Poll: What's your favorite 43S layout?
This poll is closed.
a) 11.94% 8 11.94%
b) 80.60% 54 80.60%
c) 7.46% 5 7.46%
Total 67 votes 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Post Reply 
A poll again, concerning the 43S (again)
01-03-2015, 02:15 AM
Post: #21
RE: A poll again, concerning the 43S (again)
B

Marcus von Cube
Wehrheim, Germany
http://www.mvcsys.de
http://wp34s.sf.net
http://mvcsys.de/doc/basic-compare.html
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 03:09 AM
Post: #22
RE: A poll again, concerning the 43S (again)
I voted B as that seemed the best choice out of the presented options but for the record I'm not at all convinced that the arithmetic operators should be on the left side. I don't think it's a bad choice when viewed in isolation but I'm concerned that it may be difficult to get used to and confusing if you switch back and forth between the 43S and another calculator, most of which have arithmetic operators on the right (including the 34S).
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 03:22 AM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2015 03:23 AM by John Galt.)
Post: #23
RE: A poll again, concerning the 43S (again)
If I must choose, it would be B, but I agree with jebem (and bit)- operators on the extreme right side are preferable. I understand there are some tradeoffs with that choice, but it's what I have become accustomed to.

The next, rather distant second choice would be to have them on the extreme left side e.g. HP-41C style.

Anything but A please! Four functions down the middle makes no sense to me.

Thanks for soliciting opinions.

pi + onions = opinions. Just a thought.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 05:02 AM
Post: #24
RE: A poll again, concerning the 43S (again)
(01-02-2015 10:26 PM)anetzer Wrote:  
(01-02-2015 01:28 PM)walter b Wrote:  You may have seen a) already, while b) and c) are new. Please choose your favorite.

I have started fiddling with something along the lines of b and kept asking myself, why you didn't come up with that right away. Had I overlooked something...?

Yes, you have. Something "like b" was presented nine months ago already IIRC.

d:-)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 07:30 AM
Post: #25
RE: A poll again, concerning the 43S (again)
(01-03-2015 03:22 AM)John Galt Wrote:  If I must choose, it would be B, but I agree with jebem (and bit)- operators on the extreme right side are preferable. I understand there are some tradeoffs with that choice, but it's what I have become accustomed to.

The next, rather distant second choice would be to have them on the extreme left side e.g. HP-41C style.

Anything but A please! Four functions down the middle makes no sense to me.

Thanks for soliciting opinions.

pi + onions = opinions. Just a thought.

+1
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 08:22 AM
Post: #26
RE: A poll again, concerning the 43S (again)
(01-03-2015 03:09 AM)Bit Wrote:  
(01-02-2015 01:28 PM)walter b Wrote:  
I voted B as that seemed the best choice out of the presented options but for the record I'm not at all convinced that the arithmetic operators should be on the left side. I don't think it's a bad choice when viewed in isolation but I'm concerned that it may be difficult to get used to and confusing if you switch back and forth between the 43S and another calculator, most of which have arithmetic operators on the right (including the 34S).

+1. Also operators are on the left side of numeric keypads now. They are also on the left of the HP-15c and other Voyagers, the 28s, the 42s... Why going back to a convention last used 30 years ago?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 08:25 AM
Post: #27
RE: A poll again, concerning the 43S (again)
I voted B as the two other two options are worst for me. However as I said in the previous poll on this topic having the operators on the left would make sense if you keep the same order top to bottom than on the 41c and all other HP's with the operators on the left side. Here it is another layout for the basic keys that we'll have to get used to, and I still don't see why the order of the operators should be different than on the 41C. What would be the benefit for the end user?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 08:46 AM
Post: #28
RE: A poll again, concerning the 43S (again)
(01-03-2015 08:25 AM)Didier Lachieze Wrote:  I voted B as the two other two options are worst for me. However as I said in the previous poll on this topic having the operators on the left would make sense if you keep the same order top to bottom than on the 41c and all other HP's with the operators on the left side.

