kfr@dip.eecs.umich.edu (K. Fritz Ruehr) (10/29/90)
I have a friend with an AT&T 3B2 system running turn-key software for
advertising agencies under System V. He has a $1500 IBM PC/XT at home that
does, in some sense, far more than his $75,000 3B2 system does at work, from
his point of view at least. Specifically, he has no way of doing simple
calculations or spreadsheet-style work on the 3B2--as far as he has been able
to determine, no such software exists for his platform. For that matter, no
"productivity" software of any kind seems to exist, so he must be satisfied
either with bare shell UNIX or with hand-holding menu systems that don't even
allow him to send mail.
Does anyone know of any software that will allow simple calculation
capabilities WITH A NATURAL USER-INTERFACE on an AT&T 3B2? (of course,
natural is in the eye of the beholder, but SideKick's calculator is the
thing he has in mind). A spreadsheet would be even better ...
-- Fritz Ruehr
kfr@dip.eecs.umich.edupeter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (10/30/90)
I never did understand this fascination with "calculator emulators". It makes no sense to draw a dinky little keypad on the screen when you have a perfectly good keyboard right in front of you. I mean, calculators are becoming closer and closer to handling standard computer expression syntax anyway... because it's friendlier. Why step backwards to a more hostile environment when you have "bc" shipped with UNIX? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (10/30/90)
In article <E6R6K6C@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >I never did understand this fascination with "calculator emulators". It makes >no sense to draw a dinky little keypad on the screen when you have a perfectly >good keyboard right in front of you. I mean, calculators are becoming closer >and closer to handling standard computer expression syntax anyway... because >it's friendlier. Why step backwards to a more hostile environment when you >have "bc" shipped with UNIX? bc is much less user-friendly than, say, an HP-16C...or the rpn program that emulates it (albeit incompletely) for Unix. I have to wrestle bc to get an answer out of it, but I can get answers out of a 16C without having to think about it...kinda like WordStar. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "With design like this, who needs bugs?" - Boyd Roberts
tif@doorstop.austin.ibm.com (Paul Chamberlain) (10/30/90)
In article <4254@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: >bc is much less user-friendly than, say, an HP-16C...or the rpn program Yea "(14-2)*3+5" is really hard compared to "14<ENTER>2-3*5+". 1/2 :-) I admit, however, that trig and other complex functions don't work as easily with bc. (And "scale=" is important to learn.) Paul Chamberlain | I do NOT represent IBM. tif@doorstop, sc30661 at ausvm6 512/838-7008 | ...!cs.utexas.edu!ibmaus!auschs!doorstop.austin.ibm.com!tif
beattie@visenix.UUCP (Brian Beattie) (10/30/90)
In article <4254@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: -In article <E6R6K6C@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: ->have "bc" shipped with UNIX? - -bc is much less user-friendly than, say, an HP-16C...or the rpn program -that emulates it (albeit incompletely) for Unix. I have to wrestle bc to -get an answer out of it, but I can get answers out of a 16C without having -to think about it...kinda like WordStar. Then just try "dc" Myself I could never get my head around rpn. -- It is easier to build a | Brian Beattie (703)471-7552 secure system than it is | 11525 Hickory Cluster, Reston, VA. 22090 to build a correct system.| M. Gasser | ...uunet!visenix!beattie
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (10/31/90)
In article <4079@awdprime.UUCP> tif@doorstop.austin.ibm.com (Paul Chamberlain) writes: >In article <4254@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: >>bc is much less user-friendly than, say, an HP-16C...or the rpn program >Yea "(14-2)*3+5" is really hard compared to "14<ENTER>2-3*5+". 1/2 :-) OK...but what's the bc equivalent to <DEC>64<f><WSIZE>564<CHS><HEX>? (For those of you who aren't lucky enough to own a 16C, and haven't gotten rpn running, that sets a word size of 64 bits, and then shows the hex value of the two's complement of 564.) >I admit, however, that trig and other complex functions don't work >as easily with bc. (And "scale=" is important to learn.) Without scale=, it's next to impossible to get a useful answer from bc. Calculator designers work very hard at making their products usable with little to no effort. Why reinvent wheels? -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "With design like this, who needs bugs?" - Boyd Roberts
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (10/31/90)
In article <4254@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: > bc is much less user-friendly than, say, an HP-16C...or the rpn program > that emulates it (albeit incompletely) for Unix. I have to wrestle bc to > get an answer out of it, but I can get answers out of a 16C without having > to think about it...kinda like WordStar. But do you need a cute HP-16C keyboard drawn on your screen? (I like my HP-16C too, but I recognise the keyboard as a compromise. Besides, even at HP's prices an HP-16C is a lot cheaper than a 3B2) -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (10/31/90)
