HP Forum Archive 11

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

HP-67, Classic or Second Generation? Message #1 Posted by Mike Rivera on 12 Mar 2003, 10:48 a.m. I'm looking to maybe pick up a "Classic" series calculator to compliment my HP-25C, 41CX, 15C, etc. I don't really like anything newer than the 41 series although I used a 48G for a while. I always wanted a "67", but couldn't afford one when new, and therefore bought the "25C" back in 1976. I figured it might be nice to now have one of the early series in my small collection. My question is, I keep reading conflicting information about whether this is a classic or second generation. I always assumed it was second series based on it was sold alongside the "Woodstock" series for most of it's life, has the same type of keys, boxes, etc. It seems most the classic series have squared off keys, darker cases, etc. Also, wasn't the "65" a true "Classic" series and the "67" an upgrade during the transition from "Classic" to "Woodstock". What's everybody else think? - Mike

Re: HP-67, Classic or Second Generation? Message #2 Posted by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) on 12 Mar 2003, 11:49 a.m., in response to message #1 by Mike Rivera Hi; I think my "sources" are the same as yours, but three particular points must be considered in this "judgment": 1 - External look - the HP67 "has" a classical look, not a "Woodstock" look. Even teh HP19C and 29C belong to a different class: Stings 2 - Available resources - there are programmable features available in Stings and Woodstocks not availble in the programmable classics: HP65 and HP55. These resources - subroutine, indexed registers and labels - became available in the HP29C and HP67/97 (being the hP97 a "topcat") 3 - Electronic design - I believe this is the major "proof": internals. The HP67 has internal improvements not available in the classic models. Some of them are mentioned at the MoHPC pages for these calculators. I have my own concerns about this particular classification and when I think of this I remember many "mixed" equipment (any sort of equipment) that fits in more than one cathegory and cannot be classified in only one. Even nature has some animals in this particular condition. Maybe the HP67 is one of the kind that has "the best of two worlds"; why not? Best regards. Luiz C. Vieira - Brazil

Re: HP-67, Classic or Second Generation? Message #3 Posted by John Smith on 12 Mar 2003, 12:12 p.m., in response to message #2 by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) Luiz wrote: "Even teh HP19C and 29C belong to a different class: Stings" No. According to this very site: http://www.hpmuseum.org/collect.htm "Sting The HP-10 and HP-19C. (Don't confuse these with the voyager series.)" The HP-29C is a "Woodstock", not a "Sting". Regards.

Oops! My mistake.. Message #4 Posted by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) on 12 Mar 2003, 1:04 p.m., in response to message #3 by John Smith Hi; thank you. I wrote a wrong information. Cheers.

Also ... Message #5 Posted by Ex-PPC member on 12 Mar 2003, 12:37 p.m., in response to message #2 by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) Luiz wrote: "2 - Available resources - there are programmable features available in Stings and Woodstocks not availble in the programmable classics: HP65 and HP55. These resources - subroutine, indexed registers and labels - became available in the HP29C and HP67/97 (being the hP97 a "topcat")" No. Also according to this same site: http://www.hpmuseum.org/hp65.htm the HP-65 *did* have both subroutines (1 level) and labels (0-9, A-F). Regards, again.

Re: Also ... Message #6 Posted by John Smith on 12 Mar 2003, 12:40 p.m., in response to message #5 by Ex-PPC member Yes, I forgot to point out that, too ... :-) Regards to both of you.

