[43S] Display



#69

After some pixel shifting, this is what can be done with the LCD Eric and Richard chose:

The top numeric line shows the format of a complex number in rectangular mode. Next line displays an hexadecimal number. The next two lines are taken by two arbitrary real numbers. At the bottom, the LOG menu is displayed.

We can get rid of group separator characters (following ISO) and can replace 'E' by something more meaningful at least.

d:-)


#70

I think it's great!

#71

Nice - that's pretty exciting.

Bob

PS The "j" is backwards :-)


#72

Is it an 'i'?


#73

I think Bob was kidding as evidenced by the appended smiley. He must be an EE, trying to foist the alternative "j" symbol favored by that sort on the rest of the world.

(For the record, I am of that sort, but am comfortable with either symbol except in a few cases, e.g. XL equals j omega L, not i omega L.)

Edited: 13 Mar 2013, 8:03 a.m. after one or more responses were posted


#74

Quote:
...He must be an EE, trying to foist the alternative "j" symbol favored by that sort on the rest of the world.

Guilty! :-)

Edited: 12 Mar 2013, 8:52 p.m.


#75

Quote:
Guilty! :-)

–as charged! This might explain the VA :-)

j, because i is the symbol reserved for instantaneous intensity of current, in case someone is curious:

http://books.google.com.br/books?ei=0us_UaeqKInH0AGZ4IAQ&hl=pt-PT&id=q-8eAQAAIAAJ&dq=engineering+circuit+analysis&q=%22unit+of+current%22&redir_esc=y#search_anchor


#76

Nice example, since the text quoted allows both I and i to be used for the current current (pun intended). So the reasonable user shall use (again) what minimizes conflicts, i.e. I here. One argument less for j to be used instead of i, sorry.

d;-)


#77

Quote:
Nice example, since the text quoted allows both I and i to be used for the current current (pun intended).

These are two different things. I refers to the effective value of the electric current whereas i refers to its instantaneous value. For instance, the expression for the sinusoidal current is written as:


Quote:
One argument less for j to be used instead of i, sorry.

No, we never meant that. A flag for the selection of the symbol for the imaginary unit wouldn't hurt, however :-)

#78

Quote:
This might explain the VA :-)

If that is where he was coming from, I would have chosen at least kVA, or beter still, MVA.

#79

Call me old-fashioned but I much rather see a normal-size font "E" in the exponent field than the small-size font "10" - which to me it adds clutter and hinders legibility.


#80

Quote:
Call me old-fashioned but I much rather see a normal-size font "E" in the exponent field than the small-size font "10" - which to me it adds clutter and hinders legibility.

That was one reason for posting this: drive the cavemen out of their holes ;-) I got accustomed to that 'E' as well as you but regard it as a crutch not required on such a display anymore.

Added value: we may drop the explanation for the displayed 'E' - well, you know it means 'times ten to the power of ...' but once upon a time far, far ago there was an era when screen resolution was insufficient for displaying that; in fact, it was even worse: people had to make it with 7-segment displays only! So they used a pattern not taken for a digit and invented a nice story about that 'E' representing the exponent in the factor 'ten to the power of ...' to be multiplied with the mantissa. - Pa, I know Clarissa - but who the f... is 'MANTissa'?! q:-?

d:-)

Edited: 12 Mar 2013, 4:33 a.m.


#81

Call me a caveman, too. User-settable? Along with radix?
-Bill


#82

Almost everything can be done using SW <:-> Do you want simulated 7-segment displays? Messages like 'Error 4'? A flashing dot for low battery? Viva nostalgia!

d#-/


#83

Walter-
My first thought was (and the first line of my post should have been) how good it looks. My apologies.

My second thought was that my old eyes (and brain) might be tricked by the new (and admittedly better) presentation. It's not nostalgia as much as it is years of training/habit. Maybe Gerson's idea below to use a small x instead of the dot has merit? It seems that more dramatic visual contrast between a decimal and an exponent could only serve to reduce errors.
-Bill


#84

Bill, no need to apologize :-) I just take the right to respond as spontaneously as other folks seem to write their posts here. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes not - but that's a forum for open discussion, isn't it? So the worst thing happening is I misunderstood a post completely - a common problem in communication when the sender used a code and subtext differing from the receiver's (i.e. almost always in long distance communication). So in the spirit of true sportsmanship, we shall try again :-)

At the bottom line, my basic problem is my limited ability in clairvoyance: How shall I know what you meant as long as I can only read what you wrote?

Disclaimer: As mentioned, this is a general challenge in communication and in no way personal on your side.

d:-)

#85

I must be a caveman also : I prefer the 'E', more concise ;)

What is the key for that on the keyboard ?

I remember a thread about this for the 39GII. The 10^x notation on the keyboard may be ambigous ( is it the EEX key or the ALOG fonction ? ). If it is the same key, it becomes unclear about some mathematical aspects and operator priority. If there is an EEX key, what interest to display a 10^xx less readable imo?

456*10^5 is not the same as 456E5.
The first is a calculation, the second is a number

But this 43S is a very nice project !


Edited: 12 Mar 2013, 5:57 p.m.


#86

Quote:
What is the key for that on the keyboard ? ...
if there is an EEX key, what interest to display a 10^xx ?

456*10^5 is not the same as 456E5.
The first is a calculation, the second is a number


The key is [EEX] due to a forum votum of 2011.

But 456*10^5 = 456E5, the left side being handwritten, the right side being printed/displayed on old-fashioned systems.

d:-)

#87

Looks impressive! I do agree with the 10 instead of E but the "bent" i does look a bit strange.


#88

Quote:
Looks impressive! I do agree with the 10 instead of E ...
Danke!
Quote:
... but the "bent" i does look a bit strange.

What do you prefer instead?

d:-)


#89

What about a "plain" i with (small) serifs?

#90


#91

Yeah, I remember your fine CAD designs :-) If you like to, you can make a new one.

d:-)

#92

Oh man, after seeing that mockup, I definitely want one! I've been out of the loop with respect to the 43S; where can I find more information about the specs? Also, how "customizable" is the face? Would the final product enable buyers to possibly choose from a set of colors? For example, I like the HP48SX and HP48GX color schemes.

Best wishes,
Han


#93

I expect that you'll be able to put an overlay around the keys, like the 41 etc.

I think the only option for changing what's on the keys themselves (unless you can commit to buying a bazillion units) would be to apply vinyl key labels such as Eric Rechlin makes for the 34s.

#94

WARNING: Pal's mockup is a virtual Frankencalc made of an older design (of 2006?) of a forum member I don't remember and my screen picture. The keyboard of the 43S will definitely look different. Please search the forum posts for 43S and you'll find it.

d:-)


#95

Yes, that was the '45s' from October 2007. All I did this morning was replace the old LCD with Walter's new LCD.

(Walter, I would not mind working on CAD designs / renderings again if you have something).


#96

For the actual calculator physical design, I'm using Solidworks. However, I'm only trying to model it for plastics design, and not to produce pretty renderings. (I'd like to do that, but don't really know how.)

My industrial design skills are novice level at best, so the physical design will be fairly rudimentary and not nearly as elegant as the better HP industrial designs. My main concerns are to have it be adequate and manufacturable.

I think I can take Walter's LCD bitmap, and apply it as a "decal" to the model of the LCD module in Solidworks.

When I get to the point of having something halfway reasonable, I can export it in eDrawings format so people can view it in the free eDrawings viewer application.

#97

Thanks for your kind offer, Pal. I can provide you with a keyboard layout certainly, and am most willing to. Only Eric or Richard know the hard stuff, however, like mechanical dimensions you need for making a real CAD model.

d:-/

#98

This looks great. I prefer the "times ten to the power" method shown rather than "E". If hi res displays were available in 1972, they would have done this from the start.

