All the math functions I've used so far in Excel are the same as in OO. Big exception: None of this Excel-VBA stuff has ever worked in OO here and IMHO that's one reason why it won't make big inroads into the biz world.
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
I've done some weird stuff in Excel, but to tackle a calculator I think I'm going to need VBA. I bought a VBA book it got yanked off the project I needed it for.
-- Keith
I expect you're correct, Joerg, although I don't blame the OO guys for taking the "high road" and using Python as the primary "programming" language in OO-Calc -- it's arguably more powerful than VBA in ways that would matter to engineers (e.g., easy to find very fancy math support packages such as the NumPy distribution).
I believe there was some splinter group that was trying to get VBA into OO anyway...
---Joel
Yes, you most likely do need VBA. Or have some large "invisible" scratch area for cell calcs, that's how I do some intricate EE calcs. VBA will require Excel but the good news is that older versions also include VBA, AFAIK all the way back to 97.
Here is where I bought some SW, in my case a 3D CAD package from a liquidation sale, for pennies on the Dollar:
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Sure, but this means you can't use OO in a lot of EE projects. For example, I could not use OO at a client for industrial automation because those HW modules generally come with VBA routines, LabView routines and the usual HMI/SCADA stuff. No Python, no Delphi.
It would have made a lot of sense. But often there is that "renegade spirit" in the open source world where it is frowned upon to take the established paths.
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
A4 piece
ope I am planning.
hift
/ div.
ion.
if it
I think you are looking at scope functionality solely in terms of quantitative precision. This is a mistake.
95% of scope functionality does not come from making quantitative measurements (except on a very gross scale), but from seeing waveforms.It matters very very little exactly what units are on the screen for the "seeing waveforms" aspect. What matters completely is being able to comfortably and quickly adjust the scale to match the features in the waveform you are interested in looking at.
And I feel that having only 64 steps is pretty hopelessly coarse. With a good analog scope from 40 years ago, I can see ripple of fuzz or glitches or noise that's way less than 1 percent of full scale. Being able to see that ripple/fuzz/glitches is very very important to most of the uses I'm using a scope for.
A scope that only has 64 steps is pretty crappy in those terms. I mean, I can focus the beam on a 40-year-old analog scope way more tightly than the 64 steps.
I know, I didn't answer your actual question. I'm just urging you to step back from an overly-quantitative analysis and think about what you (if not I!) use the scope for.
Others, I think, don't "look for the picture" the way I do. That's why the market is flooded with cheap crappy digital scopes. (The expensive digital scopes do generally do it right!) These are probably the same people who always write down as many decimal points as their calculator displays :-). I grew up with slide rules and I don't believe anything after the second or third digit anyway, because I know none of the inputs are known that accurately!
Tim.
On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:29:23 -0800 (PST)) it happened Tim Shoppa wrote in :
No, that is not so, I appreciate waveforms a lot. This is only a toy project, and the LCD only has 128x64, so with a screen like that you cannot change anything to get more resolution.
It is both sort of important in my view.
Sure, I do 625 lines TV with the old analog TRIO:
Digital scope has the advantage that you do not have to darken the room and hunt for that edge :-)
Yes, Tim, I grew up with slide rule too. I remember one of the shocking first experiences when first playing with a computer, that poke 65535, 123 actually returned 123 when using peek (65535), and that there was nothing in 65534 (that changed). The precision of digital makes a lot possible.
Just made a small RF Watt meter with a PIC and LCD.
148.0 W, now try that with an analog meter... Or an analog scope.
Cheers! Rich
They tried to teach us that stuff at university. In my case without the slightest chance of convincing me to use it. I just looked at the old HP11C. Surprise: It can do grads. But it won't do grits.
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
I've used the "invisible cell" trick many times. I made an ECC demo a couple of years back using such tricks.
I have a copy of '97 but can't get it to run on XP (forget Vista). If there is the equivalent in OO (Pyhon??), I suppose I can do that. I can't use OO on my work machine but I'd rather do it on mine and learn only learn one. If I have to learn a language it might just as well be Python.
Still expensive. Which CAD package? I'm looking for a decent one. I've been using A9CAD but it's really hard to use.
-- Keith
'97 runs fine on XP. Don't know about Vista because that stuff won't see the inside of this office for a long, long time. Maybe never.
If for personal stuff, why not? I usually try to stick with whatever is used the most in our industry. Right now with my clients that's VBA, C and HMI/SCADA.
DesignCAD 3D Max, version 15.3. That was two versions before the current one at that time. But at around ten bucks who cares? As it is the software is way overkill for me but I needed it because clients send me rather fine pitch AutoCAD drawings. The usual programs can't render them, even IrfanView could not.
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
...
XP SP2 "broke" the ability to install MS Office 97. IIRC, if it was already installed prior to adding SP2, it worked fine. Problem is, of course, that retail/OEM XP disks have been at the SP2 level for a few years. I'm sure MS didn't break the install on purpose...
Not wanting to pay the MS tax er ... "upgrade fee" for a later copy of MS Office I shifted over to the SoftMaker office suite for a mostly-compatible alternative. So far, I've had very few problems with it.
The current (2008) version of the SoftMaker suite does include a VBA-like (or VBA-compatible?) language and interface. It "looks" right but I do very little with VBA so I'm not a good judge of it.
Your mileage may vary, objects in mirror are closer than they appear, take two tablets before bedtime, etc. I'm just a customer who's glad to be able to open docs and spreadsheets from Corporate on my personal laptop without having to spring for the MS products.
-- Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
Yeah, with BIll Gates it's hard to say...
Here's the fix for installing Office 97 on XP SP2, if you need it:
Some Microsoft guy has been recently quoted as claiming that OpenOffice is "ten years behind" Microsoft Office. I wonder if he realize that, even assuming that's a true statement, at least for individual use very few people actually use all the features already present in Office 97 and thus would be perfectly served by OO?
I hadn't heard of SoftMaker before; thanks for the link.
---Joel
Aha! Thanks for that. MS has trained me to look for other solutions but one never knows when the genuine app may be needed. The original installation disk is stuffed *somewhere* back on the bookshelf.
Yes, I've been pretty happy with it. Have OOo installed as well, of course, but for the most part the SoftMaker apps seem to be lighter (faster) and more "compatible" than the corresponding ones in OOo.
-- Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
Neiither will I. Yes, my HP45 will do grads too. We were told, when I got my '45, that grads were used by civil types since arithmetic in grads was simpler in the field. I don't think I buy it because trig is the same no matter how many times the circle is sliced. I can understand wanting an integer number of slices though.
-- Keith
As others have noted, it doesn't install. I'll try their solutions.
Not personal but I'm not making tools for others to use either. In particular I need a function that can do binary fractional fixed point arithmetic for some verification work. I'd like to process the results where I can understand them before throwing it all into the simulation. ...at least for the first pass.
I'll take a look. I need something for personal use (laying out tile floors worked great in a CAD system) but I couldn't get my arms around A9CAD. It took forever for a simple 2-D, multi-level drawing and then I couldn't figure out how to shift one level relative to the rest.
-- Keith
Thanks! I put my old Office97 CD to good use. ;-) I couldn't run the installation again to get the HTML or access working but don't need those anyway. Excel is really the only M$ application I use. Well, my resume is in word but OO works fine for that.
-- Keith
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.