In article <27S68C4@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >But do you need a cute HP-16C keyboard drawn on your screen? >(I like my HP-16C too, but I recognise the keyboard as a compromise. Besides, > even at HP's prices an HP-16C is a lot cheaper than a 3B2) ...or a PC, or an NCR Tower, or... What user interface would you use for an N-button calculator? Yes, the HP interface is somewhat constrained by the number of buttons available, but there's a certain elegance imposed by the limited number of keys, too. As long as we're dealing with a calculator metaphor, a calculator-based user interface is going to be the most intuitive. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "With design like this, who needs bugs?" - Boyd Roberts
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (10/31/90)
In article <4260@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: > OK...but what's the bc equivalent to <DEC>64<f><WSIZE>564<CHS><HEX>? obase=16 -564 > Calculator designers work very hard at making their products usable with > little to no effort. Why reinvent wheels? I don't know, Jay. Apple worked very hard at making the Macintosh usable with little to no effort, and I know how much you like it. Of course it was designed to work in a very constrained environment... but so is the HP-16C. Basically, the whole point to RPN is that it makes it easier to enter calculations with the limited display ability of conventional calculators. HP's latest efforts have abandoned RPN because they now have a big enough display that algebraic notation is more workable. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
FFAAC09@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be (Nicole Delbecque & Paul Bijnens) (11/01/90)
In article <4260@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) says: > >In article <4079@awdprime.UUCP> tif@doorstop.austin.ibm.com (Paul Chamberlain) >writes: >>In article <4254@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) >writes: >>... >>I admit, however, that trig and other complex functions don't work >>as easily with bc. (And "scale=" is important to learn.) > >Without scale=, it's next to impossible to get a useful answer from bc. > Besides bc is indeed NOT very user friendly (where is the "last value"?) this tip can help to (IMHO stupid) default scale to change: Make a file in your home-directory ".bcrc" with: scale=4 (or whatever you want) and set up an alias in your .cshrc (or whatever): alias bc 'bc ~/.bcrc' It is documented that bc will read the tty after the initial file arguments. You can include some standard functions too (see for examples in /usr/lib/lib.b, the file included with the -l option). You use bc a lot more, when you can tailor it to your needs. However a HP-like LASTX utility would be nice, like: % bc 16 / 3 5.3333 # remember automagicaly 4 digits precision 5.3333 * 4 # why do I have to enter 5.333 again? Anybody any idea to get around this? Automaticaly? Not using emacs? -- Polleke FFAAC09.cc1.kuleuven.ac.be
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (11/01/90)
In article <4262@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: > In article <27S68C4@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >But do you need a cute HP-16C keyboard drawn on your screen? > What user interface would you use for an N-button calculator? I wouldn't. I'd just have a display of the current stack, X, and a ticker tape showing the history of X. At most have a pop-up display that gives you the mnemonics for each key. Yes, it'd be live. But I sure wouldn't make it unavoidable. I'd type "D64W526_X" for "<dec> 64 <f> <wsize> 526 <chs> <hex>". Use the display for useful information. On my Amiga I have a digital clock display that is about 10 pixels high. If I select it and hit the space bar it becomes just such a calculator (not exactly an HP-16C, though it has most of the functions). I can cut the value from that display, or the time. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
darrylo@hpnmdla.HP.COM (Darryl Okahata) (11/01/90)
In comp.unix.misc, FFAAC09@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be (Nicole Delbecque & Paul Bijnens) writes: > Anybody any idea to get around this? Automaticaly? Not using emacs? ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ I'm sorry, but, after seeing this, I couldn't resist .... GNU Emacs Calc has got to be the most powerful "free" (as in "CopyLeft") calculator (RPN/algebraic/symbolic/etc.). What other "free" program allows you to both balance your checkbook and symbolically differentiate a C expression and insert it back into your C source? (Not that I use GNU Emacs Calc to balance my checkbook, mind you. ;-) -- Darryl Okahata UUCP: {hplabs!, hpcea!, hpfcla!} hpnmd!darrylo Internet: darrylo%hpnmd@hp-sde.sde.hp.com DISCLAIMER: this message is the author's personal opinion and does not constitute the support, opinion or policy of Hewlett-Packard or of the little green men that have been following him all day. P.S. -- By "free", I mean that, although GNU Emacs Calc is freely copyable, it is NOT public domain. It is covered by the GNU Public License.
