▼
Posts: 1,619
Threads: 147
Joined: May 2006
http://nikemag.ebay.com/shoes
Only 110 pairs. A previous article stated 1500. I guess there will be more auctions.
To bring this a bit into topic, use your fav calc and see if the shoe sizes are a normal distribution.
▼
Posts: 758
Threads: 9
Joined: Jul 2007
I just got my two from buy.com. Ordered them yesterday.
HP 15C LE, Batch CNA132087X, Limited Edition Numbers 1577 and 1614.
It's for real!
Edited: 9 Sept 2011, 3:38 p.m.
▼
Posts: 101
Threads: 11
Joined: Jun 2011
Not sure if you saw it, but the original post was about Nike shoes, not HP 15C LE calculataors!
▼
Posts: 758
Threads: 9
Joined: Jul 2007
Yea...but when talking about limited edition pairs...I had a pair to talk about. :-)
Self test don't work though...not too unexpected. Overall quality below original.
Edited to change "far below" to "below". It is unrealistic to expect the quality of the original.
Edited: 9 Sept 2011, 6:40 p.m. after one or more responses were posted
▼
Posts: 1,665
Threads: 142
Joined: Jan 2009
Do you mean that they don't include self-tests, or that they fail ?
Posts: 66
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2006
Could you post a little more detail about the quality and differences between the two generations of the 15C?
▼
Posts: 1,278
Threads: 44
Joined: Jul 2007
Looks like cyrille forgot to patch the old self tests away, or at least slow them down.
The old self tests are there. The keyboard one works but times out quickly. If you start pressing keys immediately and don't wait more then about 2 seconds between each, you pass it fine. The second one runs too quickly and thus fails.
The real menus used now are the 12c+ ones that have the checksum and LCD test.
If you think the quality on a 12c+ is crap, you will think the 15c+ is crap too. They are the same except for firmware and cosmetics.
TW
Edited: 9 Sept 2011, 5:48 p.m.
▼
Posts: 758
Threads: 9
Joined: Jul 2007
I was unfair stating that the 15C LE quality was far below that of the original 15C. I would say it is perceptibly less than, but not far below, the original. It is certainly serviceable. I was initially influenced negatively by the self test performance failures.
In that area:
"ON with /" tries to work for a fraction of second, then ends with "Error 9".
"ON with *" immediately results in "Error 9".
"ON with -" immediately results in "Pr Error" and clears the memory and programs, ALL as expected.
"ON with +" immediately results in "Error 9".
The manual, page 261, describes the self tests as functioning in the manner of the original 15C, but they do not.
In other areas:
The 15C LE produces identical numerical results as the 15C, including the sequence of RAN# outputs.
Performance of a 2500-iteration Savage benchmark takes 48 seconds on the 15C LE, and 5840 seconds on the 15C. That shows a runtime improvement by a factor of 122.
It's worth the money, IMHO. Still, I'd prefer a 42S LE...greatly. :-)
Edited: 9 Sept 2011, 8:02 p.m.
Posts: 758
Threads: 9
Joined: Jul 2007
Quote:
The real menus used now are the 12c+ ones that have the checksum and LCD test.
So how are the real tests accessed? I don't find mention of them in the manual.
Posts: 66
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2006
Haven't seen a 12c+ yet. I have a 12c 30th and 15c LE on order though.
Posts: 384
Threads: 18
Joined: Sep 2010
Quote:
Looks like cyrille forgot to patch the old self tests away, or at least slow them down.
The old self tests are there. The keyboard one works but times out quickly. If you start pressing keys immediately and don't wait more then about 2 seconds between each, you pass it fine. The second one runs too quickly and thus fails.
Unless the tests are stumbling on an incorrect checksum due
to rom patching, it likely isn't a question of speed, but
rather quirks in the r2d2 which cause the "on" + "x" and
"on" + "+" tests to fail in your emulation. I puzzled on
that early when writing KEMU on the unfulfilled belief
those tests (well they're essentially the same) would
ferret out implementation bugs in KEMU. Unfortunately
for as much as they try to be, they aren't able to
exhaustively functional test all instruction semantics.
