Recommend a hex calculator?
Grant Edwards
finding much.
HP's offerings are shockingly bad. They require multiple
keystrokes per digit to enter hex numbers and switching bases
is completey cryptic. On the the 35s you press [base][7] when
you want base 10. If you want base 2 you press [base][8]. If
you want base 8 you press [base][3]. For base 16 you press
[base][2].
It doesn't even seem to be consistent. According to the
documentation, sometimes you press [base][1] to get base 10,
and sometimes you press [base][7]. WTF?
TI's offerings are also shabby but not nearly as bad as HP's.
They at least have a model where you can enter hex numbers
with one keystroke per digit.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! The entire CHINESE
at WOMEN'S VOLLEYBALL TEAM all
visi.com share ONE personality --
and have since BIRTH!!
Mark Borgerson
> I'm shopping for a good hex programmer's calculator and I'm not
> finding much.
>
> HP's offerings are shockingly bad. They require multiple
> keystrokes per digit to enter hex numbers and switching bases
> is completey cryptic. On the the 35s you press [base][7] when
> you want base 10. If you want base 2 you press [base][8]. If
> you want base 8 you press [base][3]. For base 16 you press
> [base][2].
>
> It doesn't even seem to be consistent. According to the
> documentation, sometimes you press [base][1] to get base 10,
> and sometimes you press [base][7]. WTF?
>
> TI's offerings are also shabby but not nearly as bad as HP's.
> They at least have a model where you can enter hex numbers
> with one keystroke per digit.
>
>
it may no longer be available.
Mode-0 for decimal
Mode-1 for base N (hexadecimal by default).
In base N mode 6 of the scientific function keys are used
for A through F digits, with a single key press.
It takes only a single key press to convert from hex to decimal
You can also do octal and binary---but I never use those.
It has a little solar panel, so I've never had to
put batteries in it. IIRC, it was about $20.
I think there are still variations of the FX-115 out there
for about $20.
Mark Borgerson
Roberto Waltman
>I'm shopping for a good hex programmer's calculator and I'm not
>finding much.
> ....
>TI's offerings are also shabby but not nearly as bad as HP's.
>They at least have a model where you can enter hex numbers
>with one keystroke per digit.
I am using a Texas Instruments TI-36X
Regular scientific calc functions + 2-key presses to switch bases
(Dec, Hex, Oct) Arithmetic + AND, OR, XOR, XNOR.
Not great, but good enough. (At around $15?)
Roberto Waltman
[ Please reply to the group,
return address is invalid ]
Grant Edwards
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>>I'm shopping for a good hex programmer's calculator and I'm not
>>finding much.
>> ....
>>TI's offerings are also shabby but not nearly as bad as HP's.
>>They at least have a model where you can enter hex numbers
>>with one keystroke per digit.
>
> I am using a Texas Instruments TI-36X
> Regular scientific calc functions + 2-key presses to switch bases
> (Dec, Hex, Oct) Arithmetic + AND, OR, XOR, XNOR.
> Not great, but good enough. (At around $15?)
The 36X doesn't look bad. It's almost as good as my old TI-34
(which is about as good as I've used except for an HP model (11
or 16?) that I haven't seen around for 20+ years).
I was looking at the two-line 36X-II, but it requires two
keystrokes for digits A-F in hex mode.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Do you need
at any MOUTH-TO-MOUTH
visi.com resuscitation?
Grant Edwards
> I've been using a Casio FX-115D for more than 5 years, so
> it may no longer be available.
>
> Mode-0 for decimal
> Mode-1 for base N (hexadecimal by default).
>
> In base N mode 6 of the scientific function keys are used
> for A through F digits, with a single key press.
Ah yes, I think I remember using one of those many years ago.
It always took me two or three trips through the mode list to
find the one I wanted, but once in base-N mode it was decent.
> It takes only a single key press to convert from hex to
> decimal You can also do octal and binary---but I never use
> those.
>
> It has a little solar panel, so I've never had to put
> batteries in it. IIRC, it was about $20.
