The Museum of HP Calculators

HP Forum Archive 14

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

HP33S!!! Maybe ITS MARKETING GENIUS!
Message #1 Posted by Ron Ross on 26 Feb 2004, 3:13 p.m.

Sell a crippled Calculator, Then introduce a better one, ie An Hp43S!!!

I don't think I'll hold my breath though.

      
Re: HP33S!!! Maybe ITS MARKETING GENIUS!
Message #2 Posted by Cedric on 26 Feb 2004, 4:01 p.m.,
in response to message #1 by Ron Ross

Why do you say the 33S is crippled? I received mine and i really like it; perhaps more than my HP-32SII. I don't find it ugly too, it don'T look so "fashion" like a lot says and i can bring one at the lab without fear... I remember when i bought a ford Taurus in 1990, no one have one and all say it's ugly, too much round corners etc. Now all car are like the taurus of the time...

The only problem for me is that it lacks I/O, so yes i prefer my beloved 41CX system. But for a every day calcultion at work, it will be my choice. HP should now think about a complete system calculator like the 41.

            
Re: HP33S!!! Maybe ITS MARKETING GENIUS!
Message #3 Posted by Namir Shammas on 26 Feb 2004, 4:40 p.m.,
in response to message #2 by Cedric

I agree with you Cedric. The HP33s is a nice calculators. I showed it to my girlfriend who sells calculators in a university bookstore and she said the 33s looks hip. It's a nice machine in general and yes it lacks I/O and the ability to access all that extra memory as registers.

Like everything else, any model will not please all users. So those who like the hp33s can buy the model and thos who don't can look to other models. I don't see why this is turning into a put-down campaign.

                  
Re: HP33S!!! Maybe ITS MARKETING GENIUS!
Message #4 Posted by Dave on 26 Feb 2004, 4:48 p.m.,
in response to message #3 by Namir Shammas

Because there apparently people who have to be negative at all costs. It must really pain them that the rest of the world does not see things exactly their way. Oh well, a cup half full is also half empty, but we can still enjoy what is left and available!

                  
Re: HP33S!!! Maybe ITS MARKETING GENIUS!
Message #5 Posted by Wayne Brown on 26 Feb 2004, 6:21 p.m.,
in response to message #3 by Namir Shammas

Quote:
I showed it to my girlfriend who sells calculators in a university bookstore and she said the 33s looks hip.

Exactly! That is what's so bad about the way it looks! I don't want a calculator that looks "hip;" I want one that looks elegant, unostentatious and dignified.

                        
Dignified?
Message #6 Posted by Wayne Stephens on 26 Feb 2004, 7:43 p.m.,
in response to message #5 by Wayne Brown

Are calculators really supposed to look dignified? I did not know this. I just tried to get my old 11C into black tie and tails but it flatly refused to wear them.

Wayne,

If you are happy with the calculators you have, then I am happy for you. I do not think you should buy something you hate.

I believe those of us who decided to give this new HP a "go" pretty much new when we pre-ordered it that it was not blazing any new trails. It is exactly as so many on this forum have already described it: a replacement/update of the HP 32sii which definitely does NOT look like anything HP has released before.

For right now, though, it's all we've got. HP has been effectively out of the RPN calculator business for so long that many of the young engineers I meet do not even know what RPN is. If this new calculator does nothing beyond introducing a new generation of engineers, scientists, technicians and others to this wonderful operational method then I for one will consider it a success.

Am I too old to really appreciate the "hip" look of the HP 33S? Yes.

Am I so old that I am unwilling to accept the fact that time goes on and tastes change in all things? Not yet.

Do I want to see RPN die because I refuse to recognize the above fact? No I do not.

Seriously, if you have not actually seen a 33S in person yet do not completely write it off until you do. It looks a lot better in your hand than it does in any of the photos or diagrams I saw prior to receiving mine yesterday. It definitely has shortcomings, but I for one am having fun playing with my new toy!

Besides, they're dirt cheap... and you could always play with it for a while and then pass it on to some "hip" youngster you know who doesn't want to "run with the herd" and their Algebraic entry calculators.

Thanks for reading my opinions.

Take care.

Wayne Stephens

                              
Re: Dignified?
Message #7 Posted by Art Litka on 27 Feb 2004, 9:36 a.m.,
in response to message #6 by Wayne Stephens

Well said, Wayne!

                              
Re: Dignified?
Message #8 Posted by Wayne Brown on 27 Feb 2004, 2:18 p.m.,
in response to message #6 by Wayne Stephens

Quote:
Are calculators really supposed to look dignified? I did not know this. I just tried to get my old 11C into black tie and tails but it flatly refused to wear them.
The 11C (and any Voyager -- even the flashier-than-I-like 12C) is already wearing the equivalent of black tie and tails. It doesn't need to be dressed up to look elegant. Unfortunately, the 33s is wearing a clown suit.

Quote:
Am I too old to really appreciate the "hip" look of the HP 33S? Yes.

I'm not certain why age should have anything to do with it. True, I'm approaching 50 now (49 tomorrow) but my tastes in most things are nearly the same as they were 35 years ago, when I was 14. Even then they went back decades (or in some cases, centuries) further than the tastes of most of my contemporaries. For instance, I've always greatly preferred Mozart, Beethoven, Vivaldi, etc. to most of the drivel labeled as "pop" music in either my own generation or the current one, or any in between. And at 15 I was developing my lifelong love of Plautus, Euripides, Cicero, and classical civilization in general. My idea of the ultimate in "cool" was the image of the "absent-minded professor:" obsessed with esoteric knowledge that most people neither knew nor cared about, and largely unconcerned (even unaware) of the everyday world around him. My heroes were not athletes or even astronauts but those rows and rows of white-shirted, black-tied engineers seated behind those wonderfully complex-looking consoles in the NASA "Mission Control" room. True, they used slide rules (which I proudly carried to school and still love and use daily) rather than calculators, but the older HP models would be right at home in such an atmosphere.

Quote:
Am I so old that I am unwilling to accept the fact that time goes on and tastes change in all things? Not yet.

Sure, tastes change with time, and almost always for the worse. One of the things I like best about history is that through the years most (but certainly not all) of the worst elements of fashion fade away (I actually hate the word "fashion" and feel nothing but contempt when I hear someone speak of a "fashion magazine" or "the fashion industry") and only the best is left. There may be a few elements of 20th century (and early 21st century) culture that are worth preserving, but I'd be hard pressed to name more than one or two.

I suppose a time may come when, for instance, not one person is left on earth who appreciates the grace and glory of the Parthenon, but that won't just mean that architectural tastes have changed. It will mean that the entire human race has become tastesless idiots -- which is, I suspect, nearly the case in nearly every generation anyway.

                                    
Parthenon
Message #9 Posted by bill platt on 27 Feb 2004, 2:32 p.m.,
in response to message #8 by Wayne Brown

The Parthenon would look muxh more dignified were it made from wood---It is built like a wooden structure. As it is made of stone, it is neither fish nor fowl.

Further, it is incomplete---without the roof & etc (long since burned or rotted away) how do we really know how beautiful it is?

OK, as a ruin, it is dignified---but so are many other edifi--some much newer--yes?

If someone handed you an 11c that had all but the keyboard, could you appreciate its beauty, design harmony, fitness for intended purpose?

I think it is not a good comparison--and perhaps even "dangerous" socio-culturally to take guidance from ruins which are incomplete and out of their essential context.

Best regards,

Bill

                                          
Re: Parthenon
Message #10 Posted by Wayne Brown on 27 Feb 2004, 4:39 p.m.,
in response to message #9 by bill platt

Quote:
The Parthenon would look muxh more dignified were it made from wood---It is built like a wooden structure. As it is made of stone, it is neither fish nor fowl.
Well, I happen to like marble better than wood, but you're right, many of the features carved in the stone are meant to imitate the appearance of the beams and pegs used in earlier wooden structures.

Quote:
Further, it is incomplete---without the roof & etc (long since burned or rotted away) how do we really know how beautiful it is?
There are artists' depictions of the structure when it was much more complete, before the explosion of the gunpowder that the Turks stored in it at the end of the 17th century. (Of course, the original roof had been destroyed in a fire in the 3rd century but there's no reason to think the replacement roof wasn't comparable to the original.)

Scholars have studied the drawings and the ruins to reconstruct, as accurately as possible, the original appearance of the building. Though the original is still in ruins, a full-sized replica was built in Nashville, Tennessee about 100 years ago. I visited it many times in the late 1970s/early 1980s and was always impressed with the beauty of the replica. Although the exterior is built of concrete rather than marble, it still is amazingly accurate. A very particular type of gravel was brought all the way from the Potomac river to be mixed with the concrete because its color recreates the appearance of the flecks of iron in aged Pentelic marble (from which the original Parthenon was constructed). The Nashville Parthenon is such a faithful recreation that Greek archictecture students sometimes come from Greece to Nashville to study it because it's supposed to be easier to get the full effect from it than from the ruins of the original. (Just talking about it now is making me want to go back and see it again!)

You can visit The Parthenon in Nashville, Tennessee if you'd like to see how it looks today,.

                                                
Re: Parthenon
Message #11 Posted by bill platt on 27 Feb 2004, 5:01 p.m.,
in response to message #10 by Wayne Brown

Wayne,

Excellent link!

Interesting excerpt from it:

Quote:
After a comprehensive architectural survey in 1991, there was substantial evidence that water drainage, untreated steel supports and birds were becoming a problem with this historic site

Interesting how the replica is not only falling apart, but is now historic, too!

Moral of the story: if you can't find the original, you can certainly find the replica somewhere in the U.S.A.!

BTW, regarding wood---I mean more fundamentally than merely the carving of trunnels and tenons etc, but the actual physical design---post and lintel is a wooden structure---requiring the lintels to carry bending (and especially tensile) stresses. Marble is terribly weak and brittle in tension--in fact aren't there cracked lintels on the Parthenon? Perhaps all the top-weight above the lintels was the original architects solution to the problem of the whole business falling down---the top-weight effectively holds the cracked lintel in place---much as a flying buttress modifies the force line in a cathedral.

Now, to stay on topic, write an RPN program, to solve for the required top-weight, given the principal dimensions of the lintel, the allowable stress of the marble, the width of the support lands.......

Regards,

Bill

                                                      
Re: "If you can't find the original ...
Message #12 Posted by Paul Brogger on 27 Feb 2004, 6:32 p.m.,
in response to message #11 by bill platt

... you can certainly find the replica somewhere in the U.S.A.!" -- bill platt

Another example ...

(Use Google to search for "stonehenge maryhill" for larger close-ups -- this image shows the context, which is quite a beautiful stretch of the Columbia.)

                                    
Re: Dignified?
Message #13 Posted by Ernie Malaga on 27 Feb 2004, 3:01 p.m.,
in response to message #8 by Wayne Brown

Quote:
My idea of the ultimate in "cool" was the image of the "absent-minded professor:"

I'm trying to go to the extreme myself. As soon as I can, I'll buy a Ford Model T, which for the past 40 years has been my dream car. A no-nonsense car, all of 20 horsepower, a screaming 40 MPH going downhill, and built-in cruise control.

Yayyy!

-Ernie

                                    
Function vs Form
Message #14 Posted by Wayne Stephens on 27 Feb 2004, 3:18 p.m.,
in response to message #8 by Wayne Brown

Wayne,

Thank you for the outstanding and thought-provoking response. I am certainly not as artistic nor intellectual as you (I prefer reading histories of pre-Soviet Russia, WWII and the War Between the States to studying the classical civilizations), but please do not mistake me for a tasteless idiot.

I simply appreciate function, in most cases, more than form.

I drive 1980's vintage Saab 900 hatchbacks because they are extremely logically designed and well thought out automobiles; but I will not try to argue to anyone that they are beautiful.

I own 10 motorcycles. Not a single one is a fashion statement or a "poser" machine. There's a 1976 Triumph Bonneville (my one experiment in beauty over function). The 1978 BMW R100/7 and 1992 BMW R100RS look remarkably similar. Not much changed in BMW bikes between about 1975 and 1994; but they are rock solid reliable and with a few minor but annoying exceptions they are almost perfectly engineered. The 1998 Suzuki DR650 dual-sport machine is considered by many to be an ugly toad of a bike (plus, the frame is painted PURPLE), but functionally it does everything that I ask of it, and it does it all well. My Yamaha TTR250 dirt bike has an electric start so I can't play with the "cool" kids off road (by the way, I am not a wuss, I just have a lot of metal in my leg from a road racing accident and can no longer kick start a motorcycle without risking serious ankle injury; I risk it for the Bonneville, though). I could go on and on talking about motorcycles but this is a calculator web-site so...

My point is, that I am not someone who tries to fit in with the crowd; and I appreciate functional things even when they have asthetic flaws. I put the HP 33S in that category.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this with you. By the way, I heartily agree with you about the NASA mission control guys; they were all dash and no flash. Unsung heroes to be sure.

By the way, you did not address my "future of RPN" concerns. What do you think can be done?

Take care.

Wayne

PS - You do, of course, realize that if you continue to espouse that "the world is going to hell in a handbasket due to that younger generation" philosophy that in another year when you turn 50 we'll all get to call you "The Curmudgeon", don't you? Thanks again.

W.

                                          
Re: Function vs Form
Message #15 Posted by Wayne Brown on 27 Feb 2004, 3:59 p.m.,
in response to message #14 by Wayne Stephens

Quote:
...but please do not mistake me for a tasteless idiot.
I hope you didn't feel that I was aiming that comment at you, because it certainly wasn't my intention. In fact I don't think that label applies to any of the people in this Forum. In spite of my disagreements with various people over various issues, I respect both the intelligence and the judgment of the participants here. Please accept my apologies if anything I said came across as a personal attack directed against you.

I probably came on a bit strong because I've just finished reading a music columnist who irritated me exceedingly. He was advocating that classical music be made to appeal to a younger audience by getting rid of the image of a classical concert as a place where people are dressed up, sit quietly and applaud politely during a performance. (His examples of the "right" way to do it included a concert in which the audience was doing dance moves in their seats.) In his view classical music (and its performance) needs to be reinterpreted and many of the 18th century works need to be replaced with newer stuff. Essentially, if the "reforms" that he described ever became widespread I would have to stop attending concerts, because it would destroy the concert-going experience for me. So maybe I wasn't in the best mood for a new-vs.-old calculator discussion. :-)

Quote:
By the way, you did not address my "future of RPN" concerns. What do you think can be done?
I still think the best thing that could happen to RPN would be for HP to start mass-producing cheap RPN models that could practically be given away to schools. Get the kids addicted to RPN from an early age (as I did with my boys) and they'll want the more expensive models when they get older. I don't care how hideous the cheap ones are, as long as the kids like them. I don't even care if they keep making ugly high-end models if they'll just make at least one that people like me can use without embarrasment. If they'd just build something that looks (hardware design, construction and color scheme) exactly like a 48SX but with all the software of the 49G+ then I wouldn't care if the rest of their line was covered in purple-and-pink foam rubber.
Quote:
PS - You do, of course, realize that if you continue to espouse that "the world is going to hell in a handbasket due to that younger generation" philosophy that in another year when you turn 50 we'll all get to call you "The Curmudgeon", don't you?
Hey, I've been calling myselfa curmudgeon for at least 15 years now. :-)
                                                
Re: Function vs Form
Message #16 Posted by Wayne Stephens on 27 Feb 2004, 4:24 p.m.,
in response to message #15 by Wayne Brown

No offense taken. I've enjoyed reading your views.

Good idea on keeping RPN alive, by the way. I hope HP gets a copy of your post and takes it to heart.

I MUST agree with you on the music too. I have extremely diverse (but also unusual) taste in music. I've been to a lot of Grateful Dead shows (can't remember how many), bluegrass festivals, blues concerts and Classical music performances. I have no problem with tuxedos at Dead shows 'cause it was sort of anything goes there; but tie dyes and hippie dancing at a Classical performance would be pretty weird... not to mention unsettling. People should be willing to respect the traditions of whatever music/artistic performance they are attending.

Take care.

Wayne

PS - Vivaldi ROCKS!!! - But Tchaikovsky is still my all time favorite.

                                          
Re: Function vs Form
Message #17 Posted by David Brunell on 27 Feb 2004, 10:42 p.m.,
in response to message #14 by Wayne Stephens

> can no longer kick start a motorcycle without risking serious ankle injury

Get yourself a vintage Bultaco and kick with the other foot!

I used to regularly switch back and forth between the Bul and a Jap bike. More than once I downshifted when I intended to brake. :)

                                                
Re: Function vs Form
Message #18 Posted by Wayne Stephens on 28 Feb 2004, 7:31 p.m.,
in response to message #17 by David Brunell

Yeah, I know. Some later model KTM s have a left side kick start (brake and shifter are "standard" though). The problem is, I can't really use either leg for kickstarting (Motorcycle roadracing is a dangerous sport and you can seriously injure yourself).

The TTR 250 is actually a nice little bike. The whole starter assembly (including the alternator and gel battery) only weigh a couple or three pounds. I'm not a real expert in the dirt, so I don't really notice the difference. The only real drawback is the possibility of getting stuck miles from nowhere on some trail in the blue ridge mountains with a dead battery. At least with a kickstarter I wouldn't have to worry about that.

Take care.

Wayne.

            
Re: HP33S!!! Maybe ITS MARKETING GENIUS!
Message #19 Posted by bill platt on 26 Feb 2004, 4:46 p.m.,
in response to message #2 by Cedric

Why is it crippled? My god, it is awfully crippled. It is basically identical (except for memory size) to to 32sii (my favorite daily use machine) which was crippled even more (lack of memory).

Let's examine the "cripples":

1. Only 27 direct addresses + 6 indirect.

2. No named variables. (1) would't matter, except that with no named variables, you are never going to be able to use that 32kB to do a whole lot of things that the machine could do naturally otherwise!

3. Only 26 labels.

4. Solve cannot call integrate and vice-versea. The 15c did this ca 1983---it should be on the "lower end" by now! It would be even nicer if you could do recursive or multiple solves (15c did not do this).

5. Equations cannot be edited---you have to backspace through them. Why not edit like the 17bii?!

6. Whimpy complex number support. Why not do a complete implementation? And it is in fact rather erroneous as designed---you get sort of "half " the answer as it were with roots of negatives---and different behavior using root and exponent! Basically, the complex number stuff is useless.

7. No matrix support. Now, this is really too bad, because with 32kB of memory and unlimited variables, you could write some pretty big matrix-handling routines. but with only 33 registers, too bad!

Of course I will buy one. I will probably like it (I like the 32sii very much). But just as with the 32sii, I will see so much lost potential---like with the 32sii, with only 200ish lines of programming room, You can never really use the "solve" and "integrate" features to their fullest. And having more than just 2 or 3 decent equations, and you run out of memory.

That's what is wrong.

What is "right" is that with the 32 kB of the 33s, we can now stop worrying about these last short-comings of the 32sii. That will be a big improvement. We might see some really good "solve" implementations. But it sure would make sense to add some real functionality---not just this "Algebraic" nonsense and the completely uselesss x^3 and cube root key! (OK, so the integer math may be nice). Heck, even the root x of y key is useless---especially since it gives different answers from the 1/x y^x combination in some negative circumstances! (32sii---33s also I suspect).

                  
Re: HP33S!!! Maybe ITS MARKETING GENIUS!
Message #20 Posted by Fred on 26 Feb 2004, 4:53 p.m.,
in response to message #19 by bill platt

You know, this forum and others voted the 32Sii as the best calculator ever made (see the prices after it was discontinued) Seeing this fact (unfortunately I disagree, but that is moot when the market makes its point). So we are stuck with the evolution the market has wrought. i wish it could be different, but marketers have to look at what features sell....

                  
Remember, this is a 32SII replacement!
Message #21 Posted by Gene on 26 Feb 2004, 5:27 p.m.,
in response to message #19 by bill platt

It appears that very little was added to the 33S that the 32SII could not do.

All the things "wrong" you mention are that way (IMO) because the 32SII was that way.

It wasn't meant that I can tell to BE a HP43S. Therefore, it isn't.

It appears the 32SII could no longer be made and HP wanted a calculator that was essentially the 32SII updated. That's what they made.

Along the way, NCSES came along and made the 33S about the most advanced calculator allowed and you have the recipe for a good number of sales.

Had HP made the 33S a 43S and added alot of what you say, their total sales might have been lower, because the NCSES would probably have banned it.

Nice and lucky...and I'm glad I don't have to pay $200 for a 32SII functionality machine now.

Gene

                        
Re: Remember, this is a 32SII replacement!
Message #22 Posted by bill platt on 26 Feb 2004, 5:45 p.m.,
in response to message #21 by Gene

Hi Gene,

I did not really want to come across as such a kvetsh.

Yes, you are right on this general point---I agree that it is a 32s replacement & etc.

Perhaps indeed, that the NCEES or whatever they are would have banned it on account of "text" if it had unlimited variables and names.

It is very frustrating though, when some arbitrary (and may I add obscure) NGB goes and sticks out some sort of arbitrary rule---and that rule goes on to force an artificial distortion of an entire market class! It is bad enough that these arbitrary rules influence the way houses are built, the way sailboats are designed, the way fishing boats are designed, etc and on and on, but now calculators?!! Oy veh.

regards,

Bill

                              
Re: Remember, this is a 32SII replacement!
Message #23 Posted by Gene on 26 Feb 2004, 8:47 p.m.,
in response to message #22 by bill platt

Oh, I agree. I don't think the NCSES thing is a good idea at all.

AND I WANT MY HP43S myself!

HP could take the HP42S and just put it in some sort of HP33S body and sell it for $80 and I'd TAKE the chevron keys.

:-)

Hope they're listening! Gene

                  
Re: HP33S!!! Maybe ITS MARKETING GENIUS!
Message #24 Posted by patrick on 26 Feb 2004, 7:21 p.m.,
in response to message #19 by bill platt

I understand HP is in bed with WALMART, having released 500 units of the HP-33S, to be purchased only by customers sent from one of the Engineering Licen. sites, Thanks HP.

                        
HP and Walmart inbed
Message #25 Posted by patrick on 26 Feb 2004, 7:25 p.m.,
in response to message #24 by patrick

500 units HP-33S relesed from HP early!!!!!, being sold to a select group of users, early, but only available from WALMART.

                              
Re: HP and Walmart ???
Message #26 Posted by Paul Brogger on 26 Feb 2004, 7:35 p.m.,
in response to message #25 by patrick

I got my unit earlier than most (I ordered it on December 15). I have no connection with HP or Wal-Mart.

It makes sense that it takes a while for shipments to ramp up. They're probably just beginning to fill the distribution pipeline.

And if Wal-Mart gets a small shipment, I think that they can restrict their sale however they wish. (Well, almost, anyway.)

There doesn't need to be a conspiracy at work . . .

                        
Re: HP33S!!! Maybe ITS MARKETING GENIUS!
Message #27 Posted by Thorsten Kril on 26 Feb 2004, 7:39 p.m.,
in response to message #24 by patrick

Got my 33S from Walmart, too. I just went to their Website on Wed of last week and put in an order - and received it a few days later. Looks they are out of stock now, though.

                              
Re: HP33S!!! Maybe ITS MARKETING GENIUS!
Message #28 Posted by Ben Salinas on 26 Feb 2004, 8:37 p.m.,
in response to message #27 by Thorsten Kril

I bet HP which currently has a minority in the calculator market asked WalMart to sell the 33s. Walmart probably agreed, but on the one condition: that they get the calculator 1 month earlier than any other store. This way, Walmart will be sure to sell a decent amount of them, and that they are.

They have sold out several times. Each time they stop taking orders for a few days. It is the opened again for orders. I ordered mine last Friday (On Thursday they were not available)

Walmart is definitely making some money.

My thoughts on the calculator itself:

One person at my school has one right now. I have been showing it off to people, and explaining the nice features of it (the quality keyboard, the RPN, the speed, the mega memory, etc), and the bad points (the enter key), and everyone who I have showed it to says it looks cool. It is obvious HP aimed it at high school students, and it worked. It is not nearly as elogant as the 12c or 32sii, but it will probably sell more because of it. There are more high school students than calculator collectors.

Hey, if it means RPN will not be lost, I am all for it. Personally, i dislike the clutter of the labels on the keys, but that is the one flaw I have found with it (there are hassles, but I can deal with them; well that and the enter key... why can't HP make up their mind!)

-Ben

                                    
Re: HP33S!!! Maybe ITS MARKETING GENIUS!
Message #29 Posted by Thorsten Kril on 27 Feb 2004, 1:08 a.m.,
in response to message #28 by Ben Salinas

So the good news is, if the 33S becomes a huge success for HP, at a minimum they will continue to make it and hopefully even come out with new models. On the other hand, those new models will then also look like this, of course.

                        
Conspiracy Theory.
Message #30 Posted by Wayne Stephens on 26 Feb 2004, 7:59 p.m.,
in response to message #24 by patrick

I just received 2 HP 33s via UPS yesterday. I am not taking the engineering test (I've already been a PE for over 10 years). The last calculators I bought were a 48GX about a month ago, and a 32sii two years ago; both on ebay. So I certainly have no chance of being chosen by HP as a "select" user.

I fear you have fallen for some weird conspiracy theory.

Take care.

Wayne

PS - I know that in one of my previous sarcastic posts I promised not to purchase my 33s from WalMart. However, the last three or four times I have gone by my local store to rescue all the workers locked in the building there was no one there. So, to show my support for our free market economy, I decided to give them another chance...

                              
Re: Conspiracy Theory.
Message #31 Posted by Naim on 26 Feb 2004, 8:39 p.m.,
in response to message #30 by Wayne Stephens

Be serious. 500 units being released to Walmart. The profit margin on a 33S is about $20. So that works out to a profit of around $10,000. What conspiracy is there in $10,000? I mean if HP released 50,000 units to Walmart I would accept the theory. Other than that I think it is just a backorder Hp was trying to fill. On the other topic, everything changes with time. WHen the 41CX reached the end of the line and along came the 42S, I could tell you of a whole lot of friends who were angry. Then came the 48GX and even more couldn't understand why the 42S was canned. NOw the GX is no more and there are those who hate the 49G+. Trust me, in 10 years we'll all love the 33S and we'll hate the new offerings of HP [ that is, if they are still in the line of calculators ]

                                    
Re: Conspiracy Theory.
Message #32 Posted by Veli-Pekka Nousiainen on 26 Feb 2004, 8:52 p.m.,
in response to message #31 by Naim

"Trust me, in 10 years we'll all love the 33S and we'll hate the new offerings of HP [ that is, if they are still in the line of calculators ]"

No, not we, but the current buyer generation!
[VPN]

                                    
Re: Conspiracy Theory.
Message #33 Posted by Wayne Stephens on 26 Feb 2004, 9:31 p.m.,
in response to message #31 by Naim

I am almost never serious (see some of my other posts). However, I ask you to please read the post to which I was responding.

I didn't mean that I believe in a conspiracy theory. I was responding to the gentleman who claimed WalMart and HP had some secret deal to pre-release the 33s to people in states where the engineering test is being given, or to "special" users.

I was making the point that I am neither taking the test, nor am I on HP's list of favorites; and yet I was able to log onto walmart.com and buy two of them last week; having them delivered this week. That hardly is indicative of the two companies getting together to make some kind of special or limited release of something.

Take care,

Wayne.

                  
Re: HP33S!!! Maybe ITS MARKETING GENIUS!
Message #34 Posted by Ernie Malaga on 27 Feb 2004, 10:45 a.m.,
in response to message #19 by bill platt

Quote:
Let's examine the "cripples": 1. Only 27 direct addresses + 6 indirect.

2. No named variables. (1) would't matter, except that with no named variables, you are never going to be able to use that 32kB to do a whole lot of things that the machine could do naturally otherwise!


A few days after buying the HP-28C, I had this sort of sentiment, only in reverse. The 28C was severely crippled by its puny memory. Here you had an incredibly complex machine with many features unheard of before, but you couldn't use them because it ran out of memory when you least expected it.

-Ernie

                        
HP-28C shortcomings
Message #35 Posted by Karl Schneider on 28 Feb 2004, 2:02 a.m.,
in response to message #34 by Ernie Malaga

In the early 1990's, one of my BSEE-student classmates had a 28C or 28S, while I had the 15C I'd bought during my first undergraduate tenure in 1983.

In the past several years, I've bought two 28C's on eBay for less than $40 each. The first was a complete mint-condition set in its box with a price tag of $212. The second is a slightly-flawed but perfectly functional calc with manuals that also included a vinyl carrying pouch.

I was motivated to get one as an RPL trainer. They've got some nice features (dedicated alpha keyboard; units catalogue). But, the 28C is crippled not only by its inadequate 2kB of RAM, but also its computational slowness for the advanced functions it has. Much time is spent waiting for displays to update. I'm not sure if the 28S addressed that problem.

-- Karl S.

                              
Re: HP-28C shortcomings
Message #36 Posted by Vassilis Prevelakis on 1 Mar 2004, 2:30 a.m.,
in response to message #35 by Karl Schneider

I bought a 28C in the late 80s after having worked with an HP 41C for almost 10 years. I found the 28C totally annoying.

Unlike the 41, it was always getting in my way, so eventually I got rid of it. I find the 41 and other RPN caclulators much more functional (for what I do anyway, I don't think I have ever done graphs, solved integrals, or did matrix calculations on my caclulator, I have real computers for such tasks).

I think its a case of "better is the enemy of good"

Of course many will disagree with me. I guess this is why HP sold all these 28s, 48s and 49s.

**vp

                                    
Re: HP-28C shortcomings
Message #37 Posted by Ernie Malaga on 1 Mar 2004, 3:09 a.m.,
in response to message #36 by Vassilis Prevelakis

Quote:
I found the 28C totally annoying.

So did I when I bought mine. It still annoys me, 17 years later. It's too large, the hinge between the two halves is clearly a weak point, it creaks whenever you press keys from the left side, and I find it virtually impossible to program, thanks to RPL.

Quote:
I think its a case of "better is the enemy of good"

I think you mean "More isn't always better," a sentiment I agree with. Today I have a 49G+, but I only use it to calculate curiosity results like 500! (with all digits exact). But for routine stuff I still pick up my 41CX.

-Ernie

                                    
Re: HP-28C shortcomings
Message #38 Posted by Ernie Malaga on 1 Mar 2004, 8:41 a.m.,
in response to message #36 by Vassilis Prevelakis

By the way, 500! is exactly the following:

1,220,136,825,991,110,068,701,238,785,423,
046,926,253,574,342,803,192,842,192,413,
588,385,845,373,153,881,997,605,496,447,
502,203,281,863,013,616,477,148,203,584,
163,378,722,078,177,200,480,785,205,159,
329,285,477,907,571,939,330,603,772,960,
859,086,270,429,174,547,882,424,912,726,
344,305,670,173,270,769,461,062,802,310,
452,644,218,878,789,465,754,777,149,863,
494,367,781,037,644,274,033,827,365,397,
471,386,477,878,495,438,489,595,537,537,
990,423,241,061,271,326,984,327,745,715,
546,309,977,202,781,014,561,081,188,373,
709,531,016,356,324,432,987,029,563,896,
628,911,658,974,769,572,087,926,928,871,
281,780,070,265,174,507,768,410,719,624,
390,394,322,536,422,605,234,945,850,129,
918,571,501,248,706,961,568,141,625,359,
056,693,423,813,008,856,249,246,891,564,
126,775,654,481,886,506,593,847,951,775,
360,894,005,745,238,940,335,798,476,363,
944,905,313,062,323,749,066,445,048,824,
665,075,946,735,862,074,637,925,184,200,
459,369,692,981,022,263,971,952,597,190,
945,217,823,331,756,934,581,508,552,332,
820,762,820,023,402,626,907,898,342,451,
712,006,207,714,640,979,456,116,127,629,
145,951,237,229,913,340,169,552,363,850,
942,885,592,018,727,433,795,173,014,586,
357,570,828,355,780,158,735,432,768,888,
680,120,399,882,384,702,151,467,605,445,
407,663,535,984,174,430,480,128,938,313,
896,881,639,487,469,658,817,504,506,926,
365,338,175,055,478,128,640,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

No, I didn't get this from the 49G+. A program named "Googolator" computed it on my Mac. A quick cut-and-paste was all it took to get it here. If I'd had to copy the result by hand from the 49G+'s display, I'd still be busy with that.

-Ernie

                                          
Re: HP-28C shortcomings
Message #39 Posted by Valentin Albillo on 1 Mar 2004, 9:14 a.m.,
in response to message #38 by Ernie Malaga

Hi,

You could've saved yourself some effort, everything's on the net these days :-)

500 !

Also, you don't need an HP49 for the task, a 3-line BASIC program for most any vintage SHARP will give you 500! or greater without even blinking. Same for the HP-71B.

Best regards from V.

Edited: 1 Mar 2004, 9:16 a.m.

                                          
Re: HP-28C shortcomings
Message #40 Posted by James M. Prange on 1 Mar 2004, 9:17 a.m.,
in response to message #38 by Ernie Malaga

Quote:
If I'd had to copy the result by hand from the 49G+'s display, I'd still be busy with that.
But if I wanted to do something like that, I'd simply use Conn4x to transfer the result from the calculator to my text editor.

Regards,
James

                                          
Re: HP-28C shortcomings
Message #41 Posted by Veli-Pekka Nousiainen on 7 Mar 2004, 8:01 a.m.,
in response to message #38 by Ernie Malaga

From my calc in less than a minute:
ON CALC: 500! <wait a dozen seconds> ->STR 'F500' STO, Connect to USB port
ON PC: Start conn4x (lastest version), select 49g+
ON CALC: Start Xmodem Server [RightSshit] release [RighArrow]
ON PC: connect to calc, remember to switch to ASCII, drag F500 to PC => F500.TXT created, open paint & copy, go to new post (this), paste
1220136825991110068701238785423046926253574342803192842192413588385845373153881997605496447502203281863013616477148203584163378722078177200480785205159329285477907571939330603772960859086270429174547882424912726344305670173270769461062802310452644218878789465754777149863494367781037644274033827365397471386477878495438489595537537990423241061271326984327745715546309977202781014561081188373709531016356324432987029563896628911658974769572087926928871281780070265174507768410719624390394322536422605234945850129918571501248706961568141625359056693423813008856249246891564126775654481886506593847951775360894005745238940335798476363944905313062323749066445048824665075946735862074637925184200459369692981022263971952597190945217823331756934581508552332820762820023402626907898342451712006207714640979456116127629145951237229913340169552363850942885592018727433795173014586357570828355780158735432768888680120399882384702151467605445407663535984174430480128938313896881639487469658817504506926365338175055478128640000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
[VPN]

                                                
Re: HP-28C shortcomings
Message #42 Posted by Veli-Pekka Nousiainen on 7 Mar 2004, 8:41 a.m.,
in response to message #41 by Veli-Pekka Nousiainen

A few minutes later I realized that someone may want this string formatted with "," separators between thousands and I did this program while eating:
\<< DUP SIZE 2 - 1
FOR k DUP 1 k 1 - SUB "," ROT k 1.E12 SUB + + -3
STEP
\>>
When applied it gave:
1,220,136,825,991,110,068,701,238,785,423,046,926,253,574,342,803,192,842,192,413,588,385,845,373,153,881,997,605,496,447,502,203,281,863,013,616,477,148,203,584,163,378,722,078,177,200,480,785,205,159,329,285,477,907,571,939,330,603,772,960,859,086,270,429,174,547,882,424,912,726,344,305,670,173,270,769,461,062,802,310,452,644,218,878,789,465,754,777,149,863,494,367,781,037,644,274,033,827,365,397,471,386,477,878,495,438,489,595,537,537,990,423,241,061,271,326,984,327,745,715,546,309,977,202,781,014,561,081,188,373,709,531,016,356,324,432,987,029,563,896,628,911,658,974,769,572,087,926,928,871,281,780,070,265,174,507,768,410,719,624,390,394,322,536,422,605,234,945,850,129,918,571,501,248,706,961,568,141,625,359,056,693,423,813,008,856,249,246,891,564,126,775,654,481,886,506,593,847,951,775,360,894,005,745,238,940,335,798,476,363,944,905,313,062,323,749,066,445,048,824,665,075,946,735,862,074,637,925,184,200,459,369,692,981,022,263,971,952,597,190,945,217,823,331,756,934,581,508,552,332,820,762,820,023,402,626,907,898,342,451,712,006,207,714,640,979,456,116,127,629,145,951,237,229,913,340,169,552,363,850,942,885,592,018,727,433,795,173,014,586,357,570,828,355,780,158,735,432,768,888,680,120,399,882,384,702,151,467,605,445,407,663,535,984,174,430,480,128,938,313,896,881,639,487,469,658,817,504,506,926,365,338,175,055,478,128,640,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
Yes, there probably are better methods, but with ARM around who cares...
[VPN]

                              
Re: HP-28C shortcomings
Message #43 Posted by Christoph Giesselink on 1 Mar 2004, 12:30 p.m.,
in response to message #35 by Karl Schneider

In general the HP28C was a try to indroduce symbolic math into the calculator section. The reason why it's so crippled (2KB RAM) belongs to the reason that the HP28C base on the HP18C hardware. Only diffrence is 128KB ROM instead of 64KB in the 18C. There was an article from Bill Wickes in HPX-Exchange V1N1 about this topic.

