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 rwrite 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: