HP Forum Archive 08

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Question to Ron Message #1 Posted by Joan Cárdenas on 20 May 2002, 4:24 p.m. I'd like to explain you witch is my dilemma: I've got a hp49g a hp48gx, a hp19bii, a brand new hp42s and two news hp 32sii. I'm enjoying a lot of this late liking, but I have a doubt, because my favorites are the hp42s and the 32sii.Probably I prefer to work with the hp 42s in the office but I'm worried about the possibility of an accident and not to have a replacement. So.. from your expirience, is better to go directly to your favorite and forget the fear about the future?

Who is Ron? Was: Question to Ron Message #2 Posted by Ren on 20 May 2002, 5:22 p.m., in response to message #1 by Joan Cárdenas Who is Ron? I believe many people who read this forum would give you their opinion to your question. (Except me, as I don't own any of the machines you mentioned!)

Re: Question to Ron Message #3 Posted by Rin on 20 May 2002, 6:34 p.m., in response to message #1 by Joan Cárdenas The HP-32Sii will be a lot more available, and at a lower price, than will the -42S. A good compromise would be to use the -32Sii (while trying to obtain one or two more), and keep the -42S at home.

Re: Question to Ron Message #4 Posted by Ron Ross on 20 May 2002, 8:06 p.m., in response to message #1 by Joan Cárdenas Yes, I share your problem, and my solution is a 48g on my desk at work (good keyboard, lots of conversions, just like a desk reference). I to like my 42 best, but for my desk calculator I use a 48. If I travel, then I have to decide whether to take a 32 or THE 42. Depending upon the travel, if for leasure and/or no field work, I take the 42. If I am going to be on a factory floor, a 32. The 32 is really a good calculator, but the 42 (especially with the 32K RAM I have installed (Thanks to Paul Brogger for the write up)) with its complex and matrix features make it far superior for my electrical engineering calculations. However, I normally do not need this horsepower, but it is a nice security blanket. I play with the 49 and it is an amazing device, but for general use the 48 is what I keep on my desk. If I could bear the loss of the 42, I like its style and size better, but the 48 has an HP layout and is easy to use also. The 32sII has most of the conversions you would use for daily use. I like the 32 line also (actually, I like the 32sII better, but most people seem to like the older 32s). Just my humble thoughts on the matter. Thanks for asking.

How stable is the 32K HP42S?? Message #5 Posted by Iqbal on 20 May 2002, 9:46 p.m., in response to message #4 by Ron Ross Hi Ron, a friend from the UK once told me of someone who installs the extra RAM chip to convert the 42S to 32K RAM. But is it stable, or are there regular 'memory reset/memory clear'?

Re: How stable is the 32K HP42S?? Message #6 Posted by Ron Ross on 21 May 2002, 7:07 a.m., in response to message #5 by Iqbal My paticular 32K chip seems to be even better and its battery drain specs are better than the original. I suspect that this is common since the newer 32K RAM should have better behavior than the older 8 K RAM. But this is just my experience. The sad truth is though, that with no real I/O, the 32K is overkill since no matter how much you program, you can lose on a bug or memory clear and have to start key-punching all over again. Still my 32K seems as or more stable than my original 8 K.

Re: How stable is the 32K HP42S?? Message #7 Posted by Ex-PPC member on 21 May 2002, 9:59 a.m., in response to message #6 by Ron Ross Ron Ross wrote: "The sad truth is though, that with no real I/O, the 32K is overkill since no matter how much you program, you can lose on a bug or memory clear and have to start key-punching all over again." If you're considering those 32K to be used just for storing programs, that's so. But obviously RAM is also used for data, even if temporary, and 32K RAM thus mean you'll be able to work with more and larger matrices at a time, which given the excellent matrix capabilities of the 42S, it's a definite bonus. For instance, the barebones 42S can work with *one* 25x25 real matrix, or so. The 32K-enhanced 42S can work with *four* such matrices at a time, or a single matrix up to 64x64 !! When using matrix operations to compute correlations and forecasts, or to fit data to a model, being capable of handling matrices as large as possible is a definite asset. In short, go for it !

Re: How stable is the 32K HP42S?? Message #8 Posted by Karl Schneider on 22 May 2002, 4:23 a.m., in response to message #7 by Ex-PPC member I recently got a good 1989 42S on eBay, and am quite impressed with its extensive functionality, implemented with user-friendliness in a light, compact package. In that sense, it is far better than the 48xx products. However, I have to agree that a 32kB RAM upgrade is indeed overkill without direct hardwire I/O. If one had a genuine need to work with the amount of matrix data you describe, a far better tool would be Matlab installed on a PC. I can't imagine that any student in the classroom, or engineer in the field, would ever be expected to tackle such problems using a portable handheld device, given limited time. That having been said, I would like to join the ranks of those who would like to see HP re-introduce the 42S, with the following improvements: 1. Add hardwire calculator<->PC file transfer 2. Improve LCD in following ways: - increase resolution that of the 48G - ability to view display at an angle (#$*&!) - larger to accommodate x and y registers plus menu 3. More RAM (iff #1 is also implemented) 4. Make keys a little softer and not so slippery 5. Ensure retention of RAM contents during battery swap A veteran employee in my office has a 42S, but complains about #4 and #5. Recently, I showed him how to rebuild the battery pack on his HP-21 based on info in MOHPC. He is quite pleased, and has reverted to "old faithful".