>
> I think there are still variations of the FX-115 out there for
> about $20.
Thanks for reminding about the Casios.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Clear the
at laundromat!! This
visi.com whirl-o-matic just had a
nuclear meltdown!!
Jim Granville
> I'm shopping for a good hex programmer's calculator and I'm not
> finding much.
>
> HP's offerings are shockingly bad. They require multiple
> keystrokes per digit to enter hex numbers and switching bases
> is completey cryptic. On the the 35s you press [base][7] when
> you want base 10. If you want base 2 you press [base][8]. If
> you want base 8 you press [base][3]. For base 16 you press
> [base][2].
>
> It doesn't even seem to be consistent. According to the
> documentation, sometimes you press [base][1] to get base 10,
> and sometimes you press [base][7]. WTF?
>
> TI's offerings are also shabby but not nearly as bad as HP's.
> They at least have a model where you can enter hex numbers
> with one keystroke per digit.
The HP 6S has a good HEX mode ?
-JG
Rich Webb
> I'm shopping for a good hex programmer's calculator and I'm not
> finding much.
I *hate* the Casio method of requiring a "mode switch" to change from
"computation" mode to "base" mode. Work through a chain of calculations
and need to convert the result to hex? Better write it down first or
remember to save it in a register. Forgot? Oops, do it all again.
The Sharp, TI, and HP calculators I've used recently (certainly not all
of them) do let you use [meta-key]+[hex] to swap bases without losing
the current result, a method I overwhelmingly prefer.
What you probably really want is an HP-16C (or its direct lineal
descendant which, unfortunately, doesn't exist either).
The best I've found recently, though, is the freeware EasyCalc for the
Palm OS. One of the few that preserve a radix-point when shifting bases.
--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
Jim Stewart
> On 2007-12-01, Roberto Waltman <use...@rwaltman.net> wrote:
>> Grant Edwards wrote:
>>
>>> I'm shopping for a good hex programmer's calculator and I'm not
>>> finding much.
>>> ....
>>> TI's offerings are also shabby but not nearly as bad as HP's.
>>> They at least have a model where you can enter hex numbers
>>> with one keystroke per digit.
>> I am using a Texas Instruments TI-36X
>> Regular scientific calc functions + 2-key presses to switch bases
>> (Dec, Hex, Oct) Arithmetic + AND, OR, XOR, XNOR.
>> Not great, but good enough. (At around $15?)
>
> The 36X doesn't look bad. It's almost as good as my old TI-34
> (which is about as good as I've used except for an HP model (11
> or 16?) that I haven't seen around for 20+ years).
Plenty of new TI-34's on ebay.
> I was looking at the two-line 36X-II, but it requires two
> keystrokes for digits A-F in hex mode.
I prefer the 34. I think the 36 requires you
to specify which memory when doing a STO
or RCL, which I find annoying.
Grant Edwards
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>> I'm shopping for a good hex programmer's calculator and I'm not
>> finding much.
>
> I *hate* the Casio method of requiring a "mode switch" to change from
> "computation" mode to "base" mode. Work through a chain of calculations
> and need to convert the result to hex? Better write it down first or
> remember to save it in a register. Forgot? Oops, do it all again.
Yea, that's one of the things I don't like much about the Casios.
> The Sharp, TI, and HP calculators I've used recently
> (certainly not all of them) do let you use [meta-key]+[hex] to
> swap bases without losing the current result, a method I
> overwhelmingly prefer.
I think I'll browse eBay for a new TI-34.
> What you probably really want is an HP-16C (or its direct lineal
> descendant which, unfortunately, doesn't exist either).
I had one of those back in the Early 80s, but it belonged to my
Employer, and they kept pretty close track of them (IIRC, they
cost well over $100 each).
> The best I've found recently, though, is the freeware EasyCalc
> for the Palm OS. One of the few that preserve a radix-point
> when shifting bases.
