Upgraded 49g+ upcoming?
mathemagician
I was at the Joint Mathematics Meeting in San Antonio recently and HP
had a booth. They did not sell calculators; instead they just had some
on display: the 48GII, a 39G and a couple of 49G+'s. I do not own a
49G+, though I have a couple of 48's and a 49G. I had never had a
chance to play with a 49G+, and I only spent a few minutes with it.
However, VERSION revealed that one of the calcs had a ROM dating back
to 2003, whereas the other one had a 2005 ROM and *no* serial number
and, additionally, it had an extra port at the top (hence it had a
total of two). When I asked the guy at the stand what the extra port
was, he asked for the calculator back and put it away (!!!) I'm not
making this up! He just said he was not allowed to comment on that
particular calculator. From the front, both calculators were
indistinguishable, though keypresses felt a bit different.
Is this something anyone around here knows something about? I was
seriously thinking about getting a 49G+ for $115 at Costco.com, but if
an upgraded model is on its way I'd rather hold back...
Eduardo
Jean-Yves Avenard
> total of two). When I asked the guy at the stand what the extra port
> was, he asked for the calculator back and put it away (!!!) I'm not
> making this up! He just said he was not allowed to comment on that
JY
Frère-Pierre
news:1137368960.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Must be one of the prototypes
maybe it's a test model
or the developers model from a first production run
a 48gII/49g+ combined having both RS-232 & USB ports
HPQ calc division inside usage ???
Just guessing
===========
if it's a future model, nobody tells
if it's a special developers model, nobody tells
if it's a first production run test model
NDA for outsiders (they wiil get sued for telling)
and "You're fired" <DOnald Trump's voice>
for any slaves form the calculatrice department
I'm not starting any rumors here
I'm not claiming I know better than CdB or JYA etc
I just react to magic+math
--
F-P
Joe Horn
existing machines(and therefore spills no NDA secrets):
http://holyjoe.net/hp/ports.htm
USB, RS232, IrDA, and HP-IR all at the same time? No, obviously the OS
tries to determine what machine it's running on, and reports the
corresponding list of ports as being available. But hey -- add that to
Eduardo's sighting of an hp49g+ with *both* USB and RS232, and let the
speculation begin! :-)
Or was that only a special "Teracher's Model" in which the port that
*looks* like a serial port is really merely a video port for connection
to an LCD panel? I hope not, since overhead projectors are rapidly
going the way of typewriters. Such a Teacher's Model would not sell
well.
Does YOUR hp49g+ say it has any other port arrangmenent than shown on
the web page linked above?
-jkh-
Steve Sousa
"Joe Horn" <joe...@holyjoe.net> wrote in message
news:1137428550.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> The following related peek into the future can already be observed in
> existing machines(and therefore spills no NDA secrets):
>
> http://holyjoe.net/hp/ports.htm
>
Thank you.
Best Regards
Steve Sousa
Joe Horn
> Could you also post the boot and OS version of those machines too?
I should have jotted down that info, but it didn't occur to me until it
was too late. You see, those machines were in the pile of hp49g+'s
that I dumped on HP last October because of broken keys and flaking
paint. :-(
-jkh-
Jean-Yves Avenard
> I should have jotted down that info, but it didn't occur to me until it
> was too late. You see, those machines were in the pile of hp49g+'s
> that I dumped on HP last October because of broken keys and flaking
> paint. :-(
was under NDA).
Cause AFAIK, official release will not show any of those ports ..
JY
John H Meyers
> Does YOUR hp49g+ say it has any other port arrangement
> than shown on [Joe's] web page linked above?
More I/O port options would certainly be nice,
as would more battery life to use them a lot
(for cheaper "text messaging" in classrooms :)
I thought my old 49G+ had once said "Mystic Seaport,"
but then I rubbed my eyes and it went away :)
http://www.mysticseaport.org
http://www.mystic.org
[r->] [OFF]
ME
and getting the units and the EQW to work again so we are back to where we
were 12 years ago!
"John H Meyers" <jhme...@miu.edu> wrote in message
news:op.s3hzl...@news.cis.dfn.de...
Jean-Yves Avenard
> I am not too ambitious but how about a PI product function like the TI has
> and getting the units and the EQW to work again so we are back to where we
> were 12 years ago!
JY
John H Meyers
> how about a PI product function like the TI has
Isn't it easy to program such things, even in UserRPL?
See "User Defined Functions" in the new 49G+ AUR:
[visit page 1-25 for a hint how to create your own PI function]
http://www.hp.com/calculators/graphing/49gplus [Product manuals]
http://h10032.www1.hp.com/ctg/Manual/c00554621.pdf
[r->] [OFF]
Frère-Pierre
Sigma does symbolics, too
We still need the real PI Command
Steen Schmidt
> Sigma does symbolics, too
> We still need the real PI Command
It's not trivial to do, and it would certainly help if more than one
person were actually programming new math functions for the HP49G+.
I somehow doubt many people would use such a PI command anyway. Bug
fixes are benefitial for all users, but how much of the HP49G+ users in
the world are even looking at hpcalc.org for new functionality for the
HP49G+?
Maybe Eric could shed some light on the kind of traffic hpcalc.org sees
these days.
Regards
Steen
Frère-Pierre
news:xn0ehhxh...@news.tele.dk...
> Frère-Pierre wrote:
>
>> Sigma does symbolics, too
>> We still need the real PI Command
>
> It's not trivial to do, and it would certainly help if more than one
> person were actually programming new math functions for the HP49G+.
>
> I somehow doubt many people would use such a PI command anyway. Bug
> fixes are benefitial for all users
You're absolutely and relatively right
ME
material on my 48gx that contain units.
"Jean-Yves Avenard" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:43e00hF...@individual.net...
ME
encountered many mathematical expressions that use the PI function. It is
used in combinatorics and circuit analysis for example. Many of my
professional colleagues look at using a calculator as archaic because they
have computers that do much more even the inexpensive Derive program has the
PI function. It probably won't be use much by high school math students but
us Engineers still need it!
ME
this
Sigma (j=1,10,Sigma(j=11,j^k)) on the 49g+ and the 48GX and tell me what you
get.
"Frère-Pierre" <DROP...@dlc.fi> wrote in message
news:tfqAf.5076$dp4....@reader1.news.jippii.net...
Steen Schmidt
> Bug fixes and the Sigma function? What? They can't even get that
> right. Try this Sigma (j=1,10,Sigma(j=11,j^k)) on the 49g+ and the
> 48GX and tell me what you get.
"Invalid Syntax" on both machines...
Regards
Steen
Steen Schmidt
> I am a EE with over twenty years of professional experience and I
> have encountered many mathematical expressions that use the PI
> function. It is used in combinatorics and circuit analysis for
> example. Many of my professional colleagues look at using a
> calculator as archaic because they have computers that do much more
> even the inexpensive Derive program has the PI function. It probably
> won't be use much by high school math students but us Engineers still
> need it!
I'm an EE myself. I wasn't speaking of who would have a need for a PI
function, but of who would actually look for it to download. I'm not
spending a huge number of hours programming a new CAS function that 2-3
people will download from www.hpcalc.org. I'm sure BP feels the same
way.
Years back, you knew that people would go looking on www.hpcalc.org for
programs, which meant that your effort as a programmer was appreciated.
Today, the user base of the HP49G+ etc. (I guess) is made up mostly of
people who expect everything and the kitchen sink to be built into the
calculator from the start, or else it is a bug. These users wouldn't
dream of programming anything themselves, much less submit it to a site
on the internet or go look at that same site for interesting programs.
I have on many occasions replied to requests of the type "the calc
lacks this or that feature" with "go program it then". The HP49G+ is
one of the most versatile of its sort when it comes to user
programming. As an example; if you need the EQW to support units, make
a new EQW. All the entry points are available in SysRPL, you don't have
to reinvent the wheel in any way. Look at what user programs brought to
the HP48 series - why aren't people interested in enhancing the new
calcs in the same way?
Regards
Steen
ME
(j=1,10,Sigma(k=j,11,j^k))news:xn0ehis8...@news.tele.dk...
ME
whatever. The point that I am making is that a company like HP ,when it had
a good reputation, should not have cut off their user base by dumping a
powerful feature for expressions that contain units. If you rely on this
feature for productivity then there is essentially no upwards compatibility
from the 48GX to the 49 and 49G+.
Rewriting the EQW would not necessarily be compatible with future ROM
updates.
