HP Forum Archive 13

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

HP-17BII+ Message #1 Posted by Tom Cox on 25 Aug 2003, 8:26 p.m. I have seen the HP-17BII+ advertised. I believe that CalcPro has them in stock. Does anyone have any hands-on experience with that machine yet? Since it uses the same case as the 10-BII, which is known not to be very reliable, I don't want to be on the bleeding edge. Any information would be appreciated.

Re: HP-17BII+ Message #2 Posted by d4days on 27 Aug 2003, 1:16 a.m., in response to message #1 by Tom Cox I just bought one on Ebay. Will let you know when I get it. :-)

Re: HP-17BII+ Message #3 Posted by chi on 27 Aug 2003, 6:21 a.m., in response to message #2 by d4days I owned a HP 17BII and just bought a new HP 17BII+. When I re-inputted the solver equations to my new HP 17BII+, specifically the Black Scholes equation, the calculator returned "INVALID EQUATION" and the cursor stopped at the first L of the equation. I wonder if the L caused the error. Both L and G were not documented in the HP 17BII and 17BII+ manuals but they worked well on my 17BII. Anyone has any idea on this issue or any work around or else my HP 17BII+ will be useless! BTW, anyone who wish buy the new calculator should beware of the keyboard feel of the new calculator. They are completely different (between the old 17BII and new 17BII+). If not the new calculator is equipped with more memory, I would prefer my old 17BII!!

Re: Interesting! Message #4 Posted by Ron Ross on 27 Aug 2003, 7:47 a.m., in response to message #3 by chi The Let and Get functions were not documented in any of the Hp17's literature (it was documented in an Hp19b/Hp27s advanced manual). Could it be, that it was overlooked and left out? Recheck with a much simpler equation than the Black Scholes eq. (you could have easily FAT FINGERed an error since I would NEVER blame a QUAULITY HP keyboard for a missed key stroke).

Fat Fingers (off topic) Message #5 Posted by bill platt on 27 Aug 2003, 11:45 a.m., in response to message #4 by Ron Ross Hi Ron, Have you ever seen Itzhak Perlman play violin? His fingers look too big--but he *never* misses a note. How can that be? ;^) Regards, Bill

Re: Fat Fingers (off topic) Message #6 Posted by Ron Ross on 27 Aug 2003, 11:57 a.m., in response to message #5 by bill platt Perhaps the quality of the violin is somewhat better than the keyboard of the Hp17BII+? (I only wish and hope this is a mild understatement) But the ORIGINAL Hp pioneers??? That is a different question! 8o)

Re: New HP 17BII+ Message #7 Posted by chi on 27 Aug 2003, 11:11 p.m., in response to message #4 by Ron Ross I just wrote to HP asking for a fix. They reponded quickly to ask me to check my typo. But after half an hour they send me another email saying that they were taking up the issue and would advise me later. Actually, I don't think it is a matter of typo as I have compared line by line with my two calculators for the equation input. My concern is that HP is rolling out new or improved models of their once and still favoured models to the market but manufacturing process was outscouced. It really remains a question to the extent of involvement of HP in the development stage and how hard both HP and the Kinpo had done to preserve the goods and introduce new improvement in response to users' suggestions. For those who wants to try new models especially the coming 49G+ etc should take note of the concern raised here. Edited: 28 Aug 2003, 5:23 a.m.

recodign the new machines Message #8 Posted by christof (NoVA US) on 29 Aug 2003, 3:22 p.m., in response to message #7 by chi The BEST thing, IMO, that HP could do with the 49G+ and other new machines is to recode them from scratch- but that requires a real and fully functional ACO. The ARM CPU is a wonderful beastie, but it's not a Saturn- and it shouldn't be treated like one. By all means, keep RPN/RPL, continue to provide really good real world functionality- but improve and recode while you do. With the 12CP and the 17Bii+ we have already seen this-- emulating the 17bii in a new machine with dissimilar hardware is hardly an improvement (except in RAM capacity)- and entropy creeps in when you do that.