Re: How stable is the 32K HP42S?? Message #9 Posted by Ex-PPC member on 22 May 2002, 5:35 a.m., in response to message #8 by Karl Schneider Karl Schneider wrote: "However, I have to agree that a 32kB RAM upgrade is indeed overkill without direct hardwire I/O. If one had a genuine need to work with the amount of matrix data you describe, a far better tool would be Matlab installed on a PC. I can't imagine that any student in the classroom, or engineer in the field, would ever be expected to tackle such problems using a portable handheld device, given limited time." Your opinion is most respectable, but you'll have to admit that the mere fact that you can't imagine it does not imply that the necessity doesn't exist. The 42S instruction set was developed with engineering needs in mind, not students', IMHO. If it were intended primarily for students, it would have those fancy symbolic algebra and graphic plotting features which are pretty useless for engineers on the field and which would be best tackled with a Mathematica-like program on a PC. But for real engineers doing real field work, matrix handling and complex numbers are the order or the day, and I'm talking real field work, i.e., in the wilderness, with extremely bad weather and temperatures below freeze point. A 42S or a 71B are the most useful computing devices on these circumstantes, as many people doing Geophysics will certify. Myself, I use either a 42S (32 Kb) when size and weight must be kept to an absolute minimum (because I'm already overloaded) or else a 71B (401.5 Kb) when data acquisition and on-the-field processing must be maximal. Further, the 71B has the obvious essential advantage that you can later pass the data on to a PC for further processing and presentation.

Re: How stable is the 32K HP42S?? Message #10 Posted by Karl Schneider on 23 May 2002, 3:06 a.m., in response to message #9 by Ex-PPC member Incognito "Ex-PPC member" wrote: "Your opinion is most respectable, but you'll have to admit that the mere fact that you can't imagine it does not imply that the necessity doesn't exist." I think the condescending tone is a bit uncalled-for. There were two qualifying phrases in my statement: 1. "..without direct hardwire I/O" The memory upgrade would not be very convenient to the average user (you may be a rare exception) without the ability to easily download the stored data or re-load big programs, without error electronically, as Ron Ross pointed out. If and only if that capability were added, then by all means, 32kB or more would be an enhancement. 2. "..given limited time" Those who visit remote sites while packing lightly, probably have ample time and patience to hand-enter up to 4000+ floating-point numbers on a small keypad. However, under ordinary circumstances, when time is important and modern facilities are available, hardly anyone would have the need or inclination to do so. To the vast majority of users, the extra memory would usually be employed for programs, for which the direct I/O lacking in the standard 42S would be essential.

Re: How stable is the 32K HP42S?? Message #11 Posted by Ex-PPC member on 23 May 2002, 4:32 a.m., in response to message #10 by Karl Schneider Mr. Schneider wrote: "I think the condescending tone is a bit uncalled-for." There's no 'condescending' tone whatsoever in my reply, sir, I simply state the fact as it seems to me. As a proof of your alleged limited imagination, you continued: "Those who visit remote sites while packing lightly, probably have ample time and patience to hand-enter up to 4000+ floating-point numbers on a small keypad" ssential." It's obvious that your imagination only goes as far as to assume that 32 Kb are only useful for data if said data implies entering 4000 numbers from the keyboard, which justly seems to you as a nightmare scenario. But entering that many numbers manually is far from the only possibility. Those 4000 numbers can be computed internally from very few input data, then used in subsequent calculations. For instance, to fit a set of as few as 60 empirical data pairs to a suitable polynomial curve which will pass through all of them, you first need to enter just said 60 data pairs, for a total of only 120 numbers entered by the user. But then the program needs to construct a 60x60 matrix (i.e: 3600 numbers) and solve the corresponding linear system, the final result being just another set of 60 numbers, the coefficients of the polynomial. So you see, here we have a problem (and a very typical one, at that) where you just input 60 numbers and after a while you get another 60 numbers as a result. Yet you need to deal with 3600 numbers internally, and you'd better have the memory available when the need arises. See my point ? That said, please accept my sincere apologies if you felt my comments were derogatory to you in any way.

Please! Which RAM-IC to use? Message #12 Posted by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) on 21 May 2002, 12:02 p.m., in response to message #5 by Iqbal Hello, Iqbal; (howdy, pall?) I'm a lot interested on changing the 8K RAM for the 32K in my HP42S. But I would like to know if there is a list of replacement IC's (at least the ones that have already been used and proved beeing good choices). If there are 42's owners that could post the IC's ID they have used for upgrading, please, post them here. I'll try finding them and upgrade mine. Thanks and best regards.

Re: Please! Which RAM-IC to use? Message #13 Posted by Paul Brogger on 21 May 2002, 1:22 p.m., in response to message #12 by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) I think I give some hint as to which RAM to use in the upgrade article: MoHPC – Articles Forum -- #199: Increasing HP-42s Memory to 32K Good luck!

Re: Please! Which RAM-IC to use? Message #14 Posted by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) on 21 May 2002, 3:27 p.m., in response to message #13 by Paul Brogger Thanks, Paul; I was not knonw about the upgrade. Best regards.

Oh! THAT Ron! Message #15 Posted by Ren on 22 May 2002, 10:10 a.m., in response to message #4 by Ron Ross B^)

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Go back to the main exhibit hall