It is not that "the calc lacks this or that feature" it is that the company
dumped a feature that the calcs predecessor had in the case of units. I have
a program to do PI. I was simply adding to the posters comments on what
would be nice. From a mathematical standpoint ,like the TI-89 Derive etc, I
would settle for something as basic as a PI function over more elaborate
features. But HP can even get the Sigma function to work correctly!
So sure I could build this or that or just use Derive or Mathematica or
other packages but I am not asking for anything new just what the older ,
"more primitive calcs could do. If you pay over a hundred dollars you would
think that the new calc would have a big feature that the old one had. How
often do products go backwards in forcing you to use more primitive
functions?
When a decent Palm top comes out then I will just run derive on it. I had
counted on the Flipstart. Intel next gen of superlow power processors will
change all of this.
"Steen Schmidt" <ssch...@nospam.dk> wrote in message
news:xn0ehisj...@news.tele.dk...
Steen Schmidt
> The point that I am making is that a company like
> HP ,when it had a good reputation, should not have cut off their user
> base by dumping a powerful feature for expressions that contain
> units.
The trade-off was probably deemed worth it - if the choice was either
the dead-slow EQW of the HP48 series w/ unit support, or the new EQW
without, then I'd choose the new one any day. But personally, I haven't
had much use for unit support in the EQW, so I'm obviously biased.
It's like that with all features, if you use them, they are important,
if you do not, well, they do not matter.
> Rewriting the EQW would not necessarily be compatible with
> future ROM updates.
But it might be, or might be simple to make compatible again. The above
would be true for all programs - should that keep people from
programming?
> It is not that "the calc lacks this or that
> feature" it is that the company dumped a feature that the calcs
> predecessor had in the case of units.
But they added so much else. They didn't remove the unit support from
the EQW, the EQW was rewritten from scratch. They also broke backwards
compatibility when putting a larger screen onto the HP49G+. Should they
have avoided that? I think not.
But, it's of course fine to ask for more functionality, but I'd hazard
a guess that says it would happen faster if you just made an EQW
yourself that supports units. That way, you and Veli-Pekka would be
happy, and if ever a third person needed it, they could just download
it from hpcalc.org.
> I have a program to do PI.
Is that on hpcalc.org?
> But HP can even get the Sigma function to work correctly!
It seems like a bug you have known for quite some time - why haven't
you posted it on bugzilla? Several CAS bugs have recently been fixed -
this might have been too, if the developers knew of it.
> If you pay over a hundred
> dollars you would think that the new calc would have a big feature
> that the old one had.
Surely not when the old product cost 4 times as much?
> How often do products go backwards in forcing
> you to use more primitive functions?
On the TI89 you can no longer graph with the rand() function, although
you could in earlier ROMs. This happens all the time.
Regards
Steen
John H Meyers
written in UserRPL with a little help from library 256.
When implementing any user-defined function of symbolic arguments,
a serious problem is that the arguments of user-defined functions
are not normally quoted, hence they will be evaluated if possible,
even before the user function is invoked.
This is equally true of HP48 and HP49, E.g.
'\GS(a=b,c,d)'
@ built-in function,
@ key arguments remain symbolic when compiled:
SYMBOL
SYMBOL
ID a
;
ID b
ID c
SYMBOL
ID d
;
xSUM
;
'\PI(a,b,c,d)'
@ user-defined,
@ all args are unfortunately pre-evaluated:
SYMBOL
ID a
ID b
ID c
ID d
SYMBOL
ID \PI
;
BINT4
xFCNAPPLY
;
A second problem for some user functions,
such as a complete \PI [product] function
to complement the built-in \GS [summation] function,
is that when args 'b' and 'c' above
are not numeric when evaluated, then it may be
desirable to return an unevaluated symbolic result,
identical if possible to the original expression,
hence that result must be built again
from the original arguments, which again
requires that args 'a' and 'd' remain unevaluated.
It is possible to solve the first problem by ensuring
that the "stepping variable" does not exist, or by
quoting the first and last arguments to the user function,
e.g. 'X' PURGE '\PI(X,2,3,SQ(X))' EVAL
or '\PI(QUOTE(X),2,3,QUOTE(SQ(X)))' EVAL
It is even possible to solve it by evaluating the
expression in another context where user variables
can not be found, such as the hidden directory context.
However, in this post we supply yet another method,
which is to write the formula as if it were a summation,
e.g. '\GS(X=2,3,SQ(X))'
and then apply the program SIGPI to change \GS into \PI;
this takes advantage of the built-in compiler's
understanding of how to quote the original arguments properly.
Any of these methods works, so take your pick;
it would of course be nicer to put it into an installed library
with whatever would make the compiler and decompiler treat \PI
the same as they treat the built-in summation function,
but that detail is left to the interested reader as an exercise :)
I haven't tried it on any "nested" instances,
such as that proposed elsewhere in this thread
(neither have I bothered to try those nested summations
on the 48G or 49G), so there's something else to pursue later.
I even have yet another idea in mind, which is to provide
a product function via the summation function itself,
e.g. via a form such as '\GS(X=2,3,PROD(SQ(X)))'
What PROD would have to do is to interact with the internals
of the \GS implementation -- yep, you guessed it,
it would have to grab the currently saved sum from its
lambda variable, replace it by the current product, and then
return a zero value for \GS to "add" to what it thinks
is the running "sum."
Of course, one more hack would be necessary, to recognize
the very first iteration and start off at 1, rather than at zero.
Here are SIGPI and \PI user functions,
whipped up for this demonstration in UserRPL,
to illustrate that nothing is beyond the realm of possibility.
You must first install the "extable" library,
then perform HOME 256 ATTACH,
then you may transfer or type the following
(on HP49 series calcs):
\<< \->LST 1. \<< CASE DUP { \GS } HEAD SAME NSUB ENDSUB == AND
THEN DROP { \PI } \->ALG 4. R~SB "xFCNAPPLY" GETADR A\-> END
NSUB 1. == NSUB 4. == OR THEN "symcomp" GETADR SYSEVAL END
END \>> DOSUBS \->ALG \>> 'SIGPI' STO
\<< \-> n. t. u. v. \<< t. I\->R TYPE u. I\->R TYPE OR
{ n. t. u. v. ::\GS DTAG 5. \->LIST SIGPI }
{ n. DUP TYPE 9. == { \->LST HEAD } IFT DUP ::n. STO
DUP TYPE 6. \=/ { STOVX } IFT
1. R\->I DUP ROT "CREATE" GETADR SYSEVAL IFERR
t. u. FOR i. i. n. STO v. EVAL * NEXT
THEN 1. ELSE 0. END n. PURGE { ERRN DOERR } IFT } IFTE
\>> \>> '\PI' STO
@ To create some test cases:
'\GS(X=2,3,SQ(X))' SIGPI
'\GS(X=2,3,Y^X)' SIGPI
'\GS(X=W,Z,SQ(X))' SIGPI
123 'X' STO @ an existing 'X' is no obstacle
{ Y Z } PURGE @ let 'Y' and 'Z' be undefined
2 'W' STO @ but 'W' doesn't have to be
@ [r->] [OFF]
Frère-Pierre
X
> yourself that supports units. That way, you and Veli-Pekka would be
> happy, and if ever a third person needed it, they could just download
> it from hpcalc.org.
Are you happy with the keys, Steen?
No?
Why not design and build your own keyboard
The instruction you naturally upload to www.hpcalc.org
Veli-Pekka
Steen Schmidt
> Are you happy with the keys, Steen?
Currently I am, actually. You got KEYTIME back, aren't you happy?
> Why not design and build your own keyboard
> The instruction you naturally upload to www.hpcalc.org
Now you're going off a tangent again, Veli-Pekka. I paid for a working
keyboard, you weren't promised unit support in the EQW.
Programming a new EQW is also a tad more feasible than to build a new
keyboard, right? All the programming (SysRPL) knowledge you can get
from this group if you ask around, and among the supported entries are
a lot of tools that in a quick way will get you a working EQW - you
don't have to start from scratch as the MetaKernel team did. Have you
looked at the task before you asked others to do it for you? You maybe
don't know how to program in SysRPL? Ask, then, but be prepared to
spend some time on it. The last 2 months or more I have spent 1-5 hours
a day programming for the HP49G+ - every day. I don't have the time to
make a new EQW for you. I haven't even had time to fix the gearbox in
my motorcycle yet, even though it needs to be ready in about 2 months.
And how many have complained about the keyboard? How many have
complained about the EQW not supporting units? Hence, the first is a
global user problem, the latter is your problem.
