Poll: Landscape or Portrait?

[Jlouis]

(03-06-2016 09:28 PM)TASP Wrote:  39 keys ?

Blasphemy !!

[TASP]

We really need someone here with the mandate to maintain the purity of the cause.

I'd hate to come back in a 10 years and see a Speak-n-spell modded into an HP-27. We need to be nipping potential heresies in the bud.

[Thomas Radtke]

(03-06-2016 09:47 PM)rprosperi Wrote:  I've observed an interesting phenomena with calculators that if you focus on being accurate, you become faster, while if you focus on being faster, you become less accurate.

Not meant to belittle your observation, but isn't this just a matter of (1) choosing the right goal and (2) the natural phenomenon to get better with practice?

[Thomas Radtke]

(03-06-2016 07:13 PM)Csaba Tizedes Wrote:  A portrait 15C.

This is nothing but mental cruelty.

[Massimo Gnerucci]

(03-07-2016 09:59 AM)Thomas Radtke Wrote:  

(03-06-2016 07:13 PM)Csaba Tizedes Wrote:  A portrait 15C.

This is nothing but mental cruelty.

Like a landscape 41C??

[Thomas Radtke]

(03-07-2016 10:46 AM)Massimo Gnerucci Wrote:  Like a landscape 41C??

Same shite.

[Massimo Gnerucci]

(03-07-2016 10:51 AM)Thomas Radtke Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 10:46 AM)Massimo Gnerucci Wrote:  Like a landscape 41C??

Same shite.

...different night.

...../ )
.....' /
---' (_____
......... ((__)
..... _ ((___)
....... -'((__)
--.___((_)

[rprosperi]

(03-07-2016 09:55 AM)Thomas Radtke Wrote:  Not meant to belittle your observation, but isn't this just a matter of (1) choosing the right goal and (2) the natural phenomenon to get better with practice?

In a manner of speaking, perhaps. The point is sometimes one can better achieve the goal (faster) by striving for something different (more accurate). In simply trying to be faster, one may not get "better" with practice if we can agree that less accurate is not "better", despite possibly gaining speed.

[JimP]

(03-06-2016 09:47 PM)rprosperi Wrote:  

(03-06-2016 09:14 AM)Jlouis Wrote:  I understand what you mean, of course there's a difference between typing loosely and crunching numbers, but when you know the keyboard by heart, you can be fast and exact at the same time. And when I'm in portrait calculator, as in 48 or 42s, that I like most, of course I don't use the thumbs, but I know the keyboard as well and, that's the difference, I use only one finger. But in my case, there's not much difference because productivity is not a goal for me anymore.

I'm the same, preferring portrait, and when using landscape using mostly the same fingers.

I've observed an interesting phenomena with calculators that if you focus on being accurate, you become faster, while if you focus on being faster, you become less accurate.

Have you ever observed that of the three attributes "good" "cheap" and "fast" you can only get two at a time? It certainly applies to calculators....

[brickviking]

Personally, though I've been "socially" educated on portrait, I just threw one into my hand, and sure enough, portrait fits. I've tried "fitting" it into my hand in the same way as a landscape, but it doesn't sit across my palm the same way, I end up cradling it between fingertips and thumb-support, and I don't know how I'd use a landscape calculator unless I park it on the deck. Which rather belies the point of it being a hand-held calculator. So, portrait it is, at least for me.

Now, as for authenticity, I wouldn't buy a HP-12C in anything but landscape, it just wouldn't be true to the design. There'd be a headache in getting the keycodes to work right. Maybe it's just as well I have a 50G to go with the rest of the tiny Casio stable I have.

(Post 51)