Re: A89: TI89 ROM vs. HP49 ROM
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A89: TI89 ROM vs. HP49 ROM
Josh Cunningham wrote:
>
> Hi, I recently got my 89, and was wondering a couple of things. First I
> like to know whet is going on on the other side of the road. When HP came
> out with the 49, I was curious. In the FAQ at hpcalc, it said that the 3d
> graphing was faster then the 89. I wondered how this could be, considering
> that the 49's processor is only a 4bit, 4mhz Saturn. I found it hard to
> believe, so I emailed the author of hpcalc's FAQ. Here is his response:
> >>me
> >response
>
> >Sorry for the delayed response, but I had to get some figures from HP (they
> >had to try your example on a >prototype) in order to answer your question.
>
> >>First, for number 3.1, you said that the 49 can plot 3d graphs faster than
> >>any other calc. I was wondering >>exactly what equation you used?
>
> >It's faster for ANY equation that the HP49 can plot. You have to see it to
> >believe it...it's amazing what a 4 >MHz CPU can do with optimized software.
>
> >>z1=(x^3*y-y^3*x)/390
>
> >That's a rather flat surface...maybe you shouldn't have divided by 390 and
> >it would look cooler :)
>
> >About 6 seconds to calculate, and then it rotates it in real time around 10
> >frames per second on any of the >X, Y, or Z axes.
>
> >>When calculating 100!*100! were you using the calculator in RPN or
> >>Algebraic mode?
>
> >It doesn't matter: same speed. The 2.5 seconds figure is to calculate
> >100!, then calculate 100! a second >time, and then multiply the two
> >numbers. Of course, the quickest way to do it would be *100! DUP* but
> > >that would be cheating (only calculating 100! once). The 2.5 seconds
> >includes the time it takes for the >display to update with the number. It
> >actually only takes about 1.5 seconds for the computation.
>
> >Regards,
>
> >Eric Rechlin
> >Bismarck, ND, USA
> >eric@hpcalc.org
> >http://www.hpcalc.org/
>
> As you can see, the graphing is considerably faster, go ahead and try the
> sample equation on your 89.
> Obviously HP has had some excellent programmers working for them, but enough
> to make up 28bits and 6mhz? My next thought was that since the major speed
> improvements on the HP49 came from rewriting the ROM completely in Assembly,
> maybe TI's ROM wasn't written in Assembler. Dux Gregis said:
>
> >What they would most likely have to do is look at the assembly code
> >generated from their C source
>
> So the 89's ROM was written in C?!
>
> OK, here is my main questions: was the 89's ROM written in C? Will Version
> 2.00 be written in assembly? What will be the major changes in Version
> 2.00? If Version 2.00 isn't going to be written in Assembly, will there be
> some functions written in assembler i.e. 3d graphing.
>
> Thanks for your time
>
> Josh Cunningham
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
Why don't we make the graphing rewrite and submit it to Texas I'. They
won't suspect anything and if they like it we could get a piece of the
pie (figuritively speaking)
C2b3
References: