Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Thomas Klemm · 06-09-2014, 02:56 PM

(06-09-2014 02:12 PM)rprosperi Wrote: 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.

You can right-click the number of the post in the top right corner,
choose [Copy Link Location] in the context-menu
and then create a link in the toolbar [Insert hyperlink]:
[Image: toolbar.gif]

I can't reference only this icon but it's the earth and the chain.

You can even add a highlight url-parameter: #19.

Cheers
Thomas

PS: In the old forum you had to search for the id of a post in the source in order to directly link to a certain post.

walter b · 06-09-2014, 02:58 PM

10 points for pointing to this feature. Smile

-10 points for tearing even that little sub-thread to shreds by forgetting to apply that theoretical knowledge. Confused

d:-I

J-F Garnier · 06-09-2014, 03:00 PM

(06-09-2014 02:00 PM)Gerald H Wrote:
(06-09-2014 01:54 PM)J-F Garnier Wrote: Can you make sure if by chance one of your machine is in PON (Printer On) mode and this other one in POFF?

Both with same flag settings & printing is off.

Interesting.
To answer your initial question: no, such a variation between versions is not expected/common.
I checked with a simple test program on my A and C machines and got no significant differences, my C machine is even about 5-10% slower than my A, so it doesn't depend on the software version.

Maybe something is wrong in one of your machine regarding system clock, even if the self-test reports 1MHz in both cases.

If you try to do a BEEP on both machines, can you hear a significant higher pitch on one?

For your reference, here is my test program:

Code:

LBL "X"

"RUN"

AVIEW

LBL 01

+ 

GTO 01

Starting with a stack filled with 1, I get about 520 on my A machine and 490 on my C machine in 10 seconds.

walter b · 06-09-2014, 03:04 PM

Thomas, now you get -15 points for reasons mentioned here.

d:-(

walter b · 06-09-2014, 03:09 PM

Again,

10 points for pointing to that,
but -10 points for lack of application. Compare there.

Shall I quote Albert E. next?

d:-(

Gerald H · 06-09-2014, 04:02 PM

(06-09-2014 03:00 PM)J-F Garnier Wrote:
(06-09-2014 02:00 PM)Gerald H Wrote: Both with same flag settings & printing is off.

Interesting.
To answer your initial question: no, such a variation between versions is not expected/common.
I checked with a simple test program on my A and C machines and got no significant differences, my C machine is even about 5-10% slower than my A, so it doesn't depend on the software version.

Maybe something is wrong in one of your machine regarding system clock, even if the self-test reports 1MHz in both cases.

If you try to do a BEEP on both machines, can you hear a significant higher pitch on one?

For your reference, here is my test program:

Code:

LBL "X" "RUN" AVIEW LBL 01 + GTO 01
Starting with a stack filled with 1, I get about 520 on my A machine and 490 on my C machine in 10 seconds.

Quite amazing - this correspondent actually says something relevant to the topic!

Thomas Klemm · 06-09-2014, 04:42 PM

(06-09-2014 03:09 PM)walter b Wrote: d:-(

Gähn

Gerald H · 06-09-2014, 04:55 PM

(06-09-2014 03:00 PM)J-F Garnier Wrote:
(06-09-2014 02:00 PM)Gerald H Wrote: Both with same flag settings & printing is off.

Interesting.
To answer your initial question: no, such a variation between versions is not expected/common.
I checked with a simple test program on my A and C machines and got no significant differences, my C machine is even about 5-10% slower than my A, so it doesn't depend on the software version.

Maybe something is wrong in one of your machine regarding system clock, even if the self-test reports 1MHz in both cases.

If you try to do a BEEP on both machines, can you hear a significant higher pitch on one?

For your reference, here is my test program:

Code:

LBL "X" "RUN" AVIEW LBL 01 + GTO 01
Starting with a stack filled with 1, I get about 520 on my A machine and 490 on my C machine in 10 seconds.

I've now recovered my composure.

If you could enter the progs under post # 13 & time them? It's a lot to ask so no offence if you shouldn't bother.

A similar request on anyone with version A & C HP 42Ss.

J-F Garnier · 06-09-2014, 05:04 PM

(06-09-2014 04:55 PM)Gerald H Wrote: If you could enter the progs under post # 13 & time them? It's a lot to ask so no offence if you shouldn't bother.

Well, no I won't key in (twice) these rather long programs.
But if you can do on your side my simple test and the BEEP check I mentioned, it could give us a clue.

J-F

(and don't bother about the repetitive OT messages :-)

Gerald H · 06-09-2014, 05:15 PM

To post # 29:

Beeps sound similar.

Your short test prog, & similar short loops, show the A version as marginally faster, but this would in no way account for the difference in timing for the factorization in post # 13.

J-F Garnier · (This post was last modified: 06-09-2014 05:23 PM by J-F Garnier.)

(06-09-2014 05:15 PM)Gerald H Wrote: To post # 29:
Beeps sound similar.
Your short test prog, & similar short loops, show the A version as marginally faster...

OK. So we have similar machines (A slightly faster than C). And you have a program that runs faster on one machine. Nice mystery to solve.

And please use the Quote feature rather than a reference to a post in writing... thanks!

J-F

Bill (Smithville NJ) · 06-09-2014, 06:02 PM

(06-09-2014 03:00 PM)J-F Garnier Wrote: For your reference, here is my test program:

Code:

LBL "X" "RUN" AVIEW LBL 01 + GTO 01
Starting with a stack filled with 1, I get about 520 on my A machine and 490 on my C machine in 10 seconds.