Rather what I'd done as a more definitive benchmark
was to take one of the NUT cpus left over from a KINOMI
conversion and place it in a test jig PCB such that I could
instrument it via feeding it instructions and examining the
results. Some of the internal NUT state needs to be inferred,
but IIRC it should provide complete coverage. Regrettably that
project has fallen derelict due to available time (what's that?),
but I should have extra break-out NUT PCBs if anyone would
be interested to complete the effort.
Concerning rom patching, I'd sidestepped the issue as while
KEMU running on a atmega1284p realizes a 5-6x speed increase
over the stock NUT, it wasn't as drastic as you'd find on a
32bit SoC running at a substantially higher clock rate. And
while keyscan debounce timing was made independent of emulation
speed, other scenarios exist such as <f> + "prefix" which
you can see here, timeout the delay at the
actual emulation speed.
Quote:
If you think the quality on a 12c+ is crap, you will think the 15c+ is crap too. They are the same except for firmware and cosmetics.
Please don't say that in earshot of the Evilbay sellers now stuck
with $400 NUT Voyagers lest they start marketing them as
"Classic Voyagers" and we'll never be rid of them.
Edited: 9 Sept 2011, 8:20 p.m.
▼
Posts: 1,477
Threads: 71
Joined: Jan 2005
On My 12C+ (not LE) the "+" and "x" self tests work just fine. This is version 2009-11-19. The "/" self test does time out if your wait more than 2 seconds between key presses but this is because it's running 150 times faster then the original 12c. The "/" self test on the original 12c (10c, 11c, 16c and 15c) also times out but you need to wait for around 5 minutes.
I don't understand why these self tests didn't make it into the 15C LE firmware.
-Katie
▼
Posts: 384
Threads: 18
Joined: Sep 2010
Quote:
On My 12C+ (not LE) the "+" and "x" self tests work just fine. This is version 2009-11-19. The "/" self test does time out if your wait more than 2 seconds between key presses but this is because it's running 150 times faster then the original 12c. The "/" self test on the original 12c (10c, 11c, 16c and 15c) also times out but you need to wait for around 5 minutes.
I don't understand why these self tests didn't make it into the 15C LE firmware.
I'm sure it's in there, but apparently needs a little further
emulator support. Actually I wasn't clear in my earlier comment.
The 15c requires additional emulator support for the "on" + "x"
system self test beyond the equivalent tests of the 11c/12c/16c.
There are other model specific quirks such as the 12c having
a slightly different power-on detect of the "x" key used to
enter the self test relative to all other voyager models.
Unsure whether that could be coming into play for the 15c here.
With the exception of the <f> + "prefix" sequence which is
just a countdown loop, thus far I've been able to push the
time sensitivity of key input into the emulator. It may
be possible to deal with the <f> + "prefix" as well in the
emulator by using the PC at the time of associated "CHK KB"
instruction (and perhaps partial stack content) to isolate the associated key release polling scenario, and rate limit the
emulation instruction execution speed until it's complete.
Depending on religion it may be preferable to patching the
firmware to achieve the same result.
Posts: 756
Threads: 31
Joined: Aug 2010
The ON + "+" on my 12C+ never seems to come back from the "running" screen.
ON + "\" and ON + "X" seem to work fine except for the 2 second time out.
▼
Posts: 1,477
Threads: 71
Joined: Jan 2005
Quote:
The ON + "+" on my 12C+ never seems to come back from the "running" screen.
Mine stops almost instantly upon pressing any key. What version of the firmware do you have in your 12c+?
▼
Posts: 756
Threads: 31
Joined: Aug 2010
Hi Katie,
Yes, indeed it does (with all LCD segments other than the battery low indicator "lit"). I got my tests confused and forgot that you had to press a key to terminate the On + "+" test. My bad.
Thanks for reminding me!
Cheers,
-Marwan
Posts: 1,830
Threads: 113
Joined: Aug 2005
But that's good news anyway!
|
