Which processor is used in the HP 35S?
Gary
On some specification sheets the CPU used in the HP 35S is said to be
a SPLB31A from Sun Plus. See
http://www.calculators-online.co.uk/manuals/specsheets/hp35sspecsheet.pdf
http://w3.sunplus.com/ShowFeature.asp?body=SPLB31A
This is the same processor in the HP 33S
On other specifcation pages (on HP's own web sites) the CPU is given
as an 8502, which seems to be a relative of the venerable 6502 8 bit
processor used in teh Commodore 64 and the BBC micros. See:
http://h41111.www4.hp.com/calculators/za/en/scientific/35s/specs.html
http://www.internationalcalculator.com/hp33s.html
Which processor is actually used in the HP 35S?
Lance
Joel Kolstad
news:1189777837....@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> I'm just curious.
My understanding is that the SPLB31A contains an 8502 CPU *core* as well as
some assorted bits of I/O. (i.e., it's really just a type of
microcontroller) These days when people talk about "CPUs" it's often taken
to mean "which IC?" rather than "which core?" -- hence the confusion. It
was already getting murky back in the '80s -- the Commodore 64 used a "6510
CPU" which was really just a "6502 CPU core plus a couple of 8-bit I/O
registers built-in."
But this is all just what I've read; I don't have first-hand knowledge.
---Joel
manjo
as
> some assorted bits of I/O. (i.e., it's really just a type of
> microcontroller) These days when people talk about "CPUs" it's often
taken
> to mean "which IC?" rather than "which core?" -- hence the confusion. It
> was already getting murky back in the '80s -- the Commodore 64 used a
"6510
> CPU" which was really just a "6502 CPU core plus a couple of 8-bit I/O
> registers built-in."
True,
also with processors based on ARM core
(various manufacturers, Intel (Marvell), Ti, SAMSUNG just to name few,
and various models variety of S3C and genral Sxx (samsung's) SA, PXA, OMAP
etc..)
The described phenomena is more spread then ever before :-)
(even in processors for desktop systems we see the similar thing going on)
"Application" processors nowdays is what used to be a "microcontroller" back
then
and the new name actualy fits since there is a type of processor for every
application
which, in the end, is not bad, as long as you're not confused with it :-)
finaly there are mobile application processors which seam to be in many
regards more advanced
then your desktop processor, i hope industry is working to get the speed up.
670 MHz is more-less standard 1GHz getting closer every day (some announced,
some in production)
knowing that my question is :
Who with future in mind would develop desktop applications ?
Some companies realized that and are shifting in that (right) direction
manjo
JYA
>
> Which processor is actually used in the HP 35S?
The same crappy processor used in all calculators HP's OEMed from Kinpo
(except the HP49/50).
It's a Sunplus, 6502 core with the worse software development kit of
the entire universe.
Jean-Yves
--
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security,
deserve neither liberty or security (Benjamin Franklin)
Bob
"JYA" <nos...@nospam.blah> wrote:
>>
>> Which processor is actually used in the HP 35S?
>
> The same crappy processor used in all calculators HP's OEMed from Kinpo
> (except the HP49/50).
> It's a Sunplus, 6502 core with the worse software development kit of the
> entire universe.
>
> Jean-Yves
>
The "entire universe"? Jean-Yves, we've told you A MILLION TIMES not to
exaggerate!
Bob
manjo
"JYA" <nos...@nospam.blah> wrote in message
news:46edd707$0$31915$426a...@news.free.fr...
> On 2007-09-14 23:50:37 +1000, Gary <Lanc...@gmail.com> said:
> >
> > Which processor is actually used in the HP 35S?
>
> The same crappy processor used in all calculators HP's OEMed from Kinpo
> (except the HP49/50).
> It's a Sunplus, 6502 core with the worse software development kit of
> the entire universe.
>
> Jean-Yves
6502 ?
(although there are "modernised" versions)
still that's like quarter of a century in the past :-)
-at least its a known(standard) core
(not a kind of newborn, exotic, esoteric, isotonic :-)
regards,
manjo
richwood
> "JYA" <nos...@nospam.blah> wrote in message
>
> news:46edd707$0$31915$426a...@news.free.fr...
>
>
> > > Which processor is actually used in the HP 35S?
>
> > The same crappy processor used in all calculators HP's OEMed from Kinpo
> > (except the HP49/50).
> > It's a Sunplus, 6502 core with the worse software development kit of
> > the entire universe.
>
> > Jean-Yves
>
> 6502 ?
> (although there are "modernised" versions)
> still that's like quarter of a century in the past :-)
>
> -at least its a known(standard) core
> (not a kind of newborn, exotic, esoteric, isotonic :-)
>
> regards,
> manjo
For a relatively lo speed device such as a calculator not much is
needed for a processor. After all the HP processors used in all their
calculators up through the 41C and 1XC LCD display series were closely
related processors with 1 bit serial data transfer bandwidth. Unless
the i/o has been modified the processor in the 33s and 35s should at
least use an 8 bit bus width. By my own tests it is certainly far
faster than the HP processors in the noted machines and in the HP LED
display programmmable calculators.
Rich W
Raymond Del Tondo
"richwood" <astron...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1190003201....@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> [..]
