HP 42S Version Speed Variation

[Gerald H]

Edit: extremely sorry, but in the text below 200 & 280 have been transposed. The timing differences between the two models are correct, merely model allocation is false, so the substance of the post remains valid.

For the same arithmetic calculation, using the same algorithms,

serial nr 2914S30950, version A, took 280s, whereas

serial nr 3144S06635, version C, took 200s.

Is such a variation between versions expected/common?

Incidentally, the much maligned HP 35S took 140s.

[walter b]

(06-09-2014 09:25 AM)Gerald H Wrote:  For the same arithmetic calculation, using the same algorithms, ...

It might help if you indicate what you're referring to. Even better if you'd place your post in that thread at the right position.

d:-?

[Gerald H]

To past #2:

What would be the right position?

[J-F Garnier]

(06-09-2014 09:31 AM)walter b Wrote:  Even better if you'd place your post in that thread at the right position.

Please Walter, please!

Placed at the "right" position :-(

[walter b]

As I said I've no idea what discussion you tried to continue with your pOst #1.

Assume you remember, however, then please

1. go to that thread again,
2. open the post you want to respond to,
3. press <Quote>. Delete the parts of the quotation you don't want to repeat.
4. Write your message, and
5. <Post reply>.
   

HTH

d:-I

[walter b]

Bonjour J-F,

that was just the cream topping

d:-)

[Jeff_Kearns]

(06-09-2014 09:25 AM)Gerald H Wrote:  For the same arithmetic calculation, using the same algorithms...

What arithmetic calculation? What algorithms? Are the batteries in your two HP-42s calculators 'new'? Do they have the same memory state (i.e. no other programs residing in memory)?

Your post can not result in meaningful discussion without being more specific. There are many comparisons possible between different models.

Regards,

Jeff K

[Bill (Smithville NJ)]

(06-09-2014 09:25 AM)Gerald H Wrote:  For the same arithmetic calculation, using the same algorithms,

serial nr 2914S30950, version A, took 280s, whereas

serial nr 3144S06635, version C, took 200s.

Is such a variation between versions expected/common?

Incidentally, the much maligned HP 35S took 140s.

Hi Gerald,

Upon my first reading of your post, I was inclined to see it as a straight question on whether there were speed differences between different versions of the HP-42S. I did not read it as a continuation of an earlier post.

I know that one of the versions can be put into "fast" mode, but that would be oblivious that there is a speed difference.

I've never entered the same program into two versions of the 42s and then timed them.

Could you please post the program listing that you used to do your test so that others may test to see if there is a difference or if the difference is due to low batteries (I'm not sure if low batteries cause an effect on program execution speed) or caused by some other reason.

Question: You did enter exactly the same program in each version of the 42s before making your test? If they are not exactly the same, then the difference in the code may be affecting your timing.

Both of my 42s are version C. I could test the code on these machines to see if they compare to what you found. Maybe someone else who has a version A could also test and see if they get the longer time.

Of course, this is all academic, without knowing the program code. So please post the code you used.

Bill

[Gerald H]

To post #5:

I don't believe my original post is a continuation of previous posts - if you could supply a reference to a post comparing the relative speeds of different serial number HP 42Ss, particularly concerning large differences in performance, that would be helpful.

To post 7:

Batteries in both calculators about one month old, free memory in both is about 2 kb.

The actual calculation is merely an example of the large difference in time taken to perform longer calculations.

I could list all of the programmes entered in the two calculators but feel that would not really further my aims.

To remove any doubt about the substance of my post:

The aim is to discover whether such speed variations are common between different HP 42S versions.

I might add that in the self test both calculators gave speed as 1.048 kHz.

[walter b]

(06-09-2014 12:33 PM)Gerald H Wrote:  To post #5:

I don't believe my original post is a continuation of previous posts

But you started your very first sentence in this thread:

Gerald H Wrote:For the same arithmetic calculation, using the same algorithms,

Ahhh, now I understand that was a forward-looking "same". Seems Jeff came across the same (no pun intended). Thanks for explaining.

d:-)

[Bill (Smithville NJ)]

(06-09-2014 12:33 PM)Gerald H Wrote:  To remove any doubt about the substance of my post:

The aim is to discover whether such speed variations are common between different HP 42S versions.