Contribute, or stop complaining. You contribute by pointing out bugs -
that's great. But you don't magically get new functions added to the
calc by bullying someone else into programming them for you -
especially not when the user base for said function seem to be as small
as it is. There is nothing wrong with you or ME or someone else
programming a new EQW - why is every functionality these days looked at
as something that can only be done by HP (and somehow JY is put at the
forefront of this non-existing software squad)?
Regards
Steen
Frère-Pierre
> Frčre-Pierre wrote:
>
>> Are you happy with the keys, Steen?
>
> Currently I am, actually. You got KEYTIME back, aren't you happy?
Will it fix the broken key-hinges?
>> Why not design and build your own keyboard
>> The instruction you naturally upload to www.hpcalc.org
>
> Now you're going off a tangent again, Veli-Pekka. I paid for a working
> keyboard, you weren't promised unit support in the EQW.
Did they really promise you a working keyboard?
What is your defination of a working keyboard?
AHAA!!!
The old HP-48 keyboard
Quess what: google-search found others wanting better keyboard
AND other wanting units to the Equation Writer
X
> spend some time on it. The last 2 months or more I have spent 1-5
> hours a day programming for the HP49G+ - every day. I don't have the
> time to make a new EQW for you. I haven't even had time to fix the
> gearbox in my motorcycle yet, even though it needs to be ready in
> about 2 months.
I did not say that you, Steen, has to program a new EQW
HP failed to dliver many things common in older models
EQW with units is just one of them
> And how many have complained about the keyboard? How many have
> complained about the EQW not supporting units? Hence, the first is a
> global user problem, the latter is your problem.
Not solely mine. You are now going off the tangent, Steen.
> Contribute, or stop complaining. You contribute by pointing out bugs -
> that's great.
OK
and I have contributed many times in many ways - even SysRPL
> But you don't magically get new functions added to the
> calc by bullying someone else into programming them for you -
new functions? OK, PI is a new function to HP (not TI)
EQW with units is an *old* function missing
> especially not when the user base for said function seem to be as
> small as it is. There is nothing wrong with you or ME or someone else
> programming a new EQW - why is every functionality these days looked
> at as something that can only be done by HP (and somehow JY is put at
> the forefront of this non-existing software squad)?
Gerald is the man to "blaim" (Thanks, The new EQW is fast, but no units)
Actually I would like to see how fast the old EQW is now...
or perhaps it could be programmed using HPGCC
I hope HP/Cyrille could release source code for the old EQW
Perhaps we all can join forces to do the job together
==============
One more things, Steen:
Why do you think that wanting something is so bad?
We have now KEYTIME (as you mentioned)
We have now Advance Users Reference Manual Beta
We have a lot of bug fixes
HPQ & Hydrix & Kinpo are doing a lot of good work
I don't deny that
The calc is going slowly towards perfection
It's just that in the old times the perfection was 1st goal for HP
Today not
I feel sorry for JYA - I think he would like to do more
(while getting payd to do it)
I by no means to little the work done so far.
===================
To Steen only:
I wonder why you are soind that special functions library
Your work load seems to be enormous
Is it like the mounting climbing: you do it because "it's there"
Veli-Pekka
Looking forward to your SpecFn Lib
THNX
ME
> ME wrote:
>
>> The point that I am making is that a company like
>> HP ,when it had a good reputation, should not have cut off their user
>> base by dumping a powerful feature for expressions that contain
>> units.
>
> The trade-off was probably deemed worth it - if the choice was either
> the dead-slow EQW of the HP48 series w/ unit support, or the new EQW
> without, then I'd choose the new one any day. But personally, I haven't
> had much use for unit support in the EQW, so I'm obviously biased.
Where is it documented that unit support will slow down the 49G+ EQW to the
speed of the 48?
The trade off was probably ,with our new calc team, we will spend money on a
bright anodized blue calc body with matching blue cover (isn't that just
charming Sally) instead of getting the thing to work so we Engineers can
(there he goes again) get the job done.
>
> It's like that with all features, if you use them, they are important,
> if you do not, well, they do not matter.
Well ask the guy selling ice-cream down the street which features that he
would use and would consider as important. The world uses "+", "*", "=", and
"-" 99.99% of the calc operations performed in any given day. So I guess the
other functions don't matter!
>
>> Rewriting the EQW would not necessarily be compatible with
>> future ROM updates.
>
> But it might be, or might be simple to make compatible again. The above
> would be true for all programs - should that keep people from
> programming?
Might be this or might be that. For Engineers the calc is a tool to get the
job done. When you spend more time trying to get the tool to work or trying
to understand why it doesn't or hassling with HP then its time to find
another way to get the job done.
>
>> It is not that "the calc lacks this or that
>> feature" it is that the company dumped a feature that the calcs
>> predecessor had in the case of units.
>
> But they added so much else. They didn't remove the unit support from
> the EQW, the EQW was rewritten from scratch. They also broke backwards
> compatibility when putting a larger screen onto the HP49G+. Should they
> have avoided that? I think not.
>
> But, it's of course fine to ask for more functionality, but I'd hazard
> a guess that says it would happen faster if you just made an EQW
> yourself that supports units. That way, you and Veli-Pekka would be
> happy, and if ever a third person needed it, they could just download
> it from hpcalc.org.
>
>> I have a program to do PI.
>
> Is that on hpcalc.org?
>
>> But HP can even get the Sigma function to work correctly!
>
> It seems like a bug you have known for quite some time - why haven't
> you posted it on bugzilla? Several CAS bugs have recently been fixed -
> this might have been too, if the developers knew of it.
HP should have found it in testing it is not that complicated. Don't give me
any excuses it is simply piss poor software engineering period.
HP has know about for quite a while (over nine months) and has done nothing
about it and other problems because they have ,again , an apathetic attitude
about these bugs. And yes I have spoken with them about them and eamiled
them. It was difficult to even get them to understand the problem.
The HP 49G+ construction is simply crap but I need fucntionality first to
get the job done. Yes I have updated the ROM and superglued the "belt" back
on etc. The documentation is pathetic too. Functionality Functionality
Functionality! But when you can't even get that?
But who would want to do a double summation anyway probably just some crazy
old engineer! Not deemed important Ok Ok I get the message.
>
>> If you pay over a hundred
>> dollars you would think that the new calc would have a big feature
>> that the old one had.
>
> Surely not when the old product cost 4 times as much?
>
The money spent on the HP 48 is a sunk cost and does not enter into the
picture.
>> How often do products go backwards in forcing
>> you to use more primitive functions?
>
Give me a break you can't compare reverting to 1980's text editing just
because you have one unit object in your expression to not graphing witn
rand().
That is why many engineers have given up on HP calcs! Lke I said I am just
waiting for a good palm top to host Derive on. This attitude that
engineering uses are not important like EQW with units is what is driving
the decline of HP calc computing. When I was in college over twenty years
ago everyone had an HP 41 today kids coming out of school baulk at the
thought of relying on a calc when you have "computers". If HP keeps ignoring
it's engineer base then it will become a company that seels to students that
use its basic functions and let it collect dust after graduation.
Look at the competition form TI.
> On the TI89 you can no longer graph with the rand() function, although
> you could in earlier ROMs. This happens all the time.
>
> Regards
> Steen
Now it need to return to getting something accomplished and will be
traveling the next week after which I will look at the replies
Steen Schmidt
> > Currently I am, actually. You got KEYTIME back, aren't you happy?
>
> Will it fix the broken key-hinges?
Nope, HP should exchange calcs with broken key hinges, but I know all
too well that that is kinda hard to make them do. I thought it was
because of my especially hard pressing of the keys, that the key hinges
on my unit failed? ;-))
> Did they really promise you a working keyboard?
I have a working keyboard on a HP49G+ right in front of me at the
moment. But I wasn't promised anything, and if (hopefully not when) it
fails, I'll be miserable again. But units with great keyboards exist,
they should all have been like that from the start of course. I cannot
say that no keys will ever break on this particular calc - only time
will tell. Thye key action is good though - much better than on the
first units. The display is also slightly different, not better or
worse, but different.
> What is your defination of a working keyboard?
The HP48S/G has a good keyboard, the HP49G has a bad keyboard. At
least, one shouldn't expect the keys to physically break off, then you
have come far.
> Quess what: google-search found others wanting better keyboard
> AND other wanting units to the Equation Writer
Look, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, and I'm surpirsed the current
EQW doesn't support unit objects. I don't know the reason for this. I'm
just frustrated that only a handful of people seem to develop software
for these calcs at this day and age.
