03-13-2015, 10:25 PM
(03-13-2015 05:59 PM)Thomas Radtke Wrote: [ -> ]But Paul wrote 'none', which is correctly none (not one) key .
Actually, "none" is not a contraction of "not one". Explanation.
(03-13-2015 05:59 PM)Thomas Radtke Wrote: [ -> ]But Paul wrote 'none', which is correctly none (not one) key .
(03-13-2015 09:31 PM)Didier Lachieze Wrote: [ -> ]There was one overlay for sale on ebay.de some weeks ago.
Here is a picture from this auction: Laitram XQ2.
You can also find the Laitram manual on TAS.
(03-13-2015 09:36 PM)Massimo Gnerucci Wrote: [ -> ]Laitram vs HP
(03-13-2015 10:25 PM)BruceH Wrote: [ -> ](03-13-2015 05:59 PM)Thomas Radtke Wrote: [ -> ]But Paul wrote 'none', which is correctly none (not one) key .
Actually, "none" is not a contraction of "not one". Explanation.
Quote:Our modern form none comes from the Old English nan
(03-13-2015 10:20 AM)BartDB Wrote: [ -> ](03-13-2015 08:17 AM)Gerald H Wrote: [ -> ]In another thread the question of unnecessary functions & redundant keys is raised:
http://www.hpmuseum.org/forum/thread-3345.html
What could be the least number of keys needed to reproduce all the functions of, say, the HP 35S keyboard?
If you were happy with a purely binary calculator, only two number keys would be required - but probably you would want to keep decimal input, so let's say you stay decimal.
Not the least number of keys, but what I'd be comfortable using without too many shifts & menu's. Small form factor with 23 keys:
http://pickyb.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/pro...kcalc.html
Best regards.