See http://commerce.hpcalc.org/ and http://commerce.hpcalc.org/images/50g.jpg.
Other than the color changes, I don't know how (or even whether) the 50g differs from the 49g+.
Regards,
James
Image of 50g
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
▼
06-06-2006, 04:08 PM
See http://commerce.hpcalc.org/ and http://commerce.hpcalc.org/images/50g.jpg. Other than the color changes, I don't know how (or even whether) the 50g differs from the 49g+.
Regards, ▼
06-06-2006, 05:36 PM
It supposedly has been given a few improvements, very much like the HP40GS is an improved HP40G. I believe the keyboard should be more acceptable, but please do not quote me on that. ▼
06-06-2006, 07:19 PM
Quote: I couldn't resist. ;-)
06-06-2006, 08:46 PM
I don't use graphing calculators, but I am very pleased that HP has gone with a color scheme that appears to close to "the good ole days". I really hope there's a successor to the 33s in the works that uses the same color scheme. Now if we could just get them to go back to the big ENTER key.... ▼
06-06-2006, 11:43 PM
I hardly use my 49G+, mainly because it "feels different" from my 48G and 48G+; I probably soon will migrate over to it as it probably is much faster... ... anyhow, what I really wanted to say was that I'm thankful they retained a rectilinear grid and right angled buttons (though a few circular ones are okay). It looks great in black with that particular shift key color scheme. If hadn't bought the 49G+ first, I think I'd opt for this one! ▼
06-07-2006, 12:32 AM
At least the solid color hides the stupid inane retarded ugly curves. ▼
06-07-2006, 12:42 AM
Quote: Amen. The only curves I care about in a calculator are the ones of the form similar to "y=f(x)." ▼
06-07-2006, 12:01 PM
I actually like the look of the 49G+. And strangely, I am enjoying my newly acquired one more than I sometimes think I should, judging from the lambasting the thing gets in the forum. The 50g looks pretty, too. Les
06-07-2006, 03:27 PM
Yes, I agree. The darker colors and less-obvious curves on the faceplate make it look a lot better than the 49G+. But the lack of a double-wide [ENTER] is still a deal-killer for me.
06-07-2006, 03:59 AM
Hi,
take a 'look' at the SpeedUI package for the HP-48,
All input forms, choose boxes (with switchable font), Raymond ▼
06-07-2006, 12:09 PM
Looks very impressive, but as a 48G owner I need every bit of memory I have, and it looks like your libraries would occupy most of the available 27K or so in my calc. Is there a lite version for the 48G user? Les ▼
06-07-2006, 02:09 PM
Hi,
the SpeedUI package is very modular.
However, with 32K RAM only, it's hard to decide;-)
The libs I always use are the keyboard libs,
If you don't need either the memory browser and/or the EQLib,
A1.LIB and A3.LIB have many special features,
As written above, it depends on your needs,
The lib you'll always need (in port 0) is CF.LIB.
Please take a look at CF.txt and the other associated text files. Raymond
06-07-2006, 03:47 PM
I'll post a color analysis tonight or tomorrow. They're starting to look somewhat reasonable! Perhaps I should send Cyrille a copy of my color research in the mail and see if things improve further. -Hugh ▼
06-07-2006, 05:17 PM
I think I've read that once before at least. Anyway, if you don't mind, I'd appreciate if you'd repair the OpenRPN website www.openrpn.org. AFAIK it cannot be accessed for 10 days now. ▼
06-07-2006, 05:27 PM
and given their website trouble, I have a hard time believing a real product will ever appear out of this effort. How can you produce a product if you can't even keep your own website up and running? ▼
06-08-2006, 01:43 AM
First, what does keeping a website running at all times have to do with producing calculators? The most active area of development is software, which is currently based at sourceforge. Industrial design is highly active and based on my PC. The forum at OpeRPN.org now hosts mostly idle conversation, the future of the site is in its' wiki... which won't go into full swing for a little while now. Second, if anyone wishes to offer us hosting to improve our website's reliability we would be happy to hear from you. Third, our server was shut off by our ISP due to a single hack a couple of months ago that put up a phishing page for a few hours until we caught it. Right this minute, our servers are undergoing a fresh installation and reconfiguration. OpenRPN.org will be online again very soon. -Hugh
▼
06-09-2006, 04:07 AM
I think John (and myself) look at it this way: Running a website should be trivial compared to creating a calculator. Yet OpenRPN's has been hacked at least 4 or 5 times now, and has lots of downtime. Sadly this doesn't inspire confidence in the project as a whole. It's the same reason companies try to put attractive, or at least average looking employees, as receptionists to deal with the public. Although a morbidly obese, unkempt receptionist could greet people just as well, people would not get a good impression about the company. I think it's the same with OpenRPN. It might not be fair, but that's how I see it.
