43S News

[dlachieze]

If you think this way, I must reconsider wasting my talent here.

Hey Walter don't take this discussion too seriously ! Did you see the smiley ? There are way more important things in life than keys order on a calculator keyboard

[burkhard]

There can be no doubt you started your HP calculator use with a Voyager or Pioneer.

Not judging, just observing.

And though I prefer the earlier layout (since it was perfect after all) it's good IMHO that Jaco laid early groundwork for 43S users that prefer this clealry incorrect layout, for folks that were late to the game.

Well... I guess that does sound a bit like I'm judging after all.

I actually "started" on the HP35 (no "S"!), but indeed most of my serious university use was with a 15C. So I'll give you full credit.

But it's not a question (for me) of "early" or "late" HP layout. I am actually OK with EITHER the "early" or the "late" layout.
What I would really prefer to avoid is a hybrid that is neither... i.e. putting the operators on the left like the "early" ones, but arranging them in the "late" ones' order as is the present WP43S official development path. That I think is a mistake.

In the end though, I have no cause to complain and I'll buy the darned thing no matter what.
I'm just going to cringe a bit that neither of the existing two conventions was followed.

[rprosperi]

But it's not a question (for me) of "early" or "late" HP layout. I am actually OK with EITHER the "early" or the "late" layout.
What I would really prefer to avoid is a hybrid that is neither... i.e. putting the operators on the left like the "early" ones, but arranging them in the "late" ones' order as is the present WP43S official development path. That I think is a mistake.

In the end though, I have no cause to complain and I'll buy the darned thing no matter what.
I'm just going to cringe a bit that neither of the existing two conventions was followed.

It's not a casual mistake, and I'm sure Walter has a reason, so let's just ask:

@Walter - why is the operator layout for the 43S using the location of the original HP models (left side), while using the sequence of the later models (Div/*/-/+ top to bottom), thus introducing a 3rd standard? Though I'm open to hear your reasoning, I'm inclined to agree with the other folks here and on MoHPC, that staying with one of the proven standards make the most sense. I feel this has been discussed, but could not find it. Of course I know the community voted for the left side, so why not retain the complete standard?

What the world needs least is a 3rd standard here.

[akaTB]

But it's not a question (for me) of "early" or "late" HP layout. I am actually OK with EITHER the "early" or the "late" layout.
What I would really prefer to avoid is a hybrid that is neither... i.e. putting the operators on the left like the "early" ones, but arranging them in the "late" ones' order as is the present WP43S official development path. That I think is a mistake.

In the end though, I have no cause to complain and I'll buy the darned thing no matter what.
I'm just going to cringe a bit that neither of the existing two conventions was followed.

It's not a casual mistake, and I'm sure Walter has a reason, so let's just ask:

@Walter - why is the operator layout for the 43S using the location of the original HP models (left side), while using the sequence of the later models (Div/*/-/+ top to bottom), thus introducing a 3rd standard? Though I'm open to hear your reasoning, I'm inclined to agree with the other folks here and on MoHPC, that staying with one of the proven standards make the most sense. I feel this has been discussed, but could not find it. Of course I know the community voted for the left side, so why not retain the complete standard?

What the world needs least is a 3rd standard here.

Let's start here, but there are previous threads on the old forum.
I believe Walter prefers the later arrangement and definitely dislikes the obelus.
In this case, however I concur: better not introduce another arrangement, but I think I will adapt anyway.

[Walter]

On your request I've to quote myself (sorry). Please read all of the following - no cherry picking:

Why are the operators /*-+ on the left and the exit, up, down... on the right?

As Bob ((Prosperi)) wrote already, this is a religuous topic Nevertheless I'll try to summarice the facts:

All of HP's pocket calculators up to and including the famous HP-41C had the arithmetic operators on the left below ENTER. The Voyagers had to put them on the right for obvious reasons ((placing them in the middle of the keyboard would look really odd)). With the Pioneers, they staid on the right - but ENTER remained on the left. So much about HP's logical ((keyboard layout)) development.