Interesting.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Yow! I just went
at below the poverty line!
visi.com
Grant Edwards
> Plenty of new TI-34's on ebay.
It looks like the new ones all TI-34II's which don't have
support for hex/octal/binary. I see two used TI-34's. One of
them claims to be "new" but it's clearly not in it's original
packaging. It's a gift for somebody, so used is out of the
question.
> I prefer the 34. I think the 36 requires you to specify which
> memory when doing a STO or RCL, which I find annoying.
The TI-34 is probably my favorite except for the old HP-16, but
finding one of those isn't easy.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I want you to
at MEMORIZE the collected
visi.com poems of EDNA ST VINCENT
MILLAY... BACKWARDS!!
Mark Borgerson
bbe...@mapson.nozirev.ten says...
> Grant Edwards wrote:
> > I'm shopping for a good hex programmer's calculator and I'm not
> > finding much.
>
> I *hate* the Casio method of requiring a "mode switch" to change from
> "computation" mode to "base" mode. Work through a chain of calculations
> and need to convert the result to hex? Better write it down first or
> remember to save it in a register. Forgot? Oops, do it all again.
Doesn't seem to work that way on my FX115. If I do a series of
calculations in Mode 0 (decimal), then press mode, 1, the number
appears in hex. If I then press mode, 0, the number is converted
back to decimal. Hex number do only work with integers, though, so
converting to hex truncates an FP number with a fractional part.
When you go back to decimal, you end up with the integer.
>
> The Sharp, TI, and HP calculators I've used recently (certainly not all
> of them) do let you use [meta-key]+[hex] to swap bases without losing
> the current result, a method I overwhelmingly prefer.
>
Which Casio were you using? Switching modes on the FX-115 certainly
doesn't lose the current result.
> What you probably really want is an HP-16C (or its direct lineal
> descendant which, unfortunately, doesn't exist either).
>
> The best I've found recently, though, is the freeware EasyCalc for the
> Palm OS. One of the few that preserve a radix-point when shifting bases.
>
Mark Borgerson
Joseph H Allen
Grant Edwards <gra...@visi.com> wrote:
>I'm shopping for a good hex programmer's calculator and I'm not
>finding much.
This is comp.arch.embedded: make your own!
>HP's offerings are shockingly bad. They require multiple
>keystrokes per digit to enter hex numbers and switching bases
>is completey cryptic. On the the 35s you press [base][7] when
>you want base 10. If you want base 2 you press [base][8]. If
>you want base 8 you press [base][3]. For base 16 you press
>[base][2].
>It doesn't even seem to be consistent. According to the
>documentation, sometimes you press [base][1] to get base 10,
>and sometimes you press [base][7]. WTF?
The low end HP-33s is crummy in many other ways (large programming memory,
but only 26 variables, no casio-like editor), but it at least allows you to
switch bases easily and allows you to enter digits with only single
key-presses.
--
/* jha...@world.std.com AB1GO */ /* Joseph H. Allen */
int a[1817];main(z,p,q,r){for(p=80;q+p-80;p-=2*a[p])for(z=9;z--;)q=3&(r=time(0)
+r*57)/7,q=q?q-1?q-2?1-p%79?-1:0:p%79-77?1:0:p<1659?79:0:p>158?-79:0,q?!a[p+q*2
]?a[p+=a[p+=q]=q]=q:0:0;for(;q++-1817;)printf(q%79?"%c":"%c\n"," #"[!a[q-1]]);}
Joseph H Allen
Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Which Casio were you using? Switching modes on the FX-115 certainly
>doesn't lose the current result.
I have the fx-115W. When you switch between "base" mode and "comp" mode the
display goes to zero and you lose the edit line. However you can hit "Ans"
to get back the previous result. I think my old Fx-4000 does this too.
Mark Borgerson
> In article <MPG.21ba7a545...@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Which Casio were you using? Switching modes on the FX-115 certainly
> >doesn't lose the current result.