Agreed. I want B, but with operators top-to bottom -, +, *, /, same as 41C and other left-operator HPs. I'm used to + and * being adjacent and centered relative to - and /.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 08:59 AM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2015 09:19 AM by walter b.)
Post: #29
RE: A poll again, concerning the 43S (again)
(01-03-2015 08:25 AM)Didier Lachieze Wrote:  ... having the operators on the left would make sense if you keep the same order top to bottom than on the 41c and all other HP's with the operators on the left side. Here it is another layout for the basic keys that we'll have to get used to, and I still don't see why the order of the operators should be different than on the 41C. What would be the benefit for the end user?

In an earlier discussion here, we found that the order of the arithmetic operators on the hp-35 was quite arbitrary. When moving them to the right on the Voyagers, they where sorted properly. I don't see why we should go back to an illogical order.

d:-?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 10:17 AM
Post: #30
RE: A poll again, concerning the 43S (again)
(01-03-2015 08:46 AM)brouhaha Wrote:  Agreed. I want B, but with operators top-to bottom -, +, *, /, same as 41C and other left-operator HPs. I'm used to + and * being adjacent and centered relative to - and /.

Absolutely correct, pls. oblige...
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 10:24 AM
Post: #31
RE: A poll again, concerning the 43S (again)
(01-03-2015 08:59 AM)walter b Wrote:  I don't see why we should go back to an illogical order.

There's nothing illogical per-se with any ordering or layout, but efficiency, practicality, being used to it already, and of course personal taste to it. All things considered equally we'll never get a decision made regardless of how many polls (though those will show trends and tendencies). Thus a prioritization of criteria is fundamental. For me the left-is right for the operators is as natural as breathing, almost a universal truth - and the minus/plus/times/divide top-down order is just the way to do it.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 11:00 AM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2015 11:04 AM by Didier Lachieze.)
Post: #32
RE: A poll again, concerning the 43S (again)
(01-03-2015 08:59 AM)walter b Wrote:  In an earlier discussion here, we found that the order of the arithmetic operators on the hp-35 was quite arbitrary. When moving them to the right on the Voyagers, they where sorted properly. I don't see why we should go back to an illogical order.

d:-?
Moving the arithmetic operators to the left is already a step back to the 70's, so let's do a full step back and not a half step Smile

It seems your logic is not the same as mine, I don't care if the arithmetic operators follow the order that is taught to 6-9 year old kids, they will not buy or use the 43s. I plan to do so and I strongly value consistency with the 35 de-facto standard (followed by all RPN calculators with the operators on the left side). For me the arithmetic operators order is linked to the operators location (left or right), this is what I learned in the past 35 years.

Anyway you are one of those doing the work of making the 43s real, not me, and at the end you'll decide, I'm just voicing my preference as I did in the previous discussion on this topic Wink
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 11:12 AM
Post: #33
RE: A poll again, concerning the 43S (again)
(01-03-2015 11:00 AM)Didier Lachieze Wrote:  
(01-03-2015 08:59 AM)walter b Wrote:  In an earlier discussion here, we found that the order of the arithmetic operators on the hp-35 was quite arbitrary. When moving them to the right on the Voyagers, they where sorted properly. I don't see why we should go back to an illogical order.

Moving the arithmetic operators to the right is already a step back to the 70's, so let's do a full step back and not a half step Smile

Who's ging to move "arithmetic operators to the right" ?!?

d;-)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 11:19 AM
Post: #34
RE: A poll again, concerning the 43S (again)
(01-03-2015 11:12 AM)walter b Wrote:  
(01-03-2015 11:00 AM)Didier Lachieze Wrote:  Moving the arithmetic operators to the right is already a step back to the 70's, so let's do a full step back and not a half step Smile

Who's ging to move "arithmetic operators to the right" ?!?

d;-)
My mistake, it's to the left...
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 07:33 PM
Post: #35
RE: A poll again, concerning the 43S (again)
(01-03-2015 08:59 AM)walter b Wrote:  we found that the order of the arithmetic operators on the hp-35 was quite arbitrary.

I don't recall that "we" reached a consensus on that. Some of us find the original order logical and useful.

