HP 42S Version Speed Variation

06092014, 09:25 AM
(This post was last modified: 06102014 05:50 AM by Gerald H.)
Post: #1




HP 42S Version Speed Variation
Edit: extremely sorry, but in the text below 200 & 280 have been transposed. The timing differences between the two models are correct, merely model allocation is false, so the substance of the post remains valid.
For the same arithmetic calculation, using the same algorithms, serial nr 2914S30950, version A, took 280s, whereas serial nr 3144S06635, version C, took 200s. Is such a variation between versions expected/common? Incidentally, the much maligned HP 35S took 140s. 

06092014, 09:31 AM
Post: #2




RE: HP 42S Version Speed Variation  
06092014, 09:39 AM
Post: #3




RE: HP 42S Version Speed Variation
To past #2:
What would be the right position? 

06092014, 10:00 AM
(This post was last modified: 06092014 10:01 AM by JF Garnier.)
Post: #4




RE: HP 42S Version Speed Variation  
06092014, 11:36 AM
Post: #5




RE: HP 42S Version Speed Variation
As I said I've no idea what discussion you tried to continue with your pOst #1.
Assume you remember, however, then please
d:I 

06092014, 11:38 AM
Post: #6




RE: HP 42S Version Speed Variation
Bonjour JF,
that was just the cream topping d:) 

06092014, 11:44 AM
Post: #7




RE: HP 42S Version Speed Variation
(06092014 09:25 AM)Gerald H Wrote: For the same arithmetic calculation, using the same algorithms... What arithmetic calculation? What algorithms? Are the batteries in your two HP42s calculators 'new'? Do they have the same memory state (i.e. no other programs residing in memory)? Your post can not result in meaningful discussion without being more specific. There are many comparisons possible between different models. Regards, Jeff K 

06092014, 12:26 PM
Post: #8




RE: HP 42S Version Speed Variation
(06092014 09:25 AM)Gerald H Wrote: For the same arithmetic calculation, using the same algorithms, Hi Gerald, Upon my first reading of your post, I was inclined to see it as a straight question on whether there were speed differences between different versions of the HP42S. I did not read it as a continuation of an earlier post. I know that one of the versions can be put into "fast" mode, but that would be oblivious that there is a speed difference. I've never entered the same program into two versions of the 42s and then timed them. Could you please post the program listing that you used to do your test so that others may test to see if there is a difference or if the difference is due to low batteries (I'm not sure if low batteries cause an effect on program execution speed) or caused by some other reason. Question: You did enter exactly the same program in each version of the 42s before making your test? If they are not exactly the same, then the difference in the code may be affecting your timing. Both of my 42s are version C. I could test the code on these machines to see if they compare to what you found. Maybe someone else who has a version A could also test and see if they get the longer time. Of course, this is all academic, without knowing the program code. So please post the code you used. Bill 

06092014, 12:33 PM
Post: #9




RE: HP 42S Version Speed Variation
To post #5:
I don't believe my original post is a continuation of previous posts  if you could supply a reference to a post comparing the relative speeds of different serial number HP 42Ss, particularly concerning large differences in performance, that would be helpful. To post 7: Batteries in both calculators about one month old, free memory in both is about 2 kb. The actual calculation is merely an example of the large difference in time taken to perform longer calculations. I could list all of the programmes entered in the two calculators but feel that would not really further my aims. To remove any doubt about the substance of my post: The aim is to discover whether such speed variations are common between different HP 42S versions. I might add that in the self test both calculators gave speed as 1.048 kHz. 

06092014, 12:45 PM
Post: #10




RE: HP 42S Version Speed Variation
(06092014 12:33 PM)Gerald H Wrote: To post #5: But you started your very first sentence in this thread: Gerald H Wrote:For the same arithmetic calculation, using the same algorithms, Ahhh, now I understand that was a forwardlooking "same". Seems Jeff came across the same (no pun intended). Thanks for explaining. d:) 

06092014, 12:58 PM
(This post was last modified: 06092014 01:00 PM by Bill (Smithville NJ).)
Post: #11




RE: HP 42S Version Speed Variation
(06092014 12:33 PM)Gerald H Wrote: To remove any doubt about the substance of my post: I do not know if there are any speed differences in HP42s versions. I don't recall anyone ever mentioning that there was and speed is something that many here do test for. You might want to try the following tests: 1. Perform a machine reset on both units. This will ensure that both units are starting with the same memory configuration. 2. Put fresh batteries in both units. 3. Enter exactly the same program into both units. 4. Run the test several times and see if there is still a difference in performance. And if there still is a difference, does it vary very much between runs or is it fairly consistent. And finally, if the difference still exists by such a large amount, post the program code here so others can also test. It may be that there is something unique with your two units. I for one would like to know if there could be this much of a speed difference between ROM versions. I feel that it is doubtful  since if it was, I'm sure everyone would have been recommending the faster version. But then again, maybe no one has really done a speed test between versions. Bill 

06092014, 01:31 PM
Post: #12




RE: HP 42S Version Speed Variation
(06092014 11:36 AM)walter b Wrote: As I said I've no idea what discussion you tried to continue with your pOst #1. Or simply click [Quote this post] and then [Post Reply]. Cheers Thomas PS: You can even quote multiple posts in the same reply. 

