigator/english.html for more information and download. Yoann. ==== I might add that anyone owning an HP48 or 49 can try Navigator, since that program can display any HTML file. Any comments, especially for the 48 version ? Yoann. ==== By the way, could anyone try the HP49G version of Navigator ( http://www.hp-sources.com/navigator/navigator0.07.zip ) on a HP49G+ ? I'd be glad to know if it works. Yoann. ==== Note: Due to content, this note was also posted to HP Museum Forum. * * * After writing a lengthy note to the good folks at NCEES re: their recently announced policy, I was invited to spend an hour or so discussing the matter with one of the NCEES staff. I'll summarize the discussion, along with why I'm beginning to reevaluate HP's marketing choices. This discussion is applicable to an HP list - cut to the chase if you want the executive summary. 1. The NCEES policy is evolutionary (more on this later), and based on three factors: a. The observed ease of removing question numbers and possibly correct answers from Eastern time zone test sites to benefit HI and AK examinees (opinion: not very valid in my opinion - care to guess the number of examinees in either state? Just shifting the exam start time can address the issue) b. The ease of modifying almost any calc for either longer range IR or RF communications (opinion: this is substantive - there are way too many talented engineers with time on their hands these days...) c. The perception on the part of some at the NCEES that current engineering grads are more skilled at data entry than in understanding and applying basic engineering principles, and cannot reliably do the calculations necessary without Matrix Editors, Solvers, Equation Libraries, or other automation (opinion: NCEES has to convince a few hundred thousand educators that going back to pen, paper, and basic calc/slide rule is the way to go here - like it or not, no one does FEA or 40 x 40 matrices by hand these days, and few engineers open a table of integrals when MathCad or similar is available...). 2. Long range IR link mods were said to be available for the HP-48, and in at least one other exam setting (not NCEES-administered), RF-capable TI calcs were observed, allowing communications between rooms. 3. NCEES proctors have observed one or more examinees using a set of calcs to record answers for removal from the test setting (e.g., '1D2A3B4A'). 4. Computer based testing is not an option under serious consideration, given the security concerns and limitations on just how many variants of the FE and PE exam can be produced that are identical for grading purposes (see PPI's FE/PE FAQ for why this is so). The NCEES rep confirmed what I have suggested in previous notes - video technology and RF links have resulted in at least one licensing activity moving to administer all exams simultaneously (e.g. 2 PM start in NY, 11 AM start in LA, and 6 AM start in Honolulu). 5. Re: video/digital still cameras, NCEES stated that other testing agencies have banned watches, jewelry, head wear/scarves, etc. from test sites (I assume it's in the works for NCEES as well). Now for my take on things: The direction that the NCEES is going is toward a nothing-in/nothing-out exam site - nothing else will prevent removal of question numbers and assumed correct responses. In other words, the NCEES would publish a list of calcs available at the exam site, and it would be the responsibility of the examinee to become familiar with the operation of those models. My assessment is that the NCEES will settle on one non-graphing, scientific calc which can operate in either algebraic or RPN logic modes, thus, ensuring that examinees do the lion's share of number crunching - this will become the provided calc (brush up on doing matrix operations and SLEQ by hand, or practice speed programming). Given that only HP currently offers a calculator with both RPN and algebraic modes, as well as full support for the math functions that NCEES judges necessary for the FE and PE exams, I think chances are good that TI will have to respond with a serious algebraic/RPN scientific calc similar to the HP-33S or risk seeing the engineering market firmly back in HP's court. Although it will take TI a little time to respond, I can easily see a 2006 exam year where no calcs are taken into or from the site. Sort of makes you think that HP had a game plan all along for the new dual mode calcs, despite the knuckleheads responsible for the 33S case and keyboard design. FYI - NCEES was told that HP would have the 33S out by Dec, hence it's inclusion in the list of authorized calcs. Does anyone else see the writing on the wall? My question to the group is that should NCEES announce that they would change policy to a single algebraic/rpn platform for all exams, how long would it take for engineering schools, GRE-Engineering, etc. to follow suit? DISCLAIMER: This note summarizes an informal conversation with one NCEES rep, and certainly does not represent the stated position of that organization. The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent my employer's, my wife's, or my dog's view of the world. ==== My only beef with the NCEES new calculator policy is that they are banning the use of calculators that have been used on the exams for 10 years in the case of the 48GX. It just seems a little arbitrary to ban a 10 year old calculator after thousands of people have used it! Now with some of the newer models and the WinCE/Palm based equipment, I might be a little more understanding... but a 48GX for crying out loud. It seems to me they are trying to close Pandora's Box long after the contents have proliferated, lost market share, stopped development and then stopped being manufactured. This strikes me like a presidential press-conference banning cassette tape recorders after they have been allowed for dozens of years. Maybe the HP conspiracy theory to sell more calculators is true. The 48SX came out while I was at a large university and it was a real concern for the weed-out chemistry 101 professors. With thousands of students in dozens of sections, standardized tests taken from a 1,500 question database, the professors were already big on test security to make sure students taking the exam on Thursday or at a later time on Wednesday didn't have an advantage. What they implemented was a policy that everyone with a 48SX (or similar calculator) was to sit in the front of the testing room and a proctor would come by and do an ON-A-D (or whatever the memory clear procedure for a particular calculator was) and clear the calculator memory before and after the exam. They also banned plug in cards, especially chemistry based cards. As many people have pointed out, here and in other places, if NCEES wants to increase exam security, they need to engineer better solutions than banning 10 year old calculators. There are a half dozen ways to compromise exam security that have been discussed in different forums that don't include calculators or other hi-tech gizmo's. The easiest idea put forward was to have several people to memorize one or two questions. How does the NCEES purpose to purge an examinee's brain after they take the exam? -JB ==== In message , J. Busby >How does the NCEES purpose to purge an examinee's brain after they take >the exam? If you take the exam and pass then they'll have to kill you... ;-) -- Bruce Horrocks Surrey England ==== I think they are looking at the MIB method... > My only beef with the NCEES new calculator policy is that they are banning > the use of calculators that have been used on the exams for 10 years in the > case of the 48GX. It just seems a little arbitrary to ban a 10 year old > calculator after thousands of people have used it! Now with some of the > newer models and the WinCE/Palm based equipment, I might be a little more > understanding... but a 48GX for crying out loud. > > It seems to me they are trying to close Pandora's Box long after the > contents have proliferated, lost market share, stopped development and then > stopped being manufactured. This strikes me like a presidential > press-conference banning cassette tape recorders after they have been > allowed for dozens of years. Maybe the HP conspiracy theory to sell more > calculators is true. > > The 48SX came out while I was at a large university and it was a real > concern for the weed-out chemistry 101 professors. With thousands of > students in dozens of sections, standardized tests taken from a 1,500 > question database, the professors were already big on test security to make > sure students taking the exam on Thursday or at a later time on Wednesday > didn't have an advantage. > > What they implemented was a policy that everyone with a 48SX (or similar > calculator) was to sit in the front of the testing room and a proctor would > come by and do an ON-A-D (or whatever the memory clear procedure for a > particular calculator was) and clear the calculator memory before and after > the exam. They also banned plug in cards, especially chemistry based cards. > > As many people have pointed out, here and in other places, if NCEES wants to > increase exam security, they need to engineer better solutions than > banning 10 year old calculators. There are a half dozen ways to compromise > exam security that have been discussed in different forums that don't > include calculators or other hi-tech gizmo's. The easiest idea put forward > was to have several people to memorize one or two questions. > > How does the NCEES purpose to purge an examinee's brain after they take the > exam? > > -JB ==== > I think they are looking at the MIB method... > > > My only beef with the NCEES new calculator policy is that they are banning > the use of calculators that have been used on the exams for 10 years in the > case of the 48GX. It just seems a little arbitrary to ban a 10 year old > calculator after thousands of people have used it! Now with some of the > newer models and the WinCE/Palm based equipment, I might be a little more > understanding... but a 48GX for crying out loud. > > It seems to me they are trying to close Pandora's Box long after the > contents have proliferated, lost market share, stopped development and then > stopped being manufactured. This strikes me like a presidential > press-conference banning cassette tape recorders after they have been > allowed for dozens of years. Maybe the HP conspiracy theory to sell more > calculators is true. > > The 48SX came out while I was at a large university and it was a real > concern for the weed-out chemistry 101 professors. With thousands of > students in dozens of sections, standardized tests taken from a 1,500 > question database, the professors were already big on test security to make > sure students taking the exam on Thursday or at a later time on Wednesday > didn't have an advantage. > > What they implemented was a policy that everyone with a 48SX (or similar > calculator) was to sit in the front of the testing room and a proctor would > come by and do an ON-A-D (or whatever the memory clear procedure for a > particular calculator was) and clear the calculator memory before and after > the exam. They also banned plug in cards, especially chemistry based cards. > > As many people have pointed out, here and in other places, if NCEES wants to > increase exam security, they need to engineer better solutions than > banning 10 year old calculators. There are a half dozen ways to compromise > exam security that have been discussed in different forums that don't > include calculators or other hi-tech gizmo's. The easiest idea put forward > was to have several people to memorize one or two questions. > > How does the NCEES purpose to purge an examinee's brain after they take the > exam? > > -JB Who ever heard of a real engineer who doesn't have a HP48Gx? It's surprizing to find that after 12 years of allowing HP48 calculators in exams, the NCEES is now banning them - it makes no sense. As we all are aware, today's high-end calculators (which most, if not all, university/college engineering students use) have text editing capabilities. If the NCEES allows volumes of bound paper material to brought in to exams, then why worry about the calculators with text editing capabilities? The high-end calculators allow the examanee to work through the iterative problems with relative ease. This allows for a better understanding of the problem (solution) without getting muddled down doing the robotic mathematical iterations. More importantly, most engineering firms use computer modeling to do their calculations. Understanding the problem and how to solve it then becomes the main emphasis. When it's all said and done, banning the high-end calculators is more of a detriment to the engineering profession than it is a benefit. And who ever heard of a real engineer who doesn't have an HP48Gx? I haven't. Glenn Watson ==== Agree; however, until the examining agency is responsive, it won't happen. > I think they are looking at the MIB method... > > > > My only beef with the NCEES new calculator policy is that they are banning > > the use of calculators that have been used on the exams for 10 years in the > > case of the 48GX. It just seems a little arbitrary to ban a 10 year old > > calculator after thousands of people have used it! Now with some of the > > newer models and the WinCE/Palm based equipment, I might be a little more > > understanding... but a 48GX for crying out loud. > > > > It seems to me they are trying to close Pandora's Box long after the > > contents have proliferated, lost market share, stopped development and then > > stopped being manufactured. This strikes me like a presidential > > press-conference banning cassette tape recorders after they have been > > allowed for dozens of years. Maybe the HP conspiracy theory to sell more > > calculators is true. > > > > The 48SX came out while I was at a large university and it was a real > > concern for the weed-out chemistry 101 professors. With thousands of > > students in dozens of sections, standardized tests taken from a 1,500 > > question database, the professors were already big on test security to make > > sure students taking the exam on Thursday or at a later time on Wednesday > > didn't have an advantage. > > > > What they implemented was a policy that everyone with a 48SX (or similar > > calculator) was to sit in the front of the testing room and a proctor would > > come by and do an ON-A-D (or whatever the memory clear procedure for a > > particular calculator was) and clear the calculator memory before and after > > the exam. They also banned plug in cards, especially chemistry based cards. > > > > As many people have pointed out, here and in other places, if NCEES wants to > > increase exam security, they need to engineer better solutions than > > banning 10 year old calculators. There are a half dozen ways to compromise > > exam security that have been discussed in different forums that don't > > include calculators or other hi-tech gizmo's. The easiest idea put forward > > was to have several people to memorize one or two questions. > > > > How does the NCEES purpose to purge an examinee's brain after they take the > > exam? > > > > -JB > > Who ever heard of a real engineer who doesn't have a HP48Gx? > > It's surprizing to find that after 12 years of allowing HP48 > calculators in exams, the NCEES is now banning them - it makes no > sense. > > As we all are aware, today's high-end calculators (which most, if not > all, university/college engineering students use) have text editing > capabilities. If the NCEES allows volumes of bound paper material to > brought in to exams, then why worry about the calculators with text > editing capabilities? > > The high-end calculators allow the examanee to work through the > iterative problems with relative ease. This allows for a better > understanding of the problem (solution) without getting muddled down > doing the robotic mathematical iterations. > > More importantly, most engineering firms use computer modeling to do > their