I might add that in the self test both calculators gave speed as 1.048 kHz.

I do not know if there are any speed differences in HP-42s versions. I don't recall anyone ever mentioning that there was and speed is something that many here do test for.

You might want to try the following tests:

1. Perform a machine reset on both units. This will ensure that both units are starting with the same memory configuration.
2. Put fresh batteries in both units.
3. Enter exactly the same program into both units.
4. Run the test several times and see if there is still a difference in performance.

And if there still is a difference, does it vary very much between runs or is it fairly consistent.

And finally, if the difference still exists by such a large amount, post the program code here so others can also test. It may be that there is something unique with your two units.

I for one would like to know if there could be this much of a speed difference between ROM versions. I feel that it is doubtful - since if it was, I'm sure everyone would have been recommending the faster version. But then again, maybe no one has really done a speed test between versions.

Bill

[Thomas Klemm]

(06-09-2014 11:36 AM)walter b Wrote:  As I said I've no idea what discussion you tried to continue with your pOst #1.

Assume you remember, however, then please

1. go to that thread again,
2. open the post you want to respond to,
3. press <Quote>. Delete the parts of the quotation you don't want to repeat.
4. Write your message, and
5. <Post reply>.
   

HTH

d:-I

Or simply click [Quote this post] and then [Post Reply].

Cheers
Thomas

PS: You can even quote multiple posts in the same reply.

[Gerald H]

To post #8:

Your 1st reading accords with my intention.

To post #8 & 11:

I have now run a new test, the result being:

Version A: 426s

Version C: 608s

The test was the factorization of the 11th repunit, 11,111,111,111. As you will see from the programme listing below, there are random elements involved - consequently 11,111,111,111 was set as the easily rememberd seed before the programme was invoked.

On both calculators registers 04 & 05 contained the same numbers at the end of the factorization, namely 128 & 49.

Here is the programme & sub-programmes involved:


0. { 92-Byte Prgm }
1. LBL “POBR”
2. STO 01
3. +/-
4. STO 00
5. CLX
6. STO 02
7. LBL 02
8. SIGN
9. STO+ 02
10. STO 04
11. STO 05
12. RAN
13. RCL* 01
14. IP
15. LBL 00
16. RCL 04
17. STO 05
18. R↓
19. STO 03
20. LBL 03
21. XEQ “SQM”
22. RCL+ 02
23. STO ST Y
24. RCL- 03
25. RCL 01
26. XEQ “GCF”
27. 1
28. X≠Y?
29. GTO 01
30. RCL ST Z
31. DSE 05
32. GTO 03
33. RCL 04
34. RCL+ ST X
35. STO 04
36. STO 05
37. R↓
38. LBL 04
39. XEQ “SQM”
40. RCL+ 02
41. DSE 05
42. GTO 04
43. GTO 00
44. LBL 01
45. R↓
46. RCL 01
47. X<>Y
48. X=Y?
49. GTO 02
50. TONE 3
51. END


0. { 42-Byte Prgm }
1. LBL “SQM”
2. STO ST Y
3. 1E6
4. MOD
5. STO ST Z
6. –
7. ENTER
8. X^2
9. RCL 00
10. MOD
11. X<>Y
12. R↑
13. STO* ST T
14. *
15. RCL 01
16. MOD
17. RCL- ST L
18. RCL+ ST L
19. RCL 01
20. MOD
21. +
22. RCL 00
23. MOD
24. +
25. RCL 01
26. MOD
27. END


0. { 16-Byte Prgm }
1. LBL “GCF”
2. LBL 00
3. MOD
4. LASTX
5. X<>Y
6. X≠0?
7. GTO 00
8. R↓
9. ABS
10. END

I would appreciate assistance.

[Gerald H]

To post #12:

Can I thus answer posts #8 & 11 together?

[J-F Garnier]

(06-09-2014 01:38 PM)Gerald H Wrote:  I have now run a new test, the result being:

Version A: 426s

Version C: 608s

I would appreciate assistance.

Can you make sure if by chance one of your machine is in PON (Printer On) mode and this other one in POFF?

Quote:Can I thus answer posts #8 & 11 together?

It's possible, but you can also simply insert several additional quotes manually like I did here.
It will be easier for us than your "To post xx" references.

J-F

[Thomas Klemm]

(06-09-2014 12:26 PM)Bill (Smithville NJ) Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 09:25 AM)Gerald H Wrote:  For the same arithmetic calculation, using the same algorithms,

serial nr 2914S30950, version A, took 280s, whereas

serial nr 3144S06635, version C, took 200s.

Is such a variation between versions expected/common?

Incidentally, the much maligned HP 35S took 140s.

Hi Gerald,

Upon my first reading of your post, I was inclined to see it as a straight question on whether there were speed differences between different versions of the HP-42S. I did not read it as a continuation of an earlier post.

I know that one of the versions can be put into "fast" mode, but that would be oblivious that there is a speed difference.

I've never entered the same program into two versions of the 42s and then timed them.

Could you please post the program listing that you used to do your test so that others may test to see if there is a difference or if the difference is due to low batteries (I'm not sure if low batteries cause an effect on program execution speed) or caused by some other reason.

Question: You did enter exactly the same program in each version of the 42s before making your test? If they are not exactly the same, then the difference in the code may be affecting your timing.

Both of my 42s are version C. I could test the code on these machines to see if they compare to what you found. Maybe someone else who has a version A could also test and see if they get the longer time.

Of course, this is all academic, without knowing the program code. So please post the code you used.

Bill

(06-09-2014 12:58 PM)Bill (Smithville NJ) Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 12:33 PM)Gerald H Wrote:  To remove any doubt about the substance of my post:

The aim is to discover whether such speed variations are common between different HP 42S versions.

I might add that in the self test both calculators gave speed as 1.048 kHz.

I do not know if there are any speed differences in HP-42s versions. I don't recall anyone ever mentioning that there was and speed is something that many here do test for.

You might want to try the following tests:

1. Perform a machine reset on both units. This will ensure that both units are starting with the same memory configuration.
2. Put fresh batteries in both units.
3. Enter exactly the same program into both units.
4. Run the test several times and see if there is still a difference in performance.

And if there still is a difference, does it vary very much between runs or is it fairly consistent.

And finally, if the difference still exists by such a large amount, post the program code here so others can also test. It may be that there is something unique with your two units.

I for one would like to know if there could be this much of a speed difference between ROM versions. I feel that it is doubtful - since if it was, I'm sure everyone would have been recommending the faster version. But then again, maybe no one has really done a speed test between versions.

Bill

(06-09-2014 01:39 PM)Gerald H Wrote:  To post #12:

Can I thus answer posts #8 & 11 together?

Sure! Just add all the posts you want to quote.
You can also copy the link location of the post to reference them: #8 & #11.

[Gerald H]

(06-09-2014 01:54 PM)J-F Garnier Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 01:38 PM)Gerald H Wrote:  I have now run a new test, the result being:

Version A: 426s

Version C: 608s

I would appreciate assistance.

Can you make sure if by chance one of your machine is in PON (Printer On) mode and this other one in POFF?

Quote:Can I thus answer posts #8 & 11 together?

It's possible, but you can also simply insert several additional quotes manually like I did here.
It will be easier for us than your "To post xx" references.

J-F

Both with same flag settings & printing is off.

[Gerald H]

To post #17:

I find the quotes a waste of space for such a short answer.

[rprosperi]

(06-09-2014 01:59 PM)Thomas Klemm Wrote:  You can also copy the link location of the post to reference them: #8 & #11.

Thomas - Is there a way to create these individual post# links automagically, or only crafting them by hand (insert thread link then edit to add post#)? Quite useful and elegant way to save space in complex replies.

[walter b]

(06-09-2014 11:36 AM)walter b Wrote:  ... please

1. go to that thread again,
2. open the post you want to respond to,
3. press <Quote>. Delete the parts of the quotation you don't want to repeat.
4. Write your message, and
5. <Post reply>.
   

(06-09-2014 02:01 PM)Gerald H Wrote:  To post #17:

I find the quotes a waste of space for such a short answer.

Hehehe, please read step 3 again. Nobody forces you to repeat old text. But for sake of following a discussion like the one in this thread branching in several sub-threads, proper quoting is the way to do. Else people may get tired looking for post numbers (assessing it a waste of their (!) time) instead of giving you assistance. It's your decision though.

BTW, this response was created using the buttons Thomas was mentioning above.

d:-)