Why does Jaguar's calculator suck?

luca

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?

jll

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.

luca

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.

overhope

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

jll

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.

luca

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.

kim kap sol

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.

luca

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.

cam80

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

razzfazz

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?

fred_lj

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?"

eugene

My calculator is snappy as can be?

rok

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.

pb

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).

dfiler

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)

gardnerj

i don't what the problem is .... you want speed open a terminal window and use bc (binary calcultor). icons, buttons, feedback your spoilt ....

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?

fred_lj

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...

rok

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.

ghost_user_name

Quote:

Originally posted by rok

um, mine came out 28.5.

PEBKAC!



Methinks you should reread the post.

rok

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.