HP Forum Archive 13

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

12c/12c Platinum programming differences Message #1 Posted by Don Shepherd on 9 Aug 2003, 8:31 p.m. I was wondering if anyone who has bought the new Platinum 12c has noticed if programming is any different. Specifically, since the original 12c used up all 256 possible combinations for an 8-bit command, and the Platinum has some new keys (x^2, =, ALG, RPN), how are these accomodated? Come to think of it, with GTO 000 to GTO 399 taking up 400 combinations, and an 8 bit command allowing only 256, did they maybe take a new approach and have the GTO command take 2 bytes now? Has anyone checked this out? thanks, Don Shepherd Louisville, KY

Re: 12c/12c Platinum programming differences Message #2 Posted by tony on 10 Aug 2003, 2:13 a.m., in response to message #1 by Don Shepherd Don, programming is the same, using RPN. In my unit i cannot go over 253 lines though as then any earlier GTO cease to work.

Re: 12c/12c Platinum programming differences Message #3 Posted by Don Shepherd on 10 Aug 2003, 3:44 a.m., in response to message #2 by tony Thanks Tony. Based on your experience, it sounds like they goofed up the GTO command implementation. What good are 400 steps if you can't use them? Don Shephed

It does show a lack of testing Message #4 Posted by Gene on 10 Aug 2003, 8:26 a.m., in response to message #3 by Don Shepherd A good period of beta testing using people who really know what they're doing would have caught the GOTO problem. FYI...I was a beta tester of sorts, but only got the unit about 6 weeks before it was sold on retail. That won't work, HP. Beta testing has to be early enough where you can fix things they find!

Re: 12c/12c Platinum programming differences Message #5 Posted by Karl Schneider on 11 Aug 2003, 1:53 a.m., in response to message #3 by Don Shepherd Don wrote: Quote: What good are 400 steps if you can't use them? I have a "classic" 12C (Singapore 1993), and find its programming capabilities suitable for little more than short, disposable routines. Its "GTO" goes to line numbers only, in the style of old BASIC -- no "GSB"/"XEQ" for execution of subroutines identified by a "LBL" (statement label/routine name). There is no capability to edit programs by inserting or deleting individual instructions. If the 12C Platinum works the same way, perhaps a better question is, "What good is 400 steps of programming under this paradigm?"

Re: 12c/12c Platinum programming differences Message #6 Posted by bill platt on 11 Aug 2003, 9:54 a.m., in response to message #5 by Karl Schneider Or further, why did HP use such a crippled version of RPN in the 12c in the first place? Does somebody have any clues to this? Did the built-in financial routines just take up too much space? Perhaps another way to answer this would be to see how much space it would take on a 15c to implement all of the 12c financial routines. Perhaps it would not even fit on an 11c, or even a 15-c? regards, Bill

Re: 12c/12c Platinum programming differences Message #7 Posted by Gene on 11 Aug 2003, 10:11 a.m., in response to message #6 by bill platt It's not a crippled version of RPN per se but of RPN programming. I thought all op codes were used in the 12c. If so, then there was no room for LBL, RTN, GSB, etc. No excuse in the 12c plat however. It is normally much too painful to write anything really useful on the 12c for me to do so. I know that Valentin has done wonders, but I dont' have the patience any more to write things on feature-starved calculators when they should have more instructions. My 2 cents. Gene

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Go back to the main exhibit hall