A few questions:

If you want to display complex numbers using more decimal places, what happens? Does it take two lines? Scroll horizontally? If it scrolls, how does the user know that there is more to see?

The display seems to show decimal numbers grouped by threes with a little extra space between groups. Is that intentional and is that what you mean by "following ISO?" It appears that hex numbers are in two-digit groups.

It looks like there would be room for another line in the display if we sacrificed the blue and yellow soft key labels. Is this an option? This might be handy, especially if pressing a prefix key changed the one remaining line of soft key labels so it showed the function invoked with the prefixed key. Put another way, I'm suggesting an option so that, for example, the LOG menu would show just one line of soft menus - the one at the bottom. If you press the yellow prefix key, the menu would change to the one shown on the yellow line. Pressing the blue key would change it to the one on the blue line. In exchange for this inconvenience, the user would gain an extra line of text in the main part of the screen.

Thanks for all your hard work and willingness to consider input from others.

Dave


#99

Thanks for your kind words :-)

Quote:
If you want to display complex numbers using more decimal places, what happens? Does it take two lines? Scroll horizontally? If it scrolls, how does the user know that there is more to see?

So far, nothing happens - it's all vapourware ;-) But there are different opportunities: a) Switch to small font. b) Switch to small font, two lines. Option b) will catch everything. I don't like scrolling.
Quote:
The display seems to show decimal numbers grouped by threes with a little extra space between groups. Is that intentional and is that what you mean by "following ISO?" It appears that hex numbers are in two-digit groups.

Yes, Sir. There won't be E3ON and E3OFF in the 43S. And since I'm a lazy guy, I copy whatever I can from the WP 34S - please check SEPON in its manual for integer number spacing.
Quote:
It looks like there would be room for another line in the display if we sacrificed the blue and yellow soft key labels. Is this an option? This might be handy, especially if pressing a prefix key changed the one remaining line of soft key labels so it showed the function invoked with the prefixed key. Put another way, I'm suggesting an option so that, for example, the LOG menu would show just one line of soft menus - the one at the bottom. If you press the yellow prefix key, the menu would change to the one shown on the yellow line. Pressing the blue key would change it to the one on the blue line. In exchange for this inconvenience, the user would gain an extra line of text in the main part of the screen.

In principle, that may be an option but
  • already four output lines are pretty sufficient IMHO (actually each line may hold a full variable, and I don't know many popular functions depending on four variables),
  • I prefer a rather calm display over swapping menu lines with every single keystroke,
  • I don't like guessing menu lines - I like to see them,
  • the number of output lines will change with a matrix in one stack level (or with precise complex numbers etc.).
At the bottom line, it's a matter of cost vs. benefit, and I don't see too much of the latter here. YMMV

d:-)

Nice, but I would prefer a small x instead of the dot before the 10:

0.123 456 789x1042

Oh, and LN(1+x) instead of LN1-x :-)


Edited: 12 Mar 2013, 1:47 p.m.


Quote:
Nice, but I would prefer a small x instead of the dot before the 10:
0.123 456 789x1042


We may take care of that setting using MUL. and MULx commands :-)
Quote:
Oh, and LN(1+x) instead of LN1-x :-)

Si, senhor engenheiro, mas veja a pagina 322 do HP-42S Manual por favor d;-)

My HP-42 manual says, at page 322:

+---------+------------------------------------------------+
| LN1+X | Logaritmo natural para valores próximos de ze- |
| | ro. Dá como resultado ln(1 + x), que fornece |
| | uma precisão muito maior na parte fracionária |
| | do resultado |
+---------+------------------------------------------------+
RPL, starting with the HP-28C, uses LNP1 and EXPM. The HP-41 uses LN1+X and E^X-1. Is avoiding parentheses the point?