Re: Also ... Message #7 Posted by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) on 12 Mar 2003, 1:14 p.m., in response to message #5 by Ex-PPC member Yes, you're right. I should be more specific. I put both characteristics as a generical difference. The HP55 doesn't have both and the HP65 does not have indexed registers and indexed labels. Thank you. Luiz C. Vieira - Brazil

Re: HP-67, Classic or Second Generation? Message #8 Posted by Mike Rivera on 12 Mar 2003, 1:19 p.m., in response to message #2 by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) Thanks for your input Luiz: You said regarding why the HP67 is a classic series: "...External look - the HP67 "has" a classical look, not a "Woodstock" look." I think the HP67 looks more like a Woodstock series due to it's keys and case colors than a classic series, even if it's case shape is closer to the classic. Other than the shape of the case, I think everything else on the HP67 says "Woodstock". I'm still up-in-the-air over this. More convincing anyone? - Mike

I once had an HP67... Message #9 Posted by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) on 12 Mar 2003, 2:20 p.m., in response to message #8 by Mike Rivera ... for two days, a weekend, a test-drive before buying, when the original owner gave up selling it. Well, he was a classmate, and if I spent the money I had at that time, I would not be able to buy a new HP41C six months later... <8-) Many of you in here will tell you'd not sell it or buy an HP41C in place of an HP67, I know. I remember one important aspect: the HP67's LED display. It is exactly the same as the one available in all classics. It uses a complete digit to show the radix mark because the radix mark is inside the digit, not beside the digit as found in Woodstocks. This same LED display with magnifying lenses is also available in the HP91, HP92 and HP97. I do not know if this is also true in the off-road 95C's LED display. About the keyboard, you're right. I'd only mention the three prefix keys [f], [g] and [h], available later in the HP34C. Just to add a few "reliable" (I hope) points. Cheers.

Re: I once had an HP67... Message #10 Posted by Dave on 12 Mar 2003, 2:27 p.m., in response to message #9 by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) Once and for all, HP-67 is a classic series and not Woodstock series. Sheesh!

Re: I once had an HP67... Message #11 Posted by David Smith on 12 Mar 2003, 4:05 p.m., in response to message #10 by Dave Nope, the HP-67 absolutely, positively IS a woodstock. It uses the same internal chips and architecture as the HP21/25/29C. The only thing classic about it is the case and the charger/battery that it uses.

Re: I once had an HP67... Message #12 Posted by Mike Rivera on 12 Mar 2003, 4:35 p.m., in response to message #10 by Dave Hi Dave: You said, "Once and for all, the HP-67 is a classic series and not Woodstock series. Sheesh!" Based on what? It seems like it has as many "Woodstock" features (key shape, key colors, case color, original box, internal architecture, etc.) as "Classic" features (LED, case shape, etc). If you put an HP-35, an HP-55, an HP-25, and an HP-67 on a table and were asked to group them, where do think they'd go. I think it's be (35 & 55) and (25 & 67). Even the Museum lists the 67 as Second Generation Mag Card Programmables (1976), not "classic". Maybe we need a new catagory, "Post-Classic/Pre-Woodstock" - just kidding. No offense with all this, but I'm just wondering what everybody else thinks. - Mike

Re: I once had an HP67... Message #13 Posted by Michael Meyer on 12 Mar 2003, 10:26 p.m., in response to message #12 by Mike Rivera It's a breath mint! It's a candy mint! It's two mints in one! Must be the "Certs" model!

Re: HP-67, Classic or Second Generation? Message #14 Posted by Tony Duell (UK) on 12 Mar 2003, 5:08 p.m., in response to message #1 by Mike Rivera To me the 67 is a Woodstock (and always will be). It's got the Woodstock electronics (ACT processor,etc) -- the only reason it's in the 'classic' case is that yuo can't fit the card reader into the 'woodstock' case. The 65 is interesting. To me it's a classic (it has an electrically similar processor to the other classics), but it's somewhat unusual in that all the chips on the CPU board, apart from the ROMs, are in a 6-chip hybrid module.

