barro wrote in news:1193748769.672170.106790@
22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:

>> I have found a way to reduce key DUPS on the HP 49g+ using KEYTIME.

Er... OK. Since that's exactly what KEYTIME is for, I assume you
"found" it in the manual? I seem to remember it being explained to you.
I'd also like to point out that KEYTIME isn't new with the 49G family, so
you can't really blame/credit the 49G+ for its presence.

Also, just for clarity, they aren't 'DUPS', x-register pushes, they are
'dups', duplicated keystrokes. Unless it's ENTER you are pressing of
course.

>> Run this test for 60 seconds. Press 1. Press 2. Press ENTER. Repeat
>> until clock runs out. I can do about 73 reps during the 60 second
>> interval at a comfortable pace.
>
>> With KEYTIME set to 1024, I get 2 to three DUPS on average out of 73
>> reps for 2.7 percent failure rate.
>
>> By setting KEYTIME to 2048, and running this test, I did not get any
>> DUPS. You may have to change the KEYTIME value to suit your typing
>> style and speed. The results may vary depending on whether you have a
>> "good" keyboard, or the crap from the early model runs such as mine.

Yep! Even later runs can have problems if abused, of course. And some
early examples have not yet developed a problem.

>> I used ROM 2.09 on s/n CN33403674 (case); s/n CN33719378 (internal)
>> for the experiment.
>
>> I hold the calculator in one hand and use one finger of the other hand
>> to press.

Astounding! What technique! The crowd gasps!

>> Everyone is welcome to participate in the beta tests so that we
>> can help these Chinese manufacturers further develop this experimental
>> product.

Ha ha! It's funny because of the negative stereotype of Chinese
manufacture! Those darn foreigners! "Experimental product", ho ho! A
embittered user lashes out with mild sarcasm! Fortunately, the
calculator was very inexpensive, relative to old calculators. Or slide
rules for that matter. I can just picture your reaction when you bought
an inexpensive late model plastic slide rule and found that when you had
the 1 over the 2, the 5 was half a line-width to the right of the 10
index.

Also, even if you really, really want to see your post show up, you still
don't need to repeat it (and quote it) several times. Patience!


--
Dave Boyd
"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes will fall
like a house of cards. Checkmate." -Capt. Zapp Brannigan, D.O.O.P.

On Oct 30, 10:54 am, Dave Boyd wrote:
> barro wrote in news:1193748769.672170.106790@
> 22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> I have found a way to reduce key DUPS on the HP 49g+ using KEYTIME.
>
> Er... OK. Since that's exactly what KEYTIME is for, I assume you
> "found" it in the manual? I seem to remember it being explained to you.
> I'd also like to point out that KEYTIME isn't new with the 49G family, so
> you can't really blame/credit the 49G+ for its presence.
>
> Also, just for clarity, they aren't 'DUPS', x-register pushes, they are
> 'dups', duplicated keystrokes. Unless it's ENTER you are pressing of
> course.
>
> >> Run this test for 60 seconds. Press 1. Press 2. Press ENTER. Repeat
> >> until clock runs out. I can do about 73 reps during the 60 second
> >> interval at a comfortable pace.
>
> >> With KEYTIME set to 1024, I get 2 to three DUPS on average out of 73
> >> reps for 2.7 percent failure rate.
>
> >> By setting KEYTIME to 2048, and running this test, I did not get any
> >> DUPS. You may have to change the KEYTIME value to suit your typing
> >> style and speed. The results may vary depending on whether you have a
> >> "good" keyboard, or the crap from the early model runs such as mine.
>
> Yep! Even later runs can have problems if abused, of course. And some
> early examples have not yet developed a problem.
>
> >> I used ROM 2.09 on s/n CN33403674 (case); s/n CN33719378 (internal)
> >> for the experiment.
>
> >> I hold the calculator in one hand and use one finger of the other hand
> >> to press.
>
> Astounding! What technique! The crowd gasps!
>
> >> Everyone is welcome to participate in the beta tests so that we
> >> can help these Chinese manufacturers further develop this experimental
> >> product.
>
> Ha ha! It's funny because of the negative stereotype of Chinese
> manufacture! Those darn foreigners! "Experimental product", ho ho! A
> embittered user lashes out with mild sarcasm! Fortunately, the
> calculator was very inexpensive, relative to old calculators. Or slide
> rules for that matter. I can just picture your reaction when you bought
> an inexpensive late model plastic slide rule and found that when you had
> the 1 over the 2, the 5 was half a line-width to the right of the 10
> index.
>
> Also, even if you really, really want to see your post show up, you still
> don't need to repeat it (and quote it) several times. Patience!
>
> --
> Dave Boyd
> "If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes will fall
> like a house of cards. Checkmate." -Capt. Zapp Brannigan, D.O.O.P.

You are a jerk!

> You are a jerk!

For quite some time we didn't have this kind of language here :-)
(One can easy assume -you are a human !?)

--
manjo
http://fly.srk.fer.hr/~manjo/openfire
| 49G+ | ROM 2.09 | hw serial:CN40213309 | sw serial:CN40701165 |

barro wrote in news:1193762302.127048.17420
@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

> You are a jerk!