Unlike my German, which is stuck in the Dreite Lektion (or Dritte, I don't remember) I studied in '82, your Portuguese is getting better and better (only si for sim and the lack of an accent in página). But you have an advantage here: Portuguese is much easier than German :-)

Edited: 12 Mar 2013, 3:16 p.m.


Quote:
+---------+------------------------------------------------+
| LN1+X | Logaritmo natural ... |
+---------+------------------------------------------------+
... The HP-41 uses LN1+X and E^X-1. Is avoiding parentheses the point?

Yes it is. Softkey labels must not exceed 6 characters (plus a colon, if applicable).
Quote:
Unlike my German, which is stuck in the Dreite Lektion (or Dritte, I don't remember) I studied in '82, your Portuguese is getting better and better (only si for sim and the lack of an accent in página). But you have an advantage here: Portuguese is much easier than German :-)

It's called "dritte Lektion". Concerning languages, it's like other abilities: they become rusty without some practice. But German is really easy - even three-year-old toddlers perform pretty well (same applies for Chinese as well though I'm not sure it will comfort you) ;-)

Looks beautiful!

FYI, the LCD module has a black border, right up to the edge of the outermost pixels. In other words, if the pixels at the edge are black, they are seamlessly contiguous with the black border. As such, you might want to give up one or more pixels on the edges to provide a light border, rather than having black pixels of characters at the edge merging with the border.

Not to complain, but I tried to extract the bitmap in GIMP for use in a Solidworks model, and it appears to be 401 pixels wide, measuring from the leftmost black pixels of the date to the rightmost of the exponent.


Edited: 12 Mar 2013, 5:30 p.m.


Eric, you're right: the screen in my picture measures 401 x 239 pixels. I'll correct that.

A black boarder LCD looks rather ... ummh ... unconventional in my eyes. Is that fix? What's the benefit of choosing this way?

d:-/


There's no choice; that's just how it is made. I agree that it is unconventional, and not ideal, but I think the other aspects of the display's appearance make up for it.


Doesn't seem that unconventional to me. Most phones and things have a black edges that runs to the screen edges.


Not sure about the point: if the active screen really touches the fixed black edge (and you display dark letters on light background) you loose at least 1 pixel at each edge. I.e. a 400 x 240 dot matrix becomes a 398 x 238 usable dot matrix at the best. With a high-resolution display you may loose even more. That design - if true - is silly at least IMHO >:-(

Look at an arbitrary LCD device for comparison: I bet that 99.99% of them leave some space around the active screen not only for said reason but as well making the screen looking larger. Hard to believe anyone deviating from that. Even harder to imagine a reason for doing so. Anyone knowing anything about it?

d:-?

Edited: 14 Mar 2013, 8:25 a.m.

Hmm, so seriously:

- I'd suggest a touch of space between the "+" and the "i"

- Put in leading zeros in hex display, e.g.:

0A B4 CD 3E F7 vs. A B4 CD 3E F7

Nice-but-not-super-important:

- I agree with the idea of an optional small "x" vs. a dot

- similarly a selectable "j". Even if I have to type in a long supplication to physicists to enable it :-)

Really looking forward to where you guys take this.

Bob

Edited: 12 Mar 2013, 9:21 p.m.


The computer scientist in me has to throw out:

0x prefix in front of hex
0 prefix in front of octal


Hi scientist,

Quote:
The computer scientist in me has to throw out:

0x prefix in front of hex
0 prefix in front of octal


Watch formatting ;-)

And what about the other bases? A coherent solution is appreciated.

d:->

These are the conventions in C and related languages. Not universally.


- Pauli

Really don't like the space separation in the decimals - missing the comma in the rest.

Think the issue with the 10^ versus E is the exponent numbers aren't the same size as the digits for 10 - suggest equal 10 and exponent character heights would look better.


