| 27 Jun 2012 09:07:52 pm by krazylegodrummer56 |
|
Quote |
| There is a way to make the keys as a hot key, but... the board dosen't hve the right amount of keys to do it. |
| 27 Jun 2012 11:55:57 pm by KermMartian |
|
Quote |
| krazylegodrummer56 wrote: |
| There is a way to make the keys as a hot key, but... the board dosen't hve the right amount of keys to do it. |
...what do you mean, exactly? You mean there's a way to turn the physical keyboard into an alphanumeric keyboard? |
| 28 Jun 2012 11:37:58 am by krazylegodrummer56 |
|
Quote |
| In the top corner under System ,you hit the system drop down, and you select Shift Keys. You can then set (-) as the shift key and set letters/numbers/symbols as a shift value. |
| 29 Jun 2012 10:07:10 am by KermMartian |
|
Quote |
| krazylegodrummer56 wrote: |
| In the top corner under System ,you hit the system drop down, and you select Shift Keys. You can then set (-) as the shift key and set letters/numbers/symbols as a shift value. |
Ahhh, I see exactly what you mean. Fascinating, thanks for pointing that out. They should really publicize that feature more, I think.
Edit: Although something like a T9 implementation would require waay more code on the backend. |
| 04 Jul 2012 08:22:41 am by mlytle0 |
|
Quote |
| Just was also curious as to the speed of the 'Basic' language in this machine. How does it compare with the TI-89, roughly? |
| 04 Jul 2012 09:19:26 am by KermMartian |
|
Quote |
| mlytle0 wrote: |
| Just was also curious as to the speed of the 'Basic' language in this machine. How does it compare with the TI-89, roughly? |
I would say that it is at least as fast as the TI-89's BASIC variant, and probably much faster based on some of the tests I've performed so far. |
| 04 Jul 2012 09:33:16 am by seana11 |
|
Quote |
| KermMartian wrote: |
| mlytle0 wrote: |
| Just was also curious as to the speed of the 'Basic' language in this machine. How does it compare with the TI-89, roughly? |
I would say that it is at least as fast as the TI-89's BASIC variant, and probably much faster based on some of the tests I've performed so far. |
How does it compare to the prizm? |
| 04 Jul 2012 11:21:44 am by KermMartian |
|
Quote |
Well, it's not particularly reliable in terms of completeness of testing, but I tried this program on the Prizm:
| Code: |
For 1 -> I to 9999 step 1
Locate 1,1,I
Next |
And this program on the ClassPad 330:
| Code: |
For 1 -> i to 9999 step 1
Locate 1,1,i
Next |
Prizm time: 7:00.8, or 420.8 seconds
Classpad time: 9:32.3, or 572.3 seconds
Hmm, that's not what I was expecting. |
| 04 Jul 2012 06:12:01 pm by flyingfisch |
|
Quote |
| Hmm... fx9860 is faster than both. |
| 04 Jul 2012 06:37:51 pm by KermMartian |
|
Quote |
| flyingfisch wrote: |
| Hmm... fx9860 is faster than both. |
Can you back that up with actual numbers, please? |
| 04 Jul 2012 08:55:58 pm by mlytle0 |
|
Quote |
Just for comparison, I just typed this into my TI-89, on one line:
startTmr()->a: For i,1,9999,1: output 1,1,i: EndFor: startTmr()->a
After completion, I entered "Disp (b-a)", and it came back with 317 seconds or 5 minutes and 17 seconds.
I really believe the locate command in the Casios is kinda inefficient, as I know the Prizm's processor is vastly faster than a 12 meghertz 68000.
Edit: In the post above, a typo. Should have started with "startTmr->b". |
| 05 Jul 2012 12:29:55 am by KermMartian |
|
Quote |
| Aye, the Locate command is known to be very inefficient on the Prizm and on the ClassPad as well. I know that math on both calculators in Casio BASIC is super-fast, so I'll try some high-iteration-count tests with something mathy next. As a sidebar, please try to edit your posts if it's within 24 hours of the post; two posts in a row within 24 hours of each other are generally called "double posts" and frowned upon. |
| 05 Jul 2012 08:55:45 am by mlytle0 |
|
Quote |
| Sorry, just now saw the edit button. Many blogs don't have this feature... |
| 05 Jul 2012 10:23:30 am by flyingfisch |
|
Quote |
| KermMartian wrote: |
| flyingfisch wrote: |
| Hmm... fx9860 is faster than both. |
Can you back that up with actual numbers, please? |
Sorry, but i currently do not have access to my 9860. However, the 9 queens problem was done for both in this thread:
http://www.omnimaga.org/index.php?topic=12166.msg222483#msg222483 |
| 05 Jul 2012 11:36:26 am by KermMartian |
|
Quote |
| mlytle0 wrote: |
| Sorry, just now saw the edit button. Many blogs don't have this feature... |
Not a problem; blogs do indeed tend to lack that. This software is actually generally called a forum, since anyone (not just the owner of the blog) can start new topics. Anyway, here's my new test program:
| Code: |
For 1->I To 999
sqrt(sin(ln(1+Abs(cos I))))
Next |
Prizm: 10.9 seconds
ClassPad 330: 1:43.2 = 103.9 seconds
TI-84+SE with OS 2.41: 46.8 seconds |
| 05 Jul 2012 12:20:42 pm by flyingfisch |
|
Quote |
| KermMartian wrote: |
| mlytle0 wrote: |
| Sorry, just now saw the edit button. Many blogs don't have this feature... |
Not a problem; blogs do indeed tend to lack that. This software is actually generally called a forum, since anyone (not just the owner of the blog) can start new topics. Anyway, here's my new test program:
| Code: |
For 1->I To 999
sqrt(sin(ln(1+Abs(cos I))))
Next |
Prizm: 10.9 seconds
ClassPad 330: 1:43.2 = 103.9 seconds
TI-84+SE with OS 2.41: 46.8 seconds |
42 has a 9860, i think. he may be able to test this for you. |
| 05 Jul 2012 12:24:36 pm by KermMartian |
|
Quote |
| I suspect that the ClassPad 330 takes longer because it doesn't tokenize at all; commands are characters instead of tokens. From a math point of view, it certainly doesn't skimp on power. |
| 05 Jul 2012 12:25:21 pm by seana11 |
|
Quote |
I do have one; I shall test it once I arrive at home.
EDIT:
I have 19.3 seconds, 3 trials confirm this.
I tested out the following code on my 9860, prizm, and 84+ SE (MP)
| Code: |
FOR X=1 TO 10 //This is just to facilitate timing
FOR I=1 TO 10
A=1.0000001:B=A
FOR J=1 TO 27
A=A*A
B=B^2.01
NEXT
NEXT
NEXT |
9860: 22.6
Prizm: 19.0 (This is not much of a difference)
84+ SE (MP): 64.9 |
| 05 Jul 2012 08:15:31 pm by flyingfisch |
|
Quote |
| so casio is faster than TI? |
| 05 Jul 2012 08:20:42 pm by seana11 |
|
Quote |
| flyingfisch wrote: |
| so casio is faster than TI? |
In this area, yes. However, I'm sure that the 84 could own the casio calcs in anything drawing-intensive, as Kerm demonstrated earlier. |
