kanecki@vacs.uwp.edu (David Kanecki) (05/13/91)
1. What is the ram capacity of the HP 48 and 95 LX?
2. Does either system have a pascal, c, or fortran compiler that can support
overlays and dyanamic variables?
3. What is needed to transfer data from the HP to a PC ?
4. How difficult is the assembly code for either machine ( novice, beginner,
expert, or super guru) ?
My interest in handhelds stems from simulation programs that I have written.
Currently, I am interested in porting one program that I wrote on a PC and
CPM machine over to one of these.
Thank for any assistance provided,
David H. Kanecki, Bio. Sci., A.C.S.
kanecki@vacs.uwp.edudan@Apple.COM (Dan Allen) (05/14/91)
kanecki@vacs.uwp.edu (David Kanecki) writes: >1. What is the ram capacity of the HP 48 and 95 LX? Base memory on the 48SX is 32 KB, expandable with 2 128 KB RAM cards for a maximum of 288 KB. Base memory for a 95LX is 512 KB, not expandable. RAM cards only act as disk drives, not main memory. >2. Does either system have a pascal, c, or fortran compiler that can support > overlays and dyanamic variables? I am running Turbo Pascal 5.5 on my HP95LX. It supports overlays and dynamic variables. Everything on the 48SX is RAM based--overlays are not needed. Everything on the 48 is dynamic, more or less. >3. What is needed to transfer data from the HP to a PC ? A cord. And Kermit software. >4. How difficult is the assembly code for either machine ( novice, beginner, > expert, or super guru) ? For the 95LX, it is 8088 assembly, you provide your own assembler. Officially, the 48 assembly language is undocumented. There are those on this news group that do know how to do it, but 48 assembly is a pain mainly because it is not a supported thing. >David H. Kanecki, Bio. Sci., A.C.S. >kanecki@vacs.uwp.edu Dan Allen Apple Computer P.S. - For my 2 cents worth, the 48SX is a great calculator, but programming large projects or using large amounts of data are not recommended. The 95LX has got more raw capability, is more expensive, and also is more frustrating, because of its almost useable keyboard and almost useable display. If you want to do serious programming, wait for a portable Macintosh and use MPW...
janl@ifi.uio.no (Jan Nicolai Langfeldt) (05/14/91)
In article <52808@apple.Apple.COM>, dan@Apple.COM (Dan Allen) writes: >kanecki@vacs.uwp.edu (David Kanecki) writes: ... > >2. Does either system have a pascal, c, or fortran compiler that can support > > overlays and dyanamic variables? The 48 does not have any compilers at all (not pascal,c or fortran anyway). Not that I'd want it. > If you want to do serious programming, wait for a portable Macintosh and > use MPW... Yeah, if you are a professional programmer who want to program in a environment completely different from anything else, and plow through 5 volumes of 'Inside Macintosh' and ~250 technical notes: wait for a portable macintosh. It's a pain to 'port' programs to a Mac, I've done it (pascal&c&fortran). Anything you want to do is done differently on a mac. Generaly you '(re)write' programs for a mac. That however is time consuming. (I've done that too.) (I'm not going to make this tirade any longer) Otherwise, port your program to PC taking care to make it able to run on a hp95. Use any conventional compiler you want. David: >My interest in handhelds stems from simulation programs that I have written. >Currently, I am interested in porting one program that I wrote on a PC and >CPM machine over to one of these. If you can make it run on a CP/M machine it shuld be painless to port to a 95 (provided you can get the propper compiler). Nicolai, your friendly alaround amateur (bugs made while you wait!). Nicolai Langfeldt, Internet: janl@ifi.uio.no Quote: Life is too important to be taken seriously - Oscar Wilde (translated and retranslated)
jpser@cup.portal.com (John Paul Serafin) (05/15/91)
dan@Apple.COM (Dan Allen) writes: >P.S. - For my 2 cents worth, the 48SX is a great calculator, but >programming large projects or using large amounts of data are not >recommended. The 95LX has got more raw capability, is more expensive, >and also is more frustrating, because of its almost useable keyboard and >almost useable display. I suspect that the "raw" complex number, vector, and matrix capability of the HP48 would smoke the 95LX in speed as well as ease of use; and just think how "useable" a 95-size screen would be on a 48 descendant! As to large amounts of data, I don't know about the 48, but the 71 handles strings and arrays larger than 64k bytes with ease, 8088 based systems don't (with ease, anyway). John Serafin