Re: HP-17BII+ Message #9 Posted by Britt on 28 Aug 2003, 9:51 a.m., in response to message #3 by chi I received my HP-17Bii+ yesterday. My initial impressions are: PROS: 1. RPN mode. 2. Nice looking calculator. 3. The display is much more readable than the two-line Pioneers. 4. Surprisingly lightweight but the case has a good rigid feel to it. 5. Big, hard plastic keys that click. 6. The manual looks OK but I haven't read it yet. CONS: 1. The key springs are a little too stiff. The key in the top-right corner requires extra pressure to activate. 2. There is no real "ENTER" key. 3. At $119 U.S. list price, it is way overpriced. Although I like the calculator so far, I paid $75 on E-Bay and I’m thinking that may have been too much. I’ll probably end up using it less than my Brazilian HP-12C but more than my HP-18C. Britt

Re: HP-17BII+ Message #10 Posted by Frank Wales on 28 Aug 2003, 1:01 p.m., in response to message #9 by Britt Quote: The key in the top-right corner requires extra pressure to activate. Hm. That sounds familiar.

Re: HP-17BII+ Message #11 Posted by tony on 29 Aug 2003, 2:25 a.m., in response to message #3 by chi Try an equation like L(A:1)-B If it stops on the "L" we sure have a big problem with the 17BII+ - I wonder if they couldn't re-use the 17BII code?

Re: HP-17BII+ Message #12 Posted by chi on 29 Aug 2003, 10:17 a.m., in response to message #11 by tony It stops at A.

Re: HP-17BII+ Message #13 Posted by tony on 29 Aug 2003, 4:13 p.m., in response to message #12 by chi oh that is like my 18C - it stops with the cursor on the ( before the A and says "INVALID FORMULA". The only work around is to solve for each otherwise local variable with a string of IF(S(D1):... or to make the equation much longer with lots of repeated stuff. if you use the BS from the hp website then you can get away with solving for D5. For the shortest formula you need to solve for D5,D6,D1,D2 - then CALLV, then PUTV. Still quite workable. But if L(.) and G(.) don't work it's like the old 17B and 18C.

Re: HP-17BII+ Message #14 Posted by tony on 29 Aug 2003, 5:44 p.m., in response to message #3 by chi Chi the BS equation below doesn't use L(.) or G(.) - so, it may be a work-around for you. It uses the same notation as the HP 17BII Black-Scholes equation available from their web site at: http://www.hp.com/cposupport/mobile_computing/support_doc/bpia5179.html It is twice as accurate as the HP 17BII Black-Scholes equation and 15% shorter to code. First page: PS PE RF% T S MORE Second page: D1 F1 D2 F2 CALL MORE Last page: PUTV MORE Input first page variables. Solve for D1,F1,D2,F2 and CALLV in order. Then MORE PUTV to solve for PUTV. So, the cost of not having L(.) and G(.) is that we now have 4 extra variables to solve for manually, before solving for CALLV. I have separated the lines below just to make it easier to follow. BS:0*(PS+PE+RF%+T+S)+ IF(S(D1):D1-(LN(PS/PE)+(RF%/100+S^2/2)*T)/S/SQRT(T): IF(S(F1):F1-1/(1+ABS(D1)/3.006): IF(S(D2):D2-D1+S*SQRT(T): IF(S(F2):F2-1/(1+ABS(D2)/3.006): IF(S(CALLV):CALLV-PS*ABS(IF(D1<0;0;-1)+ EXP(-D1^2/2)*F1*((187*F1-24)*F1+87)/500) +PE*EXP(-RF%*T/100)*ABS(IF(D2<0:0:-1)+ EXP(-D2^2/2)*F2*((187*F2-24)*F2+87)/500): PUTV-CALLV+PS-PE*EXP(-RF%*T/100)))))) This is also based on the UTPN approximation in my article in HPCC (www.hpcc.org) DataFile V22N3 pages 13-21. Cheers, Tony

Re: HP-17BII+ Message #15 Posted by tony on 31 Aug 2003, 6:38 p.m., in response to message #14 by tony warning: on the 17BII+ it seems my B-S equation work-around needs extra brackets - the exp(-D1^2/2) needs (D1^2) and also a (D2^2) is required. This is the first HP solver I have seen that doesn't follow the usual precedence for an exponent.

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Go back to the main exhibit hall