🚀 go-pugleaf

krw wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:25:11 GMT, James Arthur
> <bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
>> David L. Jones wrote:
>>> On Jan 25, 7:17 pm, Raymond Wiker <r...@RawMBP.local> wrote:
>>>> "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The latest 12C actually uses an Atmel ARM processor (as in the new
>>>>> 20B) running the original 12C ROM using the Nonpareil emulator:
>>>>> http://nonpareil.brouhaha.com/
>>>>> Rumor has it further Voyager models (11C, 15C etc) will be re-released
>>>>> with this method.
>>>>         How does the ARM.based version compare with the old version,
>>>> in terms of speed and battery life? I would not be surpised to hear of
>>>> an 11C that was still on its original set of batteries :-)
>>> I haven't head about the new 12C as apparently it's quite hard to find
>>> and identify them on the shelves, and only sold in Europe or somewhere
>>> so far?
>>>
>>> If the new 20B is anything to go by (and it should be because it's the
>>> same processor) then battery life it will be a shocker.
>>> Rated 9 months from two CR2032 batteries.
>>> IMO HP goofed big in the design of the 20B. It works at 30MHz for all
>>> calculations (then goes to sleep), but that means 15mA or so from the
>>> two CR2032 batteries. This means big losses in the battery internal
>>> resistance when doing calcs.
>>
>> Why on earth does a calculator need to run at 30MHz?  The
>> original HP15c ran at 220KHz[*] in 1983.
> 
> So there is no lag in 59!?

I just tried it.  Less than 1 second, AFAICT.

>  Do you happen to know that the HP35's
> clock was?
>

Two-phase quadrature 200KHz clock, divided down from 800KHz main osc.

Details here:
http://www.jacques-laporte.org/HP35%20Hardware%20basic%20design.htm


James Arthur