The new version 4.0 of HLP49 is now on hpcalc.org: more than 600
detailed and expanded help entries for all the basic (non-CAS)
commands, plus lots more tips and examples, and much larger
entries on plotting. An Appendix now contains additional
information on various topics.

Another new feature is the config program that lets you set
features such as Restart on Exit and Uses Port 2. Using Port 2
instead of the SD card lets the program run on the HP49G and all
the 49/50 emulators.
The datafiles for Port 2 are compressed to 150KB (normally
244KB on the SD card).

It now runs on the HP49G, 49G+, 50G, and their emulators. It's
too big for the HP48GII and there's still no version for the
older HP48.

It's in the HP49 section in Apps/Misc, and you can download it
here:

http://www.hpcalc.org/details.php?id=5973


Hope you like it,
Bill

On Aug 25, 5:33 pm, Bill Markwick wrote:
> The new version 4.0 of HLP49 is now on hpcalc.org: more than 600
> detailed and expanded help entries for all the basic (non-CAS)
> commands, plus lots more tips and examples, and much larger
> entries on plotting. An Appendix now contains additional
> information on various topics.
>
> Another new feature is the config program that lets you set
> features such as Restart on Exit and Uses Port 2. Using Port 2
> instead of the SD card lets the program run on the HP49G and all
> the 49/50 emulators.
> The datafiles for Port 2 are compressed to 150KB (normally
> 244KB on the SD card).
>
> It now runs on the HP49G, 49G+, 50G, and their emulators. It's
> too big for the HP48GII and there's still no version for the
> older HP48.
>
> It's in the HP49 section in Apps/Misc, and you can download it
> here:
>
> http://www.hpcalc.org/details.php?id=5973
>
> Hope you like it,
> Bill

For the flags, your descriptions are generally correct, but there are
a few minor issues.

Are you sure about flag -88? HLP49 has is the reverse of what
everything else says. Could you please recheck that?
My understanding is that flag -93 currently does nothing, as the
feature it was intended to control currently does nothing.

Flag -80 appears to only impact the size of the stack text if textbook
display mode is on. Otherwise -72 impacts the entire stack (not just
the numbers).

Ideally checks for all combinations of -80, -79, -72 and -65 would be
checked. (-65 affects if textbook display of algebraic is ever
actually used. So it might have an impact on the whole thing.) For
each combination, the size of the stack level number, as well as a
simple integer, a simple symbolic (like just an 'X') and a symbolic
expression (like 'X^2') should be noted. Ideally all of these should
be re-entered each time. (I saw evidence of a possible minor (display
only) glitch if they are not re-entered during my limited testing.)

I've updated SDIAG's flag list, except for -88 based on your updated
flag list. I'm not confident about the stack font part though, and
would find the results of the above described testing useful to verify
that.

On Aug 26, 3:47*pm, username localhost
wrote:
>
> For the flags, your descriptions are generally correct, but there are
> a few minor issues.

I'll recheck the flags you mentioned, but I can't guarantee much.
HP's manuals either ignore certain flags or get them wrong. Searching
this group becomes something of a needle in a haystack. :-)

Bill

On Aug 26, 6:43*pm, Bill Markwick wrote:
> On Aug 26, 3:47*pm, username localhost
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > For the flags, your descriptions are generally correct, but there are
> > a few minor issues.
>
> I'll recheck the flags you mentioned, but I can't guarantee much.
> HP's manuals either ignore certain flags or get them wrong. *Searching
> this group becomes something of a needle in a haystack. *:-)
>
> Bill

Well for what it was worth, all other conflicts between your list and
the one is SDIAG were either the SDIAG list missing something,
something easy for me to verify, or actually just a case of one source
giving a bit of extra information compared to the other. (For example,
the SDIAG list mentions the protocol name of RedEye for the I/R
printing flag. Far from essential for your list, but correct.
Similarly, the internal use flags are generally explained in more
detail in the SDIAG list, but since they are internal, and not
intended for users to change, the information isn't really that
relevant. There were not too many conflicts, but a few were certainly
worth knowing, like the flag that hides the compilation screen for
MASD (really useful if that screen is missing, and one wants to know
why.)

On Aug 27, 1:25*pm, username localhost
wrote:
> Well for what it was worth, all other conflicts between your list and
> the one is SDIAG were either the SDIAG list missing something,


Flag 87 is in error - Set and Clear should be interchanged.

I've listed flags 88, 89, and 93 as "unused', at least until
someone can demonstrate that they actually do something.

As for the interactions, that gets complicated. I've added a few
comments to flags 52, 65, 72, 79 and 80 in an attempt to explain
the interacting, but maybe what it needs is a chart at the end
of the flaglist. As you pointed out, global variables are not
treated the same way as algebraic expressions and so on.

Must be hard for a beginner to make sense of it. It looks as if
HP added little features here and there without taking note of
what a mess they were making. My advice to those in confusion
would be to run this:

{ -52 -65 -72 -79 -80 } CF :-)


Thanks for your input. I'll send up a fixed version to hpcalc
after I look more closely.

Regards,
Bill

"Bill Markwick" wrote in message
news:f3e3021f-ca26-4dac-82d3-cb8526a8429a@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
"It looks as if
HP added little features here and there without taking note of
what a mess they were making."

The people doing the "adding" were well removed from the people who wrote the
original bulk of the code, so it isn't surprising that it wasn't always clear
to them what all of the ramifications would be.

On Aug 27, 9:23*pm, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:

> original bulk of the code, so it isn't surprising that it wasn't always clear
> to them what all of the ramifications would be.