06092014, 01:38 PM
Post: #13




RE: HP 42S Version Speed Variation
To post #8:
Your 1st reading accords with my intention. To post #8 & 11: I have now run a new test, the result being: Version A: 426s Version C: 608s The test was the factorization of the 11th repunit, 11,111,111,111. As you will see from the programme listing below, there are random elements involved  consequently 11,111,111,111 was set as the easily rememberd seed before the programme was invoked. On both calculators registers 04 & 05 contained the same numbers at the end of the factorization, namely 128 & 49. Here is the programme & subprogrammes involved: 0. { 92Byte Prgm } 1. LBL “POBR” 2. STO 01 3. +/ 4. STO 00 5. CLX 6. STO 02 7. LBL 02 8. SIGN 9. STO+ 02 10. STO 04 11. STO 05 12. RAN 13. RCL* 01 14. IP 15. LBL 00 16. RCL 04 17. STO 05 18. R↓ 19. STO 03 20. LBL 03 21. XEQ “SQM” 22. RCL+ 02 23. STO ST Y 24. RCL 03 25. RCL 01 26. XEQ “GCF” 27. 1 28. X≠Y? 29. GTO 01 30. RCL ST Z 31. DSE 05 32. GTO 03 33. RCL 04 34. RCL+ ST X 35. STO 04 36. STO 05 37. R↓ 38. LBL 04 39. XEQ “SQM” 40. RCL+ 02 41. DSE 05 42. GTO 04 43. GTO 00 44. LBL 01 45. R↓ 46. RCL 01 47. X<>Y 48. X=Y? 49. GTO 02 50. TONE 3 51. END 0. { 42Byte Prgm } 1. LBL “SQM” 2. STO ST Y 3. 1E6 4. MOD 5. STO ST Z 6. – 7. ENTER 8. X^2 9. RCL 00 10. MOD 11. X<>Y 12. R↑ 13. STO* ST T 14. * 15. RCL 01 16. MOD 17. RCL ST L 18. RCL+ ST L 19. RCL 01 20. MOD 21. + 22. RCL 00 23. MOD 24. + 25. RCL 01 26. MOD 27. END 0. { 16Byte Prgm } 1. LBL “GCF” 2. LBL 00 3. MOD 4. LASTX 5. X<>Y 6. X≠0? 7. GTO 00 8. R↓ 9. ABS 10. END I would appreciate assistance. 

06092014, 01:39 PM
Post: #14




RE: HP 42S Version Speed Variation
To post #12:
Can I thus answer posts #8 & 11 together? 

06092014, 01:54 PM
Post: #15




RE: HP 42S Version Speed Variation
(06092014 01:38 PM)Gerald H Wrote: I have now run a new test, the result being: Can you make sure if by chance one of your machine is in PON (Printer On) mode and this other one in POFF? Quote:Can I thus answer posts #8 & 11 together? It's possible, but you can also simply insert several additional quotes manually like I did here. It will be easier for us than your "To post xx" references. JF 

06092014, 01:59 PM
Post: #16




RE: HP 42S Version Speed Variation
(06092014 12:26 PM)Bill (Smithville NJ) Wrote:(06092014 09:25 AM)Gerald H Wrote: For the same arithmetic calculation, using the same algorithms, (06092014 12:58 PM)Bill (Smithville NJ) Wrote:(06092014 12:33 PM)Gerald H Wrote: To remove any doubt about the substance of my post: (06092014 01:39 PM)Gerald H Wrote: To post #12: Sure! Just add all the posts you want to quote. You can also copy the link location of the post to reference them: #8 & #11. 

06092014, 02:00 PM
Post: #17




RE: HP 42S Version Speed Variation
(06092014 01:54 PM)JF Garnier Wrote:(06092014 01:38 PM)Gerald H Wrote: I have now run a new test, the result being: Both with same flag settings & printing is off. 

06092014, 02:01 PM
Post: #18




RE: HP 42S Version Speed Variation
To post #17:
I find the quotes a waste of space for such a short answer. 

06092014, 02:12 PM
Post: #19




RE: HP 42S Version Speed Variation
(06092014 01:59 PM)Thomas Klemm Wrote: You can also copy the link location of the post to reference them: #8 & #11. Thomas  Is there a way to create these individual post# links automagically, or only crafting them by hand (insert thread link then edit to add post#)? Quite useful and elegant way to save space in complex replies. Bob Prosperi 

06092014, 02:52 PM
Post: #20




RE: HP 42S Version Speed Variation
(06092014 11:36 AM)walter b Wrote: ... please (06092014 02:01 PM)Gerald H Wrote: To post #17: Hehehe, please read step 3 again. Nobody forces you to repeat old text. But for sake of following a discussion like the one in this thread branching in several subthreads, proper quoting is the way to do. Else people may get tired looking for post numbers (assessing it a waste of their (!) time) instead of giving you assistance. It's your decision though. BTW, this response was created using the buttons Thomas was mentioning above. d:) 

« Next Oldest  Next Newest »

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