Re: Has HP stopped making HP-49G? Message #21 Posted by Vassilis Prevelakis on 16 Dec 2002, 7:12 a.m., in response to message #17 by Bill Hemphill
I am not using HP calculators produced after the 41 since I consider
RPL to be too cumbersome for the available screen real estate.
Trying to scroll around the display to see the program, is less
convenient than the single line 41. With the 41 you just know that
you need a sheet of paper, with the 48, you still need the sheet
of paper and you have to fight with the screen editor.
My rule of thumb is that if you have to scroll the display (esp.
horizontally), you are doing something wrong. E.g. take the 71b:
long lines are a total pain on that one. Another example: Am I
writing this in Dave's little window in the Forum Web page? No, I
am using a real editor in a real window. I'll paste this back when
I finish.
Finally, I question the intuitiveness of the unbounded stack and
the strictly postfix command structure. I think they needlessly
complicated both the user and programming interface. I think Wilkes
got a little too clever on that one.
Although I have a 48SX and a 48GX (and I did own an HP 28C), I have
always preferred my 41C.
The software complexity was always a bit ahead of the hardware
capabilities. Notice the cluttered layout of the HP 67 and even the
HP 97. The 41 was an improvement in the sence that the complexity
of the calculator could be hidden from the user via function key
definitions and overlays. But it was a really complex machine. The
flat function catalogs (CAT 0,1,2,...) were atrocious (at least the
CX two level catalogs fixed that). But you could see that simply
having more programs and registers was causing lots of headaches
(the synthetic movable curtain was ingenious). HP realized that the
son of the 41 would need a different system, but I think RPL suffered
from what Fred Brooks call the Second System Effect.
Now that I can afford to have lots of HP calculators, I tend to use
a 97 for its printer and superb keyboard, but I have 2 33Cs and one
34C spread around my work area for quick calculations. The LED
display and the quality of the construction make them superb tools
for everyday use.
As many people have already mentioned, if I really want to solve
an integral I'd go to a real computer.
The 42S was crippled by the lack of I/O (it was a missed opportunity
not to have a bidirectional I/R interface or serial interface like
the 48SX) and the lack of a real time clock. These failings make
it useless to me, although the larger screen is definitely an
improvement.
The form factor of the 42S is probably the largest that can reasonably
be used comfortably. I'd trade a row of keys for a larger 4+1 level
display, but that would be it. I also like the ability to have soft
key labels over the function keys, but I wouldn't want to trade the
LASTx display for this.
So my dream machine would be a 41CX with 48SX display and I/O, in
a 42S form factor.
|