> I did not say that you, Steen, has to program a new EQW
> HP failed to dliver many things common in older models
> EQW with units is just one of them
When did HP promise that the new EQW would include all features of the
old one? I don't remeber so much biggering in 1997 for instance. Then,
it was more like "hey, this is a cool feature, but it's not on the calc
- I'll do that!".
> > And how many have complained about the keyboard? How many have
> > complained about the EQW not supporting units? Hence, the first is a
> > global user problem, the latter is your problem.
>
> Not solely mine. You are now going off the tangent, Steen.
I meant relatively speaking - not yours singularly. But I haven't
noticed that many who have complained about it. But seriously, I do
notice many many posts that go like "this feature isn't there, and I
want it". Then two months later; "why is there no ROM update yet, with
MY feature in it"? Do you think TI would even look for three seconds at
what 2, 3 or 5 users wanted to have inlcuded in the next ROM? That's
the playing field HP has to addhere to today - the alternative is that
no more HP calcs would be produced. And come on, there is no excuse for
not doing these things themselves, considering the knowledge base and
programmability of these HP calcs.
I get the feeling that people'd rather see me than themselves spend 20
hours doing something.
> and I have contributed many times in many ways - even SysRPL
I know, but why not continue? I'm not pointing fingers at you, but have
you seriously considered doing the EQW thing yourself, and if not, why
not?
> new functions? OK, PI is a new function to HP (not TI)
> EQW with units is an old function missing
Why is it an old function missing? It was never in the HP49?
> Why do you think that wanting something is so bad?
It reminds me of my son - he wants a lot of things, but has a hard time
getting those things. I try to explain to him that with kind words and
by initiating the project (big or small) himself, there's a much better
chance for him to get the things he want. He'll learn eventually I
hope, or he'll miss out on a lot of good things in life.
My responsibility is also to teach him not to fall prey to the other
kids (bullies) that haven't learned that you get furthest with kind
words and by lending a hand first.
I doubt the EQW in the HP49G+ will ever support units, unless an end
user make it so. What would the motivation for HP be?
> It's just that in the old times the perfection was 1st goal for HP
> Today not
Consider this:
What made the HP48GX able to compete with the TI89? Not HP for sure, or
else I wouldn't have had to load up several hundred kB of programs from
hpcalc.org. No, the users made the HP48G series great, HP only supplied
the platform. The platform is still as versatile today, the only
difference is that this time around, the platform is *much* better than
the HP48GX was. Unfortunately, the contributions from the users have
all but vanished.
Perfection is not a feasible goal for any company today. It's not a
goal for me either - it can't be, as I wouldn't have time in my life to
do more than one project, and I would never even finish that project
either, as it would never be quite perfect. I'm trying to spend my time
in a way, so that I get more in return than I invest.
> I feel sorry for JYA - I think he would like to do more
> (while getting payd to do it)
And so would CdB I'm sure, and many other people. But time is limited,
and only by helping each other we can get there - not by shouting at HP
or individuals.
> I wonder why you are soind that special functions library
> Your work load seems to be enormous
It is.
> Is it like the mounting climbing: you do it because "it's there"
I do it because I find it fun, and because HPGCC is great to use. I do
it because I'm a performance maniac - that was why I once learned
SysRPL too. But, I need other people to use my software, or I won't do
it (I do have other things I can spend my time on). I also need to be
proud of what I do, and I'm not proud if the HP user base starts to
imitate the TI one (generally speaking).
I'm proud to build on other peoples great work (99,9% of the HP4x
platform is outstanding work, HPGCC is outstanding, the support I get
from certain people is outstanding etc). I'm proud about the
documentation that exist for SysRPL for instance - the work of Carsten
and Eduardo and many others. I'm proud to "know" intelligent people
like JYA, yourself, JHM, JKH, Detlef, Mika, Bhuv and many many others.
I'm so proud about many things that is/were in this community, that I
sometimes use events or objects from this community as examples in
discussions or lectures. I also get very sad when I see these things
deteriorate, but that's probably just the way of the world today.
Well, I gotta stop here, as my family needs something to eat - I'll hop
into the kitchen :-)
Regards
Steen
Steen Schmidt
> Where is it documented that unit support will slow down the 49G+ EQW
> to the speed of the 48?
Nowhere, and that's beside the point. If the only way the new EQW would
be made, was without unit support (because the time wasn't to do it,
there wasn't room in the ROM or whatever), then you have the tradeoff -
it's either a new EQW or stick with the old one. If you go with the new
one, you have no unit support but a fast implementation, if you stick
with the old one, you are dead slow but have unit support. I'm sure the
new EQW would be lightning fast also with unit support.
> Well ask the guy selling ice-cream down the street which features
> that he would use and would consider as important. The world uses
> "+", "*", "=", and "-" 99.99% of the calc operations performed in any
> given day. So I guess the other functions don't matter!
For the ice-cream guy they don't. You get my point (taken as much out
of contect as my reply to you).
> For Engineers the calc is a tool to get the job done.
Is that special for Engineers?
> > It seems like a bug you have known for quite some time - why haven't
> > you posted it on bugzilla? Several CAS bugs have recently been
> > fixed - this might have been too, if the developers knew of it.
>
> HP should have found it in testing it is not that complicated.
I see you're not a software Engineer, and I understand you have little
knownledge about a complex piece of software like what drives these
calcs.
> Don't give me any excuses it is simply piss poor software engineering
> period.
I'm sure you'll coax some piss poor software Engineer into program your
little missing functions like that.
> HP has know about for quite a while (over nine months)
"HP"? All 140000 employees world wide or whom do you especially think
off?
> and has done nothing about it and other problems because they have
,again , an
> apathetic attitude about these bugs.
Oh, why bother then.
> And yes I have spoken with them
> about them and eamiled them. It was difficult to even get them to
> understand the problem.
I think you have spoken with the wrong persons then. That's piss poor
problem management from your side then.
You never explained why you didn't post the bug to Bugzilla on
hpcalc.org, where someone fixing bugs might read it? That would
probably have been the fastest way to get the bug fixed. But then you
wouldn't have so much to complain about now, would you?
> The money spent on the HP 48 is a sunk cost and does not enter into
> the picture.
Of course it does, as you compare functionality between the two
products. Two years ago I had a Maserati 3200GT, now I have a Renault
Laguna 3.0 V6 - should I complain that the Laguna isn't accelerating as
fast as the Maserati? No, it's two different products, one costing
almost 4 times as much as the other (although they are almost equal in
fuel economy).
That the HP49G+ outperform the HP48GX in 99,99% of what they do, and
still only cost a quarter of the latter, that doesn't get mentioned?
You choose to focus on the one functionality that *hasn't* been
included from the HP48, just because *you* need it? And don't give me
that BS about being an Engineer - as I told you, I'm an EE too, and I
haven't missed the unit support in the EQW. People have different needs
- go join those who miss the unit support, and together you might find
a solution if it's that important.
> Give me a break you can't compare reverting to 1980's text editing
> just because you have one unit object in your expression to not
> graphing witn rand().
You're absolutely right. For me it's much more important to be able to
graph with the rand() function than unit support in the EQW is - I
correct my viewpoint, which makes you the more in err.
> This attitude that engineering uses are not important like EQW with
> units is what is driving the decline of HP calc computing.
Don't flatter yourself. What drives calc sales are educational
institutions. I don't think Engineers are a driving force, but even if
they are, why aren't you using one of the better products, if they
exist? If there aren't anything better currently, what should motivate
HP to make the HP49G+ better than it currently is? Your flattering
words?
> Look at the competition form TI.
I suggest you do the same. Your harsh way of expressing yourself fits
that community better.
Regards
Steen
Frère-Pierre
> ME wrote:
X
> I'm sure you'll coax some piss poor software Engineer into program
> your little missing functions like that.
Nicely put
X
> products. Two years ago I had a Maserati 3200GT, now I have a Renault
> Laguna 3.0 V6 - should I complain that the Laguna isn't accelerating
> as fast as the Maserati? No, it's two different products, one costing
> almost 4 times as much as the other (although they are almost equal in
> fuel economy).
The Maserati shut down their production line
and started to build Lagunas subcontracting to a French company?
I bet `the buttons in your Laguna break easily
(they are actually manufactured in China)
;-)
> that BS about being an Engineer - as I told you, I'm an EE too, and I
nice language that "BS" - is it "Baby-Spit" ? :)
X
> Don't flatter yourself.
Complements, too!
X
>> Look at the competition form TI.
>
> I suggest you do the same. Your harsh way of expressing yourself fits
> that community better.
