Why does Jaguar's calculator suck?

Jump to First Reply
lucaluca
Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
One of Apple's programmers must have done something really stupid because for some reason, the calculator in Jaguar really sucks compared to the one in 10.1. It's slow and it lags behind what you type, and this is on every machine I've tested it on, including a dual 1.25 GHz machine in an Apple store (fastest Mac at the time). My iBook is about as slow. So... how hard is it to make a calculator that doesn't lag? A friend of mine in my java class made a Java calculator that doesn't lag, and that's using Java!



Anyway, my brother installed 10.1 on his PowerMac 8500 recently so he sent me 10.1's calculator... it's exactly as it should be. It's fast and responsive. Although you have to press clear twice because pressing it once is just a "clear entry" function.



So... does anyone who knows more about this have an explanation? Or is it harder to make a fast calculator than it is to make the computer remember the date and time?
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 27
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Luca Rescigno

    One of Apple's programmers must have done something really stupid because for some reason, the calculator in Jaguar really sucks compared to the one in 10.1. It's slow and it lags behind what you type, and this is on every machine I've tested it on, including a dual 1.25 GHz machine in an Apple store (fastest Mac at the time). My iBook is about as slow. So... how hard is it to make a calculator that doesn't lag? A friend of mine in my java class made a Java calculator that doesn't lag, and that's using Java!



    It's made that way by intention - it gives you a visual feedback on what you type.



    Make it as small as possible so the keys aren't visible and the speed is up because it doesn't give you feedback that way.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 27
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    What are you talking about?



    Visual feedback... it appears that the only difference between the visual feedback of the Jaguar calculator and the 10.1 calculator is that the Jaguar calculator takes about a quarter of a second to show the number you just typed. Why is that good?



    By the way, for some reason, Jaguar's calculator is faster if I turn off the brushed metal using Metallifizer. Strange.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 27
    overhopeoverhope Posts: 1,123member
    The 10.2 version was hilariously slow: you could probably do the calculation by hand by the time it had finished, but I find it quite pleasant to use under 10.2.5. I think it got much better around 10.2.3
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 27
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Luca Rescigno

    What are you talking about?



    Visual feedback... it appears that the only difference between the visual feedback of the Jaguar calculator and the 10.1 calculator is that the Jaguar calculator takes about a quarter of a second to show the number you just typed. Why is that good?



    The keys blink for about a quarter a second as a visual feedback, and if you enter 8 characters it will take about 2 seconds before they appear on the display.



    I don't know why it's made that way, but it is.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 27
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    I see... so it's not a bug, it's a feature...



    Maybe they should make OS X 10% slower and declare that it's a new feature so you can make sure you see everything and it doesn't go too fast for you.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 6 of 27
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    You're all crazy...except Overhope. The last few 10.2 updates have made Calculator fast enough for any normal human being to use.



    Try it...I dare ya.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 27
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    Ok I just tried it after setting it back to normal, and the speed is no different w/ metal as it is w/o metal. Still slightly slower than 10.1's calculator, but it looks like they've made it usable in 10.2 again.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 8 of 27
    cam80cam80 Posts: 9member
    The default calculator has ALWAYS sucked, but for one main reason- it's not RPN.



    I only starting using RPN calculators 5-6 years ago, and now I would be happy to never use a standard scientific calculator again- RPN is just wonderful.



    Cam
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 9 of 27
    razzfazzrazzfazz Posts: 728member
    Speaking of the calculator: Does anybody else get wrong results for transcendental functions? For some reason, it seems to think that the cosine of 90 degrees is "-2.051034285153312e-10" rather than zero, at least on my machine. Anybody have the same problem, or maybe an explanation?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 10 of 27
    fred_ljfred_lj Posts: 607member
    that's just because of how the calculator solves the function -- it doesn't think "logically" or "graphically" like we would on paper, but it probably uses Newton's method to iterate down to a very, very accurate result that, if you take the limit of it, is zero. No big deal. There's always that question of "when do you go ahead and say it's zero?"
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 11 of 27
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    My calculator is snappy as can be?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 12 of 27
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    i have noticed the calculator to be hideously slow on some of our machines at work. for reference, though, these ARE yikes! and sawtooth machines. strangely enough, when i reboot, and make sure classic is off, everything runs a hell of a lot faster. classic just starts dragging everything down to a crawl by the end of the day.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 13 of 27
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by RazzFazz

    For some reason, it seems to think that the cosine of 90 degrees is "-2.051034285153312e-10" rather than zero, at least on my machine. Anybody have the same problem, or maybe an explanation?



    Exactly the same result in my machine too. I think calculator's precision (or at least the method to present results) should be improved.



    By the way, there exists a command-line based calculator; I talk about bc. It is just an impressive calculator (actually more than that) and I don't understand why Apple did not make an interface for this calculation environment so that to be accessible to people not using the terminal (and more practical for people using the terminal).
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 14 of 27
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Strange...



    On my dual 450 with 10.2.5 (and now 6), there is no lag at all. Numbers appear immediately whether clicked with the mouse or typed using the numeric key pad.



    Not that this helps, just reporting that the program can be bug free. (if you're lucky)
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 15 of 27
    gardnerjgardnerj Posts: 167member
    i don't what the problem is .... you want speed open a terminal window and use bc (binary calcultor). icons, buttons, feedback your spoilt ....
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 16 of 27
    jousterjouster Posts: 460member
    Never mind transcendental functions or cosines, mine can't even do simple arithmetic:



    17.2 - 11.3 = 5.899999999999r



    I feel that this is about the dumbest mistake a calculator could make.



    I have a screen grab, but.....isn't it possible to insert images into a post here?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 17 of 27
    fred_ljfred_lj Posts: 607member
    Yes, you can insert images -- stick it on a .mac page or something and point a link to it. But you guys must be using the calculator in a really strange mode or something 'cause mine gives the appropriate numerical result for the problem above, and it works as instantly as I think it could - no lag between flashing the button, etc.



    Strange things...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 18 of 27
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jouster

    Never mind transcendental functions or cosines, mine can't even do simple arithmetic:



    17.2 - 11.3 = 5.899999999999r



    I feel that this is about the dumbest mistake a calculator could make.



    I have a screen grab, but.....isn't it possible to insert images into a post here?



    um, mine came out 28.5. methinks there is something lurking beneath the hood of your mac that means you ill. watch your back.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 19 of 27
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by rok

    um, mine came out 28.5.



    PEBKAC!



    Methinks you should reread the post.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 20 of 27
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Brad

    PEBKAC!



    Methinks you should reread the post.



    um, okay, the calculator can't make up for the fact that i am a dimwit. this is why i am not an accountant.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.