It's part of the programmer's job to check for those
ramifications. I'm sorting through this for free; they got
paid to do it (and didn't). Of course, if I were being paid, I'd
be off to the local pub to do some intense research.

There's a loose analogy with Windows: a Microsoft survey showed
that the majority of users never change the system defaults, and
I can see why. Configuring it can be a daunting task, with
desired settings buried six menus deep if you're lucky. if
you're not lucky, it can mean initiating the group policy editor
and fiddling with the more exotic innards of the registry, which
is rather like poking at the human brain with a screwdriver.

But to the rescue came some grand soul at Microsoft who gave us
the free download TweakUI.exe - it covers whole bunches of good
stuff (even the GPE!) with a simple tree structure. No doubt
he was fired for this.

Come to think, things are about the same as the days of DOS. It
created an entire industry dedicated to making up for DOS's
shortcomings (they didn't even give us a Move command until
DOS 6).

Plus ca change...

Bill "The Critic" Markwick

Bill Markwick wrote:
> Come to think, things are about the same as the days of DOS. It
> created an entire industry dedicated to making up for DOS's
> shortcomings (they didn't even give us a Move command until
> DOS 6).

But then when Microsoft tries to fill in the gaps in their software, they
get sued for "bundling" or some other totally ridiculous reason.

You just can't win; no matter what you do someone will complain.

(though admittedly, the allegations of improper use of intellectual property
from Stacker that led to MS-DOS 6.21 and 6.22 may have been justified)

Regards,

Eric Rechlin

> But then when Microsoft tries to fill in the gaps in their software, they
> get sued for "bundling" or some other totally ridiculous reason.


First time i witnessed somone actualy realizing that
lawsuits against Microsoft realy are ridiculous !

> You just can't win; no matter what you do someone will complain.

That one also very true !

Conclusion: one should not take all users complaints too seriously yet
giving it a thought from time to time.
in fact it eams like HP <- read Cyrille seams to be doing that :-)

I'm just glad there are people like you Eric !

regards,
manjo
P.S.
My cheers this time go to MS and HP and Eric of course :-)

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:42:35 -0500, Bill Markwick wrote:

> But to the rescue came some grand soul at Microsoft who gave us
> the free download TweakUI.exe - it covers whole bunches of good
> stuff (even the GPE!) with a simple tree structure.
> No doubt he was fired for this.

"How to Install and Uninstall the TweakUI Tool in Windows 98"
(originally supplied on the Windows 98 CD-ROM)
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/190643

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/284896

"Microsoft PowerToys for Windows XP" (incl. Tweak UI)
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/d...powertoys.mspx

"Tweakomatic" (warning - contains humor)
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scr.../twkmatic.mspx

Windows Sysinternals
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/

"Sysinternals Live is a service that enables you
to execute Sysinternals tools directly from the Web
without hunting for and manually downloading them"
http://live.sysinternals.com/

Sysinternals Suite
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/s...c5a693683.aspx

Want to kill Bill, Bill?

---

Mark Russinovich catches Sony in the act
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussino...e-too-far.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Russinovich
"He also discovered that Symantec's Norton SystemWorks bundle
has a rootkit to recover deleted files,
but it can be used by malware to perform unauthorized actions."

-[ ]-

On 2008-08-30 00:42:35 +1000, Bill Markwick said:

> It's part of the programmer's job to check for those
> ramifications. I'm sorting through this for free; they got
> paid to do it (and didn't). Of course, if I were being paid, I'd
> be off to the local pub to do some intense research.

Hi.

You seem to forget that backward compatibility had to be kept.

Originally there was only flag -64 to -1 all with a specific behaviour.

Then extra flags were added...

You would have been much more pissed off if the flag behaviour had
changed between the HP48 and the HP49 when it was released ...

Try to maintain a code that is over 15 years of age and add features
and maintain compatibility with the old one...


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

On Aug 29, 9:30*pm, "John H Meyers" wrote:

[lots of Microsoft info URLs]

Thanks for all the URLs. There's some particularly good information
in the Sysinternals page. Of course, all these reinforce what I
implied originally, which is that the Windows layout isn't as user-
friendly as Microsoft tells you it is - it often helps to be a
programmer, even for simple tasks.

While looking through the various Sysinternal exotica for system
improvements, I found this:

"The infamous Blue Screen of Death (BSOD) will pop up on an NT system
whenever something has gone terribly wrong. Bluescreen is a screen
saver that not only authentically mimics a BSOD, but will simulate
startup screens seen during a system boot. Bluescreen cycles between
different Blue Screens and simulated boots every 15 seconds or so -
its accuracy will fool even advanced NT developers.
Use Bluescreen to amaze your friends and scare your enemies!"

Hmmm.... Microsoft can roll 'em in the aisles when they have a mind
to.


> Want to kill Bill, Bill?
>

I tried to drink him to death some years ago, but he's apparently more
resilient than I thought. :-)


Bill

On Aug 29, 10:54*am, "Eric Rechlin" wrote:
>
> But then when Microsoft tries to fill in the gaps in their software, they
> get sued for "bundling" or some other totally ridiculous reason.
>

I wasn't talking about anything that complicated, just basic
functionality, like an undelete or move command. Of course, Peter
Norton wouldn't agree with me - he made millions supplying DOS users
with undeletes and moves. :-)

Bill

On Aug 30, 1:13*am, JYA wrote:
>
> You seem to forget that backward compatibility had to be kept.

I'm certainly glad they maintained compatability with UserRPL, but
that only requires flags 1-64, which weren't changed. It's the flags
above 64 that cause a muddle. Maybe what's worse than the flags is
documentation that gives wrong definitions, or even gives definitions
to flags that aren't in use.

Bill