HP Forum Archive 13

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

What will 33s have that 32sii doesn't?? Message #1 Posted by Justin T. on 2 Nov 2003, 6:55 p.m. Besides a 2 line display and a modified keyboard, what will the new 33s offer that the existing 32sii doesn't have?

Re: What will 33s have that 32sii doesn't?? Message #2 Posted by Ben Salinas on 2 Nov 2003, 7:37 p.m., in response to message #1 by Justin T. The 33s will have more memory (much more... some say as much as 32 kilobytes, although this is probably 32 kilobits, either way, it is much much much more than the 384 bytes of the 32sii) It also offers the use of Algebraic mode (which is an advantage to some... I guess) The 33s has more keys, and thus, less menus. According to the Datasheet (from hpcalc.org), it will have more advanced statistical functions (such as logarithmic and exponential) It will not have Gradians mode (who uses that anyway) It will have Integer division, a different random number generator (generates a random number between x and y) Finally, it will have 40 physics constants (but i believe that number includes the unit conversions and stuff) I am also guessing (this is only a guess) that it will have a faster processor. I am speculating that this is the case only because of the trend in the other new releases (all of which use a non-Saturn processor) Other than that, the only difference is that you can buy it for less than 180 bucks. -Ben

Re: What will 33s have that 32sii doesn't?? Message #3 Posted by Dave on 2 Nov 2003, 11:28 p.m., in response to message #2 by Ben Salinas it will have a lousy keyboard....

Re: What will 33s have that 32sii doesn't?? Message #4 Posted by Norm on 3 Nov 2003, 12:47 a.m., in response to message #3 by Dave 33S has a keyboard shaped like a cowcatcher. 32Sii did not have that feature. Spend your money accordingly.

Can't we see the positives for once ? Message #5 Posted by Thibaut on 3 Nov 2003, 3:52 a.m., in response to message #3 by Dave ... 2 years ago we were here all flaming HP for abanondonning RPN. The 33S, at least on datasheet and OK, apart from its keyboard, widely answers our wishes, and at a bargain price comapred to the current market. Can't we say "HP, OK, you're on the right track with this one, go ahead..." instead of shouting at them ?

Re: Can't we see the positives for once ? Message #6 Posted by Patrick R on 3 Nov 2003, 6:31 a.m., in response to message #5 by Thibaut " Can't we say "HP, OK, you're on the right track with this one, go ahead..." instead of shouting at them ? " Better: " COMPAQ, OK, you're on the right track with this one, go ahead... " HP died some time ago.

Re: Can't we see the positives for once ? Message #7 Posted by Ernie Malaga on 3 Nov 2003, 10:15 a.m., in response to message #5 by Thibaut Thibaut: Griping the way we do, we raise red flags on design flaws, bugs, and low quality -- problems that might otherwise go unnoticed. Of course then it's up to HP to listen and do something about it. Messrs. Hewlett and Packard would've listened (maybe even recalled the flawed products). Ms. Fiorina... well, do I have to spell it out? So, yes, let's gripe all we can. Some of it may come to HP's attention. It's no secret that quality has gone down to unheard-of depths. There are many HP-35s out there that still work after 31 years of use. How long will a 49G+ endure? My 2 cents. -Ernie

No grousing, Thibaut Message #8 Posted by NH on 3 Nov 2003, 5:37 p.m., in response to message #7 by Ernie Malaga There is no grousing ("shouting" etc) from us, Thibaut. Note that a question was asked (difference between 33S and 32Sii)....... Myself and others are replying to the question. If the information is factual, its not grousing. I, for example, have noted that the keyboard is shaped like a cowcatcher. This is neither shouting nor grousing. It is just a factual truth. While I am not familiar with the 33S, (I like 32Sii however) tentatively, it also does not offer "RPN" with a stack and "Enter" button. This is also just more factual information, take it how you will and spend your money accordingly.

Re: Can't we see the positives for once ? Message #9 Posted by Arnaud Amiel on 4 Nov 2003, 3:32 a.m., in response to message #5 by Thibaut At work I have to use a 20s so I can lend it to my colleagues. I would rather use a 32s to have RPN. With the 33, it seems that I got the perfect solution. Arnaud

Re: Can't we see the positives for once ? Message #10 Posted by bill platt on 4 Nov 2003, 10:08 a.m., in response to message #9 by Arnaud Amiel Why do you HAVE to lend your calculator? Just curious. (I keep a couple 20s's around to lend out, too...but use my 32 most of the time). Regards, Bill

no gradians! Message #11 Posted by hugh on 3 Nov 2003, 11:06 a.m., in response to message #2 by Ben Salinas really? i, personally, have never used them but i assume they are useful. civil engineering? anyone?