>
> I have the fx-115W. When you switch between "base" mode and "comp" mode the
> display goes to zero and you lose the edit line. However you can hit "Ans"
> to get back the previous result. I think my old Fx-4000 does this too.
>
number. My FX-115D only has a one-line display and there is
no 'answer' button. Seems that they've taken a step backwards
in the last few years.
Mark Borgerson
Paul E. Bennett
> In article <13l18cc...@corp.supernews.com>, gra...@visi.com says...
>> I'm shopping for a good hex programmer's calculator and I'm not
>> finding much.
>>
>> HP's offerings are shockingly bad. They require multiple
>> keystrokes per digit to enter hex numbers and switching bases
>> is completey cryptic. On the the 35s you press [base][7] when
>> you want base 10. If you want base 2 you press [base][8]. If
>> you want base 8 you press [base][3]. For base 16 you press
>> [base][2].
>>
>> It doesn't even seem to be consistent. According to the
>> documentation, sometimes you press [base][1] to get base 10,
>> and sometimes you press [base][7]. WTF?
>>
>> TI's offerings are also shabby but not nearly as bad as HP's.
>> They at least have a model where you can enter hex numbers
>> with one keystroke per digit.
>>
>>
> I've been using a Casio FX-115D for more than 5 years, so
> it may no longer be available.
Casio have a range of calculators available that are not only capable of
doing the hex, octal and binary and converting between the bases but are
also solar powered.
--
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett...............<email://Paul_E....@topmail.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-811095
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************
Leon
I like RPN for the Palm, it isn't free but doesn't cost much.
Leon
Spehro Pefhany
There's another HP clone for iPAQ, IIRC.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Everett M. Greene
> Mark Borgerson wrote:
> > gra...@visi.com says...
> >> I'm shopping for a good hex programmer's calculator and I'm not
> >> finding much.
> >>
> >> HP's offerings are shockingly bad. They require multiple
> >> keystrokes per digit to enter hex numbers and switching bases
> >> is completey cryptic. On the the 35s you press [base][7] when
> >> you want base 10. If you want base 2 you press [base][8]. If
> >> you want base 8 you press [base][3]. For base 16 you press
> >> [base][2].
> >>
> >> It doesn't even seem to be consistent. According to the
> >> documentation, sometimes you press [base][1] to get base 10,
> >> and sometimes you press [base][7]. WTF?
> >>
> >> TI's offerings are also shabby but not nearly as bad as HP's.
> >> They at least have a model where you can enter hex numbers
> >> with one keystroke per digit.
> >>
> > I've been using a Casio FX-115D for more than 5 years, so
> > it may no longer be available.
>
> Casio have a range of calculators available that are not only capable of
> doing the hex, octal and binary and converting between the bases but are
> also solar powered.
Sharp also has a number of calculators that have the same
capability. I have an older EL-506A which I find very
convenient to use but it has developed a glitch which is
sometimes disabling.
I recently obtained EL-506W that is much the same but is
solar-powered with backup batteries but it more of an
algebraic notation and not quite as convenient. I agree
with others who think the "ANS" key is a step backward.
Dan Henry
wrote:
>On 2007-12-01, Jim Stewart <jste...@jkmicro.com> wrote:
>
>> Plenty of new TI-34's on ebay.
>
>It looks like the new ones all TI-34II's which don't have
>support for hex/octal/binary. I see two used TI-34's. One of
>them claims to be "new" but it's clearly not in it's original
>packaging. It's a gift for somebody, so used is out of the
>question.
>
>> I prefer the 34. I think the 36 requires you to specify which
>> memory when doing a STO or RCL, which I find annoying.
>
>The TI-34 is probably my favorite except for the old HP-16, but
>finding one of those isn't easy.
I have the pleasure of having two HP-16s in my possession, but I also
use a HP-16 simulator on both my Pocket PC and my Windows PC:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~cbpaine/hp-16c/index.html
--
Dan Henry
Brendan Gillatt
Hash: SHA1
Grant Edwards wrote:
> I'm shopping for a good hex programmer's calculator and I'm not
> finding much.