> For a relatively lo speed device such as a calculator not much is
> needed for a processor. After all the HP processors used in all their
> calculators up through the 41C and 1XC LCD display series were closely
> related processors with 1 bit serial data transfer bandwidth. Unless
> the i/o has been modified the processor in the 33s and 35s should at
> least use an 8 bit bus width. By my own tests it is certainly far
> faster than the HP processors in the noted machines and in the HP LED
> display programmmable calculators.
>
of the time...
The 11C batts last for about a decade.
Was the 11C too slow to add two numbers?
The Pioneers batts last more than a year, usually more than two.
The HP-48 batts last for at least half a year.
Are you really more productive with a 50g,
which sucks batts empty within a few weeks?
BTW: It seems that even a non-used 33s eats up batts really fast.
Maybe it doesn't have a real deep sleep mode?
Raymond
lfmor...@gmail.com
wrote:
> 6502 ?
> (although there are "modernised" versions)
> still that's like quarter of a century in the past :-)
>
> manjo
Well, Futurama tells us that some derivative of 6502's will still be
in use at least in the year 2998, where they are used as the CPUs for
Bending-Unit robots.
- Luke
richwood
> "richwood" <astronut1...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:1190003201....@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...> [..]
Raymond;
True but you do not mention the LED units which had batteries good for
3 to 5 hours with a full charge or the HP41C where the battery life
with alkalines was very short if the accessory card reader was used
much. I also knew of several people who could run through a set of
41c batteries in a week or so with long running number crunching
programs which today no one would consider programming on a calculator
like the 41c due to run time. You used what was available.
I believe that the battery lifes you mention are for fairly minimally
used calculators as I never got anything near such a life with my 11C
or any of my Pioneers. If you use them to run programs much then
battery life is much shorter than otherwise. Also the silver oxide
batteries have a much longer shelf life or calculator off memory
saving life than the alkaline version I believe. I doubt if you will
get a 10 year battery life with alkaline cells.
Rich W
JYA
>
> The "entire universe"? Jean-Yves, we've told you A MILLION TIMES not to
> exaggerate!
>
If you had used it, you would understand what I mean...
You have to struggle to avoid compiler bugs all the time ...
~kurt
>
> I believe that the battery lifes you mention are for fairly minimally
> used calculators as I never got anything near such a life with my 11C
> or any of my Pioneers. If you use them to run programs much then
> battery life is much shorter than otherwise. Also the silver oxide
> batteries have a much longer shelf life or calculator off memory
> saving life than the alkaline version I believe. I doubt if you will
> get a 10 year battery life with alkaline cells.
One thing I've read about the 50G that I don't like is it seems to suck
the batteries down even when not used. That would be annoying for me as
my daily calculator use is generally more traditional arithmetic, and the
fancy stuff is used less often. My 48G went through a period of very
little use for a few years, and the batteries never needed replacing during
that time - nice. I should have picked up a spare while they were still
being made. For me, anything that needs more processing power is something
I'll code up on the computer....
- Kurt
John H Meyers
> One thing I've read about the 50G that I don't like is
> it seems to suck the batteries down even when not used.
I've had one for a year, sparsely used, no alarms,
and I don't recall having to change batteries
(I just took it from its drawer, and it woke right up,
just fine, no "low battery" indication).
Ditto 49G+
"Ray-O-Vac Maximum Plus," FWIW -- "Made in USA"
YBMMV :)
~kurt
>
> I've had one for a year, sparsely used, no alarms,
> and I don't recall having to change batteries
That is good to hear.
- Kurt
richwood
> On 2007-09-17 12:50:54 +1000, "Bob" <nimby_NEEDS...@roadrunner.com> said:
>
>
>
> > The "entire universe"? Jean-Yves, we've told you A MILLION TIMES not to
> > exaggerate!
>
> If you had used it, you would understand what I mean...
> You have to struggle to avoid compiler bugs all the time ...
>
> --
> They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security,
> deserve neither liberty or security (Benjamin Franklin)
Is the SDK written by Microsoft? I thought they were the world
experts in software bugs ;-)
Rich W
Joel Kolstad
news:1190093760....@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> Is the SDK written by Microsoft? I thought they were the world
> experts in software bugs ;-)
The annoying thing about Microsoft is that, while they do use some of the same
tools internally that they sell to 3rd parties for development, they keep some
of the best development tools completely internal... and I've been told they
do have some *really* nice stuff in-house.
Eric Smith
> Which processor is actually used in the HP 35S?
JYA wrote:
> The same crappy processor used in all calculators HP's OEMed from
> Kinpo (except the HP49/50).
> It's a Sunplus, 6502 core with the worse software development kit of
> the entire universe.
SunPlus fissioned into four companies. These days the processors used
in most HP calculators (other than the ARM-based ones) are made by
GeneralPlus.
Harold A Climer
Well hopefully that will change. With the EU's recent decision MS has
to let third party developers have access to these tools and tricks.
Maybe it will happen in the US soon.
Raymond Del Tondo
"Harold A Climer" <hcl...@prodigy.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:7nd2f3lec13c46omn...@4ax.com...
They have to offer access to their inter-process protocols
and other documentation to 3rd party developers.
Raymond