Calculator - love it, BUT
Calculator - love it, esp the pgmr's view, Hex display w/ones 'n zeroes, etc. HOWEVER, your guys lost sight of the fact that 'bit positions' are ALWAYS labeled at the TOP of the binary !!!! ALWAYS !!!!! NEVER at the bottom, below the bits,,,, C'mon guys, do this one right! BitPos labels at the TOP, ALWAYS !!!!!!!!!!!! That's the: 63 ------ 47 ----- 32, and the: 31 ----- 15 ----- 0 Both of these lines MUST go ABOVE their respective displayed 1's 'n 0's....... Chuck R.
May 13th, 2009 1:21pm

Always? Since when? You only need them if you are trying to manually convert to Hex or Decimal. Since the Calculator does this for you, the bit labels aren't needed at the top or anywhere. Any good programmer knows the bit positions already.Do you need the 10s positions labeled on decimal? Why not?
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
May 13th, 2009 2:21pm

Probably because we're all familiar with powers of 10: 10 squared = 100, 10 cubed = 1,000 etc. (Some people even get lost with this concept.) Tho you and I can both quote, by heart, the 42nd power of 2 (binary), and the 17th power of 8 (for octal), and the 9th power of 16 (hex), lotsa other ordinary people can't do that... With the labeled BitPos at the bottom, "subscripts" are implied: In your venacular, ten sub 3, ten sub 28, etc. With the labeled BitPos at the TOP, "powers of" is implied: 2 squared, 2 cubed, 2 to the 39th power, and like that. Not to mention the fact that if you're doing binary scaling, as the CPU does, then it does matter with a Rsh to scale from B19 down to say, B5 for example. So, you want to see the bits properly placed, at the correct scaling. Do you do much work with octal, like big govt computers? Or are you a Visual C++ PC guru? Aha - there's another problem : all number bases are 'grouped' with 4 bits -- Octal is always 'grouped' by 3 bits !!! Looks like the MS guys only work with HEX , probably being Visual C++ PC gurus too... (Or, only working with 2's complement machines, like Intel...) There are 10 kinds of people in this world - those who know binary and those who don't...
May 13th, 2009 2:48pm

Ah, memories... Assembly language made me change my major from Computer Science, but I still got to program at a higher level with punch cards. Good times...
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
May 13th, 2009 5:19pm

The Octal display is grouped by 3 bits on mine. No one is going to think the bit positions are subscripts. You are picking extremely small nits here.
May 13th, 2009 5:27pm

derosnec, Yeah, this way with the binary 'next to' each other, one can quickly visualize the XOR, AND, etc... (I could live with that.) Thanks for taking the time! (SP1 is OK, too. More pressing issues, I'm sure.) The Octal 'entry area' for type-ins are in groups of three, but the binary ones n zeroes are still grouped by 4's, for the hexists, I suppose. The binary should be grouped by 3's also... "You are picking extremely small nits here." --- True, but if I don't, who will? This is a really nice calculator, but needs just a little 'polishing up'. If they do it right, I can retire the ole HP-16C. If not, DL this: http://www.hp16c.com/ At least there's a little bit of 'discussion' going on. There are 10 kinds of people in this world - those who know binary and those who don't...
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
May 13th, 2009 11:45pm

Why should the binary be grouped in 3s like the octal? Its still binary. They are just showing you the binary of whatever format you are using. The binary display should not ever change. If we are going to group it like the octal,why nothave it grouped in 3s and separated by commasto matchthe decimal display? Would that make any sense?Binary should always be grouped by 4 or 8, since these are fundamental units (nybble and byte).
May 14th, 2009 12:03am

Why should the binary be grouped in 3s like the octal? Its still binary. Then why should the binary be grouped in 4s for hex? That's still binary too. If we are going to group it like the octal,why nothave it grouped in 3s and separated by commasto matchthe decimal display? Would that make any sense? I'm not talking about the 'type-in' display, where the decimal commas are. I'm referring to the binary 'register' area. Binary should always be grouped by 4 or 8, since these are fundamental units (nybble and byte). Fundamental to whom? Microprocessors? Full size computers were always described by words and number of bits in those words. For example, the CDC Cyber 7600 was a '60 bit' machine, with 65 Megawords of SCM, and 512 Megawords of LCM. http://www.arl.army.mil/www/default.cfm?Action=20&Page=301 or more "non-byte " specifically: http://www.economicexpert.com/a/CDC:7600.html FWIW, I worked with the Lawrence Livermore Lab machines. : ) There are 10 kinds of people in this world - those who know binary and those who don't...
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
May 14th, 2009 1:41am

"Fundamental to whom? Microprocessors?"Yes, since we are talking about a PC Operating System. You think it should conform to mainframe standards? If you want a mainframe calculator, then run one on your CDC Cyber 7600. Grouping bits by 4 or 8 is the standard in the PC world. This is a PC OS. Do the math."I'm not talking about the 'type-in' display, where the decimal commas are.I'm referring to the binary 'register' area."Me too, that's why it does not change. If it changes for Octal, whynot change for decimal and add commas? Neither makes any sense.Seriously, the calculator is fine.
May 14th, 2009 1:58am

You think it should conform to mainframe standards? No, but I think 'versatility ' should be a design objective. Me too, that's why it does not change. You say this as if you are the designer - are you? Adding, in octal, 77 + 1 = 100 in display. Register should read: 000 001 000 000 0 to 'match' or to 'fit' the display, for octal. Does make sense , for octal, groups of 3 bits, vice: 0000 0100 0000 0 which, bit-wise is correct, but (grouping of 4) does not 'intuitively' match the 100 octal in the display. There are 10 kinds of people in this world - those who know binary and those who don't...
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
May 14th, 2009 3:21am

"to 'match' or to 'fit' the display, for octal. Does make sense , for octal, groups of 3 bits, vice:"Again, then why not this:Adding, in decimal, 999 + 1 = 1,000 in display. Register should read:001,111,101,000 0Does THAT make any sense? If you are going to change the binary display to match the octal, why not change the binary display to match the decimal? Because neither change makes any sense, that's why!Binary is different from octal and decimal. That's whybinary has its own display standard. That's why octal has its own display standard. That's why decimal has its own display standard.censored spelled backwards, your display looks OK to me.
May 14th, 2009 4:05am

If you have any feature requests or suggestions, post it in this threadso the Windows 7 team will see it. -Nick
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
June 13th, 2009 6:42am

I still like the Vista version better, with the programmers functionality combined with the scientific view.Ah, the trip down memory lane. I started out in machine language on a CDC 1604, then graduated to assembly, punched cards, of course.
June 13th, 2009 8:11am

Here's what makes sense : https://connect.microsoft.com/PowerShell/feedback/SearchResults.aspx?Advanced=true&KeywordSearchIn=1&SearchQuery=calculator&FeedbackType=0 https://connect.microsoft.com/PowerShell/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=477165 There are 10 kinds of people in this world - those who know binary and those who don't...
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
August 17th, 2009 9:48am

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other recent topics Other recent topics