>
> HP's offerings are shockingly bad. They require multiple
> keystrokes per digit to enter hex numbers and switching bases
> is completey cryptic. On the the 35s you press [base][7] when
> you want base 10. If you want base 2 you press [base][8]. If
> you want base 8 you press [base][3]. For base 16 you press
> [base][2].
>
> It doesn't even seem to be consistent. According to the
> documentation, sometimes you press [base][1] to get base 10,
> and sometimes you press [base][7]. WTF?
>
> TI's offerings are also shabby but not nearly as bad as HP's.
> They at least have a model where you can enter hex numbers
> with one keystroke per digit.
>
Reading the replies given, I'm curious as to how hard it would be to
create a calculator from scratch. I mean, use an ARM7 for calculations,
one of those SparkFun Nokia 6100 lcds for display (would do graphing
too). I'm sure it would be awkward getting the keys manufactured so you
could perhaps use a PS/2 port and a mini-keyboard.
By writing the code yourself you could set-up keys and functions just
exactly how you wanted.
Anyway I don't really have the time to properly look into this, perhaps a
project for the future however. What do you think?
- --
Brendan Gillatt
brendan {at} brendangillatt {dot} co {dot} uk
http://www.brendangillatt.co.uk
PGP Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xBACD7433
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFHUvmMkA9dCbrNdDMRAnVWAJ98immFmXfPSVZbOL3YOrTgX9GGZACglyAw
AG/MU+4ZjH1S7KvbdhOnaco=
=AeX7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Guy Macon
Brendan Gillatt wrote:
>Reading the replies given, I'm curious as to how hard it would be to
>create a calculator from scratch. I mean, use an ARM7 for calculations,
>one of those SparkFun Nokia 6100 lcds for display (would do graphing
>too). I'm sure it would be awkward getting the keys manufactured so you
>could perhaps use a PS/2 port and a mini-keyboard.
>
>By writing the code yourself you could set-up keys and functions just
>exactly how you wanted.
>
>Anyway I don't really have the time to properly look into this, perhaps a
>project for the future however. What do you think?
The code, processor, PC board, keyswitches and display would be
trivial. Labeling the keys and putting a case around it would be
somewhat harder.
A USB mini-keyboard doesn't have the right keys. You need 0-9, A-F,
dec, hex, bin, +. /. *, -. AND, OR, XOR etc. Look at a HP16 for
a sample.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/>
Tom
>finding much.
>
>HP's offerings are shockingly bad. They require multiple
>keystrokes per digit to enter hex numbers and switching bases
>is completey cryptic. On the the 35s you press [base][7] when
>you want base 10. If you want base 2 you press [base][8]. If
>you want base 8 you press [base][3]. For base 16 you press
>[base][2].
>
>It doesn't even seem to be consistent. According to the
>documentation, sometimes you press [base][1] to get base 10,
>and sometimes you press [base][7]. WTF?
>
>TI's offerings are also shabby but not nearly as bad as HP's.
>They at least have a model where you can enter hex numbers
>with one keystroke per digit.
Ok, I realize this is not what you are asking for, but whenever I need a
programmer's calculator I'm usually sitting infront of a PC (Windoze based)
and the built-in calculator uses F5 F6 and F8 to switch between hex, decimal,
and binary. It also has a larger display than most physical calculators
(2^64-1 in binary is no problem). Entering hex digits with one keystroke is no
problem either :)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of M$ products but I find that I use
CALC and NOTEPAD very frequently during the course of my day. This could be
because I don't actually have a calculator or a notebook on my desk. Come to
think of it, even my oscilloscope and logic analyzer are PC-based.
I still haven't found a PC-based soldering iron though :(
--Tom.
Grant Edwards
>>TI's offerings are also shabby but not nearly as bad as HP's.
>>They at least have a model where you can enter hex numbers with
>>one keystroke per digit.