Quote:When moving them to the right on the Voyagers, they where sorted properly.

I don't think there is consensus on that either.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2015, 11:34 PM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2015 11:36 PM by walter b.)
Post: #36
RE: A poll again, concerning the 43S (again)
(01-03-2015 07:33 PM)brouhaha Wrote:  
(01-03-2015 08:59 AM)walter b Wrote:  we found that the order of the arithmetic operators on the hp-35 was quite arbitrary.

I don't recall that "we" reached a consensus on that. Some of us find the original order logical and useful.

Quote:When moving them to the right on the Voyagers, they where sorted properly.

I don't think there is consensus on that either.

Please try to see it this way: billions of people learn the arithmetic operators in this order + - * / , building up their mathematical knowledge. Thus, + - * / going bottom up looks quite natural to them. OTOH, - + * / top down was learned by some hundred thousand users of vintage HP calculators. At least 75% of those have died meanwhile (my guess). I leave it to you to calculate the ratio.

d:-)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2015, 12:47 AM
Post: #37
RE: A poll again, concerning the 43S (again)
(01-03-2015 11:34 PM)walter b Wrote:  OTOH, - + * / top down was learned by some hundred thousand users of vintage HP calculators. At least 75% of those have died meanwhile (my guess). I leave it to you to calculate the ratio.

You know that 99.9% of your potential customers are survivors of the remaining 25%, do you?

Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin

Greetings,
    Massimo

-+×÷ ↔ left is right and right is wrong
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2015, 02:01 AM
Post: #38
RE: A poll again, concerning the 43S (again)
(01-03-2015 11:34 PM)walter b Wrote:  billions of people learn the arithmetic operators in this order + - * / , building up their mathematical knowledge. Thus, + - * / going bottom up looks quite natural to them.

What seems natural to billions of flies may not be wrong, but it holds no appeal for me.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2015, 02:17 AM
Post: #39
RE: A poll again, concerning the 43S (again)
While I could get used to either, the 42S order is pretty reasonable IMO.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2015, 06:14 AM
Post: #40
RE: A poll again, concerning the 43S (again)
(01-04-2015 02:01 AM)brouhaha Wrote:  What seems natural to billions of flies may not be wrong, but it holds no appeal for me.

Smile I know this joke, Eric. Anyway, if we'd build a clone of a HP-41Cx we'll end up with a luxury product for the enlighted top of the Honourable and Ancient Order of Urr-Pee-Ann (HAO-RPN, pun intended for those of us knowing some Mandarin). These will be very few people with an average age of let's guess 75 - i.e. a small and naturally deceasing market (I hate to tell you that but such is life). OTOH, if we'd take a glimpse of a look to the other 99.999% and succeed in not completely repelling them, the world may well be wide open. So we may reach what we all here (should IMHO) want: carry the best of HP's RPN tradition to new adepts by setting up a superior product which may be attractive also for folks who didn't build their career on a vintage HP pocket calc.

That said, I see little value in resurrecting a strange operator sequence last produced some 30 years ago. The reason why I call it "strange" is given below. Just my 20m€ as usual, of course.

Until I find that thread again where it was discussed: IIRC, it turned out that "- + * / top down" was based on a poll in a department of HP at the time the HP-35 was developed. For me as a person who worked five years for a US-based company this looks like a classical quick and dirty solution this country is reknown for* (in opposition to a solution based on some thorough theoretical analysis - no offence intended). Thus, I'd vote for not overestimating that traditional HP order. At the same time, TI (horribile dictu!) showed a more comprehensible order for whatever reason (sorry again). I suggest also using "+ - * / bottom up" for the 43S for reasons stated in earlier posts - and remember: everybody will be free to reassign also these keys in USER mode.

* I was told the "emergency off" solution for an early IBM mainframe was an axe for cutting the mains cable. That's the same kind of quick and dirty solution - it works for sure but no reasonable European would even dare to propose something like that - though I doubt that example reflects real history. Maybe somebody here can confirm that.

I apologize for such a long post but hope to have explained the facts that apparently need to be explained.

d:-)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)