A few comments about the 15C version Message #4 Posted by Chris Randle (UK) on 30 Jan 2003, 2:57 p.m., in response to message #2 by OJM
I don't have a real 15C so I'm going by the manual and my experience of the 16C.
My initial observations:
Looks visually stunning. Display is little odd in that the digits don't fill the calc screen horizontally, there's some white space at the right-hand end. I'd have preferred a more faithful rendition of the LCD digits.
Programming doesn't record key matrix co-ords, but alpha mnemonics rather like a 42S, e.g.
001: RCL 1
002: R-DOWN
003: COS
The original 448 byte limit is removed. Don't know what its new limit is.
There are extra annunciators. Not just f and g, but for all the keys that require a subsequent entry, e.g. RCL, GTO, SF, etc.
A test loop
LBL 1
1
+
GTO 1
to compare its speed with my 16C appeared to lock up the PPC. In fact it's just hogging all the CPU time and responds very slowly to the R/S key - almost to the point of being unusable. When I did get the display back, it showed a speed in the loop 130 times faster than my 16C in floating point.
I was initially surprised to do 1 [ENTER] 3 / 3 * and get 1.000000000 but that's what the 16C does too so I guess it's OK! Is there a numeric test I can do to see if it copies the 15C's maths exactly rather than some C data type distortion?
|