Now to the speed reasons:

HP28C
- 1LK7 CPU @ 640Khz

HP28S
- 1LR2 CPU @ 1Mhz (programable to 2Mhz)

In reality the HP28S is about 30% to 50% faster than a HP28C with many improvements in the firmware. Is there any way to get a cheaper HP calculator?

But also the following calcutors with the Clarke @ 2Mhz (HP48SX) and Yorke @ 3.7Mhz (HP48GX, HP49G) are sometimes (many times?) too slow for complex computations. So this IMHO a general problem.

To the friends of the "classic" 4 level RPN calculators. Sorry, where the advantage of a 4 level stack over a memory limited stack? Where is the advantage in program excution of a 15C over a 28S? Sorry I changed from the 15C to a 28S in the late 80'ies because the 15C was horrible slow in program execution also comparing to a 28C. Where is the advantage in computing complex numbers? Some of you may remark, the 42S has a 4 level stack and can compute complex numbers very convenient. True, but the 42S is a RPL machine, base mostly on the HP28S RPL engine with it's advantages!

I personaly use a 32SII as pocket calculator and as the name says, it's always in the pocket of my jacket. I never programmed it because I have better calculators (HP) for this purpose.

But of course RPN 4ever! ;-)

Regards

Christoph

                                    
Re: HP-28C shortcomings
Message #44 Posted by bill platt on 1 Mar 2004, 1:00 p.m.,
in response to message #43 by Christoph Giesselink

Hi Christoph,

For my relatively unsophisticated mechanical mind, can you please explain what this means?

Quote:
True, but the 42S is a RPL machine, base mostly on the HP28S RPL engine...

I can conceptually understand the idea in the same way that I understand Hrast's vHP41 running on my 48GX---or your HP 48 emulators running on another system---am I mistaken? Doesn't the 42s have a "classic" 4 level stack, and the original infix system: 2 enter 3 + STO _nnn (to put 6 in register nnn) rather than 2 enter 3 + 'nnn' STO ?

I have never had a 42S but have read about it. Also, I have heard the 17bii being referred to as RPL---where do I see that in practice?!

Best regards,

Bill

P.S. can you get your double "s" to work on this forum? P.P.S. Is not the double "s" sometimes analoged with "sz" rather than "ss" ? (I like language stuff even though I am not very good at anything but english :-( )

                                          
Re: HP-28C shortcomings
Message #45 Posted by Christoph Giesselink on 1 Mar 2004, 6:49 p.m.,
in response to message #44 by bill platt

That has nothing to do with the emulators you mentioned.

The HP42S operating system is written in Saturn assembler and RPL and share many code parts with the 28S. That's also the reason of better accuracy in number calculation (64bit for a real instead of 56bit in a 41C(V/X)). The FOCAL language is just interpreted inside, and because of that reason no synthetic HP41 programming is possible. For example the complete FOCAL program area is just a RAM-WORD object inside RPL RAM management unit.

So IMHO and very very simplified, "the HP42S is a HP28S with a hard wired HP41CV emulation".

Hopefully after these words, used HP42S will get cheaper. ;-)

BTW, FOCAL programs of the HP41C and HP42S are binary compatible.

>P.S. can you get your double "s" to work on this forum? P.P.S. Is not the double "s" sometimes analoged with "sz" rather than "ss" ? (I like language stuff even though I am not very good at anything but english :-( )

I don't know if "" is working. The "ss" is the official replacement for this character on systems which can't use or display them. "sz" is used as spoken character combination to explain that "" is meant. In my name the "" is pronounced as normal "s" and the "k" at the end is pronounced as "g".

Regards

Christoph

                                                
Re: HP-28C shortcomings
Message #46 Posted by bill platt on 4 Mar 2004, 11:49 a.m.,
in response to message #45 by Christoph Giesselink

Hi Christoph,

Yes, "" is working for me here.

Quote:
"sz" is used as spoken character combination to explain that "" is meant.

In other words, you would not write "sz" but rather in speaking (in english) you wouyld say, "ess-zed"? This seems consistent with my one experience working in Rostock, although I recall (perhaps incorrectly) that writing "sz" was ok for non-deutch keyboards?

Quote:
For example the complete FOCAL program area is just a RAM-WORD object inside RPL RAM management unit.

It sounds like I need to get a hold of a 42s---I don't know anything about FOCAL.

Quote:
So IMHO and very very simplified, "the HP42S is a HP28S with a hard wired HP41CV emulation".


That makes sense to me.

Thanks for your feedback.

Best regards,

Bill

                                                      
Re: HP-28C shortcomings
Message #47 Posted by Ernie Malaga on 4 Mar 2004, 3:05 p.m.,
in response to message #46 by bill platt

Quote:
In other words, you would not write "sz" but rather in speaking (in english) you wouyld say, "ess-zed"? This seems consistent with my one experience working in Rostock, although I recall (perhaps incorrectly) that writing "sz" was ok for non-deutch keyboards?

The character is a ligature -- a very old one. It's comprised of two characters: old-style "s" (which in the Middle Ages and up to the Renaissance used to have the shape of an "f"), and an old-style "z" (which looked like a "3" in some environments). Putting them together you get "".

The _real_ question, however, is how and why became "ss" as it is today. Its original sound probably was "sts".

I believe there's a movement in Germany to discontinue use of , replacing it with "ss" everywhere. I know the German-speaking Swiss stopped using it a while back.

-Ernie

                                                            
OT: Re: HP-28C shortcomings
Message #48 Posted by Christoph Giesselink on 5 Mar 2004, 8:07 a.m.,
in response to message #47 by Ernie Malaga

Nothing to say more. ;-)

Christoph

                                                      
Re: HP-28C shortcomings
Message #49 Posted by Christoph Giesselink on 5 Mar 2004, 8:10 a.m.,
in response to message #46 by bill platt

> although I recall (perhaps incorrectly) that writing "sz" was ok for non-deutch keyboards?

No, it isn't. "ss" is the only replacement. :)

> FOCAL

(F)orty-(O)ne (CA)lcultor (L)anguage

Best Regards,

Christoph

                                    
Re: HP-28C shortcomings
Message #50 Posted by Andreas on 1 Mar 2004, 1:01 p.m.,
in response to message #43 by Christoph Giesselink

The 28C/S deserves better !