Re: no gradians! Message #12 Posted by Valentin Albillo on 3 Nov 2003, 11:31 a.m., in response to message #11 by hugh It's an old European geodetic-surveying thing, more specifically French: French Geodetic System The French equivalent of the Ordnance Survey, the Institut Géographique National (IGN), produces 1:50,000 and 1:25,000 sheets using a Lambert Conformal Conic Projection based on the Clarke Ellipsoid 1880. The sheet boundaries are cast on lines of latitude and longitude using the French Geodetic System, which traditionally employs the Meridian of Paris (approx. 2°20’E) rather than Greenwich, and expresses angular measurements in gradians rather ^^^^^^^^ than degrees (400grad = 360°). A typical older 1:25,000 sheet (e.g. Institut Géographique National, 1969) covers a quadrant 0.20 by 0.10 gradians ^^^^^^^^ and is labelled only in gradians. ^^^^^^^^^ Best regards from V.

Re: no gradians! Message #13 Posted by CME750 on 3 Nov 2003, 12:43 p.m., in response to message #11 by hugh The normal US term is "grads", not "gradians". I don't think that anyone in the US actually works with them. Nonetheless, scientific calculators have traditionally included a grad option. It would be surprising if grads were lacking on the 33S, and I would be curious to know the source of this rumor. The most detailed 33S specifications that I have seen, at http://www.hpcalc.org/images/datasheet33s.pdf, indicate that DEG, RAD, GRAD modes will be included. Furthermore, available images of the 33S, such as that at http://www.hpcalc.org/hp49gplus.php, show a GRAD annunciator at the top of the display. The US military uses "mils", where 360 degrees = 6400 mils. Thus, one mil is approximately (but not exactly) equal to 1 milliradian.

Re: no gradians! Message #14 Posted by James M. Prange on 3 Nov 2003, 1:56 p.m., in response to message #13 by CME750 Quote: The US military uses "mils", where 360 degrees = 6400 mils. Thus, one mil is approximately (but not exactly) equal to 1 milliradian. Various definitions of the angular mil have been used, including that one of course. Unless I'm badly mistaken, when I was in the U.S. Navy, we defined 1 mil as being exactly 1 milliradian. The last that I heard, the UK military also defined it this way. The mil isn't used for measuring large angles, so it's irrelevant whether you can define a full circle or right angle as an exact rational number of mils. The purpose of the mil is for making (presumably small, in angular terms) corrections to gunfire. If your observer tells you that the projectile struck a certain number of units to the left or right of the target (from your own viewpoint of course), then you divide that number by the number of thousands of units of range to get the angular correction (in mils) to the bearing for the next shot(s). This is for plain unguided gunfire, where no corrections to the path of the projectile after it's left the muzzle are possible; it's not for any type of guided or "smart" projectile. Given the uncertainties and lack of perfect repeatability in this situation, and that "missing" by a small distance may very well still destroy the target, it makes very little practical difference which definition of the mil is used. Regards, James

Re: no gradians! (My Mistake) Message #15 Posted by Ben Salinas on 3 Nov 2003, 8:01 p.m., in response to message #13 by CME750 Sorry about that, I must have looked over that in the PDF datasheet when I posted last night. Indeed, it does say that there will be gradians also (or grads if you so prefer) Sorry about that -Ben

Re: no gradians! Message #16 Posted by unspellable on 3 Nov 2003, 1:25 p.m., in response to message #11 by hugh How is it that so many calculators have grads but not mils? I'd have more use for angles in Mils. I have slide rules with the trig scales laid out in mils.

Re: no gradians! Message #17 Posted by CME750 on 3 Nov 2003, 2:34 p.m., in response to message #16 by unspellable You can still get slide-rule type products for calculations in mils. They are marketed for snipers. For example: http://www.ustacticalsupply.com/mildot-slope.shtml http://www.snipercountry.com/InReviews/IOR_PocketMilRangefinder.htm Never seen a comparable calculator product from any manufacturer. Perhaps there could be a market for an olive-drab HP-10C Tactical Edition.

Re: no gradians! Message #18 Posted by Vassilis Prevelakis on 3 Nov 2003, 6:25 p.m., in response to message #17 by CME750 > Never seen a comparable calculator product from any > manufacturer. Perhaps there could be a market for an > olive-drab HP-10C Tactical Edition. I've seen TI58C calculators used for these kind of ranging, although I would hardly associate the word "hardened" with these calculators. (The TI58C was physically identical to the TI59, but it had a smaller memory. Unlike the TI59 the 58C's memory was non-volatile, hence the C designation). **vp

Re: no gradians! Message #19 Posted by James M. Prange on 3 Nov 2003, 2:57 p.m., in response to message #16 by unspellable Which definition(s) of the angular mil should be used? What need is there for it? The angular mil is intended for use by gunnery crews so that they can work out a reasonable approximation (say to the nearest whole mil, for example) of the spotting correction very quickly in their heads, not fool around with punching numbers into a calculator while they're involved in a live fire situation. If anyone feels a need for such a unit in his calculator, it's easy enough to make a user-defined unit. Of course it would have to be distinguished from the distance mil unit, defined as 1_mil=.001_in, and commonly used for thin coatings, films, and sheets. If you buy a package of plastic bags (in the U.S.A. at least) you'll probably see their thickness labeled in mils. Regards, James Edited: 3 Nov 2003, 2:58 p.m.

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Go back to the main exhibit hall