▼
06-09-2006, 08:54 AM
Agreed. Imagine if NASA could not keep their gates locked and their website up. Why would that do anything but make people skeptical that they could do something more complex? After all, Open RPN has only published drawings so far after how many years? Track record does not inspire confidence. ▼
06-09-2006, 03:20 PM
Quote:Has it even been two years? The major job is software, which a small number of people (I'll guess 3) are working on, and they have full-time jobs elsewhere. Sure, you collect information on available parts and on manufacturing possibilities, and come up with drawings to make sure you have a pretty solid idea of where you're going. But then what's the point in having hardware ready long before there's software ready to run it? Some people here are way too geared toward high-volume consumer electronics where a company decides it's worth putting a huge amount of resources into developing something in a matter of months to hit a very narrow market window with a product that will be considered obsolete a few months after it's introduced. But here we're talking about a niche market, not a high-volume consumer market. In our company's niche market, one of our most popular products, even this year, is one we designed in 1993. Even though I'm looking forward to designing an improved version in the next year or two, its performance advantage over the competitors' units is what keeps it popular. Although our most complex product took me about ten months to design in 1994, it probably only had 5% as much software to develop as OpenRPN's new calculator. Some things just take a long time. When I design a product, I often do most of the hardware design first, but then let it sit while working on software. I usually make a partial workbench prototype for proving certain ideas. That prototype, which visually bears little or no resemblance to what the final product will look like, can be changed with soldering iron and wire-wrap tools. But I don't commit early on to the manufacture of things like 12-layer printed circuit boards that cost a lot to tool up for. Why? The available embedded computer parts (usually meaning microcontrollers) offer a lot of possibilities, even with the function of individual pins; but you can't have everything on every pin. Sometimes after I plan to do things a particular way, as I get into the details of a 200-page data sheet (as is necessary in the programming), I find I have to back up and change something in the hardware design to get where I wanted to go with it. When there's little uncertainty left in the more hardware-related portions of the software, I might finish-up printed circuit board designs and get those going at the board houses so we have boards ready about the time the software is done and 99% proven on the bench prototype. There might be a software bug or two to fix after that, but they won't require hardware changes. I've talked to a ton of our customers who built their own airplanes. Not one of them, to my knowledge, finished in two years, and some were around ten years. You can't just take the mentality that only those things that offer instant gratification have any value. I believe you'll have more success if you don't insist that success be instant, or that it be measured by what would fly with stockholders who only care about quick profits, or even that false starts along the way mean failure. I'm backing Hugh. By the way, our own website has been in serious need of work for the last few years. Unfortunately for a 5-man company where everyone wears a lot of hats, taking time to work on the website means taking time away from other important things, like filling a large order for a dealer who's in a hurry. OTOH, a better website would bring in even more business. It's a catch-22. I don't think Hugh has any obligation to those of us who have no investment in the project to keep us up to date on every detail; and spending the little time he has outside his full-time job on it would only slow the progress we are anxious to see.