Harsh? and you were not?
> Regards
> Steen
DUP-standards Steen ???
Why don't we all join the TI group?
The above text from me was also harsh against Steen
so I must be slowly turning into the Dark side
I remember Tim & JYA defending ALGebraic 39
If go to the path of the Dark Side
Forever will it rule our Destiny <Yoda's voice>
Jean-Yves Avenard
> Frčre-Pierre wrote:
>
>
>>>Currently I am, actually. You got KEYTIME back, aren't you happy?
>>
>>Will it fix the broken key-hinges?
>
>
> Nope, HP should exchange calcs with broken key hinges, but I know all
> too well that that is kinda hard to make them do. I thought it was
> because of my especially hard pressing of the keys, that the key hinges
> on my unit failed? ;-))
>
key-wiggle fix (couldn't have been good for the keyboard for sure !)
Otherwise Steen, in your previous posts you were spot on...
Now it's "I want, I want, I want" nobody share much anymore.
I guess I'm the same on other topic too, like on linux, I will look very
hard to find something already existing rather than doing it myself.
For my side, I became more and more frustrated on doing so many fixes
(not even officially nor paid for it when it's not even *my* product)
with people never *ever* satisfied.
JY
Steen Schmidt
> The Maserati shut down their production line
> and started to build Lagunas subcontracting to a French company?
No, I grew tired of the poor electronics quality in the Maserati, and I
never had a chance to drive it since my sons safety seat wasn't really
compatible with it (well, the car wasn't really built with that in mind
I guess). The insurance was a killer too. The Laguna is way better in
that respect - loads of room for the family and much leaner on the
insurance. I had hoped for better fuel economics though, so I'll
probably change the Laguna for something else soon (although I like the
car very much). Then I'll hopefully be able to afford moving into a
house instead of my flat :-)
> Harsh? and you were not?
Just trying to fit in.
> Why don't we all join the TI group?
I've tried, but they don't want me.
Cheers,
Steen
ME
> ME wrote:
>
>> Where is it documented that unit support will slow down the 49G+ EQW
>> to the speed of the 48?
>
> Nowhere, and that's beside the point. If the only way the new EQW would
> be made, was without unit support (because the time wasn't to do it,
> there wasn't room in the ROM or whatever), then you have the tradeoff -
> it's either a new EQW or stick with the old one. If you go with the new
> one, you have no unit support but a fast implementation, if you stick
> with the old one, you are dead slow but have unit support. I'm sure the
> new EQW would be lightning fast also with unit support.
>
>> Well ask the guy selling ice-cream down the street which features
>> that he would use and would consider as important. The world uses
>> "+", "*", "=", and "-" 99.99% of the calc operations performed in any
>> given day. So I guess the other functions don't matter!
>
> For the ice-cream guy they don't. You get my point (taken as much out
> of contect as my reply to you).
>
>> For Engineers the calc is a tool to get the job done.
>
> Is that special for Engineers?
everyone else is doing with the calc. Maybe many are playing Minehunt or
using it to generate art. IF so more power to them.
>
>> > It seems like a bug you have known for quite some time - why haven't
>> > you posted it on bugzilla? Several CAS bugs have recently been
>> > fixed - this might have been too, if the developers knew of it.
>>
>> HP should have found it in testing it is not that complicated.
>
> I see you're not a software Engineer, and I understand you have little
> knownledge about a complex piece of software like what drives these
> calcs.
;)
In areospace when things go wrong from software it usually is catatropic
like melt-downs ,aircraft departing controlled flight , Nulcear weapons
arming or not arming when they are supposed to , Mars rovers rebooting
almost until full battery discharge, probes burning up in the atmosphere
etc.
When you build a new version and test it to make sure that it at *least*
does what the previous one did as you know it's called regression testing.
As you know, it is standard practice in quality software companies. Nested
summations are not new to HP look on page 14-12 and 14-13 of the HP 48G
user's guide.
>
>> Don't give me any excuses it is simply piss poor software engineering
>> period.
>
> I'm sure you'll coax some piss poor software Engineer into program your
> little missing functions like that.
>
>> HP has know about for quite a while (over nine months)
>
> "HP"? All 140000 employees world wide or whom do you especially think
> off?
has a problem. The peolple that used to stand behind their product. The
people who would give you a case number and really get back to you and not
wait 9 months later until you call them and then say it would take several
more months. I know that If I had not called them they would have done
nothing because they had no explaination as to why nothing was done with it.
No, I don't expect much from HP anymore.
>
>> and has done nothing about it and other problems because they have
> ,again , an
>> apathetic attitude about these bugs.
>
> Oh, why bother then.
yes why bother.
>
>> And yes I have spoken with them
>> about them and eamiled them. It was difficult to even get them to
>> understand the problem.
>
> I think you have spoken with the wrong persons then. That's piss poor
> problem management from your side then.
>
> You never explained why you didn't post the bug to Bugzilla on
> hpcalc.org, where someone fixing bugs might read it? That would
> probably have been the fastest way to get the bug fixed. But then you
> wouldn't have so much to complain about now, would you?
If you can't get the company to support their prodcuts then you have'nt got
a chance. If you don't bring it to the company's attention then they will
assume that everything is just peachy keen and not fix the greater
underlying problems.
>
>> The money spent on the HP 48 is a sunk cost and does not enter into
>> the picture.
>
> Of course it does, as you compare functionality between the two
> products. Two years ago I had a Maserati 3200GT, now I have a Renault
> Laguna 3.0 V6 - should I complain that the Laguna isn't accelerating as
> fast as the Maserati? No, it's two different products, one costing
> almost 4 times as much as the other (although they are almost equal in
> fuel economy).
>
> That the HP49G+ outperform the HP48GX in 99,99% of what they do, and
> still only cost a quarter of the latter, that doesn't get mentioned?
> You choose to focus on the one functionality that *hasn't* been
> included from the HP48, just because *you* need it? And don't give me
> that BS about being an Engineer - as I told you, I'm an EE too, and I
> haven't missed the unit support in the EQW.
Go join the ice-cream man because he does'nt miss it either. 99.99% of the
population won't miss 99% of the fucntions that you feel are important. But
that is the point that you miss. If you want a calc that is based on
majority needs then the one dollar calc made in China is perfect and the
heck with everyone else because they can make their own support.
>People have different needs
> - go join those who miss the unit support, and together you might find
> a solution if it's that important.
>
>> Give me a break you can't compare reverting to 1980's text editing
>> just because you have one unit object in your expression to not
>> graphing witn rand().
>
> You're absolutely right. For me it's much more important to be able to
> graph with the rand() function than unit support in the EQW is - I
> correct my viewpoint, which makes you the more in err.
>
>> This attitude that engineering uses are not important like EQW with
>> units is what is driving the decline of HP calc computing.
>
> Don't flatter yourself. What drives calc sales are educational
> institutions. I don't think Engineers are a driving force, but even if
> they are, why aren't you using one of the better products, if they
> exist?
I lement the decline of what was a fine company with fine products that
would have been embarrassed to let the 49G or the 49G+ ever leave the R&D
division with the problems that we have seen because they valued their
reputation on an individual basis. One of the instructors that I had came
back to teach for a while from HP calculators. He spoke highly of the
company and it's products. My Ex brother-in-law worked on a HP computer
production line and after touring it I was very impressed by the comitment
of the people there. HP has clearly lost a great deal and it shows in it's
products and customer support. Maybe your right Engineers are not a driving
force anymore and I am just one of the last dinosaur holdouts that should
have thrown in the towel long ago like so many others. Maybe it is now a
student calculator with no room for nonstudents.
ME
Message #6 Posted by Steen Schmidt on 14 Nov 2001, 7:11 p.m.,
in response to message #1 by Iain Morris
> I appreciate your feedback and loyalty to the hp brand, and look forward
> to your continued support.
Continued support? You must be joking Iain. That support is gone. I'm sure
you have underestimated the importance of "HP calculator fans" as you put
it. Many of the people you're talking about are EEs, scientists and
teachers. You do not imagine this, as merely one point of media disaster,
being unimportant?
What about the failing quality from Agilent? What about the Carly Fiorina
judgement failure (media doom)? The Compaq panic act? Just a couple of
recent mishaps from HP - the comapny was something 10-15 years ago, now
you're merely Microsoft over again. You (or Carly) forget that we do have
something to say. Sadly.
Let's guess to what dollar amount of electronics equipment I will decide for
a company to buy throughout my career? USD 1,000,000? 10,000,000?