I tried your test program with my Version C units. I consistently get between 510 and 530. Variation is probably due to my inability to press R/S exactly at the same moment on each run.

Bill

walter b · 06-09-2014, 06:39 PM

(06-09-2014 04:42 PM)Thomas Klemm Wrote: Gähn

Oooh, that link shows exhausted poor little Thomas passed/past his limits. Don't overstress again. Get well soon!

d;-)

Bill (Smithville NJ) · 06-09-2014, 06:42 PM

(06-09-2014 04:55 PM)Gerald H Wrote: If you could enter the progs under post # 13 & time them? It's a lot to ask so no offence if you shouldn't bother.

A similar request on anyone with version A & C HP 42Ss.

Okay, I have entered your program on a Version C machine. I double & triple checked the code enter to make sure it matches your posted listing. I have printed it out and then checked the printout line by line with your listing. So I'm pretty sure it is entered correctly. Unfortunately, it does not seem to end - I've let it run for over 30 minutes with so solution.

Maybe I'm not initializing the program correctly.

I do the following:
enter 11,111,111,111 into the X register.
enter "seed"
(11,111,111,111 is still in the X register
I then do XEQ "POBR"

It then runs, but doesn't seem to end.

Am I'm doing something wrong? Is there something I should initialize or do?

Bill

walter b · 06-09-2014, 06:52 PM

(06-09-2014 02:12 PM)rprosperi Wrote:
(06-09-2014 01:59 PM)Thomas Klemm Wrote:

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.

Usually, you won't need a post# for anything. Just use the link at the # top right to refer e.g. to this post. Or use <Quote>, delete almost everything, and the reader can still click on the little right green arrow. Want more?

d:-)

J-F Garnier · 06-09-2014, 07:45 PM

(06-09-2014 05:23 PM)J-F Garnier Wrote: Nice mystery to solve.

I was curious and entered your program in the Emu42 emulator and ran it using either ROM A and C. In this way, I was sure to have exactly the same operating conditions. No significant difference. What you are observing is not caused by the software version.

One question: in you first post, you reported that a program of yours was running slower on version A than on version C (+20% running time). Then you reported than your posted program POBR was slower on version C than on version A (now +40% running time). Is that correct?

J-F

Gerald H · 06-10-2014, 05:23 AM

(06-09-2014 07:45 PM)J-F Garnier Wrote:
(06-09-2014 05:23 PM)J-F Garnier Wrote: Nice mystery to solve.

I was curious and entered your program in the Emu42 emulator and ran it using either ROM A and C. In this way, I was sure to have exactly the same operating conditions. No significant difference. What you are observing is not caused by the software version.

One question: in you first post, you reported that a program of yours was running slower on version A than on version C (+20% running time). Then you reported than your posted program POBR was slower on version C than on version A (now +40% running time). Is that correct?

J-F

Very sorry my first post is botched - version A was faster & consistently so. A took 200s & C 280s.

I can hardly believe that I wrote that original error.

Gerald H · (This post was last modified: 06-10-2014 05:38 AM by Gerald H.)

(06-09-2014 06:42 PM)Bill (Smithville NJ) Wrote:
(06-09-2014 04:55 PM)Gerald H Wrote: If you could enter the progs under post # 13 & time them? It's a lot to ask so no offence if you shouldn't bother.

A similar request on anyone with version A & C HP 42Ss.

Okay, I have entered your program on a Version C machine. I double & triple checked the code enter to make sure it matches your posted listing. I have printed it out and then checked the printout line by line with your listing. So I'm pretty sure it is entered correctly. Unfortunately, it does not seem to end - I've let it run for over 30 minutes with so solution.

Maybe I'm not initializing the program correctly.

I do the following:
enter 11,111,111,111 into the X register.
enter "seed"
(11,111,111,111 is still in the X register
I then do XEQ "POBR"

It then runs, but doesn't seem to end.

Am I'm doing something wrong? Is there something I should initialize or do?

Bill

I have checked against the programmes as stored in my HP 42S & the coding is identical - my calculators produce correct factorizations.

I believe post # 36 indicates that the posted programmes are written correctly.

Please check your coding again, as errors do occur - see my previous post & the initial posting on this matter.

J-F Garnier · 06-10-2014, 07:34 AM

(06-10-2014 05:23 AM)Gerald H Wrote: Very sorry my first post is botched - version A was faster & consistently so. A took 200s & C 280s.

Thanks for the confirmation.
And the running time difference is not +20% as I wrote but +40%.

J-F Garnier · 06-11-2014, 07:37 AM

(06-10-2014 05:37 AM)Gerald H Wrote: I have checked against the programmes as stored in my HP 42S & the coding is identical - my calculators produce correct factorizations.

Please check your coding again, as errors do occur - see my previous post & the initial posting on this matter.

Gerald,
For the sake of completeness, I run your programs on my physical A and C machines.
I got:
version A machine: 414s
version C machine: 432s
consistent with the observation that version A is slightly faster (+5%).

I assume that there is something different in the implementation of your programs in your C machine.
Can you please check again? - Errors do occur :-)
Only you can do it since you are the only one to get such a speed difference (40%).

Please share your findings, I'm now curious...

J-F