Re: More evidence the HP-67's a Woodstock Message #15 Posted by Mike Rivera on 12 Mar 2003, 9:50 p.m., in response to message #1 by Mike Rivera I'm not trying to throw eveyone into a tiz, but look at when the HP-67 was released by HP, AFTER six Woodstock calculators! HP-21 2/1975 HP-25 8/1975 HP-22 9/1975 HP-27 5/1976 HP-25C 7/1976 HP-67 7/1976 !!!!! Hmmm, looks fishy to me that this is a "classic" series? - Mike

Re: More evidence the HP-67's a Woodstock Message #16 Posted by Dave on 12 Mar 2003, 10:32 p.m., in response to message #15 by Mike Rivera In the book "Codenames of HP Handheld Calculators and PDAs: facts and speculations" by M.J.P. Staps the HP-67 is listed as a Classic with codename Hawkeye. Quote "There are 5 scientific models (2 business models) in the Classic series and the HP-67 is the last of them". What makes an HP calculator is the design and size of the case to be like the HP-35 classic calculator. It has nothing to do with the electronics inside. Woodstocks had the same type of cases (but NOT always the same electronics)

Re: More evidence the HP-67's a Woodstock Message #17 Posted by Mike Rivera on 12 Mar 2003, 10:59 p.m., in response to message #16 by Dave Hi Dave: So what you (and M.J.P. Staps) are saying is that even though the HP-67 was released towards the end of the Woodstock era, has Woodstock type keys, Woodstock type interior design and processor designs, Woodstock case colors, Woodstock shipping box and manual design, etc.; that it's a "classic" because HP couldn't fit the card reader into a Woodstock case and already had the tooling for the older classic case (where it would fit)? If IBM brings out a new high-end personal computer (do they still make PCs?), and they package it for sale it in a PC XT case, is it an "XT family" computer? I'm no expert and if that's the way the HP calculator collecting comunity sees it, I'm certaily in no position to argue. It just seems silly to me that with all the things that go into making a calculator, that it's the plastic "box" shape that determines its' family - because it's era (and most everything besides the case)is, by most accounts, Woodstock. I'm done. I'm new around here and I don't want everybody mad at the new guy. Thanks, - Mike

To be or not to be? Message #18 Posted by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) on 12 Mar 2003, 11:55 p.m., in response to message #17 by Mike Rivera Hey, new guy; for what I can tell, welcome! Your evaluation is correct, your opinions are not wrong and I think if people around here were mad at you, the thread you started was already in the past. I sometimes post something and I see the post vanishes without any comment (sob!), others go bigger than this one (so far). IMHO, you're doing fine. At least you know this is a "touchy" point: what in haven is the HP67? So far, many diverging analisys, all with their complete and concise basis. All diverging, all correct their way. Isn't it great? Others will disagree with me, but this is the sort of subject that allows different opinions in a very polite environment. Man, this site rules... (Oops! Now I'll be flammed...) Luiz C. Vieira - Brazil

Re: To be or not to be? Message #19 Posted by Masao Kinoshita on 13 Mar 2003, 9:40 a.m., in response to message #18 by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) Categorizing is a human endeavor, usually for convenience or to try to make sense out of things. The HP 67 "looks" like a classic from the outside, so in photos it is sometimes grouped with the Classics (even HP's own "HP calculator family" photo at the HP photo scans section of this Web site). The HP 55 packaging resembles early Woodstock in the "Classics [plural] and 20 series" HP photo, but it is, of course, always considered a Classic. By its electronics, the HP 67 is considered a second generation mag card programmable. The internal programming specifics are very different between the HP 65 and the HP 67, e.g., 6 bit vs. 8 bit. Programs in the HP 65 were held in capacitors that were constantly refreshed. How's that for different! BTW, the fabled Classic HP 65 started the "Woodstock" type keys. APD just expanded the use of the inverse prefix key and made it another general prefix key for the HP 67 (or perhaps I should say the HP 55/25/67). Will a new version of the HP 12C [even by Kinpo?] still be considered a Voyager? Probably, if it still looks like one. "Mark Twain said that historians have to rearrange past events so they make more sense." Paul Ceruzzi "A History of Modern Computing" MIT 1998 (2000 paperback, page 226)

Re: HP-67, Classic or Second Generation? Message #20 Posted by Gordon Dyer on 15 Mar 2003, 3:51 a.m., in response to message #1 by Mike Rivera You are all wrong. It is either a Clastock or a Woodic.... Now let's hear about which of these two it is!

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Go back to the main exhibit hall