calculations. Understanding the problem and how to solve it > then becomes the main emphasis. > > When it's all said and done, banning the high-end calculators is more > of a detriment to the engineering profession than it is a benefit. > And who ever heard of a real engineer who doesn't have an HP48Gx? I > haven't. > > Glenn Watson ==== >When it's all said and done, banning the high-end calculators is more >of a detriment to the engineering profession than it is a benefit. >And who ever heard of a real engineer who doesn't have an HP48Gx? I >haven't. > >Glenn Watson Well said, Glenn! -- Sincerely, Richard M. Smith (509) 754-1126 rmsmith@pobox.REMOVE.com ||// (@@) Pardon the intrusion... __ooO_()_Ooo_____________________________ _|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|___ ___|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_ _|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|___ ==== > When it's all said and done, banning the high-end calculators is more > of a detriment to the engineering profession than it is a benefit. > And who ever heard of a real engineer who doesn't have an HP48Gx? I > haven't. > Glenn Watson Well, now that almost all American students are indoctrinated into the TI camp while they're in high school, I imagine that we'll be seeing many more real engineers without HP calculators in the near future. -- -Joshua Belsky jjbelsky@yahoo.com http://belsky.net ==== glenn-bob a .8ecrit dans le message de > The high-end calculators allow the examanee to work through the > iterative problems with relative ease. This allows for a better > understanding of the problem (solution) without getting muddled down > doing the robotic mathematical iterations. > Aren't these tests supposed to measure your knowledge of engineering, of the theory, etc, rather than your ability to use a calculator? I have friends who took medecine here in France, and they have high level physics, biochemistry, biophysics, and the only calculator that's allowed is a memory-less calculator. Even if the only memory is to store a simple one line function, it is forbidden. And they do just fine. > More importantly, most engineering firms use computer modeling to do > their calculations. Understanding the problem and how to solve it > then becomes the main emphasis. > > When it's all said and done, banning the high-end calculators is more > of a detriment to the engineering profession than it is a benefit. It's not banned from work, just from a test. Besides, saying a calculator is just used for number crunching in exams is hypocritical; I know for a fact that almost all the students in France who have a Ti-89 use it to store cheat-sheets and notes, the calculator's crunching capacity is secondary. > And who ever heard of a real engineer who doesn't have an HP48Gx? I > haven't. I have, but that's not the point. :p > > Glenn Watson ==== > Agree; however, until the examining agency is responsive, it won't happen. > > > > I think they are looking at the MIB method... > > > > > > My only beef with the NCEES new calculator policy is that they are banning > > the use of calculators that have been used on the exams for 10 years in the > > case of the 48GX. It just seems a little arbitrary to ban a 10 year old > > calculator after thousands of people have used it! Now with some of the > > newer models and the WinCE/Palm based equipment, I might be a little more > > understanding... but a 48GX for crying out loud. > > > > It seems to me they are trying to close Pandora's Box long after the > > contents have proliferated, lost market share, stopped development and then > > stopped being manufactured. This strikes me like a presidential > > press-conference banning cassette tape recorders after they have been > > allowed for dozens of years. Maybe the HP conspiracy theory to sell more > > calculators is true. > > > > The 48SX came out while I was at a large university and it was a real > > concern for the weed-out chemistry 101 professors. With thousands of > > students in dozens of sections, standardized tests taken from a 1,500 > > question database, the professors were already big on test security to make > > sure students taking the exam on Thursday or at a later time on Wednesday > > didn't have an advantage. > > > > What they implemented was a policy that everyone with a 48SX (or similar > > calculator) was to sit in the front of the testing room and a proctor would > > come by and do an ON-A-D (or whatever the memory clear procedure for a > > particular calculator was) and clear the calculator memory before and after > > the exam. They also banned plug in cards, especially chemistry based cards. > > > > As many people have pointed out, here and in other places, if NCEES wants to > > increase exam security, they need to engineer better solutions than > > banning 10 year old calculators. There are a half dozen ways to compromise > > exam security that have been discussed in different forums that don't > > include calculators or other hi-tech gizmo's. The easiest idea put forward > > was to have several people to memorize one or two questions. > > > > How does the NCEES purpose to purge an examinee's brain after they take the > > exam? > > > > -JB > > Who ever heard of a real engineer who doesn't have a HP48Gx? > > It's surprizing to find that after 12 years of allowing HP48 > calculators in exams, the NCEES is now banning them - it makes no > sense. > > As we all are aware, today's high-end calculators (which most, if not > all, university/college engineering students use) have text editing > capabilities. If the NCEES allows volumes of bound paper material to > brought in to exams, then why worry about the calculators with text > editing capabilities? > > The high-end calculators allow the examanee to work through the > iterative problems with relative ease. This allows for a better > understanding of the problem (solution) without getting muddled down > doing the robotic mathematical iterations. > > More importantly, most engineering firms use computer modeling to do > their calculations. Understanding the problem and how to solve it > then becomes the main emphasis. > > When it's all said and done, banning the high-end calculators is more > of a detriment to the engineering profession than it is a benefit. > And who ever heard of a real engineer who doesn't have an HP48Gx? I > haven't. > > Glenn Watson True; and If this newsgroup and others where to contact HP & TI with this issue, those companies might be able to sway the NCEES' attitude toward these calculators - again. ==== > > Aren't these tests supposed to measure your knowledge of engineering, of the > theory, etc, rather than your ability to use a calculator? I have friends > who took medecine here in France, and they have high level physics, > biochemistry, biophysics, and the only calculator that's allowed is a > memory-less calculator. Even if the only memory is to store a simple one > line function, it is forbidden. And they do just fine. No, it is not only to measure your knowledge of theory. The first 8 hours of the exam is a fundamentals exam and is usually taken by recent graduates. The second 8 hours however is a Professional exam and is supposed to measure your ability as a practicing engineer based on your real world work experience. Depending on your education level it is usually not taken until you have been in professional practice for a minimum of 4 years. The whole point is that if you want to evaluate a professional you do not take his or her tools away. It is nonsense to do so. On the second part of the test, examinees are allowed to take any and all reference materials they want into the examination. So storing formulas and information in the calculator is not only irrelevant to the problem it is also allowed. The reason NCEES is concerned is because they have apparently caught someone coding questions into their calculator for later transmission to confederates taking the same test in different time zone. > > > It's not banned from work, just from a