Edited: 10 June 2006, 4:33 a.m. after one or more responses were posted ▼
06-09-2006, 04:25 PM
I agree with Garth 100%. Rather than just complaining about the state of current HP calculators Hugh is doing something about it. It's very easy to take shots at somebody elses design effort, I see it all the time. ▼
06-09-2006, 11:52 PM
I greatly appreciate your kind, supportive, and encouraging comments. Even though they make up the minority, they are enough to make me feel good about what I've set out to do with OpenRPN. Regarding the OpenRPN website, it honestly has already served its' purpose and aside from the documentation site could be retired with few, if any, ill effects. We indeed have a small but dedicated and talented team of programmers. The OpenRPN software forums are no longer used for software development discssion. Hardware development is intentionally slow. Why? We don't want to run the risk of components becoming obsolete before production. Anyways, I've had enough of this disucussion. Anyone wishing to discourage me is wasting their time. -Hugh
06-10-2006, 09:34 AM
And exactly what is Hugh doing? Creating pictures that most anyone could do. Talking a lot. Creating a list of features and functions. And ? It is not OpenRPN's design effort that people are taking shots at. It's the so far very unsupported belief people have that this will lead to anythign concrete, much less be a calculator like HP really should design. How about I create a website called OpenSpace. I'll put some pictures/CAD drawings of rocket ships, talk alot about mission objectives and even about features of the control panels. You are right. There would be people here who would think NASA was about to get what it deserved. Reality check time, people. ▼
06-11-2006, 01:07 PM
Quote: Innovating. Community-based development of a consumer device has not been attempted before. The reason? Most people think in terms of traditional production techniques such as injection molding, tooling, and relatively large barriers to market entry. I decided to consider alternative options.
Quote: You can't produce something without a design. These are complete CAD assemblies, every component is carefully designed and placed. If anyone could make them, why have all previous calculator proposals been created in photo-editors.
Quote: Right, it's our job to prove the skeptics wrong.
Quote: I disagree with your analogy. How about a PDA instead? It's been done, take a look at simputer.
Quote: Constructive critcism, and contributions are welcome. If you don't believe OpenRPN will succeed, you're wasting time and space on this forum making that opinion known. Just know that I will never throw in the towel. One last point I want to add is that if I felt like making something concrete I could have a prototype within 72 hours for under $1000. However, there is no need at this point.
Regards, ▼
06-11-2006, 01:49 PM
One last point I want to add is that if I felt like making something concrete I could have a prototype within 72 hours for under $1000. However, there is no need at this point. Regards, Hugh
The Qonos was much more firm than anything you have yet tried to actually show other than pictures and yet with a prototype, they could not find the money to bring their product to market.
06-12-2006, 01:10 AM
Quote: True, but at some point the line has to be drawn. As long as the specifications keep changing there is no hope that anything will get built. People are still debating things like the size and shape of the screen and Enter key. The specifications need to be frozen. Surely this shouldn't have taken 2 years?
Quote: No other people tried to produce them themselves. As for the Simputer, it is mass-produced by a professional company and costs $200.
Quote: I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. Unless by 'prototype' you mean 'ARM development board purchased off the shelf'. Does anyone remember 'INT48' from comp.sys.hp48?
06-12-2006, 05:16 PM
The reality of the situation is that this project is apparently being done on a part-time basis by people who have other full time jobs. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe the odds are that OpenRPN will not end up producing anything, but so what? At least he is trying to do something, and for that he should be congratulated and encouraged. Remember that he is working on his own time and on his own dime-give him a break. It seems that many of the naysayers are almost angered that Hugh is even trying at all. He is also not accountable to any of us regarding his project. If we don't like the way he's doing things, then that's just too bad. Your space analogy is not a good one. If is was your full-time job to explore space using smoeone elses money, and all you did was talk about it and come up with cad renderings, and have a nebulous schedule, then yes you should be critisized severely. You should in fact be fired. If you were doing it after hours on your time using your own money, then these things could be tollerated. Furthermore, you could do whatever you pleased and wouldn't be accountable to anyone. You also may not be successful, but that would be your problem not mine. If I was interested in your project I would wish you the best. Remember that OpenRPN is not a corporation that is looking to mass-market consumer electronics. They are aiming at a small niche consisting of people disatisfied by the current offerings from HP. I don't think the normal rules apply. If I'm wrong, the OpenRPN will produce nothing, and I will have lost nothing-it won't hurt me at all. On the other hand maybe they will be successful, even if it is unlikely. Then I can gain a quality RPN calculator-something I need every day in my line of work. Therefore, I choose to encourage Hugh and hope for the best. It costs me nothing. ▼
