5 stars based on
Message 1 Posted by robert rozee on 16 Apr9: Your timing is interesting. I just attended an award presentation for the HP It turns out that the most difficult and most costly part of a calculator these days is the keyboard. Processors are cheap, cheap, cheap as are displays.
Any bit RISC processor core fx 82ms binary trading deliver what's needed for computation at low power that's what's used in the latest HP35s but read the posts of the people in this forum and you'll quickly see how important the keyboard feel and reliability are to the overall impression of calculator quality. It's far more important than the phrase "a handful of switches" would imply.
Those simple, mechanical keyboard keys are always a problem that drives manufacturing bats. Never underestimate the time, effort, skill and craftsmanship required to make truly outstanding mechanical parts. Same goes for software Frank, I guess that your hand has 5 fingers ;- Think about 2 fingers for a two-line scientific calculator and about 5 fingers for a "Natural Textbook" calculator fx 82ms binary trading to the SmartCalc S which I still use and like!
And in this business you are not talking about these "sampling" quantities. The only reason that the old HP 42s commands such high prices is limited supply. Once you introduced a new version with unlimited availability, market prices will drop significantly. See what happened with the Voyagers; the HP 10c, 11c, 15c and 16c are no longer made, so prices remain high, but the HP 12c sells for much less due to production of the modern fx 82ms binary trading. Even true vintage original versions of the HP 12c sell for a fraction of the price of the other out-of-production Voyagers.
Ultimately, I think the market size for a resurrected HP 42s may not be large enough to justify its return. You couldn't just re-release the 42 nor the 15 as it was and expect anything like the same level of enthusiasm as the originals. People have moved on and have different expectations - like text and graphics for example. I've already developed all the software; http: It could also run easily on the Hp50g or any independent platform. It uses no dependent libraries and has its own computation code including its own number system.
You can play with the number engine my test system here: So when you say, let's build a calculator. Message 13 Posted by Joerg Woerner on 17 Apr8: What OpenRPN has always lacked is hardware, not even a prototype, that's why the project died. Let's build a calculator Message 16 Posted by Randy on 16 Apr fx 82ms binary trading, 5: Oh boy, here we go again. Time to make some popcorn, sit back and watch how long this one takes to fizzle out Message 17 Posted by Garth Wilson on 16 Apr6: Here is one of the past related threads I could remember the search terms to find.
Message 18 Posted by Eric Smith on 16 Apr6: I know, as I've worked on it for use on a different microcontroller. Message 19 Posted by Fx 82ms binary trading Dale on 16 Apr7: I just did a quick free42 build with -Os optimisation fx 82ms binary trading gcc Not a great test especially for the binary math version since I'm not statically linking but there does appear to be some headroom there.
Message 20 Posted by robert rozee on 16 Apr7: Message 21 Posted by Paul Dale on 16 Apr8: Download the software, compile it and try it out. Most of RPL is there and it is fairly bug free. More functions need to be added naturally but what is there is decent enough.
Message 22 Posted by Egan Ford on 16 Apr8: Here are my ARM versions from http: I have already tried to cross compile free42 sans GUI for the 50g, but it is too large. What I find amazing is the collective works of Hrastprogrammer, e. Message 23 Posted by Paul Dale on 16 Apr8: What arm compiler version are you using? There has been some significant improvements in the 4. Message 24 Posted by Egan Ford on 16 Apr9: In it was GCC 3. Now I use 4. Message 25 Posted by DaveJ on 16 Apr7: Well, what a coincidence Time will tell if anything fx 82ms binary trading of it Without a decent hardware platform to work from a calculator does not exist.
This has been proven time and time again with DIY calc projects. Once you have a hardware platform, the software will come, the software is flexible, and there is no shortage of code and coders out there. It never ever works the other way around for something like a calculator, unless your aim is purely a software project and you don't care about how crap the hardware is. A project fx 82ms binary trading this needs one person and one person alone to come up with some hardware and make all the decisions.
Unfortunately it will look and feel so "prototype" that no-one will want to use it. Ask Eric how much time and effort he has put into his DIY-RPN calc, that has only in recent revisions just started to resemble something that people would be happy to use physically.
And if you can't achieve a reasonable working quality, I say don't bother. Hardware is not cheap either. At least not in small volume.
My uWatch is expensive because the parts are expensive, and all the small parts add up. The switches are expensive and single source, connectors are expensive, battery holders are expensive, some of the screws are a dollar each etc. On the uWatch I cheated a lot. I used a PCB for the front panel fx 82ms binary trading labeling, I got away without keytops, and by the novelty of the design I got away without fx 82ms binary trading custom case or any other custom parts.
It is not a hugely usable design, but it's the only one out there and fx 82ms binary trading novel. So it's been reasonably successful in a niche way. There are just too many hardware options available off-the-shelf. HP are moving in this direction. There fx 82ms binary trading been talk about hacking an existing product e.
LCD and PCB replacementand that may have some merit to a niche market if someone can find a cheap and easy way to do it. If your goal is to have a new Fx 82ms binary trading then you can have that right now on an iPhone or other device. Why anyone would bother with a custom hardware project to recreate the real thing is beyond me. All that effort, time and money, just so you can have something with real buttons seems a tad silly, even if you did manage to pull it all off at a reasonable price and quality.
If you really want a high end DIY calc, don't waste time and fx 82ms binary trading doing it from scratch. Simply take an existing re-programmable calc, use it as the hardware fx 82ms binary trading, and look at changing the front panel and key legends. Low cost, low risk, short development, and a high quality result.
You won't get that result with DIY from scratch for any cost you'd be able to afford. Given the above that the full size calculator market is difficult and options already exist. My current sketches fx 82ms binary trading thinking show a tiny 38mm x fx 82ms binary trading x64 LCD, small tact switches again but possibly bigger than the uWatch that surround the screen, fx 82ms binary trading the PCB front panel worked good last time. A thin rechargable battery, perhaps some rocker encoder switches, and a more powerful processor.
The case and front panel integration is the hardest part, but I have some ideas that may simplify this. I'm getting the initial feeling it should be possible to come up with a smaller, thiner uWatch with integrated watch band, more rugged, and a dot matrix display that takes much less power. Fewer keys probably, but anyone who thinks that is a negative is missing the point of a project like this.
The uWatch is fiddly to assemble and not very rugged. That is why I fx 82ms binary trading not sold it as anything but a kit. Also, the uWatch is very niche because it's pretty much just a calculator and not much else, and most people don't want to buy a kit. So any next device I picture being less calculator-like, and more general purpose fx 82ms binary trading. Easier to assemble, more rugged, and sellable as a built-up product.
Not designed for the calculator enthusiast market, but the infinitely bigger geek market. Flame mail welcome Yet, I also plan to keep the uWatch's off-the-shelf parts concept to keep development costs down. Perhaps a custom case will be needed, but I have an idea to possibly make that simple enough I can do with my feeble mechanical CAD skills. Oh, and last but not least. It doesn't matter what you come up with, you will never ever please anything but a minority.
And even then they'll still want something different.