test. Besides, saying a calculator is > just used for number crunching in exams is hypocritical; I know for a fact > that almost all the students in France who have a Ti-89 use it to store > cheat-sheets and notes, the calculator's crunching capacity is secondary. We are not talking about students. We are talking about engineering professionals. The fact that some people choose to cheat is hardly a reason to punish the (I hope) majority of people who are honest in their professional lives. In any event, the burden should be on the test givers not the test takers. ==== > > True; and If this newsgroup and others where to contact HP & TI with > this issue, those companies might be able to sway the NCEES' attitude > toward these calculators - again. > Sadly, HP and probably TI have been in touch with NCEES and have argued strongly against this decision. Several of the state boards of registration have also lodged complaints. In fact it was the understanding of several of the state boards that this was not going to happen. It almost seems as thought NCEES is going against the wishes of the majority of the state boards. NCEES has made up its mind and doesn't want to be confused with facts or reality. Unless the state boards refuse to follow the NCEES decision (an unlikely event since the states seem to have delegated their authority to NCEES), I'm afraid it is a dead issue. For those of you in the US, please write to your state boards of registration and the NCEES and protest. Make the correspondence professional and reasonable. John ==== > True; and If this newsgroup and others where to contact HP & TI with > this issue, those companies might be able to sway the NCEES' attitude > toward these calculators - again. That would be a major conflict of interest. If companies which stood to profit from the decision came to the board, and I was on the board, I would ignore them. If we want change, it must come from people, not corporations. -- -Joshua Belsky jjbelsky@yahoo.com http://belsky.net ==== John Cadick a .8ecrit dans le message de > No, it is not only to measure your knowledge of theory. The first 8 hours of > the exam is a fundamentals exam and is usually taken by recent graduates. > The second 8 hours however is a Professional exam and is supposed to > measure your ability as a practicing engineer based on your real world work > experience. Depending on your education level it is usually not taken until > you have been in professional practice for a minimum of 4 years. The whole > point is that if you want to evaluate a professional you do not take his or > her tools away. It is nonsense to do so. I see your point now. I didn't know exactly what that test was, since it's not in my country, so I guessed using what I knew about tests here. Looks like I was quite wrong (in particular for the second part of the test). > > On the second part of the test, examinees are allowed to take any and all > reference materials they want into the examination. So storing formulas and > information in the calculator is not only irrelevant to the problem it is > also allowed. The reason NCEES is concerned is because they have apparently > caught someone coding questions into their calculator for later transmission > to confederates taking the same test in different time zone. > I guess the problem doesn't really comes up in France, given that the metropolitan area has only one timezone. I don't really know how the other territories do, though. > > We are not talking about students. We are talking about engineering > professionals. The fact that some people choose to cheat is hardly a reason > to punish the (I hope) majority of people who are honest in their > professional lives. In any event, the burden should be on the test givers > not the test takers. > See my reply to the first papragraph. ==== > Note: Due to content, this note was also posted to HP Museum Forum. > > * * * > > After writing a lengthy note to the good folks at NCEES re: their > recently announced policy, I was invited to spend an hour or so > discussing the matter with one of the NCEES staff. I'll summarize the > discussion, along with why I'm beginning to reevaluate HP's marketing > choices. This discussion is applicable to an HP list - cut to the chase > if you want the executive summary. > The actuaries have to take some certification tests that are based on calculus and statistics. They are allowed a TI-30X IIS, and that's it (there may be one other model but it's similar...). What if for the FE or PE, the same calculator requirement was put forth and the same percentage of test takers made the pass mark? Would you feel angry that you passed using such a feeble calculator or would you feel like a professional engineer just the same as the people who had passed in prior years using the HP48? Seems that the implicit assumption is the percentage of people passing will drop significantly with this new calculator requirement. Well maybe but if so how much of that will be due to the fact that the test takers really do not understand the principles and how much will be due to problems not being properly adjusted for the level of detail and difficulty. The NCEES knows how much time it will take to solve a matrix by pencil versus a with the HP48 and some adjustment is likely to occur in favor of candidates working under the new requirement. Does anyone really have true doubts about this and if so what is the basis for your concern? In some universities even calculus is taught using graphing calculators, but that is definitely not the case at all places. My point is that plenty of educators see the value of learning principles by solving problems using paper/pencil and believe that the calculator is not at all essential. With more advanced engineering classes, the expectation seems to be to produce a decimal answer to most problems, but mostly the real work is happening in the brain not the chip. Sure matrix and FEA can get very time consuming, but if we want to appeal to the argument that using the tools from the real-world should be allowed to solve these kinds of problems, shouldn't we argue for the inclusion of a laptop computer instead of a much less capable calculator. Why should the fans of the graphing calculator get to hold the stick and draw the line in the sand? I think that no matter how complicated the world becomes, professional level people should be able to reduce problems down to essential principles, and even 100 years from now, exams should still be assessing that ability more than anything else. ==== > Seems that the implicit assumption is the percentage of people passing will > drop significantly with this new calculator requirement. Well maybe but if > so how much of that will be due to the fact that the test takers really do > not understand the principles and how much will be due to problems not being > properly adjusted for the level of detail and difficulty. The NCEES knows > how much time it will take to solve a matrix by pencil versus a with the > HP48 and some adjustment is likely to occur in favor of candidates working > under the new requirement. Does anyone really have true doubts about this > and if so what is the basis for your concern? > fundamentals part of the PE exam is the first 8 hours. And even the first part is intended to evaluate the engineer, not the education. > In some universities even calculus is taught using graphing calculators, but > that is definitely not the case at all places. My point is that plenty of > educators see the value of learning principles by solving problems using > paper/pencil and believe that the calculator is not at all essential. With > more advanced engineering classes, the expectation seems to be to produce a > decimal answer to most problems, but mostly the real work is happening in > the brain not the chip. Sure matrix and FEA can get very time consuming, but > if we want to appeal to the argument that using the tools from the > real-world should be allowed to solve these kinds of problems, shouldn't