beattie@visenix.UUCP (Brian Beattie) (11/01/90)
In article <90304.163257FFAAC09@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be> FFAAC09@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be (Nicole Delbecque & Paul Bijnens) writes: |You use bc a lot more, when you can tailor it to your needs. |However a HP-like LASTX utility would be nice, like: | % bc | 16 / 3 | 5.3333 # remember automagicaly 4 digits precision | 5.3333 * 4 # why do I have to enter 5.333 again? | |Anybody any idea to get around this? Automaticaly? Not using emacs? Try . % bc 16 / 3 5.3333 . * 4 -- It is easier to build a | Brian Beattie (703)471-7552 secure system than it is | 11525 Hickory Cluster, Reston, VA. 22090 to build a correct system.| M. Gasser | ...uunet!visenix!beattie
jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) (11/02/90)
darrylo@hpnmdla.HP.COM (Darryl Okahata) writes: > I'm sorry, but, after seeing this, I couldn't resist .... > GNU Emacs Calc has got to be the most powerful "free" (as in >"CopyLeft") calculator (RPN/algebraic/symbolic/etc.). I can't resist either... Having to use EMACS is a worse fate than having to use a slide rule with a stuck slide, IMHO. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "The truly ignorant in our society are those people Radiation Systems, Inc. | who would throw away the parts of the Constitution Atlanta, Ga | they find inconvenient." -me Defend the 2nd {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd| with the same fervor as you do the 1st.
tif@doorstop.austin.ibm.com (Paul Chamberlain) (11/09/90)
In article <4260@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: >OK...but what's the bc equivalent to <DEC>64<f><WSIZE>564<CHS><HEX>? ob=16 2^64-1-564 Now, would you like to try base 4? :-) Or how about the sqr(2) to 90 digits? :-) (Yea, I know, 16-C's can probably do integration in one keystroke, or matrix inversion, etc. You'd have to program most of that kind of stuff in bc. :-( But at least I have a huge hard disk to store programs :-) And the programs look like C, ain't life great!) >Without scale=, it's next to impossible to get a useful answer from bc. Somebody else just posted the same answer that I just came up with. I would use .bcrc to also store your favorite functions. >Calculator designers work very hard at making their products usable with >little to no effort. Why reinvent wheels? They also make the keyboard and the display fit in the palm of your hand, why make the keyboard and display so blasted inconvenient when you have an entire desktop in front of you. Not to mention, clicking calculator buttons with a mouse is a pain in the %s. My biggest bc complaint is that I don't think you can specify a number in any base besides that which ibase is set to (i.e. 0x4C). FFAAC09@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be (Nicole Delbecque & Paul Bijnens) writes: >However a HP-like LASTX utility would be nice, like: > % bc > 16 / 3 > 5.3333 # remember automagicaly 4 digits precision > 5.3333 * 4 # why do I have to enter 5.333 again? This works fine for me (an undocumented side-effect I believe): 16/3 .*4 Paul Chamberlain | I do NOT represent IBM. tif@doorstop, sc30661 at ausvm6 512/838-7008 | ...!cs.utexas.edu!ibmchs!auschs!doorstop.austin.ibm.com!tif