100,000,000? What about the poeple I convince not to go the HP way? The
people they convince? This is not religion Iain, it's business. HP is
doomed, and the contents of that final Compaq deal just proves it again.
Regards Steen
"Steen Schmidt" <ssch...@nospam.dk> wrote in message
news:xn0ehjrh...@news.tele.dk...
Jean-Yves Avenard
> In areospace when things go wrong from software it usually is catatropic
> like melt-downs ,aircraft departing controlled flight , Nulcear weapons
> arming or not arming when they are supposed to , Mars rovers rebooting
> almost until full battery discharge, probes burning up in the atmosphere
Of course all other companies other than Apple fully test their system
as they are great engineer. Like the European Mars rover or the 2nd US one.
And for the Nuclear weapon control, did they ever *really* tried this
one :) Good news is that if it fails, it will not matter much anyway or
will not matter for much longer !
JY
ME
I you have my vote for HP to pay you but they are much too cheap for that. I
don't expect anyone to do anything except HP since it is their product and
they are enjoying the profit.
"Jean-Yves Avenard" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:43im5aF...@individual.net...
Frère-Pierre
> For my side, I became more and more frustrated on doing so many fixes (not
> even officially nor paid for it when it's not even *my* product) with
> people never *ever* satisfied.
That's true, HP users will always demand a better product
than the previous one - in every possible respect better.
That's how it was and that's how it will continue
Sorry!
I will thank you, Avenardix, for these:
- MetaKernel Integrated
- Key Assignments with key-hold
- free work on bug fixes
- and much, much more
ALL your work has been wonderful !!!
We will all appreciate it very very much
and remeber it for our lifetime.
Don't you ever dare to doubt that!
Yours truly
Veli-Pekka
PS:
while we are at that (I hope you enjoy this) :)
could you persuade HPQ to program
a complex solver than works in the EQW
and allows complex pair in polar form with units
(2_V <)45_o) + (X <)270_o) = (-12_V <)2_r)
John H Meyers
> Maybe it is now a student calculator...
How come it took so long to figure that out?
HP was founded by engineers who were oriented towards
creating things themselves, for people just like themselves,
in areas entirely new to their industry; there is nothing
like that environment now in these same old product areas
(oe even companies), and the current business is one of marketing
some commodity which someone else can make (and make ever cheaper)
for an entirely different consumer and market.
> HP has done nothing because they have an apathetic attitude;
> It was difficult to even get them to understand the problem.
Surely you know that you asked the wrong people,
who exist to hold hands with the clueless,
hence need not be of such high level themselves;
marketers do not invest much in that.
It is only right here that you can reach the top technical level
deep within this product area -- but still not the marketers
who decide whether or what to invest in the future,
so what good is beating on the former
just because you can't reach the latter?
As to editing expressions containing units in the new EQW
(as well as other issues you are complaining about),
a really creative engineer would have solved that for himself,
perhaps by omitting the units (or replacing them with variables)
until done editing, then applying the units later
(perhaps via replacing the "placeholder" variables),
and by creating the other needed functions for himself,
but such ingenuity and "can do" spirit,
in place of merely blaming the poor tools,
is yet another thing that has vanished,
right along with that older breed of "real engineers" :)
[r->] [OFF]
acl
> a really creative engineer would have solved that for himself,
> perhaps by omitting the units (or replacing them with variables)
> until done editing, then applying the units later
.....a theoretical physicist, on the other hand, would just choose
h=c=...=1, and measure everything in units of (say) length. Voila! No
need for unit management :)
martin cohen
> Bug fixes and the Sigma function? What? They can't even get that right. Try
> this
> Sigma (j=1,10,Sigma(j=11,j^k)) on the 49g+ and the 48GX and tell me what you
> get.
Also, the indices of summation should differ between the inner and outer
sums.
Mark Of The
aware by now that we operate under a new system, iterative development,
that is where you hastily throw a product together then allow it to
"evolve" in the marketplace. This allows one and all to get the
satisfaction of helping to build the product. It instills great customer
loyalty after they put in all that sweat equity ;)
MK
John H Meyers wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 18:45:30 -0600:
>
>> Maybe it is now a student calculator...
>
>
> How come it took so long to figure that out?
>
> HP was founded by engineers who were oriented towards
> creating things themselves, for people just like themselves,
> in areas entirely new to their industry; there is nothing
> like that environment now in these same old product areas
> (oe even companies), and the current business is one of marketing
> some commodity which someone else can make (and make ever cheaper)
> for an entirely different consumer and market.
>
[SNIP]
> [r->] [OFF]
John H Meyers
> From my side, I became more and more frustrated
> on doing so many fixes (..when it's not even *my* product)
> with people never *ever* satisfied.
"You can satisfy all the people some of the time,
you can satisfy some of the people all the time,
but you can't satisfy all the people all the time" :)
Do what you like and believe in,
for your *own* satisfaction,
upon your own conviction,
then what others express will not disturb you.
"If I were to try to read, much less answer,
all the attacks made on me,
this shop might as well be closed for any other business.
I do the very best I know how - the very best I can;
and I mean to keep doing so until the end.
If the end brings me out all right,
what's said against me won't amount to anything.
If the end brings me out wrong,
ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference."
"I desire so to conduct the affairs of this administration
that if at the end, I have lost every other friend on earth,
I shall at least have one friend left,
and that friend shall be down inside me."
Abraham Lincoln
ME
"John H Meyers" <jhme...@miu.edu> wrote in message
news:op.s3utn...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 18:45:30 -0600:
>
>> Maybe it is now a student calculator...
>
> How come it took so long to figure that out?
back from a business trip and I've been up for 22.5 hours straight)
>
> HP was founded by engineers who were oriented towards
> creating things themselves, for people just like themselves,
> in areas entirely new to their industry; there is nothing
> like that environment now in these same old product areas
> (oe even companies), and the current business is one of marketing
> some commodity which someone else can make (and make ever cheaper)
> for an entirely different consumer and market.
>
>> HP has done nothing because they have an apathetic attitude;
>> It was difficult to even get them to understand the problem.
>
> Surely you know that you asked the wrong people,
> who exist to hold hands with the clueless,
> hence need not be of such high level themselves;
> marketers do not invest much in that.
>
doomed and no more time should be thrown away on it. Can you see that?
> It is only right here that you can reach the top technical level
and if they do they can do it how they want it when they want it and for who
want to give it to. That is not what is referred to as *product support.
That means supporting the product. The product.
> deep within this product area -- but still not the marketers
> who decide whether or what to invest in the future,
> so what good is beating on the former
> just because you can't reach the latter?
>
>
> As to editing expressions containing units in the new EQW
> (as well as other issues you are complaining about),
> a really creative engineer would have solved that for himself,
with superior software 10Tb of flash RAM a 64 bit processor and a custom
ASIC symbolic manipulation engine with a high res color LCD screen that does
voice recognition and a built in lib with everything that you would ever
need. Top that!
> perhaps by omitting the units (or replacing them with variables)
> until done editing, then applying the units later
> (perhaps via replacing the "placeholder" variables),
> and by creating the other needed functions for himself,
> but such ingenuity and "can do" spirit,
that. OK I could do it with my binary abacus.
Frère-Pierre
news:11tmee3...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "John H Meyers" <jhme...@miu.edu> wrote in message
> news:op.s3utn...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 18:45:30 -0600:
>> As to editing expressions containing units in the new EQW
>> (as well as other issues you are complaining about),
>> a really creative engineer would have solved that for himself,
> I really really creative engineer would have designed his own calculator
> with superior software 10Tb of flash RAM a 64 bit processor and a custom
> ASIC symbolic manipulation engine with a high res color LCD screen that
> does voice recognition and a built in lib with everything that you would
> ever need. Top that!
>> perhaps by omitting the units (or replacing them with variables)
>> until done editing, then applying the units later
>> (perhaps via replacing the "placeholder" variables),
>> and by creating the other needed functions for himself,
>> but such ingenuity and "can do" spirit,
> And I could do it with my sliderule too How's that for can do spirit Top
> that. OK I could do it with my binary abacus.