we > argue for the inclusion of a laptop computer instead of a much less capable > calculator. Why should the fans of the graphing calculator get to hold the > stick and draw the line in the sand? > > I think that no matter how complicated the world becomes, professional level > people should be able to reduce problems down to essential principles, and > even 100 years from now, exams should still be assessing that ability more > than anything else. > Although what yo say here is true, I believe that it is beside the point. If the practicing surgeon has to review the fundamentals of basic diseases and is not allowed to use a certain type of scalpal that he or she uses in his/her day to day practice, I don't want to be on that table. The point against the NCEES ruling has nothing to do with education, it has to do with evaluating whether a given engineer is capable of being an engineer. We took our fundamentals tests in college. John ==== > > > Seems that the implicit assumption is the percentage of people passing > will > drop significantly with this new calculator requirement. Well maybe but if > so how much of that will be due to the fact that the test takers really do > not understand the principles and how much will be due to problems not > being > properly adjusted for the level of detail and difficulty. The NCEES knows > how much time it will take to solve a matrix by pencil versus a with the > HP48 and some adjustment is likely to occur in favor of candidates working > under the new requirement. Does anyone really have true doubts about this > and if so what is the basis for your concern? > > > fundamentals part of the PE exam is the first 8 hours. And even the first > part is intended to evaluate the engineer, not the education. the case that someone else has been posting with the same name (fairly common name). In the case of the FE would you agree that the HP48 should not be necessary to assess a candidates knowledge of the principles? And regarding the PE I would have to say that if most believe that computational methods are an imperative part of the assessment then the tests should probably be conducted in computer labs with the caveats that the computers would have no internet access, no floppy drives and no accessible ports. But they would have various programs available (e.g. as Matlab). It would be fairly easy to police this even on typical lab computers using stickers over ports or something similar and disconnecting the network cables. > > In some universities even calculus is taught using graphing calculators, > but > that is definitely not the case at all places. My point is that plenty of > educators see the value of learning principles by solving problems using > paper/pencil and believe that the calculator is not at all essential. With > more advanced engineering classes, the expectation seems to be to produce > a > decimal answer to most problems, but mostly the real work is happening in > the brain not the chip. Sure matrix and FEA can get very time consuming, > but > if we want to appeal to the argument that using the tools from the > real-world should be allowed to solve these kinds of problems, shouldn't > we > argue for the inclusion of a laptop computer instead of a much less > capable > calculator. Why should the fans of the graphing calculator get to hold the > stick and draw the line in the sand? > > I think that no matter how complicated the world becomes, professional > level > people should be able to reduce problems down to essential principles, and > even 100 years from now, exams should still be assessing that ability more > than anything else. > > > Although what yo say here is true, I believe that it is beside the point. If > the practicing surgeon has to review the fundamentals of basic diseases and > is not allowed to use a certain type of scalpal that he or she uses in > his/her day to day practice, I don't want to be on that table. The point > against the NCEES ruling has nothing to do with education, it has to do with > evaluating whether a given engineer is capable of being an engineer. We took > our fundamentals tests in college. > > John > > Well w.r.t surgeons, I believe there are essentially two aspects to their licensing: One is the demanding residency and the other is a written test where no scalpel is required (I admit I could be in error about the details of this, maybe they do have to be tested while holding a scalpel while working on a cadaver or god forbid a warm body). These standards would seem to correspond nicely to the PE requirement that a candidate have a few years experience doing responsible engineering work, and then the PE exam itself further tests the abilities. It would be easy to overlook the work experience part of the license, but it really is essential and there for a reason just as with the surgeon. I surmise we will not be able to come to an agreement, but I really believe it is possible to construct an engineering PE test that will serve to adequately protect the public from incompetent engineers without necessitating the candidate use an advanced graphing calculator. Time will tell. ==== > > The actuaries have to take some certification tests that are based on > calculus and statistics. They are allowed a TI-30X IIS, and that's it (there > may be one other model but it's similar...). What if for the FE or PE, the > same calculator requirement was put forth and the same percentage of test > takers made the pass mark? Would you feel angry that you passed using such a > feeble calculator or would you feel like a professional engineer just the > same as the people who had passed in prior years using the HP48? I do not do algebraic calcs. Therefore it would be a penalty for me to have to use one on an exam. Simple as that. Do I need a super-duper calc for such a test? No. I am a power systems engineer. I need a calculator that uses RPN and is able to perform calculations using complex numbers. If I were evaluating engineers I would not want to know how well they could manipulate complex numbers by hand. I want to know if they understand the theory and practical use of those complex numbers. I don't find a calculator that can handle such calculations any more of a crutch than a table of constants (something I do NOT think should have to be memorized but that is a different arguement.) Charles Perry P.E. ==== > 3. NCEES proctors have observed one or more examinees using a set of > calcs to record answers for removal from the test setting (e.g., > '1D2A3B4A'). > [...]moving to > administer all exams simultaneously (e.g. 2 PM start in NY, 11 AM start > in LA, and 6 AM start in Honolulu). > Why not simply have three versions of the exam? I don't mean three totally different versions, just scramble the order of the options on the multiple choices so that D is the answer on one but it appears as C on another version and A on another. Surely this would not be very expensive to do? ==== I am certain that HP consulted with NCEES re: the 33S to ensure that they had a market. NCEES indicated that HP had assured them that the calc would be out by Dec 03, hence inclusion of a 'vapor' product on the list of approved calcs for the Apr 04 exam. The only TIs deemed OK by NCEES are the 30/35 series - nice for high school algebra class or Math 101, but nothing that is likely to be seen around the Tau Beta Pi lounge. > > > > True; and If this newsgroup and others where to contact HP & TI with > this issue, those companies might be able to sway the NCEES' attitude > toward these calculators - again. > > That would be a major conflict of interest. If companies which stood to > profit from the decision came to the board, and I was on the board, I would > ignore them. If we want change, it must come from people, not corporations. > > -- > -Joshua Belsky > jjbelsky@yahoo.com > http://belsky.net ==== Does anyone know if the 41CX is banned or will be banned? It does have text editing capability (barely), but come on, it's a device from the early 80's. > I am certain that