09-08-2018, 11:58 AM
I thought I'd bust this out to its own thread, so I don't derail the original.
No need to apologise. I can't say the same, however - most of my calculators are physical or emulated HP/Casio/Sharp/Other. Since I came across x49gp a while ago, it's been my go-to calculator for making stuff work, aside from its obvious lack of USB connectivity. Its SD card access is great though.
Actually, that brings up a couple of points I had about emulators.
(Post 277)
(09-08-2018 12:19 AM)Namir Wrote: [ -> ]1) Matlab
2) Mathematica
3) Excel
I apologize for my 21st century response!
:-)
Namir
No need to apologise. I can't say the same, however - most of my calculators are physical or emulated HP/Casio/Sharp/Other. Since I came across x49gp a while ago, it's been my go-to calculator for making stuff work, aside from its obvious lack of USB connectivity. Its SD card access is great though.
Actually, that brings up a couple of points I had about emulators.
- Do any of the "well-known" 48-series (48/49/49+/50) emulators provide a way to connect to them over a simulated conn4x USB/Serial connection? I know that every time I try to use HP's HP-50G 2.16 emulator, it crashes my computer as soon as it touches COM4. Most frustrating, not only that, but the fact I can't install libraries on it either, nor access an SD card for it makes this a curiosity, but hardly a valid working machine.
- Is there a cycle-accurate emulator for any of the 48-series? I've tried EMU48 and x48, neither one seems to be within cooee of exact speed, though there could be a number of reasons for this. The benchmark I used in each case was the recent Summation test for calculators, I ran it on x48 with +throttle, and got a speed about 30% faster of what real-world results showed on pier4r's list. (36.8 seconds instead of 55 for sum to 1000, and 370 instead of 541 for 10,000). I then tried it with EMU48 and still got a difference, this time in the other direction (63 seconds for 1000).
(Post 277)