06-12-2006, 05:42 PM
It costs you nothing other than your time and the false hopes you have given yourself. While OpenRPN may produce something someday, I tend to think they won't get anywhere. That's being a realist. It is the almost fanatical belief expressed by so many here that is strange. Two years and pretty CAD drawings are not much to show for a project that will change the world or at least calculator collector's part of it. Let me repeat, QONOS was much closer to reality. They even already had working prototypes. But they could not come up with the cash to go forward. While my OpenSPACE analogy may be flawed, it points out the strange tenacity the true-believers bring to OpenRPN. Were I to start OpenSPACE, and post designs for rocket flights to Mars, there would be some on here who would be very upset when detractors laughed at nothing but CAD drawings. The true believers would say that it might still work. I prefer reality. ▼
06-12-2006, 07:24 PM
Quote:Wasn't Qonos a commercial venture? I expect they had to turn a profit in a certain amount of time or go under because there was no more money for payroll, rent, etc.. If I understand it correctly, that's not openRPN's situation. We've seen a few drawings of openRPN's, but I doubt that any of the critics can know for sure that there aren't already two hundred pages of source code written and partly debugged. I might be interested in seeing that when it's finished, but I don't expect them to publish it before then. ▼
06-12-2006, 07:51 PM
Qonos was not the only source of revenue for the people trying to sell it, so that's not particularly relevant. They could not get funding to make it and could not sell it to a big name, so it went nowhere. Sad but true. Since OpenRPN is open, why not publish source code, etc? Would they be worried about someone else using it? If so, why would they care? Just ain't going to happen. Buy a 15c instead. ▼
06-14-2006, 01:11 AM
Quote: It was much more complicated than you make it sound. JYA divulged some details in an email, but I treat all e-mail as confidential. I still believe they could pull it off by taking pre-orders, but Hydrix doesn't like the idea.
Quote:
All of our source code is published on our subversion server at sourceforge. It is all under an open license, the only limited license is placed on hardware production based on our designs. If a manufacturer is interested they must conform to our specs and work out licensing fees with us (to support future research and development). Feel free to browse the *fix core code repository: We all hope to see some level of industry use of our code. For a machine people rely on source code must be available to understand the result. I believe that all calculator manufacturers should at least release their algorithms for peer review. As for buying a 15c, that's why I started OpenRPN: To give people better machines using new technology for a fraction of the cost of a collector's item. I expect members of this community to be skepical, scientists and engineers are trained to be. The burden of proof is in my hands. John, in your honest opinion, what should OpenRPN be doing differently? Feel free to respond via-email, or we can continue here.
Best Regards,
06-14-2006, 08:52 AM
And further on your last point, even if no physical calculator were to be produced, the experience of working towards that goal will have enriched the participants--not in money, but in experience. That experience will be brought to bear one day, and in a positive way. I wouldn't be surprised if a few people who have been laboring with the project fiund their own careers shaped and improved as a result of ideas learned in the OpenRPN project.
06-10-2006, 03:17 AM
Quote: I disagree. The advantage to software development is that it requires time and not much money. Hobby Open Source projects have been successful because people can invest time in the evenings without spending much money. Compare this to hardware: There are huge barriers here standing in the way of production. How many 'Open Hardware' projects have been successful? The real challenge is not the electronics design nor the programming. It is figuring out how to produce the things at a reasonable cost. The 'HP49g+ retrofit kit' was supposed to be near release by now but where is it? If it had been released my faith in openRPN would have been renewed. I think the web site needs to stay up, if only to attract more interest if nothing else. Hugh said in the forums they openRPN does not have anyone with embedded design experience. Removing the web site will make it much harder to attract volunteers. I certainly hope management isn't planning on a 10 year design time. How many people will lose interest and quit before then?
06-07-2006, 05:41 PM
We will have the site back online as soon as we can. Thanks to a phishing scheme that exploited our site several months ago, our ISP shut down our servers. That misunderstanding has been resolved and Chad is doing some upgrades before things return to normal. Unless someone would like to pay for professional hosting services, these outages are just going to be a fact of life. At the moment, all of the real work is happening over at sourceforge and on my PC at home (neither of which cost anything). OpenRPN.org will be back soon enough. It's being worked on. Remember, we all have lives aside from openrpn.
Best Regards,
06-09-2006, 01:27 AM
I apparently spoke to soon. The colors will look miserable under low light conditions. Methinks the art department is still doing the color selection rather than engineers. -Hugh |