HP consulted with NCEES re: the 33S to ensure that they had a > market. NCEES indicated that HP had assured them that the calc would be out by > Dec 03, hence inclusion of a 'vapor' product on the list of approved calcs for > the Apr 04 exam. The only TIs deemed OK by NCEES are the 30/35 series - nice > for high school algebra class or Math 101, but nothing that is likely to be > seen around the Tau Beta Pi lounge. > > > > > > > True; and If this newsgroup and others where to contact HP & TI with > > this issue, those companies might be able to sway the NCEES' attitude > > toward these calculators - again. > > That would be a major conflict of interest. If companies which stood to > profit from the decision came to the board, and I was on the board, I would > ignore them. If we want change, it must come from people, not corporations. > > -- > -Joshua Belsky > jjbelsky@yahoo.com > http://belsky.net > ==== I'm not certain on the 41C series - probably allowed. The whole issue of text capability is pretty much a sham, given that any of the registers can be used to store code. I suppose there's always someone's grand-dad with a Post Decilog gathering dust. > Does anyone know if the 41CX is banned or will be banned? It does have text > editing capability (barely), but come on, it's a device from the early 80's. > > I am certain that HP consulted with NCEES re: the 33S to ensure that they > had a > market. NCEES indicated that HP had assured them that the calc would be > out by > Dec 03, hence inclusion of a 'vapor' product on the list of approved calcs > for > the Apr 04 exam. The only TIs deemed OK by NCEES are the 30/35 series - > nice > for high school algebra class or Math 101, but nothing that is likely to > be > seen around the Tau Beta Pi lounge. > > > > > > > > > > True; and If this newsgroup and others where to contact HP & TI with > > this issue, those companies might be able to sway the NCEES' attitude > > toward these calculators - again. > > > > That would be a major conflict of interest. If companies which stood to > > profit from the decision came to the board, and I was on the board, I > would > > ignore them. If we want change, it must come from people, not > corporations. > > > > -- > > -Joshua Belsky > > jjbelsky@yahoo.com > > http://belsky.net > ==== Italy). I'm going to buy a new calculator, and I've chosen the HP49G+, so I've been subscribed in this group, to see in which world I'm entering. What a cream! There is a big world around this kind of calculators! I've read about all post from 04/09 (in three days! Why not you don't write less? :-) ), and I've seen HP49G+ problems, advantages, disadvantages etc. I don't believe to learn it easily, because I've seen that it can be much complicated to have the best from it. I've chooser it in diamron.ch, when my beautiful Casio CFX9950G said goodbye... :-( Seven years of beautiful math! Now, I'm in the last year of electronic engineering in Palermo, and I must to choose something more powerful. I've read about all programs that are available for this kind of calculator (not too many for HP49G+, because it's new), and I hope that mine will not have keyboard problems... My great problem is another. I've read in this list that the more powerful way to use it is using the RPN mode, instead Algebraic mode. My question is this: Why? I've downloaded HP49G emulator, and it's all fine in algebraic mode. I see that RPN uses better the memory stack, but I think that machines must learn Man's language, not contrary. I think that it's easier to write formulas as I always did in my block notes, using integrals and parentheses. Maybe it can be a bit more slow in calculation (maybe, I don't know), but I don't think that it's too important. Why, for all you (99% for a thread that I've read), RPN is better? Maybe it can be that it's faster to write formulas in RPN mode? And this is a good pretext to learn this kind of writing? Daniele PS: Excuse me for my bad english!!! ==== > Italy). ---omissis http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/lista_hp48/ Acrux -- ==== > I've read in this list that the more > powerful way to use it is using the > RPN mode, instead Algebraic mode. > My question is this: Why? > I've downloaded HP49G emulator, and > it's all fine in algebraic mode. > I see that RPN uses better the memory > stack, but I think that machines must > learn Man's language, not contrary. Algebraic notation is a better way of WRITING math, but RPN is a better way of PERFORMING math. For example, 1 2 + 3 * 4 ^ is not as easy on human eyeballs as ((1+2)*3)^4. But how would you actually calculate ((1+2)*3)^4 in your head? You'd ignore the (( except as road signs that tell you where to start; you'd start with 1 and 2, and add them, and work your way outwards... exactly like RPN. Algebraic is the way everybody WRITES math. RPN is the way everybody THINKS math. By the way, HP is looking for either a new name for RPN (you gotta admit, it's a dumb name) or a marketing-savvy slogan that can make RPN attractive to the great unwashed. I suggest something like RPN: The Way You Think. (Better than RPN: Designed With Your Mind In Mind, (c) Firesign Theatre). Finally, please note that RPL machines (e.g. the HP48 and HP49 series) let you use BOTH algebraic and RPN, even simultaneously. You don't have to choose one or the other. When you are faced with a calculation that you understand (or have only in your head) then RPN wins, hands down. But when you have to crank out a messy algebraic expression that's been handed to you, and you haven't wrapped your brain around it (and perhaps don't need to), then go ahead and use algebraic. Also, progams are MUCH easier to read when they used algebraic notation instead of pure RPN... but we purists avoid that because it involves a few nanoseconds extra runtime. :-) Hope this helps! -Joe- It's ok; they're speaking Chinese. -- REGNAD KCIN ==== In message <87233f9e.0309261307.5a721015@posting.google.com>, Joseph K. >By the way, HP is looking for either a new name for RPN (you gotta >admit, it's a dumb name) or a marketing-savvy slogan that can make RPN >attractive to the great unwashed. I suggest something like RPN: The >Way You Think. (Better than RPN: Designed With Your Mind In Mind, >(c) Firesign Theatre). RPN: The advantage stacks up -- Bruce Horrocks Surrey England ==== -=[ Sat, 27.9.03 12:28 p.m. +1200 (NZT) ]=- in message ID : > RPN: The advantage stacks up Excellent ;-) RPN: No brackets -> No Bra and no Ket (after P.A. M. Dirac) -> No Bra -> natural :) -- Tony Hutchins Wellington New Zealand ==== > > Maybe it can be that it's faster to write formulas in RPN mode? And > this is a good pretext to learn this kind of writing? > You are going to get many replies ranting about the glory or RPN, but I think its purely a personal preference. Advocates say its nice being able to manipulate the stack, and see what you are doing as you do it. Also that RPN is generally how you think. Critics say it is not how it is written on paper so why bother. To make up your mind, looks at some examples.... http://alpage.ath.cx/hptute/hptute.htm <-- if my PC is on, this site will be up everest.fit.qut.edu.au/~n4403584/hptute.zip <-- otherwise download all of them in one hit. I think the 'resistors in parallel' in ttorial 2: data entry is relevent since you are doing EE. Personally I prefer RPN, but there are really 3 ways to enter anything - RPN, algebriacially, or the Eqation Writer. I mostly use RPN for calculations and the eqation writer to copy equations from paper. Note that the above tutorials were prepared quickly 2 or 3 weeks ago, and have grammar and spelling errors. > > Daniele > > PS: Excuse me for my bad english!!! > > Your english is very good. cheers, Al ==== >-Joe- >It's ok; they're speaking Chinese. >-- REGNAD KCIN Excellent, another Firesign Theatre fan. I grew up listening to them. Probably one of the reasons I'm so strange ;) Jim ==== Here is an example of RPN being better that happened to me yesterday: I am using made up numbers as a demonstration, as I remember neither the real numbers nor the context in which this happened. I was using an algebraic calculator to compute the value of two fractions. So, I computed the value of, say 1500/22. Then I computed the value of 1800/43. I thought to myself I wonder what the difference is between those two answers. Now, if I was on an RPN calculator, that would take *one* keypress to find out. I could just hit -. But I wasn't. I was using the windows calc. So I had to hit M+ and then 1500/22 (again!!!) and then - and MR. That is ten keystrokes vs. one keystroke! Okay, I suppose if it was a TI-89 I could've used a last answer function, but you get the idea. This is an example of working with numbers, rather than just solving things that you have on paper. -Joshua > Italy). > I'm going to buy a new calculator, and I've chosen the HP49G+, so I've > been subscribed in this group, to see in which world I'm entering. > What a cream! > There is a big world around this kind of calculators! I've read about > all post from 04/09 (in three days! Why not you don't write less? :-) > ), and I've seen HP49G+ problems, advantages, disadvantages etc. > I don't believe to learn it easily, because I've seen that it can be > much complicated to have the best from it. I've chooser it in > diamron.ch, when my beautiful Casio CFX9950G said goodbye... :-( > Seven years of beautiful math! > Now, I'm in the last year of electronic engineering in Palermo, and I > must to choose something more powerful. > I've read about all programs that are available for this kind of > calculator (not too many for HP49G+, because it's new), and I hope > that mine will not have keyboard problems... > My great problem is another. I've read in this list that the more > powerful way to use it is using the RPN mode, instead Algebraic mode. > My question is this: Why? I've downloaded HP49G emulator, and it's all > fine in algebraic mode. I see that RPN uses better the memory stack, > but I think that machines must learn Man's language, not contrary. > I think that it's easier to write formulas as I always did in my block > notes, using integrals and parentheses. Maybe it can be a bit more > slow in calculation (maybe, I don't know), but I don't think that it's > too important. Why, for all you (99% for a thread that I've read), RPN > is better? > Maybe it can be that it's faster to write formulas in RPN mode? And > this is a good pretext to learn this kind of writing? > Daniele > PS: Excuse me for my bad english!!! -- -Joshua Belsky jjbelsky@yahoo.com http://belsky.net ==== >... >Hope this helps! > >-Joe- >It's ok; they're speaking Chinese. >-- REGNAD KCIN I've read your reply, Regnad. Sincerely, I'm not yet full convinced, but I don't think that all of you think in the wrong way! When my calculator will arrive, I'll spend some time to learn RPN. I don't promise to find it so useful, but evidently I say so because I have not tried it before... Daniele ==== I've seen your examples I've not seen tutorials yet... :-(. I believe that it can be more useful, especilly now that I know that, when usoing RPN, I can use EQW to copy formulas of my books... I think that only experience can be useful for me, and I'll try everything. I promise! Daniele PS: I'll try when this calculator will arrive... There are 10days that I wait for this calculator from the diamron site! ==== You can take a look at my site... http://www.area48.com It brings many information about HP48/49 calculators. Carlos > > Italy). > ---omissis > > http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/lista_hp48/ > > Acrux ==== > >>-Joe- >>It's ok; they're speaking Chinese. >>-- REGNAD KCIN > >Excellent, another Firesign Theatre fan. I grew up listening to them. Probably one of the reasons >I'm so strange ;) > >Jim Any Goon Show fans out there? He's fallen in the water Harold A. Climer Physics/Geology/Astronomy Lab Instructor U. Tennessee At Chattanooga ==== In message , Harold A. >Any Goon Show fans out there? He's fallen in the water What what what what what what what what what what! Ten whats? No wonder the batteries run down so quickly... [with apologies] :-) -- Bruce Horrocks Surrey England ==== Algebraic, RPN, for basic math both will do the job (I personally prefer RPN of course, but it's a question of choice). However, they are lots of advantages to RPN as soon as you start doing more that just calculate a formula. If you want to do multiple stuff with one object (as you can use the stack to save and see it, you do not have to use variable), different test on objects, perform quick programmed manipulation of an object... as you become more of a power user, you will see that RPN is much more pwerfull. it's a little bit like: in ALG Mode, you either re-type (or re-create) stuff all the time, or put them in drawer and then use the name of the drawer to refer to the object. and at the end, you need to go and clean your drawers. in RPN, you still have drawers (for stuff that you want to keep and store), but you have all the stuff that you work with on the desk... Sure, the desk can be quite a mess at time (but you are working, so it's normal, isn't it), but it makes working so much easier as you see what tools and object you have available. > Italy). > I'm going to buy a new calculator, and I've chosen the HP49G+, so I've > been subscribed in this group, to see in which world I'm entering. > What a cream! > There is a big world around this kind of calculators! I've read about > all post from 04/09 (in three days! Why not you don't write less? :-) > ), and I've seen HP49G+ problems, advantages, disadvantages etc. > > I don't believe to learn it easily, because I've seen that it can be > much complicated to have the best from it. I've chooser it in > diamron.ch, when my beautiful Casio CFX9950G said goodbye... :-( > Seven years of beautiful math! > Now, I'm in the last year of electronic engineering in Palermo, and I > must to choose something more powerful. > > I've read about all programs that are available for this kind of > calculator (not too many for HP49G+, because it's new), and I hope > that mine will not have keyboard problems... > > My great problem is another. I've read in this list that the more > powerful way to use it is using the RPN mode, instead Algebraic mode. > My question is this: Why? I've downloaded HP49G emulator, and it's all > fine in algebraic mode. I see that RPN uses better the memory stack, > but I think that machines must learn Man's language, not contrary. > > I think that it's easier to write formulas as I always did in my block > notes, using integrals and parentheses. Maybe it can be a bit more > slow in calculation (maybe, I don't know), but I don't think that it's > too important. Why, for all you (99% for a thread that I've read), RPN > is better? > > Maybe it can be that it's faster to write formulas in RPN mode? And > this is a good pretext to learn this kind of writing? > > > Daniele > > PS: Excuse me for my bad english!!! > > ==== Like many here I use Wolfgang program KEYMAN but I quite prefer making my own other little utils. However, as I installed Emacs, I also put OT49 to help it along with BZ, and I am using the other things that came with it. There is however one command that I wish was there it what I call TIM and it just times programs to see how fast they are running and is quite helpful for optimising. Having talked long ago with Wolfgang, I know that if enough people ask for it, he will put it in the next OT49. So I am 1 who wants it as well? For Wolfgang, there are plenty such utilities in hpcalc and I put the source of the one I made myself for my 49. I am sure you can optimise it a bit as I didn't. Please put it in OT49. Arnaud It works like EVAL and returns the time taken !NO CODE !RPL :: CK1NoBlame One argument GARBAGE Just making sure we won't be disturbed CLKTICKS What time is it? 1LAMBIND I must remember that EVAL Let's run the program CLKTICKS What time is it now? 1GETABND And then? bit- It took us that long CLKTICKS 1LAMBIND How long does it take us to remember the time? CLKTICKS 218 ticks on my 49 now but it changes with memry... 1GETABND So we calculate it bit- bit- Let's not count that HXS>% Let's make everything look nice % 8192 I am sure you can find us a pointer for this one %/ %4 We can't get more accuracy, well 5 maybe RNDXY s My teacher always told me to put units umEND BINT3 EXTN ; @ ==== > Like many here I use Wolfgang program KEYMAN but I quite prefer making my > own other little utils. However, as I installed Emacs, I also put OT49 to > help it along with BZ, and I am using the other things that came with it. > There is however one command that I wish was there it what I call TIM and it > just times programs to see how fast they are running and is quite helpful > for optimising. > Having talked long ago with Wolfgang, I know that if enough people ask for > it, he will put it in the next OT49. > So I am 1 who wants it as well? > For Wolfgang, there are plenty such utilities in hpcalc and I put the source > of the one I made myself for my 49. I am sure you can optimise it a bit as I > didn't. Please put it in OT49. There is a built in command, TEVAL, which does exactly that on my hp49. Put any data needed by the program on the stack, then put the program name or the program itself on the stack then execute TEVAL. The program output appears on the stack followed by the time in seconds. ==== > > Like many here I use Wolfgang program KEYMAN but I quite prefer making my > own other little utils. However, as I installed Emacs, I also put OT49 to > help it along with BZ, and I am using the other things that came with it. > There is however one command that I wish was there it what I call TIM and it > just times programs to see how fast they are running and is quite helpful > for optimising. > Having talked long ago with Wolfgang, I know that if enough people ask for > it, he will put it in the next OT49. > So I am 1 who wants it as well? > For Wolfgang, there are plenty such utilities in hpcalc and I put the source > of the one I made myself for my 49. I am sure you can optimise it a bit as I > didn't. Please put it in OT49. when I started to write Keyman. Some years passed when you left France to earn money :-) I assume you've got the new HP49+. As was stated already there is the rompointer xTEVAL. It uses the stable pointers OBJ>R_ and R>OBJ_ (from the extable coming with Emacs which you should load at once). These pointers are still faster as 1LAMBIND and 1GETABND in your TIM, hence do less contribute to the genuine execution time of some program or command you want to measure. some unnamed rompointers to remain stable, in particular the extremely small and fast BZ-decompressor. You should use OT49+ from either my site or alternatively from http://www.praxelius.de/raut/ Here a nice key assignment on the EVAL key. It does then EVAL if pressed normally, but creates a list input form for TEVAL if longhold. Proceed as follows: Put the real 42.1 on level 2, the program << ' TEVAL InL TEVAL >> (InL is from OT49) on Level 1, run IfL, process with ->TO? and assign the result with A?D to the EVAL key 42.1 All these commands are from Keyman. PS. TEVAL is far less precise than TIM from Mika Heiskanen's Hack lib. In all the years of your absence, nobody had time to port it to the 49. No chance at present of porting it to the 49+ because of the still unknown interaction between HP-asm and native ARM code. ==== > > PS. TEVAL is far less precise than TIM from Mika Heiskanen's Hack lib. > In all the years of your absence, nobody had time to port it to the 49. > No chance at present of porting it to the 49+ because of the still > unknown interaction between HP-asm and native ARM code. That is what I was worried about and could not test it because contrary to what you think, I am drooling in front of my PC while reading this newsgroup but am still waiting for the new calc to come to the UK, or maybe I should buy one from Germany...? But I am also drooling in front of the 33s, this screen is telling me that it wants to be a graphing calc 9G style... Arnaud ==== > There is a built in command, TEVAL, which does exactly that on my > hp49. > Put any data needed by the program on the stack, then put the > program name or the program itself on the stack then execute TEVAL. > The program output appears on the stack followed by the time in > seconds. It works exactly the same way on the HP48. -- Wayne Brown | When your tail's in a crack, you improvise fwbrown@bellsouth.net | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give | your pelt to the trapper. e^(i*pi) = -1 -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, Silverlock ==== In Arnaud Amiel > There is however one command that I wish was there it what I call TIM > and it just times programs to see how fast they are running and is > quite helpful for optimising. > What's the point of having an external program that does the same as the built-in TEVAL command? ==== > In Arnaud Amiel >> There is however one command that I wish was there it what I call TIM >> and it just times programs to see how fast they are running and is >> quite helpful for optimising. >> > What's the point of having an external program that does the same as the > built-in TEVAL command? Why own a both a Lamborghini and a Ferrari? -- -Joshua Belsky jjbelsky@yahoo.com http://belsky.net ==== > Why own a both a Lamborghini and a Ferrari? > Interesting.. So which one is which? I doubt that many people own both cars anyway :) ==== > > What's the point of having an external program that does the same as the > built-in TEVAL command? > Sorry, I may not have paid the attention it deserves while reading the user guide. Arnaud ==== >> Why own a both a Lamborghini and a Ferrari? >> >Interesting.. So which one is which? > >I doubt that many people own both cars anyway :) Jay Leno might? ==== >> Why own a both a Lamborghini and a Ferrari? >> > Interesting.. So which one is which? > I doubt that many people own both cars anyway :) I figure if you can afford one, and you can't afford both, you probably can't really afford one. -- -Joshua Belsky jjbelsky@yahoo.com http://belsky.net ==== Some people didnt agree with what I was trying to say, but thats ok, it is democracy. By the way, I was wrong that way, and thanks God nobody is forced to agree with me to be right.:-) Yesterday I have read some stuffs about new HP48G+ and I can see it will have a processor of 75MHz, for it the new product cant be taken as a product the will win the Oscar of visual effets :-),as I said, because there are important changes and features on it. I made a mistake in my last posts and sincerely I say unto you: I am very happy I was wrong that way, because the true about the new calc is much better. Carlos ==== As I can see the new HP49G Plus should win the Oscar of make-up and visual effects. Another marketing decision to try sell old supply of old calcs that are on the left? My opinion only. ==== In <2cfc228.0309122006.5cbff808@posting.google.com> Carlos Marangon > As I can see the new HP49G Plus should win the Oscar of make-up and > visual effects. Another marketing decision to try sell old supply of > old calcs that are on the left? This message doesn't make any sense... old calc on the left? ==== The words may not make sense, but the question does. > In <2cfc228.0309122006.5cbff808@posting.google.com> Carlos Marangon > As I can see the new HP49G Plus should win the Oscar of make-up and > visual effects. Another marketing decision to try sell old supply of > old calcs that are on the left? > > This message doesn't make any sense... > old calc on the left? ==== > In <2cfc228.0309122006.5cbff808@posting.google.com> Carlos Marangon > As I can see the new HP49G Plus should win the Oscar of make-up and > visual effects. Another marketing decision to try sell old supply of > old calcs that are on the left? > > This message doesn't make any sense... > old calc on the left? I think he's implying that HP took left over 49G's, re-packaged them, and are selling them as 49G+'s. Bob