>
> Ok, I realize this is not what you are asking for, but
> whenever I need a programmer's calculator I'm usually sitting
> infront of a PC (Windoze based) and the built-in calculator
> uses F5 F6 and F8 to switch between hex, decimal, and binary.
> It also has a larger display than most physical calculators
> (2^64-1 in binary is no problem). Entering hex digits with one
> keystroke is no problem either :) Don't get me wrong, I'm not
> a big fan of M$ products but I find that I use CALC and
> NOTEPAD very frequently during the course of my day. This
> could be because I don't actually have a calculator or a
> notebook on my desk. Come to think of it, even my oscilloscope
> and logic analyzer are PC-based.
When I am in front of a computer and keyboard I just use a
Python interpreter session. There are also plenty of good
programmer's calculator programs that run on Linux/X11 (which
is what I would be in front of). But, there are still regular
occasions when I want to use a regular calculator. In any
case, I'm mostly satisfied with my 15 year old TI-34. I just
need to find something similar for somebody else who wants one.
> I still haven't found a PC-based soldering iron though :(
Some of Intel's original 65nm processors would probably melt
solder if you ran them without heatsinks. The new 45nm ones
with the new secret-formula gate insulation and metal gates are
supposed to be a lot better. It's interesting that the M in
"NMOS", "PMOS" and "CMOS" stood for "metal" as the gate
material, when the gates haven't been metal for decades.
But now they're switching back to metal again.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! This PORCUPINE knows
at his ZIPCODE... And he has
visi.com "VISA"!!
Clifford Heath
> It's interesting that the M in
> "NMOS", "PMOS" and "CMOS" stood for "metal" as the gate
> material, when the gates haven't been metal for decades.
Reference? The O is Oxide - Metal Oxide... as an insulator.
I don't think that has anything to do with what the gate
material is.
Mark McDougall
> HP's offerings are shockingly bad. They require multiple
> keystrokes per digit to enter hex numbers and switching bases
> is completey cryptic.
Not so on the HP48s. The base is selected from the LCD with menu bar
buttons immediately below.
I love my HP48 as a calculator, but admit that base mode is a bit
cumbersome. You need to enter a '#' prefix on each entry to use base mode,
which gets annoying. Also using the 'alpha' key for A-F is a PITA.
I should add that I use the PC HP48 emulator more than my real 48...
I recall one of my old casio scientific solar-powered calculators had the
most efficient base mode of any calculator I've used. Alas it died of
over-use when a few of the keys stopped working... and I've yet to find a
replacement.
Regards,
--
Mark McDougall, Engineer
Virtual Logic Pty Ltd, <http://www.vl.com.au>
21-25 King St, Rockdale, 2216
Ph: +612-9599-3255 Fax: +612-9599-3266
Paul Burke
> I'm shopping for a good hex programmer's calculator and I'm not
> finding much.
>
I'm still using my 20-odd year old Casio fx451M, even though the plastic
is gradually shredding. Base conversions are exactly how a calculator
should work. The only thing I'd quibble about is that display is too
short, so you can only get 11 bit binary. Oh, and the volume conversions
give American gallons to litres, but not Imperial.
Grant Edwards
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>> It's interesting that the M in
>> "NMOS", "PMOS" and "CMOS" stood for "metal" as the gate
>> material, when the gates haven't been metal for decades.
>
> Reference?
An article a month or two in IEEE Spectrum written by some R&D
guy from Intel.
> The O is Oxide - Metal Oxide... as an insulator.
The insulator used to Si02 didn't it? I've never heard anybody
in the semicon industry refer to Si02 as "metal oxide".
> I don't think that has anything to do with what the gate
> material is.
According to the article in IEEE Spectrum, that's what it
meant. I wasn't there when the term was invented, so I can't
vouch for it.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I feel ... JUGULAR ...
at
visi.com
Brendan Gillatt
Hash: SHA1
Mmm I don't think I made that very clear - I kinda meant re-labelling the
keys from a regular keyboard using stickers or engraving.