Quote:
Really don't like the space separation in the decimals - missing the comma in the rest

(emphasis added). I'm missing the comma there as well - especially as radix mark. Not sure that's what you wanted to express though ;-)
Quote:
Think the issue with the 10^ versus E is the exponent numbers aren't the same size as the digits for 10 - suggest equal 10 and exponent character heights would look better.

Now that's becoming space expensive :-( in either direction. Do you really want that?

d:-?


Quote:

Now that's becoming space expensive :-( in either direction. Do you really want that?

d:-?


Why is that "space expensive"? You could simply reduce the size of the exponent, leaving the base as it is now.

Hello,

Concerning the Exponent of 10, could I suggest a small size capital "E", which needs less space and seems very readable.

Thanks

Ok folks, after reading what you wrote, pondering on your written words, taking into account the looming black terror (edge), this is what I can offer now:

Disclaimer: You won't see the grey lines (one shade of ... ;-) ) - they are just helping me keeping proper distances. Anybody wanting St. Andrew's crosses for multiplications will loose at least one digit in a complex number. I frankly admit the multiplication dot looks better with a radix comma - advantage Europe. :-) I am not going to return to E nor to non-blank group separating characters for reasons explained above.

d:-)

Edited to correct an error in a foreign language. Included some more options and refinements - you won't ever see such a mess on a real screen in the future ;-)


Edited: 15 Mar 2013, 4:03 a.m. after one or more responses were posted


Hi Walter,

Since the 43S display is being "floated" out there, I thought I would ask this, since I don't remember reading it yet: Is there a plan for the 8-level-stack option to be available on the 43S like it is on the 34S? I feel that it is extremely useful.

Thanks,
Jake


Hi Jake,

Quote:
Is there a plan for the 8-level-stack option to be available on the 43S like it is on the 34S? I feel that it is extremely useful.

I'll vote for it definitely. Although some of the motivation for introducing it will be gone with stack levels taking arbitrary variables, I've always hoped that more people will appreciate eight levels also for everyday real world calculations (for the record: I was willing to accept a six level option in the WP 34S just to break the four level limit ;-) ). My WP 34S runs with eight levels always - I know I can hack everything in without taking care for stack overflow and still enjoy the benefits of a finite stack.

d:-)

Not sure if this incompatible with "pure" RPN - but I like an indefinite/memory-limited stack as on my HP 48G (ok that one uses RPL...) as I often simply add up long rows of numbers and afterwards just press the "+" button many times - ok that sounds stupid, but it's very error-friendly as I can double check the numbers and by issuing a X<>Y I can even make changes if I found an error on a row.

If I only have 4 or 8 stacks I have to add up "on-the-go" and often have to do this multiple time to make sure I have not made any errors (missed a row, misspelled a number or so).

Edited: 14 Mar 2013, 5:07 a.m.


Quote:
... I like an indefinite/memory-limited stack as on my HP 48G (...) as I often simply add up long rows of numbers and afterwards just press the "+" button many times - ok that sounds stupid, but it's very error-friendly as I can double check the numbers and by issuing a X<>Y I can even make changes if I found an error on a row.

If I only have 4 or 8 stacks I have to add up "on-the-go" and often have to do this multiple time to make sure I have not made any errors (missed a row, misspelled a number or so).


Note to newbies: Don't you ever think you've seen all possible strange ways of calculating after watching the forum for some years! Why do it the simple way as long as more complicated ways are allowed?

Hallo Michael,

How about defining an one-dimensional array of e.g. 100 elements, filling it with summands using the matrix editor, viewing it, and performing a row sum then? Anyway, an infinite stack of that kind you describe isn't compatible with RPN AFAIK so far. While (or since) your way of adding is certainly unique, I don't derive a pressing need for a bigger stack from it.

d:-)

Edited: 14 Mar 2013, 8:07 a.m.