Well, sometimes, yes.

I've typed several next lines, and deleted them. Some of them analyzed
your own behavior; some were simply flippant; some were justifications of
my behavior. I won't bother with any of that. I think it might be best
from now on simply to add you to my filter so that I won't be tempted to
respond to your posts. I shall trouble you no more, unless you change your
email address.


--
Dave Boyd
"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes will fall
like a house of cards. Checkmate." -Capt. Zapp Brannigan, D.O.O.P.

On Oct 30, 2:24 pm, Dave Boyd wrote:
> barro wrote in news:1193762302.127048.17420
> @o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
> > You are a jerk!
>
> Well, sometimes, yes.
>
> I've typed several next lines, and deleted them. Some of them analyzed
> your own behavior; some were simply flippant; some were justifications of
> my behavior. I won't bother with any of that. I think it might be best
> from now on simply to add you to my filter so that I won't be tempted to
> respond to your posts. I shall trouble you no more, unless you change your
> email address.
>
> --
> Dave Boyd
> "If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes will fall
> like a house of cards. Checkmate." -Capt. Zapp Brannigan, D.O.O.P.

BTW, Plonk!

"barro" wrote in message
news:1193748769.672170.106790@22g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com...
>> I have found a way to reduce key DUPS on the HP 49g+ using KEYTIME.
> ....
>> Everyone is welcome to participate in the beta tests so that we
>> can help these Chinese manufacturers further develop this experimental
>> product.

The 50g is a fix of the 49g+. Better keyboard and some features more.

MS

Massimo Santin (at GMail) wrote:
>
> "barro" wrote in message
> news:1193748769.672170.106790@22g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com...
>>> I have found a way to reduce key DUPS on the HP 49g+ using KEYTIME.
>> ....
>>> Everyone is welcome to participate in the beta tests so that we
>>> can help these Chinese manufacturers further develop this experimental
>>> product.
>
> The 50g is a fix of the 49g+. Better keyboard and some features more.
>
> MS

Here are the available alternatives to "fix" early s/n 49g+:

1) Buy a 50g. Keyboard works out of the box. Negative: pay again.

2) Get replacement while still under warranty. Keyboard works. Problem
when out of warranty, unless buyer takes care to replace 4 or 5 times in
succession as clock approaches midnight HP will not help.

3) Fix 49g+ using KEYTIME function. May work. This is the subject of my
most recent post. I have not had any reaction to my experiment from the
group thus far other than name calling. This is the option I found works
best for me. My proposal has not been tested by others in the group yet
and this has caused some frustration.

KEYTIME is now mentioned on the HP website. However, HP suggests that
the value of 1138 (or thereabouts) be passed to this function which
takes one argument. I found that this value did not work to reduce
bounce using ROM 2.09. The experimental method and hardware was
described in sufficient detail that others wishing replicate it could do
so and report their results.

Bounce was eliminated on my device when the argument passed to the
KEYTIME function was 2048. There were 220 keys pressed over a 60 second
interval as described.

In conclusion, I have solved the key bounce problem on the early s/n
49g+ during my testing this week. I offer this solution to the HP
Calculator Division at no cost. This should bring to an end, once and
for all, this rather nasty bug in their 49g+ calculator.

JB

On 2007-10-30 23:52:49 +1100, barro said:

>
>
>> By setting KEYTIME to 2048, and running this test, I did not get any
>> DUPS. You may have to change the KEYTIME value to suit your typing
>> style and speed. The results may vary depending on whether you have a
>> "good" keyboard, or the crap from the early model runs such as mine.

I find that 2048 value is unusable, sure you get no bounce , but typing
the way I type, it would miss a lot of key presses.
Particularly my alpha-alpha (to go in alpha lock mode)...

I'm using a value of about 600 .. More than that and I can't type as
fast as I want

Jean-Yves
--
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security,
deserve neither liberty or security (Benjamin Franklin)

JYA wrote:
> On 2007-10-30 23:52:49 +1100, barro said:
>
>>
>>
>>> By setting KEYTIME to 2048, and running this test, I did not get any
>>> DUPS. You may have to change the KEYTIME value to suit your typing
>>> style and speed. The results may vary depending on whether you have a
>>> "good" keyboard, or the crap from the early model runs such as mine.
>
> I find that 2048 value is unusable, sure you get no bounce , but typing
> the way I type, it would miss a lot of key presses.
> Particularly my alpha-alpha (to go in alpha lock mode)...
>
> I'm using a value of about 600 .. More than that and I can't type as
> fast as I want
>
> Jean-Yves

Yes, I am slow and old. I cannot go so fast. You did not mention which
s/n or model you have (49g+, 50g, etc). I assume you have ROM 2.09.

I did not have success with the lower value. I was not in alpha mode.
That is another test for me to try next.

The point is not one unique value for everyone and depending on typing
style, model, ROM. HP, please mention this next inquiry.

For me now, I have a device that works.

JB

john baranowsky wrote:

> For me now, I have a device [older 49G+] that works.

Until the key tops start breaking off,
but then you can use it as an EMT training dummy:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....cc62b0cc284ca3
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....dfb04f38eb8891

-=-=-=-