- --
Brendan Gillatt
brendan {at} brendangillatt {dot} co {dot} uk
http://www.brendangillatt.co.uk
PGP Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xBACD7433
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFHVCGAkA9dCbrNdDMRAveQAKDA8466vDWXki2lVEdbQ2Jr3nGOYACg0APQ
F4bYIO2oiCIq6qyGYp/6e+k=
=nk8v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Grant Edwards
> On 2007-12-03, Clifford Heath <n...@spam.please.net> wrote:
>> Grant Edwards wrote:
>>> It's interesting that the M in
>>> "NMOS", "PMOS" and "CMOS" stood for "metal" as the gate
>>> material, when the gates haven't been metal for decades.
>>
>> Reference?
>
> An article a month or two in IEEE Spectrum written by some R&D
> guy from Intel.
>
>> The O is Oxide - Metal Oxide... as an insulator.
Not according to Wikipedia's entry on "CMOS":
The phrase "metal oxide semiconductor" is a reference to the
physical structure of certain field-effect transistors, having
a metal gate electrode placed on top of an oxide insulator,
which in turn is on top of a semiconductor material. Instead of
metal, current gate electrodes (including those up to the 65
nanometer technology node) are almost always made from a
different material, polysilicon, but the terms MOS and CMOS
nevertheless continue to be used for the modern descendants of
the original process. Metal gates have made a comeback with the
advent of high-k dielectric materials in the CMOS process, as
announced by IBM and Intel for the 45 nanometer node and beyond.
> The insulator used to Si02 didn't it? I've never heard anybody
> in the semicon industry refer to Si02 as "metal oxide".
>
>> I don't think that has anything to do with what the gate
>> material is.
>
> According to the article in IEEE Spectrum, that's what it
> meant. I wasn't there when the term was invented, so I can't
> vouch for it.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Oh, I get it!!
at "The BEACH goes on", huh,
visi.com SONNY??
rickman
The way to make your own calculator would be to start with an existing
hardware platform. To me that means using a PDA and writing software
for it. Many have done that and there are any number of programs out
there... a lot of them free or open source.
rickman
>
> I still haven't found a PC-based soldering iron though :(
>
> --Tom.
I did! Well, technically not a PC, but a unit we were working on
containing many DSP and FPGA chips had a fan failure. Before anyone
noticed it, some of the higher power density chips unsoldered
themselves and fell off the board! We didn't try to put them back
on...
Clifford Heath
> On 2007-12-03, Clifford Heath <n...@spam.please.net> wrote:
>> The O is Oxide - Metal Oxide... as an insulator.
> The insulator used to Si02 didn't it? I've never heard anybody
> in the semicon industry refer to Si02 as "metal oxide".
And yet it is, of course. Like most metal oxides, it's non-
conductive because the oxygen bonds the valence electrons.
> According to the article in IEEE Spectrum, that's what it
> meant. I wasn't there when the term was invented, so I can't
> vouch for it.
Interesting. I always assumed that "metal oxide" was referring
to the dielectric material being a metal oxide, not to the
gate/dielectric layers being metal and oxide respectively.
Makes me wonder if the wikipedia author and the guy from Intel
had the exact reverse blind spot, reading MOS as Metal/Oxide
Semiconductor. :-)
Clifford Heath.
Grant Edwards
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2007-12-03, Clifford Heath <n...@spam.please.net> wrote:
>>> The O is Oxide - Metal Oxide... as an insulator.
>> The insulator used to Si02 didn't it? I've never heard anybody
>> in the semicon industry refer to Si02 as "metal oxide".
>
> And yet it is, of course. Like most metal oxides, it's non-
> conductive because the oxygen bonds the valence electrons.
Yes, technically Silicon is a metalloid or semi-metal" it's on
the border between metals and none metals. But, I've never
heard anybody in the semicon industry ever refer to silicon as
a metal or to Si02 as a "metal oxide".
>> According to the article in IEEE Spectrum, that's what it
>> meant. I wasn't there when the term was invented, so I can't
>> vouch for it.
>
> Interesting. I always assumed that "metal oxide" was referring
> to the dielectric material being a metal oxide,
Except nobody in the industry ever refers to Si02 as a "metal
oxide".
> not to the gate/dielectric layers being metal and oxide
> respectively.
>
> Makes me wonder if the wikipedia author and the guy from Intel
> had the exact reverse blind spot, reading MOS as Metal/Oxide
> Semiconductor. :-)
I suppose it's possible that Wikipedia, the guys from Intel,
and the editors at IEEE Spectrum are wrong and you're right.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! .. he dominates the
at DECADENT SUBWAY SCENE.
visi.com
Clifford Heath
> I suppose it's possible that Wikipedia, the guys from Intel,
> and the editors at IEEE Spectrum are wrong and you're right.
:-) I wasn't claiming to be right, just to have experienced one
of those moments like when you see one of those "reversible"
images flip... a strange feeling after 30+ years of seeing it
the other way.
Spehro Pefhany
<n...@spam.please.net> wrote:
>Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2007-12-03, Clifford Heath <n...@spam.please.net> wrote:
>>> The O is Oxide - Metal Oxide... as an insulator.
>> The insulator used to Si02 didn't it? I've never heard anybody
>> in the semicon industry refer to Si02 as "metal oxide".
>
>And yet it is, of course. Like most metal oxides, it's non-
>conductive because the oxygen bonds the valence electrons.
Silicon isn't a metal. It's a metalloid. There are indeed some MOSFETs
with high-dielectric-constant gate insulation actually made from metal
oxides, but that's another story.
>> According to the article in IEEE Spectrum, that's what it
>> meant. I wasn't there when the term was invented, so I can't
>> vouch for it.
>
>Interesting. I always assumed that "metal oxide" was referring
>to the dielectric material being a metal oxide, not to the
>gate/dielectric layers being metal and oxide respectively.
>
>Makes me wonder if the wikipedia author and the guy from Intel
>had the exact reverse blind spot, reading MOS as Metal/Oxide
>Semiconductor. :-)
>
>Clifford Heath.
It started as a layer description.
Via Google etc. you can see some confusion creeping in as some expand
MOS as "Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor" (layer description) and others as
"Metal-Oxide Semiconductor", and others avoid the problem by avoiding
the hyphens entirely.
In patents, "Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor" (layer description) came
first.
Patent number: 3352712
Filing date: Aug 28, 1964
Issue date: Nov 1967
Inventor: Murray A. Polinsky
Assignee: Radio Corporation of America
The first patent with "Metal-Oxide Semiconductor" appeared in 1971
Patent number: 3726726
Filing date: Jan 4, 1971
Issue date: Apr 1973
Inventor: Yordan Dimitrov Kasabov
Assignee: Tzentralen Institut za Element
In the book _Operation and Modelling of The MOS Transistor", the
author Tsividis writes:
"Among the three acronyms, IGFET is the most general, since it does
not specify the material used for the gate or the insulator. This
acronym, though, is not in wide use. Today, the most popular acronyms
MOST and MOSFET have come to mean the same as IGFET and do not imply
that metal and silicon dioxide are necesarily used for the gate and
insulator."
You can find this at:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0195170148/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-2423004-2296964#
(and search for a snippet of the above quote_
Grant Edwards
With me it always seems to be pronunciation of a word that I've
seen in print for years but hever heard before and it turns out
I've been pronouncing it incorrectly in my head.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Vote for ME
at -- I'm well-tapered,
visi.com half-cocked, ill-conceived
and TAX-DEFERRED!
Grant Edwards
> In the book _Operation and Modelling of The MOS Transistor", the
> author Tsividis writes:
>
> "Among the three acronyms, IGFET is the most general, since it does
> not specify the material used for the gate or the insulator.
Wow, I had completely forgotting "IGFET". I haven't
heard/seen that in decades.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Well, I'm on the
at right planet---everyone
visi.com looks like me!!!