:-)

No problem - although I don't see my method as too fancy: How do you sum long lists, say of approx. 20 items and be sure you did not forgot a row or entered one twice? Just curious :-)

Anyway, I don't really advocate for a larger stack, I'm also using my 15C, I just don't use it for my summation tasks - but how does a larger stack "hurt" with RPN? I can see problems with the T-stack duplication - but than might only be a real problem if you do RPN-programming. But if you already have the possibility to switch between a 4 and 8 stack implementation, programs who assume a 4-stack RPN will break as well on a 8-stack implementation? OK, perhaps this is too newbie for you :-)

Edited: 14 Mar 2013, 8:40 a.m.


Quote:
How do you sum long lists, say of approx. 20 items and be sure you did not forgot a row or entered one twice?

Being focussed worked for me (and LASTx helped).
Quote:
... how does a larger stack "hurt" with RPN? I can see problems with the T-stack duplication - but than might only be a real problem if you do RPN-programming.

Nobody said a larger stack being incompatible to RPN, but an infinite stack is IMHO. E.g. R^ and Rv won't work. These commands are quite popular. And on-the-fly programming capability is a major advantage of such a calculator. Eight levels are an handy size for reasons explained above. YMMV

d:-)


Just a quick question...
I don't want to judge the merits of the two methods, but I too am much (much!) more comfortable with "RPL-style" stack handling, as it is on the HP 48/49/50. For the kind of calculations I have to do at work, it really is faster and more straightforward.
So, since flash space shouldn't be a problem here, will there be an option to have a RPL-like stack? I.e. infinite size and no DUP on Enter, as it is on the 48?
And, I'm not a programmer so I would be unable to code it in myself. It's just that I realized I tend to use my 34s less and less because of that, and I started again lugging my 48 around, and that's a shame IMO.


Buon giorno, Cristian,

This topic wasn't discussed yet. Personally, I vote for featuring WP-34S-RPN definitely, but there may be more options. I can imagine another bit/flag determining whether we'd show WP-34S-RPN or something like HP-30b-RPN, the latter without DUP on ENTER. Sounds easy enough.

d:-)

Edited: 18 Mar 2013, 8:22 a.m.


Thanks! That would definitely increase my chances of buying it, especially if it also gets an option for the infinite stack.

The fact is... the 34s is a geeky calc that you can get almost for free, so any shortcomings are much more acceptable. This new project instead, is going to be quite expensive, and I suppose people would want it to match their needs as much as possible before "forking out" so much cash... At least, I know that's how I would reason.

Thanks again,
Cristian


Buon giorno, Cristian,

Yes, I got it you want an infinite stack ;-) As mentioned above, a finite operating stack is one of the characteristics of RPN AFAIK (there may be an 'infinite' return stack - but that's a different topic). Any change in this basic architecture would cause wide effects, so it's less probable than the one I offered above. It's not completely off yet, however, but don't hold your breath.

d:-)

Edited: 19 Mar 2013, 3:57 a.m.


Walter, I understand... And I know that people used to pure RP*N* want to use the roll-keys. Old habits are just hard to change! :)
The "No-DUP-on-ENTER" would already be really good.

If the infinite stack will prove to be impossible, would 8 levels be the maximum stack size? What about a setting where the user can choose the stack size, within reasonable limits? There is a special case at work where I need 10 levels (of course I could use registers, but I prefer to work with just the stack... :)

Thank you,
Cristian


I think of a common memory pool of which the stack is a configurable chunk. The actual memory consumed depends not only on the number of elements but on the contents itself because almost anything can be put there.

Cristian, now you're really deep in details. As I wrote above, it's neither discussed nor decided yet. And we know what you want.

d:-)

At this point I'll wish you luck, but I am no longer interested. It is sounding too much like a personal project and reminding me of some issues with Gimp and Firefox where the developers aren't interested in changing their decisions regardless of the protests raised.

I think software benefits from such passion, but it also means to run the risk of alienating some - kind of how Apple's inflexibility leads some to Android fanaticism.


The 34S developed much the same way & with far less input form these forums. It turned out pretty well overall.


- Pauli

As far as I'm aware, the plan is for the firmware to be open-source, as is the 34s, so if desired features or user interface elements aren't done the way you want, there's at some reasonable possibility of customization.

However, it very much IS a personal project for those of us working on it. As such, the final arbiter of any decisions on any aspect of the project is the person doing the actual work. It's nice to have opinion polls, and I think they do provide valuable feedback, but let there be no mistake about the fact that this project is NOT a democracy.


Edited: 17 Mar 2013, 2:42 a.m.

Pete,

I don't really understand the reason for your drop of interest. But I didn't understand your post above either ;-) (and English is your mother tongue, not mine). Just for the record, the height of the 10 in 10^ is the same now as the digits in the exponent. And I don't see anything wrong in following ISO 31 instead of implementing the bazillionth US-specific format in a calculator for worldwide use which can do better. AFAIK the USA is a prominent member of ISO. So it sets the ISO rules as well - and then decides not to obey them. I'm sick and tired of this splendid isolationalism (and that's a polite expression of my feelings).

As Eric and Pauli wrote already, those who do the work will have votes counting a bit more than those who only vote. Yes, 43S is a personal project as WP 34S, just with two folks more in the team. Why do we make it this way? Simply since HP doesn't make it. And since no other people make it. Feel free to start your own calculator project and your vote will count more there - I'm looking forward to your results, and I'm sure YMWV.

d:-/

Hi,

Just a small post to say that I like this display. And I also appreciate the way that Walter B is sharing its awesome project and how he is deeply digging in every detail.

My modest contribution is to suggest a reverse-contrast soft key. Of course it is only a suggestion. I have no idea if this is feasible and how it looks on the hardware?!?


I also see great potentialities in hexadecimal special formats; ddd.ddddd°, ddd°mm.mmm' and ddd°mm'ss.s" formats will look awesome. A few calculators are able to display these three formats unambiguously. By playing with spaces, normal, subscript and superscript characters, the future 43S will clearly display the gap!


Thanks for your kind words and your suggestion, which results in a nice contrast on the screen. Just a little remark about reverted characters: It has been mentioned by others this LCD is *very* high res, i.e. it features very small pixels - smaller than the ones on your PC display. When it comes to small details, black on white is easier to read than white on black. I did start with reverted softkeys but then reverted them ;-) for better readability. Please take the mean age of our customers into account, too. Anyway the final softkey font may be specified later - no pressing need to hurry IMO. A reverted font may remain an option.

d:-)


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Trivial news of the 43S (no Prime) Walter B 117 5,335 11-22-2013, 03:26 AM
Last Post: Raymond Del Tondo
  What exactly is the WP 43S Harold A Climer 5 482 11-16-2013, 03:58 PM
Last Post: Jonathan Cameron
  Another wishlist for 43s Andrew Nikitin 3 358 07-14-2013, 09:25 PM
Last Post: Andrew Nikitin
  Some random wish list items for the 43s Marcel Samek 18 1,172 07-11-2013, 05:35 PM
Last Post: Paul Dale
  News from the 43S Walter B 78 2,909 07-08-2013, 10:33 AM
Last Post: Victor Koechli
  [43S] Display and top row, refined Walter B 20 1,157 04-24-2013, 01:36 AM
Last Post: Walter B
  [43s] : How the solver will be implemented Miguel Toro 3 363 03-14-2013, 06:09 PM
Last Post: Walter B
  [43S] Display myth crasher Walter B 46 2,506 02-06-2013, 01:07 AM
Last Post: Walter B
  [43S]Top row poll (until Monday, 4.2.13, 13:13 UTC) Walter B 175 6,865 02-04-2013, 09:38 AM
Last Post: Andrés C. Rodríguez (Argentina)
  [43s] General questions fhub 7 463 01-31-2013, 11:04 AM
Last Post: Walter B

Forum Jump: