http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/item/4928/
Windows 7 Calculator is going to include several new functions
and the Mac OS X Calc already includes these features.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqZkkqgSJ4A

[207 votes] Solution #1: Auto-generated solution of idea #4928


]]> en-us Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:31:51 +0000 Mon, 17 Sep 2012 22:44:53 +0000 QAPoll module http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/4928/ Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:20:24 +0000 Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:40:41 +0000 We need qalculate a default calculator!]]> Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:55:25 +0000 Easy mode, standard mode, difficult mode, scientific mode, TI-xx compatibility mode, Casio compatibility mode.
I think such a complex calculator should be installed by default( if we would only install simple applications by default, I would have tons of doubles in my OS after downloading the complex ones and besides, it will cost me my bandwidth and time every time I have to download something more complex than standard( it's like installing a media player with only the codecs most people use...).
Warbo: What you say, does make some sort of sense, but:
1. As far as I know, most calculating abilities are already present in libraries, so there wouldn't be that much more space needed.
2. With my proposal about modes you wouldn't be swimming through a sea of buttons, because simple mode must become the default.]]> Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:13:12 +0000

Some of the basic features are already in Mac, so it isn't unreasonable.]]> Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:09:56 +0000 If you need all those other features, then install some other scientific calculator software.]]> Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:43:45 +0000

Why not raise the bar. This is how we improve and make linux more useful. Otherwise we stagnate, than imitate when we realize how useful it could have been.]]> Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:59:44 +0000 Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:23:02 +0000
I don't really understand why they still have the button interface for calculators anyway.

You don't see an on screen keyboard for OO-writer by default, now do we?

So, why not complicate the interface with some real usefull features, rather than 'simulate' the physical appearance of a calculator.]]> Tue, 18 Mar 2008 01:58:45 +0000 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 07:56:53 +0000
Also I agree with losing the physical calculator appearance, it's quite painful and slow to go clicking the right buttons.

I mean hand held calculators are like that because they are very limited, in size, memory, space, etc. Why would be complicate ourselves when we are running a very powerful computer with a keyboard and a huge screen??! Why have only one line of text when we can have a lot more, even a history of results that we can re-use, similar to that mini-spreadsheet idea. ]]> Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:54:40 +0000
Silversleeves]]> Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:02:46 +0000
"Ask and ye shall receive" (quoth the confirmed atheist).

Silversleeves]]> Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:12:32 +0000
2012-08-23 10:55:49.557754099
2011-06-08 11:35:25.165033193

short of writing my own code there's nothing. and why not integrate that into a regular full featured calculator with parenthetical associations and other operations.

(2012-08-23 10:55:49.557754099 - 2011-06-08 11:35:25.165033193) * 5

sure, that's probably not the final syntax, but anything similar and easy to use is required for linux. there just isn't any tool to do it now.]]> Mon, 17 Sep 2012 22:44:53 +0000