I bought the 28C when it appeared on the market. At the time I was an electrical engineering student in dire need for a machine to replace my Casio FX-602P from college. I had taught the Casio complex numbers and elementary matrix calculations, but in 1990 it was clear that the machine had encountered its limits and could not accompany me any further on my way to becoming an engineer. I already was the proud owner of a 16C, and had looked into the 15C for its matrix and complex number functions, but being accustomed to the Casios alphanumeric display, did not want to go back to programming with cryptic key-codes. The 41s display and bulky shape did not appeal to me, so the 28C was the way to go. As soon as it was announced, I ordered 5 (for friends as well) from a friend working at HP who was willing to let us benefit from his discount.

I first discovered that the 28C could do many things right away for which my Casio required programming. That being so, I wanted to go further and use the calculator for things previously inconceivable, such as filter design, electrical networks and feedback control systems. The RPL culture shock hit me like anyone else, but a student has almost unlimited supplies of time at his hands, and after a quick learning curve I mastered and even appreciated RPL and was able to exploit the 28C fully. As the number of programs grew, so grew the user menu, and about a year later I had filled up the memory of the 28C entirely. Fortunately HP had just released the 28S, which I bought immediately, and to my utmost content I discovered HP had addressed almost all shortcomings of the 28C. 32K memory seemed huge, and the hierarchical user menus with directories provided a neat way to organise my ever growing number of programs. Heck, even the display could be addressed directly!

Then came the day I gave the machine to one of my friends who had not upgraded to the S-version and could not fit his matrices into the 28C. For a reason still unknown, he crashed the machine, and the memory was lost. I realized that the machine was lacking a bi-directional interface for a backup solution, and my program library never grew again to what it was before the incident.

The 28S is still one of my favourite machines, although I own many others now. The folding mechanism never failed, and keyboard and display are superior to the 48 (at least the 48SX and G I own). I no longer know how to program it, though: While one never forgets how to keystroke program, RPL seems to require constant training, at least for me, and then of course, engineers have different requirements than engineering students. But still, the HP28C/S deserves better treatment from this community: It is a well-built machine, and was a significant breakthrough at the time of its introduction, introducing features never before seen on a handheld. I still admire the engineering effort that went into the design of this machine.

Just had to say that.

                                          
and I say, "IT DOSES'T !!!"
Message #51 Posted by Ron Ross on 1 Mar 2004, 1:47 p.m.,
in response to message #50 by Andreas

With its pathetic 2 K of RAM, Hp design engineers had to know from day one it was crippled. That said, I admit that it was a big step forward in capability for that time. However, the 42s was released with 7 K RAM and the 41CX could address 4 K with modules. So why release the supposed flagship calculator with less.

Perhaps (and I suspect) the feeling was that only minimal programming would be needed, since the Hp28 included so much.

As a small side note, I notice any program I port from a 42 to a 48 (nearly the same as a 28) nearly always is 50-75 % larger in size. Therefore the 7K of RAM on a 42 is more like 12 K of RAM on a 28/48. Not a big deal with a 28S, but could be a very big deal on the low end 28C.

                                                
Re: and I say, "IT DOSES'T !!!"
Message #52 Posted by Eric Smith on 2 Mar 2004, 12:53 a.m.,
in response to message #51 by Ron Ross

Quote:
However, the 42s was released with 7 K RAM and the

The 42S came out later, using the same technology as the 28S. They didn't have that when they released the 28C.

Quote:
41CX could address 4 K with modules

What has that got to do with anything? The 28C was not intended to be expandable. An expandable RPL calculator was planned, but they weren't able to do everything all at once.

Quote:
So why release the supposed flagship calculator with less.

Because it was NOT the flagship. HP *NEVER* said it was the flagship. The 41CX was the top-of-the-line calculator until 1990.

It was not uncommon for HP to introduce new calculators that had some advances over earlier models but were not the most powerful calculators. For instance, the 11C did not have all of the features of the 34C. In that case, they later released the 15C. In the case of the RPL family, the first "do everything" model was the 48SX.

As Bill Wickes observed, "life is short and ROM is full." They had limited resources and couldn't always do everything they wanted.

                                                      
"I stand corrected"
Message #53 Posted by Ron Ross on 2 Mar 2004, 10:41 a.m.,
in response to message #52 by Eric Smith

I didn't realize the 42s was released nearly a year later than the Hp28c.

                                          
Andreas! I can't to send to you email!
Message #54 Posted by Tizedes Csaba on 1 Mar 2004, 4:55 p.m.,
in response to message #50 by Andreas

Hello Andreas,

I was tryed to send to you an email, but that doesn't posted, so here it:

" Dear Andreas,

I was read your letter on Museum of HP Calculators.

My name is Csaba Tizedes, I am a mechanical engineer student in Hungary. I want to ask to you, want you sell your CASIO FX-602P calculator?

Sorry for my poor english, I am not really a language-genius...!

Your sincelery: Csaba Tizedes "

                                          
Re: HP-28C shortcomings
Message #55 Posted by GE (France) on 1 Mar 2004, 7:01 p.m.,
in response to message #50 by Andreas

I agree, despite the creaking hinge the 28C/S seems to be a rather solid machine, APART from the dreaded battery door ! I found mine broken one day, without reason, and it couldn't be fixed.

This machine was very well thought out (the S), and quite adequately fast for the time. The screen was small for RPL's unreasonable syntax, but better than one line... I liked very much the equation editor (what was it called ? F-something ?), felt way better than the 48's version.

A funny memory is that I purchased the 28S only a few months after the 42S, and at the time felt cheated by HP : I thought they should not have released two ground-breaking models so close in time, "forcing" me to update twice in the same row ! We know better now...

                                                
Re: HP-28C shortcomings
Message #56 Posted by Pocketcom Mania on 2 Mar 2004, 7:54 a.m.,
in response to message #55 by GE (France)

For me, 15C was used in examinations that do not allow calculators that store characters. Although it's so slow when running programs, its Advanced Functions serve me extremely well. Its carefully designed keyboard makes sure that commonly used functions can be accessed with the greatest ease. 15C is probably the best pocket-sized scientific calculators in the world!

There should always be a tradeoff between power and portability. Although 48SX has a much greater size, it has proven functionality, expandability and connectivity and can also be easily held in my palm. This is why I sold my 28S. 48SX and 48GX are great calculators after 15C!

49G+ is of course another breakthrough if you need advanced programming and speed. Except its keyboard flaw, it can do lots of things.


[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Go back to the main exhibit hall