The problems and deficiencies of the product
can not
be put on the shoulders of the customers
no matter how clever programmers they are
Yes, HPQ did not promise to keep the old ways for sure
but
that's the whole problem
One of the worst problems is the changing of the flags
It definately should be at least controlled by a flag
so that like RPN, users could choose
that CAS does not change user settings but temporarely
AND
that should be fixed in the OS, not by the user
A great deal of the people that I support in Finland
are using tha ALG mode (at least at 1st)
and the Vectored-Enter does not work in Algebraic anymore
THAT
should be fixed also
John H Meyers
> No one on this list has any obligation whatsoever
> to do anything for anyone
So they are doing it without obligation, then -- that's how
most of the solutions and improvements have been occurring
all the while. For example, HP declined to release any more
ROM updates for the 49G, but the same people who were
producing them kept right on making fixes and adding things,
and you can now get your best ROM from www.hpcalc.org,
which operates, just as does this newsgroup,
on an entirely voluntary basis, spurred only by the fact
that people want to go on contributing,
even when their company pulls the plug.
The vast base of valuable add-on software
(and personal help right here)
is also almost 100% contributed,
by people who have had no obligation to do anything.
Guarantees and obligations have no meaning whatsoever
if there aren't people standing behind them who want
to fulfill them, and the lack of theoretical obligations
is no obstacle whatsoever to people who care what they are doing,
but there are always people who would rather have a broken contract
to "assess responsibility" than to get the job done without one.
Appreciative people have provided some of the motivation
behind the support provided here, while incorrigible complainers
have at the same time provided much of the discouragement.
"You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar,"
but you'll go on doing it your way anyway (anonymously, of course).
[r->] [OFF]
John H Meyers
> Because I've been up for 22.5 hours straight
Thanks for illustrating our main point,
which is that strained activity, done while fatigued,
is less effective and leaves negative side effects in its wake,
while a small investment in gaining access
to a level of deep restfulness within ourselves
frees the capability within to achieve vastly more,
at the same time without the internal friction
which further wears and taxes us.
Write again when you're at the opposite end of the spectrum
of restfulness vs. fatigue, and compare the output.
Here's what even kids can do; why not all of us, then?
http://www.maharishischooliowa.org/aboutSchool/achievements.htm
E.g. "Grand Champions: Eight grand champion awards in the past decade
in the junior division of the Eastern Iowa Science and Engineering Fair."
"State Champions: 16 boys' state tennis championships,
tying for the most in Iowa history"
"First Place: American High School Math Exam, Iowa Division, four years in a row"
"National Champion: Bravo Cable Channel High School Theater Competition."
"World Record: Winners of the Global Finals of Destination ImagiNation,
and more top-ten finishes than any other school in the world."
Got any kids? Looking for a good educational system?
[r->] [OFF]
Frère-Pierre
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 03:30:36 -0600, an irascible curmudgeon wrote:
> Appreciative people have provided some of the motivation
> behind the support provided here, while incorrigible complainers
> have at the same time provided much of the discouragement.
I'm sorry to hear that the stupid management at HPQ are discouraged
Will they finally leave the company and join the politics?
Perhaps the upper management then hires the productive people back.
ME
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 03:30:36 -0600, an irascible curmudgeon wrote:
>
>> No one on this list has any obligation whatsoever
>> to do anything for anyone
>
> So they are doing it without obligation, then -- that's how
> most of the solutions and improvements have been occurring
> all the while. For example, HP declined to release any more
> ROM updates for the 49G,
but the same people who were
> producing them kept right on making fixes and adding things,
> and you can now get your best ROM from www.hpcalc.org,
> which operates, just as does this newsgroup,
> on an entirely voluntary basis, spurred only by the fact
> that people want to go on contributing,
> even when their company pulls the plug.
>
> The vast base of valuable add-on software
> (and personal help right here)
> is also almost 100% contributed,
> by people who have had no obligation to do anything.
>
> Guarantees and obligations have no meaning whatsoever
> if there aren't people standing behind them who want
> to fulfill them, and the lack of theoretical obligations
> is no obstacle whatsoever to people who care what they are doing,
> but there are always people who would rather have a broken contract
> to "assess responsibility" than to get the job done without one.
>
Charity can not be relied on that is why paid contracts are the rule.
Most people are not begging for charity. They are more than happy to pay
for a product that is supported.
The vast majority of ,at least, HP sci calc users are in this
category.(what's left of them)
That is why most people are getting the job done without one HP sci calc.
> Appreciative people have provided some of the motivation
> behind the support provided here, while incorrigible complainers
> have at the same time provided much of the discouragement.
them to be against you.
I did not buy my HP calcs from you and therefore I do not expect anything
from you and therefore have *no* reason to hold you responsible for what has
and has not been done to support HP calc products.
>
> "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar,"
Samuel Stearley
yourself that supports units.
Correct but writing an EQW isn't exactly a walk in the park. But if
you wan't something done right you have to do it yourself.
Realistically some problems belong to the domain of paid experts. In
this case the experts aren't being paid anymore. I assume anyone here
reading comp.sys.hp48 knows this, and considered this when purchasing a
hp49g+.
To ME: if you like derive so much why not consider an 89 ? The 89s
CAS was written by the company that made Derive and later purchased by
TI. I've never found a strait answer to this but there's been some
debate about the 89 being a port of Derive or if it was written from
scratch.
Regardless I've found PC software like mathCAD to be much more
valuable, I can comment, document, save, and retrieve all my math
problems.
>> if the choice was either the dead-slow EQW of the HP48 series w/ unit support, or the new EQW without..
More like the original 49g was rushed.
ME
"Samuel Stearley" <nya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138535337.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>but I'd hazard a guess that says it would happen faster if you just made
>>>an EQW
> yourself that supports units.
>
> Correct but writing an EQW isn't exactly a walk in the park. But if
> you wan't something done right you have to do it yourself.
>
> Realistically some problems belong to the domain of paid experts. In
> this case the experts aren't being paid anymore. I assume anyone here
> reading comp.sys.hp48 knows this, and considered this when purchasing a
> hp49g+.
JY?
Which of you does HP consider an HP 49G+ development expert?
Which of you are former HP calculator development employees?
How many of you were paid by HP to develop calculators but aren't anymore?
>
>
> To ME: if you like derive so much why not consider an 89 ? The 89s
> CAS was written by the company that made Derive and later purchased by
> TI. I've never found a strait answer to this but there's been some
> debate about the 89 being a port of Derive or if it was written from
> scratch.
is nowhere near as powerful as derive.
I run Derive at home and at work. As I said I am waiting for a good Palm
top. I had hopes on the Flipstart but I don't think that it will go anywhere
or it is waiting for the right technology.
But coming advances in microprocessor design will allow me to run Derive on
a Handtop
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/08/25/vista_handtop_2007
>
> Regardless I've found PC software like mathCAD to be much more
> valuable, I can comment, document, save, and retrieve all my math
> problems.
the near future.
I do a lot of medium end symbolic math that I would like to do without being
tied to a desktop.
I have been using Derive for about 19 years.
Howard Owen
> I really really creative engineer would have designed his own calculator
> with superior software 10Tb of flash RAM a 64 bit processor and a custom
> ASIC symbolic manipulation engine with a high res color LCD screen that does
> voice recognition and a built in lib with everything that you would ever
> need. Top that!
Easily done.
All of that, and the battery life of an HP-15C. 8)
Howard Owen
>But coming advances in microprocessor design will allow me to run Derive on
>a Handtop
>http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/08/25/vista_handtop_2007
That looks interesting. But I think I'd still prefer the form factor of
the Japanese model Sharp Zaurus clamshells. The display is about the
same size, and full VGA, and it has a larger QWERTY keyboard that is
quite comfortable to type on.
However, the ergonomics of the calculator are missing in both designs.
the numeric keypad, coupled with specialized keys for mathematical
functions together make for a machine optimized for mathematical input.
I'm a fast QWERTY typist, but is still faster for me to type 'p 2 /
sin' than type out 'sin(PI/2)' the latter being twice as many
keystrokes. (Of course, '1' is as easy to type in either case. 8)
There's also the issue of battery life. The Zaurii do pretty well, but
even with the promised low power Intel chips, it will be a while before
high resolution color displays, microdrives, WiFi, GHz CPUs and lots of
RAM will be able to run for a week of constant use, let alone a month
or more.
Regards,
Howard
Frère-Pierre
X
> But coming advances in microprocessor design will allow me to run Derive
> on a Handtop
> http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/08/25/vista_handtop_2007
I would rather have QOnnos from Hydrix
or rather a HP-200LX shell, but Linux
Then instead of emulation a totally new calculator/PDA design
ME
processes and power management technologies. I don't think that they like it
either but the whole point is not that any product will necessarily look
like that but that computers will be able to run Windows , be small,powerful
and will have good performance.
Qwerty was designed specifically to be slow in any case.
