Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Eric Rechlin · 04-10-2024, 07:53 PM

(04-10-2024 06:46 PM)bxparks Wrote: If I press LeftShift&PREV (at the same time), it takes me to a menu that was there before I pressed LeftShift+MTH. If I press LeftShift&PREV again, it flips me back to the MTH menu.

The menu navigation of the 50g is so inconsistent, it drives me batty. Here's another example. I press TOOL and get:

Code:

EDIT VIEW STACK RCL PURGE CLEAR CASCH HELP

I press STACK to get:

Code:

DUP SWAP DROP OVER ROT UNROT ROLL ROLLD PICK UNPICK PICK3 DEPTH DUP2 DUPN DROP2 DROPN DUPDU NIP NDUPN PRG

That last soft menu button on Row 4 should go back up to the parent. That should be TOOL, not PRG.

You're right, I was wrong here because it goes back to the previous totally different menu, not the previous menu that happened to be the parent. I no longer remember why that is.

I think you are seeing the inconsistent behavior with TOOL-STACK vs PRG-STACK because |STACK| on the 48 was originally only in the PRG menu, so its parent was always PRG, but then the 49 added the [TOOL] menu, where the |STACK| option was added, displaying the PRG-STACK menu. The menu items themselves aren't context-sensitive, so it doesn't know where it came from, and just shows the hard-coded link back to [PRG]. In this case it doesn't really matter, though, since you can get back to the TOOL menu by pressing [TOOL] or back to the PRG menu by pressing [PRG].

I'm not excusing how it works here -- I agree, it's not great -- just trying to explain it.

Quote:"7) Two Slightly Different CMPLX Menus, Why?",
But in terms of actual use, there should be no difference in the functionality of these menu items, right? I mean, 'RightShift+CMPLX CONJ' seems to do exactly the same thing as 'LeftShift+MTH NXT CMPLX NXT CONJ'.

Yes, sometimes the same command is shown in multiple menus, and there would be no behavioral difference regardless of where you run it from. I agree that the two very similar (but distinctly different) CMPLX menus was not a good implementation.

Quote:But I am beginning to think that the 50g must have the worst UI in the history of calculators. The only people who can make sense of this calculator are previous users of the 48 or 49 series calculators.

I can see that perspective. However, I think you are making it sound a bit worse than it is. A lot of the inconsistencies are in optional features that you can ignore for simplicity and only learn if you are looking for extra efficiency as a power user. Once you get over a few hurdles, things will make sense and you'll be able to just treat it as a super-48. And I think the 48SX is an example of a calculator with a very good user interface, just a bit of a learning curve (albeit with an abysmally slow processor). Easy-to-use (in contrast to easy-to-learn).

To me the ideal calculator would be something based on the 48SX, but with the speed and added commands and bigger screen of the 50, and with a keyboard layout somewhat of a hybrid between the two. However, I think the 50 can get pretty close to that as it is. I don't even use most of the shifted number keys with their inelegant menus because they aren't things I care about (on the shifted numbers, I only use [BASE], [#], [UNITS], [CONVERT], and hold-shift-[TIME]).

What is being developed with the DB48X program (firmware replacement for the DM42) might get closer to my ideal calculator, and even if it doesn't, since it's open-source maybe someone can take it in a new direction. Basically it's an RPL calculator in the form of the 42, but with (eventually) the functionality of at least the 48, and maybe beyond.