Dos Capability: APL on iPAQ vs. HP200Lx 
Author Message
 Dos Capability: APL on iPAQ vs. HP200Lx

I decided to use Manugistics APL*PLUS (Version 11.0) both to test the capabilities of
PocketDOS on the iPAQ and to attempt to get some speed comparison between DOS on the
iPAQ and DOS on the HP200Lx.

Results:

APL loads and runs on the iPAQ, via PocketDOS. There are some (important) `keyboard'
issues that I'll touch on below, but I found I was able to load APL and load Workspaces
that had been written on PCs and moved to the IPAQ without any difficulty.

My test program was extremely simple:
     Calculate the sum of the vector you get by raising the first n integers to the
     1.00001 power. This is very simple, but as the `power' requires calculation of
     both exponentials and logs it exercises the floating point capability to some
     extent.

The machines:
    HP200Lx Single Speed
    iPAQ 3630 running PocketDOS

I tested at two levels: 20,000 items and 30,000 items.

    iPAQ:  20,000 takes 120.010 sec  30,000 takes 213.990 sec
   HP200:  20,000 takes 366.570 sec  30,000 gets `WS FULL' error

This indicates that the `simulated' DOS on the iPAQ runs about 3 times as fast as the
`real' DOS on the HP200. And, I guess it also indicates---indirectly---that the virtual
`machine' provided by PocketDOS is somewhat bigger than than provided by the 200.

Cost:
    The iPAQ with 32mb costs $500. PocketDOS adds $40
    The HP200Lx with 32mb costs $600

Keyboard:
    Keyboard has always been a `nightmare issue' for APL. It is even more so when you
    complicate it by not having a `real' keyboard. The wisdom (IMO) of Iverson's
    departure from the APL symbol set (J uses conventional symbols) becomes evident
    when you try to adapt APL to some `new' computational world.

    I have no doubt that it would be possible to create an `APL Keyboard' for the iPAQ,
    but I also have little doubt that it will not be worthwhile to bother to do so. Its
    principal use, for me, will be to run workspaces that are created elsewhere.

Conclusion:
    The iPAQ is the first palm-format device that seems to be able to run DOS faster
    than even a double speed HP200 (I assume a double speed 200 runs about twice as
    fast as a regular 200. I don't have one, and have never tested this). I find that
    since getting the iPAQ I no longer bother with the 200. The first time I have `had
    the 200 out' in the past weeks was to make this comparison study.



Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:09:53 GMT  
 Dos Capability: APL on iPAQ vs. HP200Lx
Exactly how did you get any keyboard input to PocketDos?

Very Interested...
 Beverly Howard

http://www.BevHoward.com



Sat, 01 Mar 2003 09:20:56 GMT  
 Dos Capability: APL on iPAQ vs. HP200Lx

Quote:

> Exactly how did you get any keyboard input to PocketDos?

> Very Interested...
>  Beverly Howard

> http://www.BevHoward.com

When PocketDOS runs a `keyboard' is displayed and you type by pushing the keys with
your stylus.


Sat, 01 Mar 2003 11:25:48 GMT  
 
 [ 3 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. APL and HP200LX

2. APL on HP200LX

3. SWI-prolog for DOS/80186 (hp200lx)

4. Dyalog APL vs APL*PLUS UNX

5. APL+DOS to APL+WIN migration aid

6. Migrating APL+DOS to APL+WIN

7. APL*PLUS III vs Dyalog APL/W

8. Sharp APL vs IBM APL ??????

9. VS APL and APL*PLUS III

10. Dynamic vs static typing: impact on modelling capabilities

11. compare capability of PCI-7334 vs PCI-7324

12. Oberon vs M3 capabilities

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software