+- HP Forums (https://www.hpmuseum.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Not HP Calculators (/forum-7.html)
+--- Forum: Not remotely HP Calculators (/forum-9.html)
+--- Thread: SR-52/56 Merged Keystrokes (/thread-17204.html)
SR-52/56 Merged Keystrokes - Matt Agajanian - 07-03-2021 07:23 PM
Hi all.
By the time the SR-52 & 56, HP had already implemented fully merged keystrokes. So, if the concept was a complete set, why didn’t TI develop their own variation? Besides, by that time TI was a well established and quite varied tech company. So, I would think TI would’ve come up with something similar.
On another note, both register operations and label & line number branching took two or three program steps. Given this inefficiency, I’m sure TI must’ve noticed this bulk of program memory and register operations steps. So, why didn’t TI consider another keystroke merging approach?
RE: SR-52/56 Merged Keystrokes - toml_12953 - 07-04-2021 10:42 AM
(07-03-2021 07:23 PM)Matt Agajanian Wrote: Hi all.
By the time the SR-52 & 56, HP had already implemented fully merged keystrokes. So, if the concept was a complete set, why didn’t TI develop their own variation? Besides, by that time TI was a well established and quite varied tech company. So, I would think TI would’ve come up with something similar.
On another note, both register operations and label & line number branching took two or three program steps. Given this inefficiency, I’m sure TI must’ve noticed this bulk of program memory and register operations steps. So, why didn’t TI consider another keystroke merging approach?
It was cheaper to add more memory (program steps) to compensate for unmerged codes. The SR-52 had more capability than the HP 65/67 and ROM was tight. Decoding merged steps increases code needed. The TI-58/59 had more merged steps but had so much memory, that RAM didn't feel too limited for most applications.
RE: SR-52/56 Merged Keystrokes - Valentin Albillo - 07-04-2021 02:57 PM
(07-04-2021 10:42 AM)toml_12953 Wrote: The SR-52 had more capability than the HP 65/67
Right for the HP-65 but absolutely not for the HP-67, which had 26 permanent storage registers vs. 20, and 224 fully-merged program steps vs. 224 non-merged steps. All in all, the 67 was about 3x-5x more capable than that sorry clunker, which was DOA, IMHO.
Speaking of which, shortly after the 41C was released, a wealthy client asked me to create a long, complex program for him, to be run on a TI-59 he'd just acquired for the task. I couldn't bear the idea of writing and debugging the program in that bothersome, third-rate programming paradigm/hardware so I convinced him to toss it aside and get an HP-41C instead (plus the card reader and all 4 single-density RAM modules available at the time) and then I would write the program for him.
He complained somewhat because of the total expense but eventually agreed, so I created the program per his specs (had to extensively use synthetics and every trick in my sleeve to make it fit) and in the end, after three iterations, he was very pleased and made a huge profit using the program.
V.
RE: SR-52/56 Merged Keystrokes - Dave Britten - 07-04-2021 03:10 PM
Personally, I find the 59 quite nice to work with, pardon the use of AOS instead of RPN. But to its credit, it does have an 8-level AOS stack, so you can compute even the most unrealistically complicated expressions. In terms of capabilities, it definitely beats the HP 67 and 97, and I say that as someone who owns a 97 that's in perfect working condition! If there's one thing that bugs me about TI programming, it's that conditional tests can only be followed by an implied GTO, but given the large number of labels, and options of line-number and indirect addressing, it's more an annoyance than a real constraint. And by popping it onto the PC-100, you get some basic alphanumeric output capability, which is nice to have.
I've got a bunch of blank mag cards for my 59. I need to start writing some more programs and using them.
RE: SR-52/56 Merged Keystrokes - Gene - 07-04-2021 06:56 PM
Chronologically... my opinions.
65 > everything (there was nothing handheld haha)
52 > 65 (although closer in some ways than the other comparisons below)
67 > 52
59 > 67
41 > 59
25 > everything
56 > 25 (opinion from Jim Davidson at the time was 100 unmerged > 49 merged)
56 > 57 > 25 and 58 > 25
58 > 29C (240 steps & 30 memories (with 480/0 400/10 320/20 as options) > 98 steps and 30 memories
58C > 33C
34C > 58C
etc.
and then I found this yesterday. Someone's opinion of AOS ? :-)
[attachment=9615]
RE: SR-52/56 Merged Keystrokes - Dave Britten - 07-04-2021 07:04 PM
(07-04-2021 06:56 PM)Gene Wrote: Chronologically... my opinions.
65 > everything (there was nothing handheld haha)
52 > 65 (although closer in some ways than the other comparisons below)
67 > 52
59 > 67
41 > 59
25 > everything
56 > 25 (opinion from Jim Davidson at the time was 100 unmerged > 49 merged)
56 > 57 > 25 and 58 > 25
58 > 29C (240 steps & 30 memories (with 480/0 400/10 320/20 as options) > 98 steps and 30 memories
58C > 33C
34C > 58C
etc.
That mostly agrees with my feelings on ranking the machines by capability. I'm not sure on 58 vs. 29C, unless you're considering a 58 with a few solid-state ROM modules. If we're talking 58C vs. 29C then it's an easy decision in favor of the TI. I don't know if I'd give the 34C the advantage over the 58C, especially when considering the library of TI ROM modules. I guess if you make extensive use of solve and integrate, the 34C might be a little more convenient.
I think the complexity and sophistication of the 41 sometimes makes it a little less convenient to use than other earlier models, but it's undeniably more powerful. I really think the 41 should have had a second shift key to get a little more out of the keyboard.
As for my personal rankings on which machines I'd prefer to use, there's a bit more variation.
RE: SR-52/56 Merged Keystrokes - Gene - 07-04-2021 08:26 PM
I agree there are variations of usage or preference that could move things around a bit.
Also, this has nothing to do with the obvious advantages when programming of RPN vs. AOS as it existed then.
CROM modules of course in favor of the TI models.
Absolute memory capacity in favor of the TI models.
Pricing in favor of the TI models.
Actual ability to program something and have it work in favor of the HP models.
Level of frustration you feel when it is finally working in favor of the HP models. ;-)
But just my 2 cents.