There was a very extensive discussion of this topic on the forum of MoHPC in 2012 IIRC, followed by a poll. After all, many people agreed on ENTER and the 4 operators should be in the same column (for various reasons). And the poll resulted in our decision (we, the developers) to place the 4 operators on the left, backed by a majority of votes IIRC. ((And to intercept legends arising: at said poll, the order of arithmetic operators was as it is today - constant for 7 years. You can verify this easily.))

So, now they are there.

Some additional remarks:

1. HP abandoned ÷ × + - in 1981, turning to + - × ÷. This latter sequence has a lot more inherent logic than the former. And up to now, nobody (no survivor, no adept) was able to tell the reason for that odd old order of operators. I can't promote a product I'm unable to justify.
   .
2. Please note we're in 2019, not 1981 anymore. What would people of 2019 say if we'd drop operator order of today for an order of 1972 for no other reason than nostalgia? If you cannot adapt to one change in four decades you're probably petrified already. (BTW: Didn't the USA promise to go metric in 1975? So much about effective application of international standards in the USA. Thus, as an 'old European' I'm always slightly amused when US citizens mention standards [bitter grin]. Get your homework done before clashing another expensive probe on whatever planet.[/rant])
   .
3. We will stick to the standard order of arithmetic operators as everyone learned, learns, and will learn at school worldwide for good reasons. Promised. But none of us will interfere when you tell your grandkids that there once was another order on some old calculators long ago (Grandpa, you're kidding! Why on earth should they've done it that weird way?!). Promised as well.

Now let the flames begin. We will firefight but stay always open to conviction. Though don't forget who are the developers of this forthcoming device.

P.S.: Massimo's link should point here: https://www.hpmuseum.org/forum/thread-118.html

[akaTB]

P.S.: Massimo's link should point here: https://www.hpmuseum.org/forum/thread-118.html

Ok, no page 2, but they however, land on one page and show the same info.

All together now: obelus, obelus, obelus...

[TwoWeims]

I understand that the DM67 is scheduled to be released around the first of April next year.
The old arithmetic key layout will be preserved.

[dlachieze]

Now let the flames begin. We will firefight but stay always open to conviction. Though don't forget who are the developers of this forthcoming device.

Yes I don't forget who are the developers and I fully appreciate all the work being done. And I know that at the end the decision is in the hands of the developers.

But as you said: now let the flames begin, for the sake of discussion

Your arguments are interesting as they could apply the same way to the location of the operators :

Some additional remarks:

1. HP abandoned ÷ × + - in 1981, turning to + - × ÷.

They also abandoned the left side in 1981 and moved the operators to the right side

• Please note we're in 2019, not 1981 anymore. What would people of 2019 say if we'd drop operator order of today for an order of 1972 for no other reason than nostalgia?

So what would they say if we'd drop operators location of today (right) for a location of 1972 (left) for no other reason than nostalgia?

• We will stick to the standard order of arithmetic operators as everyone learned, learns, and will learn at school worldwide for good reasons. Promised. But none of us will interfere when you tell your grandkids that there once was another order on some old calculators long ago (Grandpa, you're kidding! Why on earth should they've done it that weird way?!).

Don't you think that kids at school worldwide are learning to use calculators with the operators on the right side ? (Grandpa, you're kidding! Why on earth should they've put the operators that weird way on the left?!).

So if we move the operators to the left as in 1972 we should also keep the 1972 operators order, otherwise the operators should be on the right with the modern operators order. QED.

Don't take all this too seriously but I think that there will always be opposing discussions between lefties and righties the same way there was between Big-Endians and Little-Endians in the nation of Lilliput

[H2X]

... Your arguments are interesting as they could apply the same way to the location of the operators...

In that case, don't we need to discuss the layout of the numeric keys as well? Surely they must be laid out like on a mobile phone, like this?

1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9

Otherwise people of this day and age would only hurt their brains, wouldn't they?

[ctrclckws]

The phone company chose that because of the letters associated with the keys.