"Howard Owen" <h...@egbok.com> wrote in message
news:1138564802....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> ME Wrote:
>>But coming advances in microprocessor design will allow me to run Derive
>>on
>>a Handtop
>>http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/08/25/vista_handtop_2007
>
> That looks interesting. But I think I'd still prefer the form factor of
> the Japanese model Sharp Zaurus clamshells. The display is about the
> same size, and full VGA, and it has a larger QWERTY keyboard that is
> quite comfortable to type on.
I like the Flipstart form factor
ME
Has your Yogi responded to this web site?
http://www.geocities.com/bbrigante/
"John H Meyers" <jhme...@miu.edu> wrote in message
news:op.s33pb...@news.cis.dfn.de...
ME
"Frère-Pierre" <DROP...@dlc.fi> wrote in message
news:Qf9Df.1625$MW5....@reader1.news.jippii.net...
> "ME" <abc...@nonodock.net> wrote in message
> news:11tq0tu...@corp.supernews.com...
> X
>> But coming advances in microprocessor design will allow me to run Derive
>> on a Handtop
>> http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/08/25/vista_handtop_2007
> X
> I would rather have QOnnos from Hydrix
> or rather a HP-200LX shell, but Linux
Howard Owen
>I love the HP-200LX form factor.
The clamshell Zaurii are similar, but lack the numeric keypad, alas.
But they run lots of different Linux flavors, including full Debian,
given enough SD or CF space.
http://pdaxrom.org/ and
http://w3.mecanica.upm.es/~smuelas/debianxqt.html are good jumping off
points.
Regards,
Howard
Howard Owen
> Qwerty was designed specifically to be slow in any case.
Maybe so, but it's hardwired into my brain and fingers. give me a
Dvorak keyboard and I'll probably be a quivering mass of protoplasm
within 10 minutes.
Regards,
Howard
Frère-Pierre
Thanks, Howard
SL-C3100 is not supported in Sharp pages
¤GB internal HD (2.9GB free) sounds nice
but the latest vertical model SL-6000 is there
Should I have 50MB free for full root in a PC environment?
John H Meyers
> What even moderately successful company has bet its survival on charity?
Is HP betting its survival on calculators?
It might rather be that they rate calculators very unimportant
to their survival, which could prompt HP to invest very little in them;
of course, there's a potentially self-defeating loop there,
but one which is so common in so many fields.
But your whole rant misses my point -- are you writing as someone
who thinks he can affect anything at HP by yakking here,
or as someone who has a need to just vent steam like this,
or are you ONE current customer, already in possession of
a calculator, who might like some PERSONAL support
through this newsgroup?
If the latter, the opportunity and reality is here,
through contact with key developers; take it or leave it.
> That is why most people are getting the job done without one HP sci calc.
Why not throw yours at the windows of HPQ -- that will be equally effective
as this continuing commentary.
> My comments, and rightfully so, are aimed squarely at HP
> but you have taken them to be against you.
"Squarely" is probably the most correct word in that sentence :)
> But vinegar will kill the bugs (too many) much better.
"Kill the pig, Cut her throat, Spill her blood, Bash it in."
http://www.bookrags.com/notes/lof/TOP4.htm
[r->] [OFF]
John H Meyers
> [have we] responded to this [ranting] web site?
To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln,
if each of us (or our organizations) were to try even to read,
no less respond, to all attacks, then our shops
might as well be closed for any other constructive business.
The successes speak for themselves.
"All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)
John H Meyers
> One of the worst problems is the changing of the flags [by the CAS]
How about the deletion of variables, too
(often the wrong one, or without any necessity)?
But all that has long been tamed by a work-around
(which it's rumored that you even use yourself),
so why keep harping on the problem,
instead of spreading word of a solution:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.hp48/msg/e298cd3b9e1ace6f
By the way, I see signs in successive CAS versions
that some progress has slowly been made;
e.g. it used to be that an unpurged same-name variable
in a higher directory caused CAS command failure,
or that lack of recognizing that some commands use different
variables (as in 'X' STOVX 'Y-1' 'Y' SOLVE) would also
cause command failure, but nowadays the CAS makes you delete
*all* variables (often unnecessarily) to avoid embarrassment :)
XC meanwhile heads off all that variable purging,
and it may continue to be useful
until HP is finally nagged by your repetitive complaints
into internalizing the desired good behavior (if ever).
[r->] [OFF]
John H Meyers
> the Vectored Enter does not work in Algebraic mode any more
An old post of mine reminds me that Vectored Enter for ALG mode
(which I had myself probably requested back then)
may have existed for only a brief moment in history,
and suggests why it may also be an inherently flawed idea
(would you like to explain how you would fix its problems?)
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.hp48/msg/87194d78226db433
[r->] [OFF]
Frère-Pierre
IIRC It worked for me in 1.19-3 &2 & 1
So because you digged it up
it's up to you to test the ROM before 1.19-4 (when it was removed)
to see that it worked
If it doesn't I will double-check and then finally
in the very rare case that I just might possibly be somehow wrong
no - it's not possible => test 1.19-3
Please?
Frère-Pierre
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 08:25:36 -0600, VPN wrote:
>
>> One of the worst problems is the changing of the flags [by the CAS]
>
> How about the deletion of variables, too
> (often the wrong one, or without any necessity)?
Yes, that was avoided by the old HP plotting
(If again I recall correctly)
by creating a new variable on the same name
but how to NOT find an old variable?
Perhaps by internal variable substitution
XC seems to do that
> But all that has long been tamed by a work-around
> (which it's rumored that you even use yourself),
> so why keep harping on the problem,
> instead of spreading word of a solution:
HERE IT IS! THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION !!!
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.hp48/msg/e298cd3b9e1ace6f
**********************************************************************************
My version of alphaENTER
<< DROP 42 >>
> By the way, I see signs in successive CAS versions
> that some progress has slowly been made;
> e.g. it used to be that an unpurged same-name variable
> in a higher directory caused CAS command failure,
> or that lack of recognizing that some commands use different
> variables (as in 'X' STOVX 'Y-1' 'Y' SOLVE) would also
> cause command failure, but nowadays the CAS makes you delete
> *all* variables (often unnecessarily) to avoid embarrassment :)
Heyyy! Progression !! Since when this this happen?
> XC meanwhile heads off all that variable purging,
> and it may continue to be useful
> until HP is finally nagged by your repetitive complaints
> into internalizing the desired good behavior (if ever).
I think never - the best of them are stubborn French
John H Meyers
> IIRC [Vectored ENTER in ALG mode] worked for me in 1.19-3 &2 & 1
If my arithmetical instincts haven't failed me,
1.19-3 would be later than 1.17,
which is when my post thought it was first enabled
(so perhaps it is in HP's "final" official ROM version 1.18?)
> So because you digged it up
> it's up to you to test the ROM before 1.19-4
> (when it was removed) to see that it worked
Sorry, I'm too old to be drafted :)
Does high precision matter, as to which exact version
started and ended the brief attempt to make it work?
Have you figured out in detail how to overcome those problems,
or is this only for a history term paper?
[r->] [OFF]
John H Meyers
> Since when? [CAS deletes more variables than before]
I don't know exactly, but 1.24 (for 49G) and 2.05 (49G+),
with corresponding CAS versions 4.20031005 and 4.20050219,
are demanding to purge the "VX" variable all the time
(whether or not it has any relevance to what's being evaluated),
including any multiple instances in the directory heierarchy,
and also a variable named on level 1 for SOLVE (presumably also
for other commands using a name on level 1 rather than "VX").
This isn't how it used to be (1.19-6?)
Of course, this behavior is better for avoiding command failure,
even though worse for having to delete more variables.
XC heads this off by renaming any variable(s) which the CAS
might even think to purge, on all visible directory levels,
for the duration of what it's evaluating; this scheme
isn't a cure-all, because it can lead to other,
more subtle problems, E.g. 'X' { PURGE } XC won't find 'X',
and there is also a small possibility of name collisions during
renaming, but thus far no one has posted any problems with that,
so either they are keeping quiet,
or it is much rarer than the other problems which XC bypasses,
or there is really no one using XC anyway :)
[r->] [OFF]
Frère-Pierre
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 08:42:46 -0600, VPN wrote:
> and there is also a small possibility of name collisions during
> renaming, but thus far no one has posted any problems with that,
> so either they are keeping quiet,
> or it is much rarer than the other problems which XC bypasses,
> or there is really no one using XC anyway :)
Yo!
I'm using!
Virgil
"Frère-Pierre" <DROP...@dlc.fi> wrote:
I, too!